House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am deeply saddened that more than two decades after the tragic deaths of brothers Sakil and Saeed Dawood in 2002 the family are still waiting for Saeed’s remains to be repatriated. Following the conclusion of the criminal case this year, our consular teams remain fully committed to resolving this matter and continue to raise it with the Indian authorities to secure a resolution.
Iqbal Mohamed
Saeed and Sakil Dawood were abducted and murdered in Gujarat, India in February 2002. Their nephew, my constituent Imran Dawood, survived the attack. For over 23 years, the family have sought accountability and the return of the victims’ remains. The previous Labour and Tory Governments supported the family during the court trials, which ended earlier this year without justice. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 1 October regarding the Dawood Family Justice Campaign that seeks repatriation of the victims’ remains. We held a parliamentary event on 22 October, to which the FCDO leadership were invited. Will the Foreign Secretary meet the Dawood family and will she commit to providing urgent direct support to assist further in securing the remains of their family members, held by the Indian Government for over two decades, and help the family to achieve some level of closure?
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We collaborate closely with our international partners to deter and disrupt the perpetrators of malicious cyber-activity and to hold them to account. Just last month, the United Kingdom, along with the United States and Australia, sanctioned Media Land, a major Russian cyber-crime syndicate that enabled ransomware and phishing attacks against UK businesses, underscoring our commitment to tackling illicit cyber-activity.
Rachel Taylor
The past year has seen cyber-attacks on some of our biggest household names, including Jaguar Land Rover, putting jobs and livelihoods in my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth at risk. What action is the Minister taking with the UK’s partners overseas to tackle this growing threat, both in our country and throughout the world?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend raises a crucial issue on behalf of her constituents. Incidents such as the attack on Jaguar Land Rover serve as a stark reminder that cyber-threat is not just an abstract concept, but one that has real-world costs. We are working closely with international partners. We are a founding member of the Counter Ransomware Initiative that in October led the agreement of supply chain resilience guidance endorsed by 67 countries, and we are working closely with other partners through the United Nations and other bodies.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
In the past 12 months, nationally significant cyber-incidents have doubled, many backed by hostile foreign states, as the Minister will know. The National Cyber Force is clear that offensive cyber-operations play a part in ensuring our national security, so given the environment in which our adversaries are co-operating, will the Minister continue to deepen our co-operation with our Five Eyes partners in this domain, not least because I know at first hand how much they value the particular capabilities that the UK brings to bear in this area?
Stephen Doughty
The former Prime Minister is absolutely right to raise this issue. The level of hostile state activity is significant and it is growing. That is why we are working closely with international partners. We have provided almost £30 million in support for international cyber-security capacity building, including for Ukraine and working with other partners. We are also working on issues such as sanctions: we have sanctioned 26 cyber-criminal support entities linked to malicious cyber-activity and 16 Russian military intelligence officers, including an attribution of cyber-units within the GRU, so our co-operation with Five Eyes partners and others is crucial.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The whole House and country should rightly be concerned about cyber-attacks, from malign cyber-activity directed at MPs and the Electorate Commission, to Chinese companies linked to global malicious cyber-campaigns. When will this Government stand up to China and address this threat? When will they send a strong message to the Chinese Communist party by blocking its super-embassy application and finally placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear about just how seriously we take the activity from different states in the cyber domain, and its significance is growing. As I have pointed out, we are working closely with international partners. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I will not go into the detail of all our work on that, but I commend the work of our National Cyber Security Centre with businesses, individuals and this place to ensure that our resilience is in place. We will continue to work with international partners to counter these threats.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
Modern slavery refers to horrific situations in which individuals are exploited through coercion, threats, deception, forced labour and human trafficking. We are determined collectively to do all we can to end it. That is why we work through a range of multilateral bodies, such as the United Nations, the G7 and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, to prevent exploitation and eradicate all forms of modern slavery. We convened international partners earlier this year to agree how we can work better together to address modern slavery in global supply chains and a guiding set of principles for doing so.
Mike Reader
As the chair of the international trade and investment all-party parliamentary group, I have heard at first hand how new technology is making it easier to track supply-chain risks. What is the Minister doing to support better monitoring and data sharing with our international partners to ensure that we can identify forced labour use at source in countries that support the UK economy?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. We are clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain. We work with our partners to promote the role that new technologies can play in reducing forced labour risks in supply chains. That includes developing an interactive tool to identify child labour risks in agricultural commodity supply chains, using satellite data to improve working conditions in south Asia’s brick industry, and creating AI-powered chatbots that can provide vulnerable workers with rights-based guidance.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Minister have discussions with some of the large retail chains in which we often see occasions of misuse of labour in overseas territories, particularly in Africa and the far east?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. He will be aware that we believe that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain. He may also be aware that in the trade strategy, the Government launched a review of their approach to responsible business conduct policy. It is important that we continue to work together to ensure that we eradicate modern slavery from any of our supply chains.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
The UK continues strongly to support Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in the face of continued Russian aggression, including appalling strikes against civilians this weekend. Last week, the Prime Minister convened the leaders of the coalition of the willing, who welcomed US efforts to seek a just and lasting peace. Tomorrow, I will join other NATO Foreign Ministers and reaffirm UK support for a strong and sovereign Ukraine.
Sarah Dyke
Since 2022, 1,600 Ukrainians have sought refuge in Somerset away from Putin’s war machine, many making Glastonbury and Somerton their home. The US-led peace negotiations, dictated by Russia, risk excluding US security guarantees, leaving many Ukrainians in fear of returning to Ukraine. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues on implementing a pathway to settled status, so that Ukrainians may have a permanent future in the UK?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Lady will know, I and many other people have been involved in welcoming people as part of the Homes for Ukraine scheme. We continue to do so and to support the role that they play in our country, and that will continue. She refers to security guarantees, and I can tell her that the Ministry of Defence is involved in direct discussions on the detail of how security guarantees would need to work. That is essential as part of a just and lasting peace.
Sarah Green
Point 24 of Russia’s peace plan proposes to establish a humanitarian committee to resolve outstanding issues, such as prisoner exchanges on an “all for all” basis and the return of civilian detainees and hostages, including children. That approach conflates prisoners of war with stolen children, who are afforded special protected status under the fourth Geneva convention. What guarantees can the Secretary of State provide that the UK will ensure that all Geneva convention signatories uphold their obligations in line with international law and the return of the stolen children?
Yvette Cooper
Children kidnapped and stolen from Ukraine need to be returned to their families and to their country—that is essential. It must happen, and it is unconditional on anything else. The UK is continuing to support Ukraine and other countries in the work of tracing and identifying where children are, which includes direct work that has helped to identify the locations of 600 stolen children.
Jim Dickson
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer and, in particular, the UK Government’s continued excellent work to marshal the coalition of the willing in support of Ukraine. Does she agree that in any future peace agreement key Ukrainian red lines need to be defended: the preservation of Ukraine; that key parts of the Donbas are not under Russian control; that there are no Russian-imposed limits on Ukrainian armed forces; and freedom of Ukraine to join NATO?
Yvette Cooper
We have been clear throughout that, first and foremost, the future of Ukraine is for Ukrainians to decide. That means, as the Prime Minister said last week, that borders should not be changed by force. There must also be a sustainable peace, and not just an opportunity for Putin to pause and then come again. That would be a threat not just to the security of Ukraine, but to the security of Europe.
John Milne
A lasting peace in Ukraine can only be achieved if we remove the incentives for war. However, President Trump’s initial peace plan—badly translated as it was from the Russian—included such measures as a dramatic cut in Ukrainian army manpower, the surrender of key fortress positions, a pledge never to join NATO, and an open door to Russian propaganda across the whole of Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree that peace on such terms would only encourage Putin to resume war in a few years’ time, on much stronger terms than today?
Yvette Cooper
The Prime Minister addressed some of those points last week. Initial proposals were published; as he said, some of those proposals were clearly unacceptable, and there have been considerable discussions since then, including in Geneva and in the US between the US and Ukraine. Those discussions have been important, and we continue to support Ukraine. The important thing about a lasting peace is that it cannot simply be an opportunity for Putin to continue his aggression after a pause, which is why security guarantees and lasting peace arrangements are so crucial. Everyone wants to see peace, but it has to be lasting.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
President Putin has proposed that Russia assume sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk as part of any so-called final peace settlement with Ukraine, which would carry profound consequences for the 1.6 million children who are currently living under Russian occupation in those regions. The evidence is clear that Russia has pursued a sustained, systematic policy of indoctrination, militarisation and forced deportation of Ukrainian children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that accepting that proposal would risk permanently stripping those children of their legal protections and erasing their Ukrainian identity, in direct violation of the fourth Geneva convention and the most basic principles of international humanitarian law?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to champion Ukrainian children, and I commend the work she has continually done to be a voice for those children. She is right to highlight Russia’s horrendous and repeated breaches of the principles underpinning the UN charter, throughout this conflict and before it, and to recognise that Russia has continually been the aggressor in this war. While everyone else has been pursuing peace, all that Putin has done is escalate war. We all want to see an end to the war, but we have to keep the maximum pressure on Russia to get a lasting peace.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
As we await the outcome of negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, which must be rooted in the voices and needs of the Ukrainian people, access to healthcare is essential to rebuilding the nation. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure UK-backed reconstruction strengthens rehabilitation and healthcare infrastructure, and will she meet me to support my efforts to link allied health professionals in Ukraine?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. We are continuing to give Ukraine the support that it needs on military grounds to defend itself, but we are also supporting the Ukrainian people. We are being guided by the priorities that the Ukrainian Government have set out in relation to the aid funding that we provide, which includes supporting Ukraine’s public services and also, crucially, its energy infrastructure, which will be vital this winter.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We all want to see Ukraine, a country that has made huge sacrifices to defend its freedom, secure a peace on its own terms, but to put pressure on Putin and weaken his ability to wage war, we must go harder after the money that is fuelling his war machine. We have seen reports that Lakshmi Mittal’s company has been buying oil from Russia. When were the Government first made aware of that, and does the Foreign Secretary believe that there may be grounds for sanctions?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Lady will know that the UK has led the processes relating to sanctions against Russian oil and gas in particular, and has also led the way in encouraging other countries around the world to withdraw from purchasing that oil and gas. She will also know that sanctions enforcement is addressed on a case-by-case basis, but we continue to take both the sanctions and the need for their enforcement immensely seriously.
Wendy Morton
I am sorry, but it is simply not good enough for the Foreign Secretary to dismiss questions by saying that sanctions are not discussed on the Floor of the House. This is a man who has profited, and a business that has profited, by buying Russian oil, thus fuelling Putin’s illegal war—a war that has caused death and destruction in Ukraine. He may have reportedly fled Britain, but will the Foreign Secretary ensure that all his business interests are thoroughly investigated, and that wider investigations are carried out to determine whether this practice is more widespread?
Yvette Cooper
Again, the right hon. Lady, as a former Minister, will know how seriously we have taken this case, how far this Government have led the way on sanctions, and how we ensure that processes involving sanctions enforcement, including that relating to Russian oil and gas, are taken extremely seriously and are implemented appropriately as well. Let me also say that the pressure from the United States on Lukoil and Rosneft has been critical. As a result of the pressure that we have exerted, Lukoil has now been forced to seek to sell its foreign assets. No country has led the way more than the UK in putting economic pressure on Russia.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Ukraine needs the support of its allies to counter Russia’s threat, but Belgium and the European Central Bank are holding out against the European Union’s using frozen Russian assets to give it the funds that it needs. The Wall Street Journal has reported that while discussing the original 28-point plan, Kirill Dmitriev pitched to Steve Witkoff the idea that US firms could be the first to receive payments from those assets for lucrative contracts in Russia and Ukraine. It is time for the UK to show international leadership, even as Belgium, the ECB and the US vacillate, so will the Foreign Secretary support my Bill that would allow the UK to seize the £30 billion in frozen Russian assets held in this country and put them at Kyiv’s disposal for its defence?
Yvette Cooper
We have been clear about the importance of mobilising the Russian sovereign assets in order to invest in and support Ukraine. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the proposal put forward by the EU, which we support, is for reparation loans based on those sovereign assets that would allow us to maintain the appropriate stability and approach to the financial markets, and also to mobilise those assets to support Ukraine. The purpose is to ensure that Russia pays for the damage that it has done, as it should, and we will continue to press for those Russian sovereign assets to be mobilised for Ukraine.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire as winter weather draws in, while thousands of families do not have proper shelter. This weekend, after more than a year’s delay, we were finally able to get UK-funded tents into Gaza through Kerem Shalom, working with UNICEF. Those tents will provide critical shelter for 12,000 people, but more support is needed, so from today the Government will also match, pound for pound, new donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east appeal over the winter, with an additional £3 million of support through those charities to help the people who are most in need and get support to families in Gaza.
Joe Morris
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her response. I am very concerned about recent reports that over 1,000 tents that were consigned were prevented from entering Gaza. Can she assure me that we are doing whatever we can to get this aid from the UK—tents to provide shelter as winter approaches—through the border to those who need it the most?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are continuing to press to get increased humanitarian aid in. The level of aid is increasing, and as we have seen, we have been able to get the UK-funded tents into Gaza. However, I have seen some of the warehouses in Amman that still hold UK-funded aid—wheat that could feed hundreds of thousands of people—that we need to get into Gaza, which is why we need all the crossings opened.
Gareth Thomas
More than two thirds of Gaza’s children—700,000—are living in tents, and are at high risk of preventable disease. Growing numbers are suffering malnutrition, diarrhoea and pneumonia. The Trump plan called for a minimum of 600 trucks of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza daily, but nothing like that number is yet getting in, so will my right hon. Friend step up the Government’s efforts to secure sustained access to Gaza for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and other critical UN humanitarian agencies?
Yvette Cooper
We desperately need to get the humanitarian aid into Gaza. My hon. Friend is right that this provision was part of the 20-point peace plan, and it has widespread support, but it covers just essentials to meet basic humanitarian needs. Shelter, support and healthcare are still needed for families in Gaza. We continue to press not just for the crossings to be reopened, but for the restrictions on aid to be lifted, so that we can get in place the shelter kits, equipment and healthcare support that families need.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The death toll in Gaza now exceeds 70,000 people. Since the ceasefire, at least 357 Palestinians have been killed and 903 wounded. Israel has committed close to 600 violations, and there is recent video evidence of extrajudicial murders. Does the Secretary of State agree that this suggests that it is a ceasefire in name alone?
Yvette Cooper
This ceasefire is fragile, but it is also crucial. We cannot go back to the unbearable situation we have had for the last two years. That is why we have said that there should be strengthened monitoring of the ceasefire, but we also need forward momentum. We need a Palestinian committee set up, and increased humanitarian aid, and we have put forward decommissioning proposals, so that weapons are removed from Hamas.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The hindrances to the provision of humanitarian aid are not just to do with supplies and the trickle of access into Gaza, but the safety and security of the aid agencies operating in Gaza. We recently witnessed two individuals being gunned down in broad daylight by Israeli soldiers. Does the Secretary of State believe that we now need international, independent peace forces from the United Nations to assist in the humanitarian work?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member has raised a couple of issues. Making sure that aid workers can operate in Gaza is hugely important, and we continue to press for non-governmental organisations to be fully recognised, so that they can continue their important work. I think he was also referring to the shocking footage of a shooting on the west bank. There must be a thorough, swift and transparent investigation of it, because that footage was extremely disturbing.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We have heard Ministers in this House and elsewhere make claims about Israel and aid. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the Co-ordination of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre figures, which show that 4,200 trucks of aid are entering Gaza a week, meeting the targets agreed, as the 20-point plan is being implemented? Will she thank the COGAT team for their work in getting aid in, including those officers attacked by Hamas terrorists on 7 October who remain committed to improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza? Does she agree that the best way to ensure that more aid gets into Gaza is for the UK to work with partners to implement the international stabilisation force and to secure the elimination of Hamas?
Yvette Cooper
The whole of the 20-point plan needs to be implemented. That includes the disarming of Hamas, the introduction of the ISF and the withdrawal of the Israel Defence Forces as part of an overarching plan. As I say, humanitarian aid has increased—there are more trucks going in. However, it is not enough, and the aid is not going to all areas of Gaza. That is why it is crucial that all the crossings be opened. The Jordanian crossing is still closed, as are too many of the other crossings. It is immensely important that those crossings be opened and the restrictions be lifted.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Last week, I met incredibly brave Sudanese volunteers who run community-based emergency response rooms that the UK is supporting, and the stories they told me were horrific. Despite pressures from all sides for a ceasefire, the conflict and atrocities are continuing. Alongside the Development Minister, the UK special envoy to Sudan, and our ambassadors and officials, I am in continual contact with the US, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and the Saudis—the members of the Quad—who are supporting action for a ceasefire, but we need urgent action.
Richard Tice
I thank the Foreign Secretary. This is an appalling civil war, with all its atrocities. How concerned is the Foreign Secretary that the growing influence of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood is leading to the deliberate fomenting of extremism, and the rejection of ceasefire efforts by the Sudanese regime?
Yvette Cooper
I am deeply concerned about the escalation on both sides, from both the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces. Despite the talks about ceasefires, we have seen continued action, including in the Kordofans. I am deeply worried about the risk of further atrocities and the impact that has on security, on extremism and on migration issues, but most importantly of all on this horrendous humanitarian crisis, in which rape is being used as a weapon of war. That is why it is essential that we have the same co-ordinated international energy behind getting peace in Sudan as we saw for getting a ceasefire in Gaza.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The conflict has now reached 14 of the 18 states of Sudan, and let me be frank: the humanitarian support has been paltry. Two weeks ago, I raised in this Chamber compelling evidence that the RSF will take Tawila before Christmas. What plans are being made for the evacuation of civilians and humanitarian workers? Will the Foreign Secretary update us on the Government’s efforts to increase humanitarian support from our international partners, particularly those in the middle east? When it comes to securing a ceasefire and peace, where are the women, and where is civil society? As the UK is the UN penholder, can she do much more to make sure that we amplify their voices?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the way that my hon. Friend has continued to raise this issue, and to shine a spotlight on Sudan and the atrocities. One of the emergency room volunteers from Sudan I met last week is involved in providing support to young women, including children and young girls, who have been brutally raped. What is happening is horrendous, and I have to commend the incredible bravery of those community volunteers in Sudan. Frankly, I think the international community is letting Sudan down, and we need a concerted effort. We recently put forward a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, but we will continue to raise this issue with all our international partners.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her answer, and for seeing the volunteers from the emergency rooms last week. We are advised that during his visit to the White House, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman asked President Trump to help stop the slaughter in Sudan and come up with a plan of action, and President Trump agreed to do so. As Sudan is a UK lead at the United Nations, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that this issue is on the agenda the next time the President and our Prime Minister have one of their telephone calls?
Yvette Cooper
I have already discussed Sudan on several occasions with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and I will continue to do so. We have further direct discussions on Sudan between other Ministers and other US envoys, because it has to be a central priority for the entire international community. Currently, neither side is accepting the US-led ceasefire proposals. We need continued pressure from all sides on the warring parties to sign up to the ceasefire, or even a humanitarian truce, so that we can get the talks started and get the aid in.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I was pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary met representatives of the emergency response rooms. I also met some of those incredibly brave volunteers. Of course, their humanitarian organisations have been strictly neutral throughout the war, yet they have been targeted by belligerents on all sides, simply for trying to feed people. What representations has she made about the need to protect emergency response room volunteers?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with all the points that my right hon. Friend has made on this issue. The bravery that the volunteers show means that they themselves are directly targeted; they described how, with each change of control, they end up getting targeted again by the warring party that has taken control of the area. What we have seen is absolutely horrendous. We will continue to speak up for Sudanese and other aid workers.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
China poses a series of national security threats, including on espionage, cyber-attacks, transnational repression and support for Russia in its war against Ukraine. We challenge China robustly in relation to all those threats. China is also our third-largest trading partner, and a country that we need to co-operate with on international issues, including trade and climate change.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. There is a rumour going round Whitehall that the Foreign Secretary is not the Foreign Secretary, and that the real Foreign Secretary is Mr Jonathan Powell. That could not possibly be the case, of course, because it would make a mockery of the ability to hold the Foreign Secretary to account. Can the Foreign Secretary demonstrate that she really is in charge by telling us the precise instructions that she gave Mr Powell before he met the Chinese Foreign Minister four days ago?
Yvette Cooper
As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, in relation to China we need not just strong action on security and the economy in our national interest, but engagement. Since 2018, President Macron has visited China twice, and he is there again this week, and President Trump met President Xi in October and will visit China in April, yet until last November, there had been no UK leader-level meetings with China for six years under the Conservative Government. It is important that we engage with China on both security and the economy through our National Security Adviser, through the rest of the Government and through Ministers.
Jerome Mayhew
Last night, the Prime Minister said some tough things about China. He said:
“It’s time for a serious approach”
to the national security risk from China. The first opportunity to demonstrate that serious approach is on the planning application for China’s new super-embassy—complete, as we now know it is, with secret basement rooms. In her previous role, the Foreign Secretary wrote a letter in favour of the application, but given her new instructions from the Prime Minister, does she now agree that the application should be refused?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Member will know, a planning process is under way; it is quasi-judicial, so I cannot cut across it. In January, as Home Secretary, I and the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), wrote a letter during the planning process, setting out a number of national security considerations that required resolution before a decision could be made. Further updates will follow on that. I can say to the House that national security has been, and continues to be, a core priority for the Government.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
China clearly poses national security threats. It is also one of our largest trading partners and one of the biggest economies in the world, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should reject the binary choice between security and the economy, and the bluster from Opposition Members, and that we should instead focus on how to be strong on both national security and our economic interests?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that we need to both strengthen our security against threats from China, including cyber-threats and issues around transnational repression and economic security, such as the supply of critical minerals across the world, and engage with China on issues around trade and climate change. That, frankly, is in our national interests, and we would be letting the country down if we did not engage on both security and the economy in our national interests.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Two weeks ago, the Security Minister came to the House to describe sustained efforts by China to infiltrate Parliament, and to announce that the security agencies were launching an espionage action plan, yet when Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister and, today, the Foreign Secretary, are asked about Beijing’s super-embassy, with its extensive underground facilities in the heart of London, they hide behind the statement that the decision is quasi-judicial. No one seriously believes that; it is the most political decision that will be taken next week. Beyond the threat to our democracy, what signal does the Foreign Secretary think that approval of the super-embassy would send to Hongkongers in this country, who have escaped state-sponsored intimidation only to find that this Government are considering making it easier for Beijing to continue persecution in the UK?
Yvette Cooper
I would just remind the hon. Gentleman of the due process in the planning system; I am sure that he and his party would be the first to complain if due process was not followed. The Security Minister has set out the important work that he is doing to co-ordinate a new counter-political interference and espionage action plan, and we continue to take action, through our police and security services, to tackle transnational repression. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The Prime Minister raised this case with President Sisi on 18 November, and the Foreign Secretary has pressed for Mr el-Fattah’s return on multiple occasions with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, most recently on 25 November. Mr el-Fattah must be allowed to return to the UK and be reunited with his family.
Olly Glover
I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming Alaa’s recent release from detention in Egypt, and in thanking the many people who have campaign for and helped secure that over the years. This week, Alaa will miss the 14th birthday of his son Khaled, because the Egyptian authorities are not letting him travel. It is good to hear about the engagement that the Minister describes, but what further steps can he and the Prime Minister take to ensure that Alaa is able to return to the UK to spend Christmas with his family?
Mr Falconer
I have set out some of the steps we have taken already. I met Mr el-Fattah in Cairo last month, and am in regular contact with his family. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this case is right at the top of my priority list, as well as that of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Ryan Cornelius, a British citizen, has been unfairly incarcerated in Dubai for the past 17 years. His son was six when he went to prison; he is now 23 years old. Some 150 parliamentarians from both Houses wrote to the Dubai authorities asking for Mr Cornelius’s release on the UAE’s national day—today—to no avail. Can the Foreign Secretary use her good offices to bring some urgency to the issue of freeing this British citizen from unfair detention?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his doughty advocacy for Mr Cornelius and a range of other consular cases overseas. He will know that the former Foreign Secretary has raised this case with the UAE and met the families on 4 September, and we will continue to provide them with support. I have seen these families myself, and I am sure that we will continue to do so at times that they find useful.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
The continued erosion of democratic rights and freedoms in Hong Kong is a matter that is deeply concerning to the whole House. In October the Foreign Secretary submitted the Government’s latest six-monthly report on Hong Kong, which details how national security legislation is diminishing Hong Kong’s political autonomy. We will continue to champion the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, including through our British national overseas visa route and by raising human rights issues at every opportunity.
Zöe Franklin
Given the marked deterioration of civil liberties and democratic freedoms in Hong Kong since the introduction of the national security law, can the Minister outline what specific steps the Government are taking to support those affected by these abuses, both in the UK and abroad? Many of my constituents are Hong Kong nationals who have made their home here through the BNO route, and they remain deeply worried about family members who are still in Hong Kong.
Seema Malhotra
We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics in the UK or overseas. UK Ministers have raised directly with Hong Kong and Chinese officials our concerns about what is happening in Hong Kong, and we will continue to do so. Such actions are also damaging to Hong Kong’s reputation as an open and international city.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We are working across Government to build a new strategic partnership with the EU. The Foreign Secretary and I meet regularly with European partners, and I will be doing so later this week. Last month I joined the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary for the first foreign and security policy dialogue with EU High Representative Kallas. Collaborative relationships are key to building this partnership and delivering what the British people want—on growth, the cost of living, security and action to counter irregular migration.
Dr Pinkerton
With growing Chinese espionage, Russian aggression on the European continent and a capricious President in the United States, it is more important than ever that we deepen our security co-operation with our European allies. Can I ask the Minister explicitly whether he recognises, as I do, that the UK’s deepest possible participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe scheme is vital to common European security? What have he and the Government done to try to prompt the restart of the negotiations with the European Union that sadly broke down last week?
Stephen Doughty
Our security and defence partnership is broad. The UK entered discussions with the EU on the SAFE scheme in good faith, recognising mutual strategic interest and continued commitment. We were clear with the EU that we were prepared to make a fair financial contribution that reflects the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship and value for the taxpayer. However, we have always said that we will not sign deals unless they are genuinely in the national interest, and in this case the deal on offer from the EU did not pass that test. But I am absolutely confident that our wider defence and industrial relationships are not affected. In fact, our deal with Norway on frigates, our £8 billion agreement with Turkey for the purchase of 20 Typhoon jets, and our agreement with Germany on joint export campaigns in relation to Boxer armoured vehicles all very much represent the very best of European defence industrial co-operation.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I know that the Minister appreciates the need for the EU and the UK to work very closely together in the face of global security threats and trade challenges. In his talks with EU colleagues, will he impress on them the damage that the proposed EU steel tariffs would do to not just our UK steel industry but manufacturing across the UK and the EU?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend has always been a very strong advocate for the steel industry. I can confirm that we are absolutely committed to defending our steel industry. We are seeking an urgent clarification from the EU Commission on its proposals. We need to find a bilateral solution. Any EU measures must, of course, be consistent with the trade and co-operation agreement and uphold summit commitments and, indeed, our Windsor framework obligations.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
The UK does not currently deliver direct humanitarian assistance in Pakistan-administered Kashmir or India-administered Kashmir, but we continue to monitor the humanitarian situation, as we do elsewhere in the region.
David Williams
Stoke-on-Trent is home to one of the largest Kashmiri communities in the UK, and many of my constituents are deeply worried by the continuing restrictions on civil liberties, arbitrary detentions and the ongoing denial of meaningful political determination in Jammu and Kashmir. Will the Minister please set out what specific human rights and self-determination concerns the UK has raised with the Indian Government, and what tangible progress my constituents can expect the Government to press for?
Seema Malhotra
We strongly support individuals’ rights to freedom of assembly and expression, and peaceful political protest. We have consistently emphasised that any human rights violations should be fully investigated in line with international human rights law. We continue to monitor human rights issues and, where we have concerns, raise those with the Government of India.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There are repeated claims by community leaders and religious freedom groups that Christians in Kashmir face harassment, social pressure, threats, discrimination, surveillance and sometimes violence. What steps is the Minister taking in conjunction with her international counterparts to support the promotion of faith—especially Christianity—in Kashmir?
Seema Malhotra
We will always continue to champion freedom of religion or belief across the world. The hon. Member will know that we consistently raise any human rights violations with Governments across the world, and will continue to do so.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
May I send my condolences and those of the Government to all those who have lost loved ones in the deadly storms in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam? Many have lost homes and livelihoods. I praise the emergency responders who have worked tirelessly and are committed to helping those affected, often at great personal risk.
In response to requests for support that we have already received, the UK is providing £675,000 to address immediate humanitarian needs in Sri Lanka and has contributed £800,000 in response to the multiple typhoons that have struck Vietnam. The UK is closely monitoring the situation and stands ready to provide further support as needed.
Mr Perkins
I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s comments. The UK has shown global leadership on international climate finance over many years, both in the £11.6 billion we are providing over the five years to 2026 and in encouraging other major nations to recognise their responsibility to those nations most in the firing line from climate change. Following last week’s Budget, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that Britain remains committed to that and will include inflation increases?
Yvette Cooper
The details for future financial issues were obviously set out as part of the Budget. We will continue to take action on international climate finance and provide support for dealing with these issues.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Last month, the Government buckled under pressure about their lack of consultation with the Chagossian people on the shameful handover of sovereign British territory to Mauritius. If the process is genuinely intended to inform policy, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the views expressed to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee are free from external interference? How will its findings inform the Government’s decision on the future of the Chagos islands?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee is engaging a wide range of Chagossians to ascertain their views on the implications of the treaty and will produce a report before Christmas. We have seen no evidence of Mauritian interference, and it is important to recognise the wide range of views in the Chagossian community. I very much look forward to reading the IRDC’s report when it is completed.
Andrew Rosindell
I hope the Minister will check that there are actually Chagossians and not outsiders taking part in that consultation. Anyway, let us try something else.
Given last week’s report that the Chancellor had a £4 billion surplus rather than a £20 billion deficit as previously suggested, will the Minister explain why the Government are pressing ahead with this eye-wateringly expensive £35 billion gift of British sovereign territory to Mauritius? Does the Minister not agree that scrapping that atrocious deal would be a better way to help the Chancellor restore fiscal credibility and save British taxpayers’ money?
Stephen Doughty
No matter how many times the hon. Gentleman repeats his wild claims about the cost of the deal, they are no more correct. I have been clear on multiple occasions about the cost of the deal. We will not scrimp on the national security of this country. The base is crucial for our security and that of our allies, and we have set out the costs very clearly.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
My hon. Friend is right. In line with our strategy, launched this year, we continue to champion every community’s right to worship, or not, without fear or discrimination. Our special envoy works with partners and alongside our diplomatic network to protect that right via multilateral fora and through targeted interventions in key countries to uphold the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Yvette Cooper
We continue to have many strong conversations with our Five Eyes partners on a range of issues around both state and terror threats. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Government have committed to strengthening the law so that we have new proscribing tools that can apply to state threats as well as to terrorism threats. We also take immensely seriously any threat issued to our national security from Iran.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. We work closely with our partners on that issue and support democratic institutions and values, including through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. We fund election observation, champion media freedom and provide leadership in different fora, and we will set that as a key priority as incoming co-chair of the Open Government Partnership.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that we always support international law and the upholding of it. There have been reports overnight, which we do not know the full details of, but the UK is not involved in those operations. More widely, the UK does not accept the legitimacy of the Administration put in place by Nicolás Maduro following the 2024 election and we support a negotiated transition in Venezuela.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. We have consistently advocated for an inclusive political transition and underlined the importance of protecting the rights of all Syrians, publicly and in our engagement with the Syrian Government. The Foreign Secretary and I were clear on UK expectations for Syria’s transition when we met Syrian Foreign Minister al-Shabani last month: the protection of the rights of all Syrians, wide consultation with Syria’s diverse communities on next steps in the transition and, of course, holding perpetrators of violence to account.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Mr Falconer
I am familiar with the case that the hon. Member mentions. On all the other detention cases in Iran, we are working to ensure that those individuals have full access to consular assistance where they need it, as British nationals have across the world.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
Seema Malhotra
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. The UK will continue to centre women and girls in everything that we do internationally, from our diplomacy to our development work. We will mainstream gender across the Department’s work to ensure that we deliver maximum impact. We are retaining our ODA target for gender equality, and we will share an update on further measures to strengthen our approach to mainstreaming in due course.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Prior to last week’s talks with leaders of the British overseas territories, concerning reports suggested that the Government were planning to cave in to pressure from the British Virgin Islands, the epicentre of billions of pounds of tax evasion, and allow it to restrict public access to a register of company share ownership. Will the Secretary of State inform the House of the outcome of last week’s talks and reassure the British public that the Government will force British overseas territories to comply with the law and make these registers publicly available?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member can find the communiqué online. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I met the leaders from the overseas territories last week at a successful Joint Ministerial Council, and I again set out clearly our expectations on registers of beneficial ownership. I would point out that all OTs with financial centres have committed to upholding international tax standards, including those on tax transparency and exchange of information, as well as base erosion and profit sharing.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Since the beginning of 2025, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has documented more than 1,600 attacks in the west bank perpetrated by Israeli settlers. What more can the UK do in terms of sanctions for illegal settler outposts and settlement trade and to hold the Israeli Government to account?
Mr Falconer
On 27 November, the UK, France, Germany and Italy collectively condemned the massive increase in settler violence against Palestinian civilians in the west bank. The pace of settlement building in the west bank continues unabated, as my hon. Friend knows well because she has been engaged on these issues for some time. Israel must stop settlement expansion, and it must crack down on settler violence, which has reached record levels. This Government have introduced three waves of sanctions focused on settlements, including against Mr Ben-Gvir.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
In an earlier answer, the Foreign Secretary said that trade relations between China and the UK were “in our national interest”. To that extent, can I ask what conversations her Department had with Invest Northern Ireland prior to its signing a co-operation framework memorandum of understanding with the China Chamber of Commerce in the UK?
Seema Malhotra
This Government support UK businesses to do business with China while being open-eyed to any risks.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
On Donald Trump’s threats of military action against oil-rich Venezuela, reports suggest that British military personnel are aboard the US warships heading towards Venezuela. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore make it clear that Britain will have no involvement at all, including through troops on US warships, in any Trump-led military intervention there?
Stephen Doughty
As the Foreign Secretary made clear a moment ago, the UK is not involved in these operations. There have been reports overnight, of which we do not know the full details and which the US will respond to. We have been very clear that we expect all nations to operate in line with international law.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Elections Act 2022 expanded the franchise to over 3 million British nationals living overseas. As MPs, we have a duty to represent those who have lived in our constituencies, but we do not know who they are or where they are. How can our embassies help?
Seema Malhotra
The Foreign Secretary works closely with Cabinet colleagues on many issues, including overseas voter registration. We encourage all British nationals to register as overseas voters if they move or live abroad, and that has been the approach of successive Governments. We keep gov.uk under constant review, and British nationals abroad can contact their local embassy or high commission for further information.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Parliamentarians for Peace was set up in 2023 in the aftermath of the terror attack in Israel and the killings of innocent Gazan civilians. On International Human Rights Day next Wednesday, will the Foreign Secretary, her team and everyone here join us for the Parliamentarians for Peace vigil that we will be hosting?
Mr Falconer
I will do my utmost, as I am sure other Ministers will.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The child nutrition fund is one of the most effective ways to enhance the impact and value for money of official development assistance spending by mobilising domestic resources, with philanthropic and private capital having the potential to multiply UK ODA contributions as much as sixfold. In 2023, the UK Government committed to a £16 million contribution to fund. Will Ministers confirm that the commitment will be honoured despite the changes in ODA spending?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Member has been a long-standing champion of these issues. We reaffirmed our commitment to addressing malnutrition at the Nutrition for Growth summit in 2025, as he knows, and we continue to support the child nutrition fund, which funds treatment of acute malnutrition. We are providing technical assistance and are supporting countries to integrate nutrition across sectors.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
With winter setting in and thousands of Gazan children still acutely malnourished, will my right hon. Friend work with international partners so we can go further and faster to help those children?
Yvette Cooper
Yes, we will. That is why we announced today that we will support the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east appeal through the winter, with pound-for-pound matching of a further £3 million to help support the people of Gaza through the winter.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The White House has expressed concerns about sensitive cables that run under Royal Mint Court, as have the Dutch, Swiss and Swedish Governments. I understand that the Foreign Office has denied the presence of such cables to the US Government, and the Cabinet Office has denied it to the press. Will the Foreign Secretary stand up and make it very clear to the House of Commons that no such cables run beneath or near the site—yes or no?
Yvette Cooper
We always make national security considerations a central priority, and we continue to hold a range of discussions on national security issues with the US and other partners. Under the hon. Gentleman’s party, the Defence Secretary was sacked for leaking national security information and the Home Secretary was sacked for national security breaches, and the Conservatives left us with the smallest Army since the time of Napoleon. We will not take any lectures from them.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
We have seen a year of protests in Georgia against democratic backsliding and crackdowns on political opponents, which are deeply concerning, including for those in Newport with strong links to Kutaisi. What more can be done with allies to increase diplomatic pressure?
Stephen Doughty
We are deeply concerned by the democratic backsliding in Georgia and have issued a number of sanctions, as my hon. Friend will be aware. I have raised concerns directly with Georgian Dream representatives and will continue to follow the situation closely.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Today is UAE National Day, marking 54 years since its full independence. In that time, it has become one of our nation’s staunchest allies and a key investor, benefiting constituencies up and down the country. Will the Minister join me, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, in congratulating the UAE and recommitting to this key strategic relationship?
Mr Falconer
I will. I was delighted to see my Emirati counterpart just yesterday. We had a Minister representing the British Government at the Emirati National Day. It is a key partner. I welcome its investment all over the country, and we will take the relationship from strength to strength.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
In July 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled in its advisory opinion that Israeli settlements and occupation are illegal and needed to be ended and dismantled retrospectively. Can the Minister explain why the UK Government still have not responded to the advisory opinion after 17 months?
Mr Falconer
The advisory opinion is an important piece of international legal opinion, so we are taking our time and ensuring that we have an adequate response. But I remind my hon. Friend that it is not like nothing has happened over the course of those 17 months: we have recognised the Palestinian state. That is absolutely central in the deliberations of the advisory opinion, and we have done many other things, too, as have been discussed over the course of this session.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
What action will the UK Government take as a consequence of Israel’s flagrant violation of international law in establishing and expanding settlements? The lack of action creates a culture of impunity in which Israel feels able to green light the expansion of the E1 settlement, creating division between the west bank and east Jerusalem and putting a nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. Will the Foreign Secretary ban trade with illegal settlements to show that violating international law has consequences?
Mr Falconer
We have, from this Dispatch Box, announced three waves of sanctions, including on Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich. I have discussed the questions around trade on a number of occasions with the hon. Lady. Any trade with settlements does not benefit from the trade arrangements in place with green line Israel. We continue to take steps to ensure that that regime is enforced in full, and we continue to look at these issues very carefully.
Criminal Court Reform
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
With your permission, Mr Speaker I will make a statement on criminal court reform.
As the House is aware, the first part of the independent review of criminal courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson—one of the foremost judges of his generation—and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Shaun McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once-in-a-generation court reform. That is desperately needed, because the Government inherited an emergency in our courts: a record and rising backlog currently at 78,000 cases, and victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case.
Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six-year wait for justice. During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated; it is systemic.
We are all proud of our justice system, rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to
“deny or delay right or justice.”
When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves. Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This Government have already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose, a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown courts—5,000 more than those funded last year by the previous Government.
Today, I can announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates, to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.
However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The case load is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse. To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian’s bold blueprint for change. First, I will create new “swift courts” within the Crown court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hardwire transparency into our new approach.
Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials—a practice not found widely in other common law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up. I will limit appeals from the magistrates courts, so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further.
Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.
These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences. Among others, that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.
I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill’s time, and today magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.
Conservative Members talk about the Crown court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971—the year before I was born—to replace a patchwork of part-time courts unable to cope with a rising caseload. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. We now face an emergency in the courts, and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve.
I am also clear that we must future-proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a second report, focused on efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.
We will also continue to support victims, to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announced this week that I will provide multi-year funding for victim support services, including specialist emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increase budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million—more than half a billion. I want those victims to stay the course.
Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation, which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains. I commend this statement to the House.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I am glad to see that the Justice Secretary has finally come into work today. When 12 prisoners were mistakenly released after the introduction of his brilliant new checks, he did not bother to come to Parliament to inform the country; then, when I asked his Department whether it is paying compensation to terrorists in prison, he did not show up; and when the news of his plans to scrap jury trials mysteriously emerged in the press last week, he was nowhere to be seen. Like the prisoners under his watch, he has been a man on the run—the “Lammy dodger” of this sorry charade of a Government—but today we are blessed with his presence.
The Justice Secretary’s past is catching up with him, because the best opponent of his plans to curb jury trials is the Justice Secretary himself. In 2020, he said:
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.”
In 2017, in his report into prejudice in the criminal justice system, he found that juries
“act as a filter for prejudice”,
but now that he has become the Justice Secretary, he is scrapping the very institution he once lauded. Which is it? Will the real David Lammy please stand up?
It is not just the Justice Secretary. Who can guess which Labour MP said that taking away jury trials
“would be a wholly draconian act”?
It was his own junior Minister, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). And what about this one? Who said there should be a
“right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”?
Any ideas, Mr Speaker? Who else? It is the Prime Minister this time. Do this Government have no shame?
Yesterday, the Justice Secretary boldly claimed that if the medieval barons were around today, they would support his changes. Then again, English history has never been his specialist subject, has it? Eight hundred years on from Magna Carta, we have another unpopular leader who does not listen to his subjects and who levies eye-watering taxes, and a state that locks people up for what they say. Well, I say that the link between British citizens and the administration of justice is as important as ever. It is a link that serves as a check on an occasionally overbearing state. Our ancestors did not stop bad King John, only to be undone 800 years later by this Prime Minister and his court jester.
And all of this because the Justice Secretary cannot manage his own Department. This morning, in England alone more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty. In fact—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I wanted, quite rightly, the Justice Secretary to be heard without comment from Opposition Front Benchers, and I certainly expect the same from Government Front Benchers in return.
Robert Jenrick
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This morning, more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty in England alone. In fact, over 21,000 court days have gone unused this year. Why? Not because there are too many juries, but because the Justice Secretary will not fund the sitting days. Had he done so, the backlog would have shrunk by up to 10,000 cases, but the fact is that it has risen this year.
The truth is that scrapping juries is a choice. This Government could find the money to bear down on the backlog of asylum claims and to spend more on benefits, but not to fund the courts to sit round the clock. Last year, the entire budget for courts and legal aid was £5.5 billion, which is almost exactly the same amount of money—£5.4 billion—that we spent on illegal migrants. He defends their rights under the European convention on human rights, but not our rights under Magna Carta. And for what? He cannot even guarantee that in four years’ time these changes will have reduced the backlog. With this Justice Secretary, it is justice delayed and justice denied.
Much of the rest of the package announced today is sensible, but why has it taken 17 months? The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association have all said that jury trials are not the problem.
Mr Speaker
Order. You are facing the wrong way. It is very hard to hear you when you are looking at the doors.
Robert Jenrick
Apologies, Mr Speaker.
Why did the Justice Secretary not start by reforming the Probation Service and court listings, and by tackling delays from late prison transfers? Why has he still not taken up the Lady Chief Justice on all the sitting days that she has offered him? Lastly, why on earth does this Justice Secretary think he has a mandate to rip up centuries of jury trials without even a mention of it in his party’s manifesto?
The Justice Secretary, in his twisted logic, says he is scrapping juries to save them, but be in no doubt: if he gets away with this, it is the beginning of the end of jury trials. He is already in retreat. Let us unite to send him packing for good.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the shadow Justice Secretary, although I am a little surprised that in his tirade, he never once mentioned victims—not once. Not once in his clip did he talk about the people waiting in the backlog.
The right hon. Gentleman has boasted that he is an armchair historian. May I give him a history lesson? In 2019, Crown court sitting days were cut by almost 15%. The Conservatives oversaw a 12% reduction in Crown court trials, and many of us remember, over those 14 years of austerity, the magistrates courts and Crown courts that closed in local communities under his watch. The senior presiding judge in England and Wales said:
“It was a political decision.”
I wonder if the shadow Justice Secretary will try to blame the pandemic for that decision.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about what I tweeted in 2020. We are saving and protecting jury trials. Jury trials will continue. He talks about trial by jury as if we lived in the United States, but 90% of criminal trials—1.3 million—are done by our magistracy, which has existed for 650 years. We are going to grow our magistrates, who we believe could do more.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about Magna Carta. Yes, clause 39 establishes the jury trial and a fair trial—we are proud of that—but he knows, too, that clause 40 asks us not to delay justice. That is the substance of this debate, and that is why we need reform. He knows that the Conservatives took juries away from defamation cases in 2013. Back in 1933, we had juries sitting in civil cases. Of course we reform; we do so to meet the needs of the system. He also knows that because of DNA evidence, CCTV and a whole raft of reasons, including that the police now arrest 10% more people, we have a demand issue. We must meet that challenge, and we must ensure that we put victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. That is who it is there for, and it is why he should have mentioned them.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
May I recognise the commitment of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State in grasping the issue of the Crown court backlog, which, as Sir Brian Leveson says, is a threat to our whole system of criminal justice? The criticism of these proposals from those on the Opposition Benches comes with no solution whatsoever. I also acknowledge the Lord Chancellor’s decision to stay within the limits proposed by Sir Brian for cases that will be tried without a jury in the future.
None the less, these are profound changes to the criminal justice system that not only restrict the role of juries, but substantially extend the powers of magistrates and judges sitting alone. Will the Lord Chancellor therefore evaluate the effects of these changes to see whether they, along with other measures such as increased investment, bring down the backlog and whether they do so fairly, without bias and without increasing conviction rates or sentence length? If they do not deliver on all these points, will he think again?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work in these areas. Yes, I can commit to that evaluation, which is very important indeed. In his report, Sir Brian estimated that the system would be 20% faster: it takes time for juries to deliberate, and without the conveyance of information between barristers, the judge and the jury being necessary, he expects that a judge-led or magistrate-led system will be speedier. As my hon. Friend will know, the magistrates courts do not currently have a backlog and with an increase in the number of magistrates, they can do a little more.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Government’s plan, announced today, to reduce the use of trial by jury would be an historic upheaval of our court system, with profound consequences. The Justice Secretary has not argued in favour of judge-only trials on their own terms; instead, he has argued that there is no alternative, which is simply not true. Many within the legal profession have argued that removing trial by jury is a misdirection from the multitude of problems that underlie the backlog.
Those problems, caused by years of Conservative mismanagement, have resulted in countless wasted hours of sitting time and in victims failed time and again. Perhaps the defendant does not arrive in court because of the broken private contract, there is no interpreter, the witness care unit forgets to tell witnesses to attend, key evidence is not served until the day of trial so the defence has no time to consider it, or there are not enough court staff to manage security on the door, so the trial runs late. Maybe our crumbling court infrastructure means there is no running water, a broken lift or even a flooded courtroom. We need a real solution to tackle these issues that plague our justice system, but instead the Justice Secretary intends to remove a huge number of jury trials, despite his previous opposition to that, all while the Ministry of Justice capital budget is being cut by 3% in real terms every year.
While I welcome the £500 million investment in victims and witness support over three years, the total courts maintenance backlog is estimated at £1.3 billion. Where is the investment to fix the collapsing infrastructure in the justice system? Will the Justice Secretary consider reopening many of the Crown courts closed under the Conservatives, including mine in Chichester? As he confirmed to the media today, an entire jury’s worth of prisoners have been released in error in recent weeks. Does the Secretary of State have confidence in his Department to oversee such an extreme and radical reform when it is not even getting the basics right?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady mentions a range of issues that are important in ensuring that our 80 or so courts and 500 courtrooms are working effectively. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at efficiency as part 2 of his review. We need not just our courts but the Crown Prosecution Service and our police to work together at a reasonable level to deliver that improvement.
When we think about either-way cases, I think that it is legitimate for the Government to take a view on whether, for example, a driving licence fraud, fly-tipping or the theft of a bike requires a jury trial that will last for about two days, or whether those cases can be dealt with by a magistrate or a judge. I know that the hon. Lady is committed, like us, to bearing down on violence against women and girls. It cannot be right that if someone is charged with an offence such as theft of a bicycle, theft from a vehicle or employee theft, they can opt for a trial that, by necessity, goes into the system and will delay a rape trial, a murder trial or something like that. That is the balance of the decision that I have sought to make. I think that the Government have made the right decision in implementing Sir Brian’s review.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The entire House is concerned about victims, including the victims of attacks on women and girls. However, the entire House is also concerned about the men and women who will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages of justice if the right to trial by jury is curtailed. To quote from a lawyer:
“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”
That lawyer is our current Prime Minister. He wrote that in 1992—it was as true then as it is today. How can the Lord Chancellor propose a limitation of the right to trial by jury when he knows perfectly well the category of defendant who will suffer the ill effects?
Mr Lammy
I am hugely grateful for my right hon. Friend’s expertise in these areas. She will know that for lots of reasons, particularly to do with poverty, many women are affected by criminal cases that do not command a sentence of much more than 12 months. Actually, the vast majority of crimes committed by women are dealt with by magistrates, and it is my judgment that those magistrates could do more. Keeping in mind the victims and centring them in our thinking, it cannot be right that we are asking women to wait. In a city like London, a woman who is raped tomorrow will not have her trial listed until 2028 or 2029. The Victims’ Commissioner supports these changes because they put those women first. I also remind my right hon. Friend of the £550 million that I am dedicating to victim support to support the very women she talks about.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Government deserve credit for taking seriously a serious report into a serious problem, but is it the Justice Secretary’s preference that the changes he has outlined to jury trial will be permanent or that they will recede when the problem of backlogs recedes? In relation to judges alone deciding either-way cases, he knows that Sir Brian’s recommendation is that the presumption should be that there would be judge-only trials for cases where the sentence may be three years or less, but that presumption could be rebutted. Is it the Government’s intention that that should be a presumption and not a definitive rule? Finally, he knows that Sir Brian also recommended that plea hearings be pushed back to allow for advice on guilty pleas to be given more clearly and more fully, and that is likely to increase the number of guilty pleas preventing cracked trials. The Justice Secretary has talked about extra funding for the criminal Bar, but will he focus that funding so that people can be advised early and we can avoid those cracked trials?
Mr Lammy
We will consult on how we implement it so that we can deal with cracked trials. I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the importance of Sir Brian’s work and his deliberations with his panel. It is not my expectation that these rules will change. Sir Brian drew on his tremendous experience to reflect on the complexity and the demand that we are seeing in our criminal justice system. For example, DNA evidence, phenotyping, the range of new laws that this Parliament is introducing, and the increase in sexual crimes as a result of smartphones and other technology all require changes in the system, so I believe that the changes that we are making will be permanent.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I understand that my right hon. Friend has inherited a disastrous situation in the criminal justice system. A huge backlog was left by the austerity of the Conservatives, so I have no truck with them. However, does he fear, as I do, that restricting trial by jury will put a certain class of people in judgment over the rest of us, and that the check and balance on that is that a jury can be drawn from those I would describe as working-class people? Does he fear that we will create an “us” and “them” in the criminal justice system by taking away people’s right to go to trial by jury?
Mr Lammy
I understand my hon. Friend’s anxiety, but I remind him that the vast majority of these individuals will be tried by magistrates. The historical system we have is actually an aspect of the right in clause 39 of Magna Carta to be tried by one’s peers. Importantly, they are people who live in every neighbourhood in our country and who volunteer their efforts.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
When the Secretary of State took office, he swore an oath of office, which reads:
“I…do swear that…I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”.
That last bit matters. Governments of his party, my party and—before they get too sanctimonious—the Liberal Democrats all starved the courts, from Blair to now. The Secretary of State has to put that right, because if he does not get sufficient extra sitting days, this problem will not be solved. When I say “sufficient extra”, I do not mean 1,000 days, or even 5,000 days; we need an increase of an order of magnitude. Instead, he is undermining a bulwark of our constitution. In the words of Lord Denning:
“It has been the bulwark of our liberties too long for any of us to seek to alter it.”
Why will the Secretary of State not go and have his argument with the Treasury and solve this problem properly?
Mr Lammy
I understand the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman says. He is right that our courts have been starved of funds for too long, but he knows that, despite the extra investment we are putting in and the investment we got in the spending review for new courts in places such as Blackpool, this will take considerable time. We have asked Sir Brian to reflect, and he is one of our most eminent judges. Would it really be right to ask the victims to wait a decade until we have fixed the system? It cannot be. For all the reasons that Sir Brian reflects on in his report, we have to chuck everything at this. We need more investment, reform and modernisation, which we are doing.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Any of us who has supported a constituent in a rape trial will take no lectures from the Conservatives about how they managed our courts. There is clearly a challenge here. The worry for many of us is whether the Justice Secretary’s prescription is the solution; as he points out, juries are involved in less than 3% of all criminal cases. It is difficult to see how this measure, with all the challenges it may bring for justice and fairness, particularly for some of our minority communities, will address the backlog. Lord Leveson himself pointed out that increasing sitting days would not be a solution unless we had the barristers and solicitors. Can the Secretary of State give a guarantee that there will be funding for the legal aid required to ensure that every defendant has decent representation?
Mr Lammy
I remind my hon. Friend that we are increasing the uplift for barristers and their fees by £34 million. We have also increased legal aid, with £92 million for our solicitors. Because we need a pipeline of criminal lawyers, we have a match-funded scheme for pupillages so that we see the next generation of young people from all backgrounds becoming our criminal legal aid lawyers.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; if they were, we would not see similar extended delays in the magistrates courts, which have a record backlog of 361,000 cases. The cause is not just pupillages, but legal advisers in magistrates courts. Given that some of these cases with potentially longer sentences will move to the magistrates courts, what additional investment will go into them so that we do not just see the problem move from the Crown court to the magistrates court and see victims wait just as long there?
Mr Lammy
That is why we are putting money into legal advisers and why we are growing the magistracy. There is not anything like the backlog that exists in our Crown courts in our magistrates courts, so the question is: should we leave it as a year, or could our magistrates do more? I think 18 months is right in terms of the sentencing threshold.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I need to be honest: the prospect of citizens in our country being put away in jail for up to three years without the benefits of a trial by jury sends a chill through my heart. I gently say that no Government should ever govern as if they will be in power for ever. Those on the Front Bench denounce members of Reform as Putin’s pals—I think that is a fair description. Does the Justice Secretary want to think again? Imagine if Putin’s pals, as they are described, were in government in this country and people could get put away for three years without trial by jury. How would they use that? Is that not a frightening prospect? If we make these changes under pressure and hand them on to forces that would take things even further, would that not concern the Justice Secretary?
Mr Lammy
Clearly, my hon. Friend would accept that justice is not being served now. I simply would not equate either our magistrates or our independent judiciary with anything like what we see under Putin’s Russia.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Nobody would disagree with the Lord Chancellor’s diagnosis—the criminal courts are in crisis. It is the treatment that is in dispute. The question is whether the watering down of jury trials will be the solution, when in fact the problem is a lack of judges, court space and infrastructure, and inefficiencies in the system. Crucially, it is about a lack of appropriately trained defence and prosecution counsel who can deal with the complexities of these cases. Is this not a case of the Government choosing to prioritise other areas of spending, such as welfare, over our courts system?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman’s party did not come up with any solutions, and the backlog continued to rise. We commissioned an independent review, led by one of the country’s most eminent judges. Having reflected on that review, we are getting on with the business of recognising what he said: there is not a silver bullet, we have to do it all, and we are building on the reform that he asked us to do.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
May I welcome the additional money for the criminal legal aid advocates and for more pupillages? If we are to rely more on judges, often sitting alone, is there not a need for greater transparency with regard to the selection of those judges, even to the point of individual selection on individual cases? I wrote to the Secretary of State this morning on behalf of a number of our members about a particular instance of the disappearance of a judge. I would be grateful if he could read that letter and possibly meet a group of MPs concerned about that matter.
Mr Lammy
I will read that letter and commit to a meeting with my right hon. Friend and other MPs, either with me or with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services. He is absolutely right; transparency is core. When I looked at this issue in the Lammy review, I was very concerned that too often there was no transcript of what happened in our magistrates courts and Crown courts and that it was not easy. That is absolutely part of what we are now investing in, particularly with AI technology, and we will come forward with it.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Carmarthen justice centre is only 16 years old, but the roof leaks when it rains, and the heating does not work. Let me list some of the root causes for criminal courts processing fewer cases: high workloads, staff shortages and inexperience, poor administration, crumbling buildings. How does the Justice Secretary think that undermining one of the basic tenets of English and Welsh law will be a solution to those problems?
Mr Lammy
I refer the right hon. Lady to paragraph 9 of Sir Brian’s review, which says:
“it is important to underline that greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”
We are investing, but it will take time. It is not fair to ask victims to wait.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I spent two decades working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, and I can tell hon. Members that this crisis has been building for years and years and years. I spoke to one of my former colleagues today to ask him how things are. He said:
“Something has to be done. The backlog and delay is distorting the justice system as people need to wait so long for justice that defendants are pleading not guilty in the hope that the case ends up being considered not in the public interest. Meanwhile the public, victims and witnesses pay the price. Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Right now, my former colleague is working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, so let us support the people working in that system, and let us support our victims of crime so that they get justice quickly and fairly. My request to the Secretary of State is please to be bold.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts her remarks so well. Let us be clear that there are defendants playing the system, and if we continue to allow them to do so, vulnerable victims of the most serious offences in our country will pay the price. That is why this is not just about financial investment; it has to be about reform, and I am determined to see this through.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
In his report, Sir Brian Leveson made a number of recommendations to reduce the Crown court backlog. Many of those recommendations are welcome, but curtailing the right to a jury trial is not one of them. Will the Secretary of State instruct his Department to publish the modelling it will have undertaken, so that we can see how much of an effect on the backlog each individual recommendation will have, and this House can take a view on the efficacy of his legislation before we vote on it?
Mr Lammy
I undertake that there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The governance of jury trials has changed considerably over time—dramatically so in the 19th century, and again in the 1970s. In both cases, that was to improve public access to justice. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that if our traditions are to endure, including our legal traditions, they need to adapt?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Demand is soaring. Quite rightly, we are asking our police to arrest more, and we all know that smartphones, DNA, and phenotyping to tell the colour of a person’s eyes increase the workload. We have to reform the system, or we will break it.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but we have a proud history of juries in this country. If juries are to be suspended for cases in which a sentence of less than three years is expected in order to clear the backlog, will that just be for a limited time, and when will normal jury service be resumed?
Mr Lammy
For the reasons of complexity that Sir Brian has set out, and because the process of passing legislation means that I think we will only see the numbers starting to fall by the next general election, no, this change has to be permanent.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Given that the Bar Council has said it has seen “no evidence” that removing the right to elect to have a jury trial will significantly reduce the Crown court backlog, and that both the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have said that the real cause of delays is years of underfunding and reduced sitting days, will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are pursuing the removal of jury trials without publishing any modelling to show that juries—rather than chronic under-resourcing—are responsible for backlogs? Will he release the evidence base underpinning this proposed reform? Releasing impact assessments after the reform is made will be too late.
Mr Lammy
I say to my hon. Friend, who has tremendous expertise in these areas, that the evidence is contained in Sir Brian’s very lengthy review. That review looks at all the issues and says it is likely that the new division within the Crown court and the changes to magistrates courts will speed up the process by 20%.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The idea that we have to scrap jury trials to save jury trials is simply farcical. A legal framework 800 years old is being upended, and not to reduce backlogs or save money; this is a reframing of rights and of where power lies, taking power away from the people. Does the Lord Chancellor accept that jury trials—being judged by one’s peers—protects the vulnerable and enables fairness, and that as the Mother of the House said, this decision will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice?
Mr Lammy
Our criminal law cannot be set in aspic. The system that we have now largely came about as the result of legislation in 1971. Just prior to that, this House decriminalised homosexuality, and it was only in 1991 that we outlawed marital rape. Of course we make change, and it is right that we make change in this circumstance.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I have immense sympathy for the difficult position that the Lord Chancellor and the many victims of crime in this country are in. There is, however, a category of offences relating to the right to protest—a right that has been restricted by multiple Governments over time. It is very important that we maintain jury trials in anything that touches on that area, so can the Lord Chancellor commit to retaining jury trials in cases where the offence would currently go to the Crown court or would be an either-way offence?
Mr Lammy
I recognise that there will be a range of cases beyond those that will now sit with the magistrates, in which the sentence would be more than 18 months and up to three years. However, I believe it must be left to our magistrates and judiciary to make the appropriate determination.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
We are supposed to have a legal system we are proud of, and the purpose of jury service is to ensure a fair and impartial justice system. Although there are dire backlogs in Crown court hearings in England, as well as delays in Northern Ireland, would the Lord Chancellor consider other options—such as fully funding and resourcing the system to address backlogs—as opposed to removing a civic obligation that people in this country believe in and have upheld for the sake of a fair judicial system?
Mr Lammy
The evidence is in Sir Brian’s review. This is an independent review, and I will read once again what Sir Brian has said:
“it is important to underline that greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I welcome the £550 million investment in victims, but trial by a jury of your peers is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system in this country. Court backlogs are a serious problem—I know that first hand—but the evidence shows that this is because of issues such as a chronic lack of funding, rather than the use of juries. Surely the Secretary of State can see that it would be a grave error to erode a principle that has stood the test of hundreds of years and is widely regarded as producing the fairest outcomes, including by his own 2017 review, all for the sake of time-saving and cost-saving measures that might in practice save neither time nor cost.
Mr Lammy
I recognise the sincerity of my hon. Friend’s remarks, but I have really reflected on what Sir Brian has said. There is no silver bullet in this area—I am not suggesting that the changes we are making to the threshold for a jury trial will fix this entire problem. It will take more investment, and we are making that investment. It will take modernisation, particularly in relation to transcripts and audio, but it will also take reform. We have reformed the criminal justice system in the past; we can do so again in a way that is fair and right for everybody.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
In the event that a volunteer magistrate makes a mistake and jails someone for two years, that person’s automatic right to a rehearing will have been removed. Can the Justice Secretary confirm whether he believes this is efficiency, or just easier wrongful imprisonment?
Mr Lammy
Of course that person would get permission to appeal if the circumstances were legally correct.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the proposals to tackle the court backlogs and delays, which the previous Government did nothing to address. Will the Secretary of State please confirm that this Government will preserve the sanctity of jury trials, and that the proposed changes relate only to some either-way offences—those that are considered to be less serious and can therefore be properly dealt with by magistrates, who already deal with 90% of criminal cases?
Mr Lammy
Yes, I can. For every victim of a crime, the crime is serious, but the decisions that I am announcing at the Dispatch Box are about the length of sentences—about asking our magistrates to go up from one year to 18 months, and asking the new division in the Crown courts to deal with sentences of 18 months to three years.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the Secretary of State not agree that his policy of abolishing trial by jury in all but the most serious cases undermines the whole foundation of law and order in this country, and risks the further politicisation of our judicial system, with judges acting alone as the state and no longer being held to account by the people in the form of a jury?
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Victims are waiting for years for their cases to go to trial. Christmas after Christmas, they are unable to heal or move on. The backlog of cases is now a record 78,000, and it was growing under the Conservative Government before the covid pandemic. Does the Secretary of State find the hypocrisy and faux outrage of the Conservative Opposition as galling as I do, given that reform is needed to clear up the mess that they made of our criminal justice system?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has put it very well. As I have said, it worried me when the shadow Justice Secretary did not mention victims at all, and he did not talk about the Conservatives’ record in office, either. Much has been said about further investment, but behind those questions is the suggestion that we should ask victims to wait for another decade for it, and I do not think we can do that.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I appreciate the focus on victims, but has the Secretary of State considered the risks of removing juries when charges involve state or corporate victims if we are to preserve dissent, whistleblowing and protest? Given that big concerns have been raised about representation among judges, is he concerned about the potential for damaging attacks on, and politicisation of, individual judges and their decisions?
Mr Lammy
We must protect our judges, and there is a climate of increased concern about their security because of statements—some of them made in the House—that would undermine the independence of our judiciary.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The proposed new “swift courts” will mean that decisions regarding guilt will be made by judges alone, who will have received vital, inadmissible and potentially prejudicial evidence. Can the Secretary of State assure us that judges’ decisions are not influenced by inadmissible evidence, given the significant consequences for both victims and defendants involved in cases that are no longer eligible for jury trials? If this policy goes ahead, will he consider a non-extendable sunset clause?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for that question, and I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about evidence, but as I have said, I do not believe that a sunset clause would be right in this area because of the demand and the complexity to which Sir Brian has referred, and also because legislation will take some time. I hope to see the backlog reducing by the next election, but I do believe that these changes have to be permanent.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Tony Blair’s Administration put forward similar proposals, but were eventually forced to abandon them, thanks to opposition in the House and beyond. A similar coalition of opposition appears to be building up yet again. On the reply that the Justice Secretary has just given, may I urge him to reconsider the sunset clause, which might be the only way that he can get these proposals through the House?
Mr Lammy
I came out of practice at the beginning of the Tony Blair period, and the number of cases then was nowhere near what it is now. There was no backlog—cases could come on within a year—so the circumstances were vastly different, and we did not then commission a lengthy review to look at all these issues in the way we have today.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
In September, I attended a roundtable meeting with survivors of child sexual exploitation, hosted by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, and one of the key issues that they raised was the delays in court proceedings. It is unacceptable that perpetrators are not being brought to justice more quickly. I welcome these reforms, but how will we ensure that court delays are reduced as much as possible and perpetrators are brought to justice as quickly as possible?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. Implementing the recommendations, moving to legislation as soon as we can, continued investment in the court system, the concordat, and my obligation to bring about more sitting days are all important, as is the modernisation of our courts through, for instance, the use of AI and technology throughout the system. The discussion today is about our criminal courts, but we also need investment in our civil and family courts.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a practising barrister and a law firm owner.
Our centuries-old right to jury trial is not an ornament of the past. It is the living guarantee of a fair trial. It is the safeguard that ensures that no citizen is judged except by their peers. It is the cornerstone of our legal heritage, and the bedrock of public confidence in criminal justice. It must not be curtailed for administrative convenience, and let us be clear: curtailing jury trials will not cut the backlog, or, if it does, it will simply shift that backlog straight to the appeal courts. Why, then, have the Government chosen not to prioritise court capacity, judicial recruitment and proper case-management reform, but instead to curtail jury trials?
Mr Lammy
We are doing all of it, I would say. I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman and his experience as a criminal practitioner, and of course I have heard a great many messages over the last few days from friends of mine who are at the Bar or are criminal legal aid solicitors. Change is hard, but the Government’s responsibility is to look at the whole system and at all that has been said, and to put victims at the centre. What I am not hearing in the Chamber from those who oppose what we are doing is what else can be done. What I am hearing is, “More money might fix this problem.” Sir Brian has made it clear that investment alone will not fix the problem, and it is not acceptable to ask victims to wait another decade for that investment to kick in.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the news that the Government will match-fund criminal barrister pupillages, and I agree that there should be a focus on opening up a career at the criminal Bar to even more young people from across society and from all socioeconomic backgrounds. What additional plans does the Lord Chancellor have to make law a more accessible sector for young people from all backgrounds?
Mr Lammy
The day I was called to the Bar, back in the mid-1990s, was a huge moment in my life. I came from a working-class, poorer background, raised by a single mother, and I am deeply saddened that over the last few years young people from all backgrounds have been put off from becoming criminal legal aid solicitors or barristers. We must do something about that, and I have found the money not only to raise fees for barristers and other lawyers in this area, but also to ensure that the next generation of lawyers comes through. I hope that is not lost in some of the misconceptions about jury trials.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Justice Secretary blames the court backlog on a reduction in funding by the past Government, yet he plans to reduce access to jury trials permanently. Is not the truth of it that he does not want to fund courts because his Government have prioritised welfare for the few over justice for the many?
Mr Lammy
No. Absolutely not. We are implementing and building on the work of Sir Brian Leveson, and we are determined to bring the backlog down. It takes investment, it reform and modernisation.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. Residents in my constituency of Harlow are rightly concerned about the court backlog. Waiting six years for justice is not justice. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that these changes will bring down the court backlog, and can he reassure us that for the major crimes he spoke about, there will still be trial by jury?
Mr Lammy
I can confirm that the jury remains the cornerstone of our system, and must do for obvious reasons. I want to see the backlog coming down, but this is a mountain to climb, and that is why I have said that I want reductions by the next general election. The trend at the moment is upwards, and we have to throw everything at the problem if we are to solve it.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I have previously raised the case of my Woking constituent Dani, a victim of grooming and sexual abuse, who is having to wait more than six years for justice. Although I am concerned about these proposals from the Justice Secretary, I and others can probably be convinced if they do genuinely put the victims first without undermining our justice system. To persuade me, please will he agree to publish the impact assessment in full and let the Justice Committee fully scrutinise these proposals before a Bill is introduced?
Mr Lammy
As the hon. Member would expect, there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation, and full scrutiny of these proposals both in this place and in the other place. I just say to him: listen to victims’ voices today, to our Victims’ Commissioner, and to the groups that support victims. They support these proposals because they know that, combined, they are our best attempt to recalibrate the system and bring it back to where it should be.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Justice is devolved to Northern Ireland, with the exception of the regulation of non-jury trials. On 9 June, the then Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said in a Committee of this place on the extension of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland that
“the Secretary of State has asked officials over the next two years to examine how Northern Ireland could move away from those provisions”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 9 June 2025; c. 5.]
Is that still the Government’s mind?
Mr Lammy
Northern Ireland is of course in a special and unique position on this issue, and I am happy to get the appropriate Minister to meet the hon. Member and any colleagues to discuss these issues.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I am hoping that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Justice Secretary can rule out any changes to inquests with a jury, which are required when the deceased has been detained by the state. These inquests are also subject to agonising delays for bereaved families. Given those delays, what plans does he have to address backlogs in the coroner’s court?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful for the question, and I can rule that out. I am happy to have a Minister discuss with the hon. Member what we are doing in the coroner’s court.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I declare an interest as a practising criminal barrister. Before the Justice Secretary tears up clause 39 of Magna Carta, which guaranteed that no free person shall be imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of their peers, I ask him to consider that, when I was in the Crown court in Birmingham only a few weeks ago, a matter was delayed and adjourned because we did not have courtroom availability, so eliminating jurors will not solve the backlog in the way he has described, but it will erode public confidence in the principles that have protected our justice system for over 800 years. I accept that justice delayed is justice denied, but I am sure that he understands that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that can only be done through juries.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member accepts that justice delayed is justice denied, but then does not come up with a solution. Does he respect Sir Brian Leveson and his work? Does he recognise that it is important that we reform the system, so that it is fit for purpose and for the next generation? Does he accept—he must, as a criminal practitioner—the huge demand, and the changes that we have seen in criminal practice since I qualified as a lawyer 30 years ago? Of course he does.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Having spent my professional life practising in the criminal courts in Northern Ireland, where we have had both jury trials and non-jury trials to deal with terrorist offences, I must say to the Justice Secretary that whatever the intellectual capacity of judges, they do not have the practical life experience of 12 jurors collectively, and that is what brings superior credibility to a jury verdict. Dissipating juries will strain the quality of our justice, particularly in circumstances where the presiding judge will have to decide on the admissibility of evidence, and then put from his mind evidence that he might have dismissed when reaching a verdict, but none the less convey to the public that justice has been seen to be done?
Mr Lammy
I am hugely respectful of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s experience in these areas. We do ask our judges to make life-changing decisions across a whole range of areas. I am the father of an adopted daughter, and believe me, there is no greater decision someone can make than to take a child away from its birth parents. Judges do have to make difficult judgments, and they do so with the assistance of those who give evidence before them. So I believe we can do this, and I just ask him to reflect on the three-year threshold and the sorts of crimes about which we are asking our magistracy and our judges to make those fine judgments.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The previous Government should hang their head in shame for leaving our judicial system—the courts, the backlog and the prison system—in such disarray. A 2022 survey of 373 legal professionals, conducted by barrister Keir Monteith KC and the University of Manchester, found that 56% of respondents had witnessed at least one judge acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant, while 52% had witnessed discrimination in judicial decision making, and concluded that there is
“institutional racism in the justice system”.
Given that the Justice Secretary now seeks to remove juries, does he foresee greater injustice, prejudice and racial discrimination in our courtrooms, and what steps is he taking to tackle the existing and likely increase in institutional racism?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman knows that the former Prime Minister David Cameron and the former Justice Secretary Michael Gove asked me to conduct the Lammy review. In that review, I recommended that training, which was not happening in the way it should, should happen, and it is now happening. I was concerned about the diversity of our judiciary and our magistracy. That has improved, but there is more to do. In London, for example, 31% of our magistrates are now from an ethnic minority background. It is also important that, with the changes we are making, we will now get a judge’s reasoning, which lawyers such as those on the Back Benches can challenge. Where we have a jury, we do not get the reasoning, which I think is important as we look at issues of accountability.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the questioning, the Justice Secretary referred to the Victims’ Commissioner supporting these proposals. For the record, will he make it clear that, sadly, the Victims’ Commissioner passed away a number of weeks ago and cannot possibly have seen these proposals? He may have been referring to the incoming Victims’ Commissioner, who starts in January, but the statement she has released today makes no reference to the Justice Secretary’s proposals on changes to jury trials. I wonder if he might have inadvertently misled the House about that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the Secretary of State wants to respond.
Mr Lammy
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to clarify, I did discuss these proposals with the incoming Victims’ Commissioner. Today, an event on violence against women has been held at No. 10 with many victims organisations. From them and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—she is in her place to make the next statement—there is a wide welcome for these proposals.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That concludes the statement.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025
Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025
Angiolini Inquiry
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Angiolini inquiry.
I cannot begin anywhere else than with acknowledging the abhorrent crime that led to the establishment of this important inquiry in the first place. Sarah Everard’s murder by a serving police officer was a betrayal of trust so wretched that it defies belief. None of us will ever forget the collective sense of sorrow, outrage and revulsion that swept across the country in the aftermath. There were far-reaching implications for policing and the public’s confidence in those who are meant to serve and protect our communities. Let us always remember that this began with a young woman losing her life: a beloved daughter, sister and friend gone because of an act of pure evil. Today, I am thinking of Sarah, of the years denied to her and of her loved ones. They are all in our hearts, as are the other victims of violence against women and girls who have lost their lives. As the Justice Secretary said, I have been with some of them this morning and we hold them—I am sure I speak for the whole House—very closely in our hearts.
Part 1 of the Angiolini inquiry focused on the career and conduct of Sarah’s killer, while part 2 was commissioned to examine broader issues in relation to policing and the safety of women. The first of two reports that will make up part 2 of the inquiry has been laid before the House and published today. It examines what more can be done to prevent sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces. The report starkly highlights that many women do not feel safe due to the actions and behaviours of predatory men, and that they are assuming the burden of their own protection themselves through avoidance measures such as not going out at night, avoiding dark streets and modifying their use of public transport. This is, as we all know, utterly unacceptable. As the inquiry chair, Lady Elish Angiolini, puts it so clearly in the report:
“Somehow, we have simply come to accept that many women do not feel safe walking in their streets.”
This is a substantial and significant report, and I urge all Members to read it in full. It acknowledges that there is a range of ongoing work which seeks to prevent these terrible crimes and disrupt predators, but it also highlights that there is no quick fix and demands a more consistent approach across the whole of society to address and prevent this violence.
At this point, I would like to place on record my heartfelt thanks to Lady Elish and her team for their work. They have approached, and continue to approach, their task with skill, sensitivity and determination. Today’s publication underlines why it is so vital that every agency and every sector does more to protect women from harm. This Government are resolute: the fact that women do not feel safe going about their everyday lives is a national emergency. The House will also be aware of our landmark commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, which will require us to address the root causes of abuse and violence to prevent offending and relentlessly pursue those who perpetrate these appalling crimes.
Since the general election, we have played a more active role to ensure that women and girls receive more consistent protection from policing. We have provided £13.1 million to deliver a more co-ordinated approach and national leadership to drive up investigative and operational standards through the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection. The new centre is ensuring that expertise, including from programmes such as Operation Soteria and Project Vigilant, is put into practice in forces across the country. They were both highlighted in Lady Angiolini’s report. We are also clear that those who commit these heinous crimes have absolutely no place in policing. To address that, and to help fulfil recommendations from part 1 of the inquiry, we are putting police vetting standards on a statutory footing, which will enable forces to exclude those with a caution or conviction for VAWG offences from policing. We are also strengthening requirements on forces to suspend officers under investigation for these crimes.
I know there is a great deal of interest in our upcoming VAWG strategy. I was in No. 10 with the Prime Minister and stakeholders working on it today. It will deliver a bold step change in how we, as a Government and a society, address VAWG over the next decade. As the inquiry’s report highlights, we cannot address entrenched issues in isolation. We must draw on all of society and I place emphasis on this being a truly cross-Government strategy. Prevention is fundamental to our approach, alongside strengthening our response to target perpetrators and stop them causing harm. Having lived and breathed its development over several months, I am as eager as everyone else to get it out there. It will undoubtedly answer some of the issues raised in this important report. It is on its way very soon and I am confident that it will live up to expectations.
As Lady Elish highlights, too little has been done to deliver consistent protections for women and girls, and progress has fallen short. We find ourselves at a moment of reckoning. As someone who has spent their working life trying to secure real lasting change, I know it will not be easy, but in honour of the victims and their families, and for the sake of women and girls across England and Wales, we must succeed. This Government will not stop until we have. I commend the statement to the House.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and for coming to the House to speak to the incredibly disturbing and damaging issues outlined in today’s report.
Over four years ago, the reprehensible abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard shocked us all. It forced the police to confront their failure to remove Wayne Couzens as a police officer. The crime was vile and abhorrent, extinguishing the life of an incredible young lady in the most awful way. We should never forget the impact of this crime, with Sarah’s mother describing the final hours of her life as a constant torment to the family. I know that Sarah, her family and her friends remain in the thoughts of the whole House and people across the country today.
This incident underlines our responsibility to confront not only the problems outlined in this case, but to go beyond any single evil person and tackle challenges in our police and society more widely. Sarah’s murder had a profound effect on women. As the report outlines, women changed their travel plans, their routines and their lives out of fear for their safety. I am sure the whole House will agree that that is simply not acceptable. This reflection is critical. We will always support the police and have advocated the need to give them the powers required to tackle crime in our society. However, that support is predicated on a deep responsibility that extends beyond the responsibilities to which many in our society are bound. As the code of practice for ethical policing notes:
“Effective policing is built on public trust and confidence. This depends on a policing profession that is ethical and professional in the way that it respects, listens, responds, improves and serves the public.”
As the Minister will be aware, the terms of reference for part 2 were set and published in May 2023 by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). The scope appropriately asked the Government to cover the three broad areas set out by the Minister today: recruitment and vetting; police culture and standards; and the prevention of sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces. The report highlights our responsibility to ensure that women and girls feel safe in public spaces, where there is clearly a significant gap today. The Minister, in her role, rightly mentions some of the steps the Government are taking to tackle violence against women and girls. In that spirit, I recognise the important steps taken by the previous Government, which brought forward Operation Soteria, a programme highlighted by Lady Elish in her statement this morning, which sought to radically transform the way the police and the Crown Prosecution Service investigate rape, and which I understand the Government are implementing the principles of in training. This was among a range of other measures set out when the first part was published, but as was acknowledged we need to go much, much further. Therefore, I hope the Minister can follow through on what she outlined today and ensure that the violence against women and girls strategy is published, having been delayed over the past year.
The Minister’s statement does not mention the use of data, a point the report suggests is lacking. Can she provide assurances that the Government, in the strategy, will have a comprehensive plan for implementing better data recording, encompassing and publishing a wider array of data pertaining to violence against women and girls?
As shadow Policing Minister, I would also reflect on what we can do at speed to instil trust within the public that the police will tackle this problem. The dreadful murder of Sarah Everard did huge damage to public trust in the police, especially among young women. In particular, I refer to the proposals around officer vetting and conduct, which I expect to be raised in the second half of the report. The truth is that, for a variety of reasons that the Minister and I can both acknowledge, the measures to bring forward changes to our vetting and dismissal procedures have not been implemented at sufficient speed. Will the Minister therefore discuss with her ministerial colleagues the need to implement the changes swiftly once the legislation is passed?
The inquiry report demonstrates the necessity of tackling violence against women and girls in our public spaces. Unfortunately, we know that there are survivors of grooming gangs who were failed by the police and local authorities, often in plain sight. I therefore implore the Minister to provide answers about the terms of reference and timings of the grooming gangs inquiry, and to ensure that there is justice for all those affected by these heinous crimes.
Additionally, I ask the Minister about her level of confidence in implementing the recommendations set out in Lady Elish Angiolini’s report today. As Lady Elish rightly highlighted, this is a “whole-society” issue that requires a whole-society response. The Minister has herself highlighted some of the challenges in achieving cross-Government responses to the violence against women and girls strategy. I hope that she will now be able to drive forward the change needed to protect women and girls.
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tone and his genuinely constructive questioning. The first thing to say is that, absolutely, Operation Soteria started under the previous Government—I worked on it alongside Ministers, as well as police forces, at the time—and in that spirit, I always welcome such cross-party working. It seems that Operation Soteria has been a game changer, as Lady Elish’s review certainly highlights. The review also states that it needs to be on a consistent footing, so we very much hope that putting it in the new centre will provide consistent footing to the very good work started under the previous Government, which I absolutely give them credit for.
On the issue of data, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What data we measure and how data needs to be improved will absolutely be part of the strategy. The Government have said that they are going to halve violence against women and girls within a decade—the first time that any Government have tried to put any numbers on it—and we cannot have numbers unless we have a lot of data, so looking at data will be very important.
The hon. Gentleman highlights the issue, which Lady Elish herself talks about, that progress has not been fast enough. The recommendations for the Government in the previous report are being undertaken, but a clear issue throughout the report is the nature of the 43 police forces, as everybody will see when they read it. One of the reasons for having the new national centre for violence against women and girls is to try and do something about that. We also need fundamental reform with regard to policing and standards, so that we do not end up with a postcode lottery across our country. The Home Secretary has already announced some reforms around police and crime commissioners, but broader policing reforms will be coming in the new year, for the exact reason that Lady Elish outlines, which is the postcode lottery across police forces. How confident am I? I am always confident that we will undertake as much as possible. That will never be as fast as I or anyone would like it to be, because this is hard work, and we cannot just change things for good announcements. We have to change the culture, and that is going to take a lot.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I echo the statements made by both the Minister and the shadow Minister with regard to Sarah Everard’s loved ones; our thoughts are with them today. For any victim to come forward, especially those who have experienced gender-based violence or sexual violence, the public must trust the police—and more than they do currently. The Angiolini inquiry found that a quarter of police forces lack even basic policies for investigating sexual offences. As trust and transparency hopefully improve and increase, so will the number of reports to the police. Will that impact how the Government measure the halving of violence against women and girls? Will the Minister also share progress on vetting to remove police officers who pose a threat to the public?
Jess Phillips
Obviously, it was a manifesto commitment of this Government to ensure that there were specialist RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—teams in every police force, for the exact reason that my hon. Friend has outlined. It is not in the gift of Ministers standing here to ensure that something exists in every police force, because—quite rightly—of operational independence. However, there is a need for standardisation. For example, we would not allow the same lack of standardisation in response to terrorism—a point that Lady Elish makes in her review—and yet we allow it with regard to crimes against women. That is fundamental. Of course, I want to see an increase in police charging and police reporting, but that is not how we will measure whether we are decreasing incidents. Only 10% of victims of violence against women and girls ever talk to the police, so that in and of itself would never be a good measure. Of course, I want to see rates increasing, but that does not mean that the crime is always going up; it might just mean we are getting better at detecting it.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
All our thoughts today will be with the family of Sarah Everard. More than four years on from her horrific murder, too many women are still suffering life-changing crimes on our streets. The inquiry makes it painfully clear that women continue to feel unsafe. They change their daily routines just to avoid very real threats. That is unacceptable in Britain today.
Part one of the inquiry showed that Wayne Couzens should never have been allowed to become a police officer. Multiple opportunities to stop a dangerous sexual predator were missed or ignored. As Lady Elish Angiolini warned, without radical action,
“there is nothing to stop another Couzens operating in plain sight.”
Today’s report underlines just how radical that action must be. The lack of basic data on sexually motivated crimes against women and the fact that over a quarter of forces still lack fundamental policies for investigating sexual offences are nothing short of horrifying. The inquiry finds that sexually motivated crimes against women in public are not prioritised to the same extent as other serious offences. We are told that prevention “remains just words” while perpetrators slip through the cracks. Those are shocking findings that shame our nation.
Will the Minister commit to implementing all 13 of Lady Angiolini’s recommendations, and will she set out a timeline for their implementation? This Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, yet the strategy has still not been published. Will the Minister reassure us that this manifesto promise will be met, as she has said? Will she tell us today when it will be published? She says it will be soon; I think people will be reassured by a date.
Jess Phillips
Okay, I will say “very soon”—that is the answer to that. When all hon. Members get to read Lady Elish’s full report, as I have—I obviously get it sooner—they will see that she particularly criticises Ministers or the police service standing up after part one of the report and saying, “Yes, we will just do everything,” and then going away and thinking, “Hang on—a bit of this, a bit of that.” I am going to give Lady Elish the respect that she deserves by taking away all the recommendations before I say exactly what I am going to do. When others get to read the strategy—I was interviewed by Lady Elish as part of this review—it will answer many of the questions in the report. The timing is awkward: had the strategy come out at the same time, I would be able to answer the question more fully. But Lady Elish deserves the respect of our actually looking at what is possible, rather than just going, “Yes, I will take them all,” and then not being able to deliver on them.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for this statement and join colleagues in their remarks about Sarah Everard’s family. Her mother is quoted in The Guardian as saying that she is still “tormented” by the horror of what her daughter suffered at the hands of Wayne Couzens. I think too of the many other victims who have suffered at the hands of men and boys, including, as the Minister knows, and as I have referenced, Elianne Andam and Johanita Dogbey. Meeting a family who are grieving the loss of their daughter, sister, mother or friend—there are no words, especially when we think of the horrific way those women were killed.
The extracts from the report that I have read make for difficult reading. I know that this is an area that the Minister is very committed to. Lady Angiolini says that sexual offenders should be banned from the police, but this has not happened. She also says that there is a troubling lack of momentum, funding and ambition for this prevention work. That is worrying. As mentioned by the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, a quarter of police forces have still not implemented the most basic policies in this really key area. It does make for troubling reading.
One of the other troubling things mentioned in the report is the connection with online abuse—it is not just in a physical atmosphere that women are getting abused. Can the Minister shed more light on how we are going to really tackle the disgraceful misogyny and abuse that women face online?
Jess Phillips
We owe it to Sarah and to Sarah’s family, and to every family in our own constituencies that we have met, to ensure that this work actually gets done. I hear my hon. Friend’s anger at what progress has been made. Obviously this Labour Government will legislate and are putting on a statutory footing the issues around vetting, with what can and cannot be allowed and who can and cannot be a police officer, and hopefully that will lead to a sea change. I have to say, though, that the idea that there are police forces in this country that are not undertaking the most basic work in this space, with what Lady Angiolini has found about numbers, is inexcusable. I say to every chief constable in the country that this is a priority—make it a priority. I say that from this Dispatch Box with as much power as possible and with the Home Office behind me. Of course the Home Office has a role, and of course funding on things like prevention is absolutely the responsibility of the Government, but the basics of keeping women safe—we are more than half the population—should be absolutely basic policing.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I associate myself with the remarks of everybody who has paid tribute to Sarah Everard and her family. I remember where I was when I heard the news; I know that it shook many of my constituents, as it shook all of us. The Minister says that in the spirit of respecting Lady Elish, she is going to go away and look at the recommendations in detail. The question of funding has been raised by women’s charities. Does she think she has enough money to do this now, or is she going to need more? I am sure we will support her on that.
Jess Phillips
Do I think I will get enough money? Any Minister who stands before the House and says yes to that question is lying. Look, I would, of course, always want more money, but actually there are fundamental problems in our system and in the culture of organisations that more money will not solve. Take us having more police—we have more police now, let us say, than we did 100 years ago, and that has not stopped this happening. There are absolutely fundamental things that need to change. I suppose I am here for a long time, not a good time, in that regard. We have to change absolute fundamentals.
When the Justice Secretary was here before me giving his statement, he announced the £550 million—half a billion pounds—three-year settlement for victims funding, which will increase year on year with the rising rates of inflation. I was very heartened to hear that level of security and those increases. Do I think I will have as much as I would want? Never. Do I think I will have enough and that I will make do? Yes, I do.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think all our hearts will have been broken by the words of Sarah Everard’s family. The honest truth is that what this report covers did not happen in a vacuum. This weekend women in Walthamstow will hold a vigil to reclaim Hollow Ponds, which is a lovely open space, but there have been repeated concerns about sexual harassment and offences there. I cannot tell the Minister whether those concerns are merited, because my local police, Waltham Forest police, have refused a freedom of information request about the number of crime reports or offences at the site, just as they refused an FOI to explain why they were using community protection notices to deal with violence against women offences. I mention FOIs because the police refused to respond to me, as the local MP, and to local women about how they are dealing with violence on our streets and concerns about street safety, which Lady Angiolini includes in her report.
There is a problem with the Metropolitan police. We have known that for many years, and many reports show that. That is why for many years, many of us have campaigned to make misogyny part of our hate crime rubric, because we have seen the difference it has made to how other police forces approach these issues. The Minister will be aware that it is now nearly three years since this House passed the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 to bring those measures into power and finally hold organisations like Waltham Forest police to account for their disrespect for the safety of women in my community. Can the Minister give my residents some assurance that misogyny will be implemented as a hate crime and that we will see the cultural change that will tackle the fundamentals she is talking about?
Jess Phillips
I only wish that writing things on to the statute book changed the culture—it has been illegal to rape someone for quite some time, and it has been illegal to murder for even longer. I only wish that simply putting things on to the statute book made a difference. I would say to my hon. Friend’s police force that I always encourage good communications, including with the women involved. Policing is based on consent, and that is something we hold dear in our country. I implore the police to have discussions with my hon. Friend and the local community—about the community’s concerns and about what the police are going to do. I have seen this work all over the country. Project Vigilant by Thames Valley police is a brilliant example of work done with local businesses and local women’s groups to do exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about; I implore her force to implement a similar scheme.
My hon. Friend mentions the use of community protection notices. In her review, Elish Angiolini has some interesting things to say about what police should be doing in public spaces using certain orders, so I ask my hon. Friend to have a look at some of those things. We will be talking in the violence against women and girls strategy about some of the issues that she has raised today. However, as I have said, just putting things on the statute book does not necessarily mean that, operationally, they will be brilliant. My job is to make sure that before I commence anything, it can actually work in practice.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments from across the House today. My thoughts are with Sarah Everard’s family and all those whose lives have been impacted by violence against women and girls.
The landmark 2019 study into rural domestic violence found that abuse in rural areas lasts longer, is more complex and is harder to tackle, while the policing response in those areas is largely inadequate. Years later, the figures do not suggest any significant improvement in outcomes for victims and survivors in rural areas. At a time when stresses faced by farmers could see victims left trapped in isolated rural communities, how will the refreshed violence against women and girls strategy improve outcomes for victims in rural areas?
Jess Phillips
Although I am an expert in this particular field, I am by no means an expert on rural communities, with the disparity and the need for better “by and for” services; we have “by and for” services for other under-represented communities. I really feel that there needs to be a considerably greater lobby around rurality and violence against women and girls; I am not the person to do this, so I implore the hon. Lady to act. I am totally here to hear it and to work alongside her, because what she says is absolutely the case.
On the idea that stresses faced by a particular community cause violence against women and girls, I must point out, though, that the vast majority of people face stresses in their lives—and the vast majority of men—do not go on to abuse. The causes of violence against women and girls—Lady Elish points out there is little prevention, and I very much hope to change that; that is my main focus—are actually rooted in something quite different.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome the work of the Angiolini inquiry into the appalling murder of Sarah Everard. I also welcome the Minister’s update on the Government’s strategy to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. She knows that representatives from four Select Committees met recently to help to do our bit to advance that work, and she can be assured of our support with it. Can she indicate what kind of implementation and engagement will follow the publication of the strategy?
Jess Phillips
I can give an example from this morning, when I met around 60 stakeholders from organisations that work with children, with women and girls, and with perpetrators—lots of civil society organisations and businesses. We were in Downing Street with the Prime Minister, but it was not an event that was about drinking warm wine and eating nibbles; it was a working event to look at how we actually implement things. I know that people criticise the delay in the strategy, and that is fair enough, but the strategy is a piece of paper. How we actually make it work is much more important to me, and that is why we are working on it with stakeholders and providers. I genuinely welcome engagement with Members in this House, but I have learned something over the years; if you don’t mind me saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have felt slightly gaslit when people tell me that the sky is blue but then every case I handle tells me something else.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The House is rightly united in horror at what happened to Sarah Everard and in sympathy for her family.
Returning to an earlier exchange about vetting, which I understand will be coming up in the next stage of the Angiolini process, can the Minister tell us whether it will examine the effect of extreme pornography online and of toxic masculinity influencers online, and whether there is any prospect that a vetting process would enable people to be, at the time of recruitment, spotted as having watched this stuff and commented favourably on it, even on the dark web?
Jess Phillips
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. In part 1 of the Angiolini inquiry, Lady Elish made recommendations with regard to psychological testing prior to police recruitment, based on that exact issue. She also references heavily in this part 2 report Baroness Bertin’s review into violent and misogynistic pornography. This absolutely is an issue. The police faithfully said that they would undertake all of the part 1 report recommendations, and the next stage is to look not just at Wayne Couzens and vetting but at the case of David Carrick and his vetting as well. Undoubtedly, Lady Elish is already thinking about psychology in this regard, and it is at the forefront of her mind
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I would also like to extend my sympathies to the family of Sarah Everard.
Like many people, I found that my trust in the police service was fundamentally shaken by the events that led up to Sarah Everard’s murder. That was reinforced later when I saw how badly the vigil was handled—or mishandled—by the Metropolitan police and how women who had gathered to grieve and show their solidarity and support for Sarah Everard’s family were treated compared with how a football celebration, predominantly attended by men, was policed. It filled me with rage, shook my trust and made me question who the police are operating for and whether they take seriously the concerns of women, particularly of women who face violence and sexual abuse.
Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have heard far too often from my own constituents that when they have approached the police, particularly with complaints about coercive control, they have felt dismissed, not listened to and not taken seriously. Will the upcoming violence against women and girls strategy look at the root cause of violence against women and girls, which is rampant misogyny in our institutions and society?
Jess Phillips
With regard to my hon. Friend’s comments on trust in policing, what I would say is that nobody dislikes a bad copper like a good copper. When I go all over the country, the ones I meet are the those who are doing innovative and brilliant things in their local police forces—that is why I go out and see them. To her comments about the women in her constituency, the women who I have worked with do not have any choice but to trust the police, as it is a life-and-death situation.
The best thing that we can do across the board to improve trust in policing is to make sure that the response to the crimes highlighted by my hon. Friend is good and responsive. We are not going to get what we want in every single case—where somebody gets thrown in prison—but we have to make sure that our systems have options for safety and security for every woman wherever they come forward. That is what the violence against women and girls strategy is about.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
May I join colleagues across the House in saying that our thoughts are with the family of Sarah Everard? I also thank Lady Elish for her inquiry and the part 2 report published today.
The Public Accounts Committee recently conducted an inquiry that looked at the National Audit Office report on policing around the country. We found that there is a total inconsistency across all forces when it comes not only to data metrics but to how they deal with and interact with such cases. Is the Minister working closely with the Minister for Policing on the forthcoming policing reform legislation in order to ensure that there is consistency across all forces so that we can deal with this problem head-on and not allow forces to get away with piecemeal and different approaches across our country?
Jess Phillips
The Minister for Policing is in the office right next to mine. I get up in literally everybody’s grill, but I am very welcome in her office. Policing reform has to be rooted in exactly what we are trying to do around violence against women and girls, because the issue is endemic, as are other failings to do with postcode lotteries across the country. I am heavily involved in the violence against women and girls strategy, which will also coalesce with policing reform.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many Members, my thoughts today are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard.
Sexual predators like Wayne Couzens and David Carrick were a disgrace to the police uniform that they wore. As the Minister has said, I know that many police officers were as disgusted by those crimes as members of the public were and believe that they should never have been allowed in the police force in the first place.
In Rochdale, we are lucky to have police members of our multi-agency Sunrise Team, which does fantastic work in the area of complex safeguarding with victims of grooming, domestic violence, and any kind of sexual assault and crime. I recommend that other forces look at Rochdale to see how we have learned and how our forces have improved services for women.
Lady Elish’s report highlights, shockingly, that 26% of forces do not have basic services when it comes to investigating sexual assault, as well as the severe under-funding by the last Government in this area. I am proud that this Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls. Can the Minister reassure me that funding will be there under this Government and that the findings of the report will inform her forthcoming strategy?
Jess Phillips
The findings of the report will absolutely inform the strategy. I do speak to Lady Elish—but I am not waiting for Lady Elish’s various reports to do things or not. I cannot wait for reports if something absolutely needs to be done. With regard to policing in Rochdale, I will ensure that the new National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection looks into what my hon. Friend mentions.
I look across the country at areas where police forces may have historically had quite public failings—as with the case of Sarah Everard—and it is really good to see the level of learning that there has been in lots of those places, but we want to see more. I only wish that we did not wait for terrible tragedies and total failings before we changed, so I stand again at this Dispatch Box and implore every agency and police force across the country to stretch every muscle to prioritise this issue.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I hope that after the statement, we will all go away and check whether our police forces are in that 26% who still do not have those basic policies in place and, if that is the case, seek to address it. The statistics on young women as victims of these crimes are particularly shocking. Will the Minister outline more about what we will do about that specifically, and say whether the upcoming strategy will include measures to combat the rise in misogyny among young men?
Jess Phillips
I do not want to give too many trails on the strategy, but yes. For a long time, I have spent my career trying to put nicer, better plasters on cuts that do not get any smaller. That work is vital, but I want to stop the cuts from happening—I do not want to make nicer plasters any more—and that means doing things that have never been done before. Lady Elish said brilliantly in the report that plenty of things have been allowed, whether in policing or other areas, to try to make progress without the need for a completely solid evidence base. I want that for this area.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry notes that women and girls do not feel safe in public spaces due to the behaviour of predatory men. Does the Minister agree that “predatory” does not just mean following, stalking or attempting unwanted physical contact, and that it must be expanded to include leering, staring and catcalling? That behaviour is also predatory and it negatively impacts women and girls, as those in my constituency have told me. Does she further agree that of course we need more enforcement, but in particular we need better education of boys and men from an early age and for them to call out the behaviour of other boys and men—something that the White Ribbon campaign advocates brilliantly?
Jess Phillips
It certainly does. There will not be a woman sitting in the Chamber today who has not experienced this—we have all felt unsafe. Lady Elish speaks for every single woman in the country when she says that. Actually, in my years of experience both personally and from working in this field, I have found the most frightening moment is not the moment of impact or the moment somebody gropes you; it is the things that lead up to it that leave you scared and leave you waiting. It is the leering that is frightening, actually—it is more frightening than the fact. That is the experience of literally every woman in our country at some point or another. Of course, we must not undermine that.
As the mother of teenage sons, I stand here and say that while I want boys and men absolutely to be part of this, I do not feel that they have been included. Somebody else spoke to them when we did not, and that somebody else—those somebody elses—did not have their best interests at heart. So absolutely, like with the White Ribbon campaign, we should talk to our men and boys about this, because they want to help.
Point of Order
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since 2017, Members’ hands have been tied when it comes to amending the Finance Bill because successive Governments have failed to include a general amendment of the law as the first resolution, which for centuries allowed unrestricted amendment of the Budget. For example, a Back-Bench amendment to the 1977 Finance Bill forced the Government to index income tax personal allowances against inflation—something that is topical now. That sort of change is much more difficult under the current arrangements. The Hansard Society and I have both written to the Chief Whip about this matter, but can you provide advice on how the House can ensure that in future years we can recover those fundamental rights that have been arrogated by the Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
There is no matter of order for the Chair arising from the absence of an amendment of the law motion. As the right hon. Member notes, there has been no such motion after a Budget since at least 2017; that has had no effect on the scope of debate. The reasons for, and the implications of, the absence of an amendment of the law resolution are themselves a proper matter for debate.
Domestic Energy Efficiency (Call for Evidence)
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to issue a call for evidence relating to the promotion and funding of the installation of domestic energy efficiency measures; to require the Secretary of State to publish a response to the evidence received; and for connected purposes.
We are now firmly within the year’s heating season. As the UK braces against the cold and the media continue to be flooded with stories of people unable to pay their bills living in some of the leakiest homes in Europe, the case for domestic energy efficiency is as strong as ever. The current understanding is that insulation subsidy, and the organisation and technical details around this work, have become confusing, chaotic and in some cases costly. We need a clearer understanding of what mechanisms of subsidy and which technical solutions deliver best value for money.
The average household is facing an annual fuel bill of over £1,700, and around 2 million households are in arrears. Surging energy prices have plunged many deeper into fuel poverty, widening the average fuel poverty gap nearly twofold since 2020. The estimated number of households living in fuel poverty now stands at 6.1 million.
I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to tackle this crisis at the Budget. Thanks to the Government, households will see an average reduction of £150 in their energy bills from April next year. We have also expanded the warm home discount, which means that in total 6 million households will receive £150 off their energy bills this winter. But if we are to protect ourselves from rising energy costs due to Putin’s terrible illegal war in Ukraine, we must reduce our exposure to high energy use. If we do not address winter peak demand through energy efficiency measures, we can expect electricity requirements to more than double.
As a GP, I know that energy efficiency is key to improving health outcomes. Cold homes double the risk that adults will develop new mental health conditions and put one in four children at risk of multiple mental health symptoms. Physical health problems caused by cold homes are common. Mould caused by cold, damp homes can cause allergic-type reactions and the development of or worsening of asthma, respiratory infections, coughs, wheezing and shortness of breath. Cold also raises blood pressure and increases cardiac failure. The Building Research Establishment has found that poor homes that expose residents to excess cold could be costing the NHS £857 million a year in treatment bills.
I would like to mention the Severn Wye Energy Agency in my Stroud constituency, which works with us in the NHS to provide help for patients whose housing is causing ill health. I particularly commend its warmth on prescription scheme as a national exemplar of the NHS and energy efficiency working in tandem. I also commend SGS Berkeley Green university technical college—a fine institution that trains its students in implementing modern energy efficiency measures. The Government are committed to creating 400,000 extra clean energy jobs by 2030, and I know that we will see many of its students taking up those posts.
Our current framework of encouraging domestic energy efficiency through subsidies is unsustainable. Dependency on subsidies can lead to disaster striking, as we saw in the solar industry 10 years ago. We must therefore look at ways to diversify our package of support for energy efficiency to prevent such disastrous impacts on the supply chain, which impact on the strength of the workforce that will be needed in future.
Schemes under successive Governments have tended to use up-front payments to deliver energy efficiency measures. Those capital grant schemes are subject to the Treasury’s five-year spending reviews and short-term political intervention, creating boom and bust cycles that undermine confidence among both investors and consumers.
Our recent experience of installation has been poor. A report by the National Audit Office found that 98% of homes with external wall insulation installed under Government schemes have major issues requiring remediation, and 6% of those homes present immediate health risks. It is therefore critical that we look again at our incentives for energy efficiency. Everyone deserves to live in a home that is warm and safe without having to go through a remediation process for a botched installation.
The Sustainable Energy Association has developed a proposal for an energy efficiency incentive that can unlock greater investment by rewarding in-use performance of energy efficiency measures over several years through a revenue-based mechanism. The proposal would lower fuel bills across the country, keeping money in people’s pockets. In-use performance can be measured through technologies such as smart meter-enabled thermal efficiency ratings. Measuring performance is likely to drive up the quality of measures, as the financiers of those measures will have a strong financial interest in ensuring quality of product and installation.
The SEA’s modelling has found that fast-yielding technologies such as cavity and loft insulation and double glazing will require a seven-year subsidy framework, while slow-yielding technologies such as solid wall insulation will require a 25-year subsidy framework. Investors have been crying out for long-term policy certainty. The long-term nature of this subsidy framework provides investors with the confidence to invest, opening up a whole host of green financing options for retrofit schemes.
Other ideas that have been discussed include green loans that pay for the up-front cost of insulation. As energy needs decrease, the loan can be paid off to the benefit of householders. Some have proposed a national insulation bank, while others back schemes that link stamp duty reductions to the amount spent on home insulation, so that the benefits of installation are not lost if we move, encouraging low-carbon energy efficiency upgrades.
A call for evidence would certainly invite other innovative proposals to be brought the table. Although I hope the Bill will be unnecessary, what it proposes is a no-brainer that would provide solutions to problems that unite us as a House: soaring energy bills, energy security and the health of the UK population. I invite the Minister for Energy Consumers—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey)—to back my campaign and issue a call for evidence.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Maya Ellis, Irene Campbell, Paula Barker, Andy McDonald, Cat Eccles, Christine Jardine, Paul Davies, Fleur Anderson, Amanda Hack, Luke Myer, Steve Darling and Dr Simon Opher present the Bill.
Dr Simon Opher accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 340).
Budget Resolutions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 371 / Noes: 166 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 369 / Noes: 166 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 348 / Noes: 176 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 362 / Noes: 164 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 182 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 364 / Noes: 167 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 357 / Noes: 174 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I draw the House’s attention to two minor corrections that have been made to the text of resolution 59 and the title of resolution 98. A revised version of the resolutions paper is available in the Vote Office and online. It includes a note setting out the corrections that have been made.
With the exception of Front Bench speeches, there will be an immediate four-minute time limit. I call the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I begin by addressing the British Medical Association’s reckless call for resident doctors to strike in the run-up to Christmas. That is a cynical choice, coming as flu cases surge and we enter the most dangerous time of year for hospitals, and it is completely unjustified. After a 28.9% pay rise, the Government offered to create more jobs and put money back in resident doctors’ pockets. The BMA rejected that out of hand. My door has always been open, I have never walked away from the table and I stand ready to do a deal that puts patients first. We will prepare for this round of strike action.
I am extremely proud of the hard work and performance of NHS leaders and frontline staff who did so well to minimise costs and disruption during recent rounds of strike action. In fact, during the most recent round, we were able to maintain planned elective activity to cut waiting lists at 95%. Yet I must be honest with the House and with the country: if this strike goes ahead, this time will be different. Our hospitals are running hot and the pressures are enormous. That is why I urge the BMA not to go ahead. Not only does it put the progress we are making together in the NHS at risk; it threatens to do so in the worst way and at the worst time possible.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the hard-working staff at St Thomas’ hospital across the bridge, who deal with patients from right across the country, including many who have had surgeries and operations booked for many months, still kept the show going during the last rounds of strikes? Will he please do everything in his power to make sure that the strike does not go ahead?
Wes Streeting
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I absolutely endorse what she says about our local hospital, which I know very well. I genuinely thank frontline NHS staff, without whom the performance and improvements we are seeing simply would not be possible.
Let me turn to the substance of this debate. There was once a time, not long ago, when this place was bound in consensus on a number of issues addressed by this Budget. We used to be united on the need for a national health service as a publicly funded, public service, free at the point of use. The last Labour Government built a shared conviction that in 21st-century Britain, no child should grow up shackled by the scourge of poverty. We could go back as far as the Government of Benjamin Disraeli and find a Conservative Prime Minister committed to public health in a way that Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers have been in my lifetime. We did not always agree on how to get there, but there was at least agreement on the destination. However, as the opposition parties lurch to the right, consensus after consensus is breaking. [Interruption.] Admittedly, the Liberal Democrats have moved further to the left since their days in coalition; that is true. Maybe do not lead with your chins on that one, comrades.
Regardless of our friends on the centre left, old battles that were won must now be fought all over again, so it falls to Labour not just to cut waiting lists, improve the health of the nation and lift children out of poverty, but to win the argument, as well as hearts and minds. It falls to Labour to persuade people that we can and must help people lead healthier, longer lives, free from preventable disease; rebuild our national health service as a public service, free at the point of need; and give every child the best possible start in life, free from the scourge of poverty. Labour has won those fights before, and we will win them again.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Secretary of State knows, because his Department shares responsibility for special educational needs and disabilities education, that that is a major challenge facing the young people whose opportunity he so rightly champions. How will the announcement that the Government will take responsibility for that from 2028 alleviate the growing deficits facing many county councils across this country, which it is estimated will grow to nearly £17 billion by the time the national Government take over?
Wes Streeting
That is a good question, and I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that my Department is working closely with the Secretary of State for Education and colleagues right across Government to make sure that we get that right. We have growing levels of need for provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We can all see in our casework, let alone through debates in the House, the unmet need, and its impact on children’s education, health and life chances. We are committed to modernising and reforming the system so that it meets needs and sets children up to not only survive but thrive. That is the ambition of this Government.
On Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition said that she would reinstate the two-child benefit limit. At the stroke of a pen, she would plunge half a million children back into destitution, shame and hunger. Gone are the days when David Cameron attempted to ape Gordon Brown on issues of inequality and poverty; in fact, the 2010 Conservative party manifesto included the word “poverty” 20 times and committed to an anti-poverty strategy. The 2024 Conservative manifesto mentioned the word once, in a chapter on foreign affairs. Was that because, after 14 years of Conservative rule, the stain of child poverty had been removed from our nation? No, of course it was not. The Conservatives plunged 900,000 children into poverty, more than a million children relied on food banks last year, and children are being admitted to hospital for malnutrition in 21st-century Britain—but now, this Conservative party does not even pretend to care.
On public health, remember it was George Osborne who introduced the sugar tax, and Boris Johnson who introduced legislation to ban certain “buy one, get one free” deals and free refills of fizzy drinks, yet today their successors dismiss these policies as nanny state. Their party is more apologetic about their record on public health than it is about Liz Truss’s catastrophic mini-Budget.
We are seeing the NHS’s founding principles contested for the first time in generations. The Leader of the Opposition says,
“we need to have a serious, cross-party national conversation”
about charging for healthcare. Well, if she wants one, she’s got it, and it will be a short conversation. The answer from this side is “No, over our dead body.” We will always defend the NHS as a publicly funded public service, free at the point of use, owned by us, and there for all of us. Of course, it is not just the Leader of the Opposition saying these things; the leader of Reform wants to replace the NHS with an insurance-style system. [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] They are obviously not here to advocate for their policies. They find it increasingly hard to defend them. They want a system that checks your pockets before your pulse, and asks for your credit card before providing your care.
Where is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? He is not normally the shy, retiring type—unless, of course, he is being asked challenging questions, like whether paracetamol is safe, whether he believes in science or whether he racially abused schoolchildren. In fact, it is reported that he told a Jewish contemporary at school that “Hitler was right”. Admittedly, he was at school a lot longer ago than me, but had I grown up in the aftermath of the second world war, I think I would remember if I had supported the losing side. His politics are a disgrace. He cannot stand by his record, and that is why he is not here to defend it, and why he is regularly referred to in his constituency as “Never-here Nigel”. But as we are in a debate on these issues, let me take on the Opposition parties’ arguments, whether they are here or not.
The Conservatives say that the route out of poverty is work, not welfare. I do not disagree that those who can work should work, but six in 10 households impacted by the two-child limit have at least one parent in work, and they are still in poverty because of low wages and a high cost of living. The Conservatives say that it is the responsibility of families, not the state, to ensure that children are well fed. I agree that parents have a responsibility to look after their own children, but life is a bit more complicated than that. It is far too easy for others who have never walked in the shoes of parents like mine to pass judgment on people whose lives they will never understand.
The Conservatives sneer about “Benefits Street”. They have never been there. They have not got the first clue what life is like for people living on welfare. They say that lifting the two-child limit helps only the feckless and irresponsible, so let me tell them about the mum who came to see me at my advice surgery one Friday afternoon with her three children in tow. She had fled domestic violence and had been rehoused on the other side of London in a bed and breakfast. That remarkable woman was hand-washing her girls’ uniforms, doing a three-hour round trip every day to get her kids to school and holding down three separate jobs. Please do not tell me that women like her are feckless or irresponsible, or on the take. She is facing down hardships and challenges that would break many of us. I will tell Conservative Members who is feckless and irresponsible. It is the people who exploited the covid pandemic, ripped off Britain and lined the pockets of the Conservative party.
Conservative Members say that abolishing the two-child limit is not affordable, but the policy is fully funded. It is paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion, and a tax on online gambling. What they really mean is that they would make different choices. They would put the interests of gambling firms over the wellbeing of children. By labelling it as unaffordable, they betray their view that the prosperity of our country has nothing to do with the talent of its people, but we know that by investing in our people, we are investing in a more prosperous future. Growing up in poverty is not an inconvenience; it is a trap. On average, the poorest children start school already behind, get worse exam results, are less likely to make it to university, earn less, are more likely to develop long-term illness, end up paying less tax, and are more likely to need welfare support and the NHS.
Investing in our children is a moral mission; morally, we do not believe it is right to punish children for the circumstances of their birth, or the choices of their parents. This is also a down payment on a better future. It is far better and more cost-effective to invest in children now than pay the price for social failure later. I stand here today as the product of the wise investment of the British taxpayer. It was taxpayers’ contributions that clothed me, housed me, fed me and educated me when I was growing up. As a result, I am now in a position to pay back that debt to society—and to pay it forward to the next generation, too.
We should all be proud that this Budget funds the biggest reduction of child poverty of any Budget this century. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor takes that prize from Gordon Brown, who took it from Denis Healey, because lifting children out of poverty is what Labour Governments do. And why is it that every time Labour enters office, there is the moral emergency of child poverty? It is because, since records began, every single Tory Government left child poverty higher than they found it. That is why they must never be allowed back in power.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for intervening, but this is my intervention, not his. Why was he part of a Cabinet that stood by and punished his colleagues for voting against the two-child benefit cap? Why do we now see this sudden conversion and revisionism? Why does he think that most people in this country who were polled are against the removal of the child benefit cap?
Wes Streeting
Let me say two things in response. I am almost certain that my hon. Friends will be delighted that he has intervened in defence of their plight at the hands of the Labour Whips, but he knows as well as I do that the Whip was removed from some of my hon. Friends not because of the substance of the issue they were raising but because we never, ever accept people voting against a King’s or Queen’s Speech. [Interruption.] That was the issue. He asked me a fair question, and he has got an honest answer. He should take it on the chin.
The hon. Member also asked why many people in our country believe that the two-child cap was right. It is because our Conservative predecessors peddled the myth and the lie that people in receipt of welfare are on the take, and are just looking for handouts, rather than help. We Labour Members take a different view; we recognise, as I have set out, that so many people affected by the two-child cap are in work and in poverty. That is one of the many scandals of the damage that more than a decade of Conservative rule did. The Conservatives broke the link between a hard day’s work and a fair day’s pay. In addition to the measures that we are taking on child poverty to remove the two-child limit, we are also increasing the national minimum wage. We are increasing it even higher for young people. We are doing this because this is the party of work, the party that wants to make work pay, and the party that is genuinely committed to waging war on poverty.
Just as we must win the argument for lifting children out of poverty, we must win the argument for the founding principles of our NHS. Having left the NHS in the worst crisis in its history, the right now argues that it is unaffordable and should be abandoned. The NHS was broken, but it is not beaten, and Labour is already breathing new life into our health service. Waiting lists are falling for the first time in 15 years. Ambulances are arriving 10 minutes faster in stroke, sepsis and heart attack cases.
Patient satisfaction with GPs is up from 60% to 74%, and nearly 200,000 more patients were given a cancer diagnosis or the all-clear on time.
With Labour, the NHS is on the road to recovery. That is in no small part because the Chancellor is reversing 14 years of austerity and investing in our NHS. We promised an extra 2 million appointments; we have delivered 5 million. We promised to recruit an extra 1,000 GPs; we have recruited 2,500. We promised to end the 8 am scramble; we have widened the window that patients have to request appointments and have made booking available online. A lot done and a lot more to do.
At this Budget, we announced the next steps on the road to recovery: 250 new neighbourhood health centres with the first ones in Birmingham, Barrow, Truro and Southall, and £300 million more to invest in technology to modernise healthcare. Next year, we will receive recommendations from Baroness Casey on laying the foundations to build a national care service.
The NHS does not just face an existential political challenge from the Conservatives and Reform UK; it faces a sustainability challenge.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I appreciate the announcement about the 250 new neighbourhood health centres, but I am concerned for my constituency—a more affluent constituency that has health centres that were built in the ’60s. They are genuinely falling apart and need significant investment to ensure that GPs can continue to deliver outstanding service to my constituents. Could the Secretary of State provide some reassurance, or agree to meet me to discuss how we can ensure that deprivation is not the only aspect considered in that excellent initiative?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we want to ensure that investment is deprivation linked. We want to reverse the damage the Conservatives did when they pursued what I would characterise as the Royal Tunbridge Wells strategy, when our former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), declared with pride to Conservative party activists that he had taken funding from the poorest communities in the country and funnelled it to the richest. There could be no shorter or clearer exposition of Conservative party values and politics in action than that claim.
To my hon. Friend’s point, he is absolutely right that within many affluent communities there are also pockets of deprivation, and we have to ensure that the NHS is there for everyone in every part of the country. We are dealing with enormous undercapitalisation in the NHS, totalling some £37 billion as identified by the noble Lord Darzi. It will take time to address that challenge, but I think my hon. Friend’s constituents know from his assiduous hard work and visible campaigning as a constituency MP that he will ensure that their needs and interests are not forgotten or overlooked by this Government.
Of course, as we improve the health of our health service, we also need to address the health of our nation. Children in England face some of the poorest health outcomes in Europe. Obesity in four and five-year-olds is reaching record levels—a health time bomb that leaves them at greater risk from cancer and heart disease later in life. What kind of start in life are we giving our children, and if we allow it to continue, what kind of future are we leaving to them? Our children will lead shorter, less healthy lives; our NHS will buckle under a tidal wave of chronic conditions; and our economy will suffer because businesses will be denied the potential of the next generation.
This Labour Government are tackling the sickness in our society. Whether it is the extension of the soft drinks industry levy, free school meals, a warm home discount that reaches millions more, the generational ban on smoking, Awaab’s law, cutting pollution and cleaning up the air that our children breathe, we are combating the drivers of ill health in children’s lives: poor diets, damp homes, dirty air and a lack of opportunity. In short, we are tackling poverty, because every child deserves a healthy start in life, and prevention is better than cure.
The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton, says we should instead be educating people to make healthier choices—I assume that he will not be leading from the front on that campaign. But we know that Reform and the Conservatives oppose our agenda to improve public health. They oppose our investment in the NHS. They should just be honest and admit that they now oppose the NHS itself. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like it, but I challenge them to dispute a single claim I just read. Let me repeat the charge sheet for their benefit: they oppose our investment in the NHS. Have they not opposed every budget spending review since Labour came to office? [Interruption.] Honestly, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), who does not want to intervene because I think he knows he is leading with his chin on this, wants to suggest that somehow the Conservative party left a legacy that they could be proud of. They inherited the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history. They left us the longest waiting lists and lowest patient satisfaction on record. No wonder so few of them have turned up to defend that shoddy record.
The Conservatives oppose our public health agenda, do they not? I thought this was an area where we had built consensus, but not under their present leadership. I have already quoted what their leader, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said. Maybe they were not listening—the country certainly is not. I would have thought, though, that their own side would at least listen to what she said. She says she wants a debate about charging for healthcare. I do not know whether they have heard that or whether they stand by it. Maybe we could just see a simple show of hands—how many of her own side want to see charging for healthcare in the NHS? Not a single hand has gone up. That does not bode well for the future of the Leader of the Opposition, but let’s leave the Conservative party to revel in its irrelevance.
In fact, I was probably one of the few people who paid any attention to what the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), said at the Conservative party conference. I noticed that he did not mention a single policy. I say to the Conservatives: if we are doing such a bad job, why would they not do anything differently? Would they cut the £26 billion this Labour Government are investing in the NHS, and if not, if they oppose this Budget, how would they pay for it? The Conservatives seem to think that the British people are so stupid that they will forget which party wrecked the NHS and led it to the worst crisis in its history.
To conclude, this is a Government who are cutting waiting lists, giving children a healthier start in life and lifting 500,000 children out of poverty. In doing so, we are restating the case for universal healthcare that is publicly owned, publicly funded and free at the point of use. We are showing that progress is possible after 14 years of decline, that things can get better. Abolishing the two-child limit is not a handout, it is a hand up. Our country cannot prosper while 6 million people languish on waiting lists, 4.5 million children grow up in poverty and 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. But if we protect people’s health, give them the opportunities to put their talents to use and give them a strong foundation, they will build a good life for themselves and a better Britain for all, and we can fulfil the lost promise that tomorrow will be better than today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind all Members that the courtesies of this House require Members to inform other Members if they intend to name them in the Chamber.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
This Government are trying to tell the public that this Budget was all about taking tough decisions to deliver change, about raising taxes to support the NHS and about pursuing growth and backing business. Those are commendable aims, but it is simply not the reality of what was delivered in the autumn Budget. This was a Budget for benefits paid for by hard-working people.
Last year, taxes were hiked by £40 billion, borrowing went up, inflation went up, unemployment went up and living standards fell, but at least we were promised by the Chancellor that this was a one-off. She categorically said that she would not be coming back for more. But like the promises made during the general election, that was just not true. Then, as Halloween approached, we had briefing after briefing, that infamous press conference, markets affected and consumer spending depressed, particularly in the hospitality sector, all leading to one Cabinet Minister reportedly saying that
“The handling of this budget has been a disaster from start to finish.”
I wonder who that could have been.
Now we have another £26 billion in tax rises to fund more welfare, because the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to stand up to Labour MPs and make the real hard choices. At the previous Budget and spending review, big promises were made to the public about how the Labour Government would solve the challenges in the NHS through a financial settlement that they said would improve patient care, including by bringing waiting times back to the 18-week standard within five years. We warned at the time that that money would be swallowed up, in large part by decisions of the Government’s own making. The then chief financial officer of NHS England said that it would go almost entirely on pay awards, national insurance contributions and drug price increases.
What does Labour actually have to show for that? Elective care waiting lists have fallen by less than 2% since October last year. Meanwhile, waiting lists for community health services and diagnostic scans are rising. Waits to start cancer treatment are increasing. Trauma and orthopaedic waits are up; ophthalmology—up; neurosurgery—up; gynaecology—up. Winter pressures are growing, and long waits in A&E have hit record highs. The truth is that the Labour Government do not have a plan for the NHS; they have fallen into the classic Labour trap of thinking that issuing a press release about cutting waiting lists will magically make it so, just because they are in charge. I am afraid that is not how government works.
What has the Secretary of State been focused on? A top-down reorganisation of the NHS—which not only did he not tell anyone about before the election but he explicitly said he would not do. As Conservatives, we support the principle of cutting duplication, reducing bureaucracy and saving on administration costs. The House will remember that a recent Conservative Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), reduced in a single year the number of civil servants in the Department for Health and Social Care by around one in six.
Let us be clear: this is yet another announcement made by the Government without any plan for delivery. For months, not one Minister has been able to answer any of our questions about how much NHS restructuring will cost or who will be expected to cover redundancy packages. For months, integrated care boards have been warning that frontline patient services were at risk because they simply do not have the money to do what is asked of them. For months, staff were left in limbo, not knowing whether their job would still exist or for how much longer. We welcome the fact that the Budget finally provided some clarity, but shifting money between years means significant risk. The NHS is already behind on its efficiency targets. If this reorganisation falls short of its goals—no small risk given the Government’s performance—there is an even more significant shortfall to make up in future years, which will hit patient care.
There are other elements of the Budget that we welcome for the health service. Focusing on improving productivity is the right thing to do, but whether the extra investment will make any difference in the grand scheme of things remains to be seen. Neighbourhood health centres can be cautiously welcomed. They build on the great success of the Conservatives’ efforts to bring care closer to where people live through the community diagnostics centre programme. However, has Labour truly learned the lessons of all the private financial initiative deals that it botched back in the 2000s, which NHS trusts are still paying for decades later? Will the Government simply move resources around or will there be genuinely innovative new ways or working, joining up services and improving the patient care experience? I hope that it is the latter, because shuffling the deck chairs into new buildings will not deliver the benefits that patients deserve.
Despite those few bright spots, it simply is not right for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and others to justify this latest tax grab by saying that it is to protect the NHS. As the NHS Confederation noted, this year’s Budget did not have a health focus. That means that we are left with a lot of unanswered questions. The Office for Budget Responsibility specifically raised two risks to health spending. The first was the doctors’ strikes, which the Health Secretary has failed to resolve, despite making that sound very easy to do when he was in opposition. I will give him credit, because he did briefly end them, for a few short months, but only by caving in to the demands of the British Medical Association, in return for no productivity or modernisation reforms. We warned him that giving in to the trade unions would only see them come back for more—and indeed, here we are, with patients and taxpayers paying the price, and no end in sight. The OBR confirmed that strikes have already cost £500 million, and warned about further strikes. Now it has been confirmed, just before Christmas—the worst time of year for it—that the doctors are out again.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Member care to remind us how much the NHS strikes cost under his Government’s watch?
Stuart Andrew
Well, we did not spend tens of billions of pounds in pay rises just for the same old problem to come back. There should have been proper reform, and conditions for those pay rises, but the Government did not make that happen, and here we are again.
The NHS Confederation has also warned that local services cannot continue to absorb the costs of ongoing strikes by the BMA without consequences for patient care. I pay tribute to frontline staff, who have been trying to keep everything going. I remind the Secretary of State that we have the answer: ban doctors from striking, like the Army and the police, and introduce minimum service levels, using the legislation that our Government passed. That would protect patients and taxpayers, so why won’t he do it? Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will make things much worse, because it reduces the vote threshold for calling a strike, and there will be no minimal service levels.
In addition, the Government have shown that they cannot stand up to the unions. By pushing up inflation, the Budget will make it harder to reach pay settlements across the rest of the NHS workforce. Even an additional rise in NHS pay of just 1% of what the Secretary of State included in his pay review body evidence would create another £1.5 billion hole in his budget. Is he confident that he can head off wider industrial action with a 2.5% offer, especially given that benefits are rising much faster under this Government?
The OBR has also raised the unknown risk of increasing drug prices. My understanding is that the spending review assumed that spending on branded medicines would rise by 25%—or £3.3 billion—between 2025-26 and 2028-29. In winding up, will the Minister clarify what happens when the negotiated price costs more than what was assumed in the spending review? The rest of the money is surely intended to be used to deliver more care and to cut waiting lists, so are frontline services at risk?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the shadow Health Secretary for giving way. We should be clear that the deal struck with the United States is the first and only deal with the United States that secures 0% tariffs and mitigations against most-favoured-nation pricing. It will ensure that patients get access to good drugs. For the avoidance of doubt, although some costs are unpredictable because of the complexity of medicine pricing, of course we will not cut NHS budgets to fund the pharma deal.
Stuart Andrew
We will see what happens. It would be interesting to know exactly where the money will come from. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State just said that if the prices go up, there will be no cuts to the NHS budget, but where will the money come from? Which other part of the national health service and social care will the money come from? We will have to wait and see.
The Budget last week made no mention of social care. After all, Labour’s only plan is to delay coming up with a plan for a few more years, despite the urgency and the scale of the challenge. Many of us entered the cross-party talks in really good faith, and they were encouraging, but we have only met once. Surely we should be getting on with it. The message was loud and clear that we want to work together, but we want to get on with it. Please can we have another meeting, so that we can get on with tackling this really important issue?
It is not quite true to say that social care is unaffected by what was announced. The increase in the national living wage will be welcomed by those on the lowest incomes, but the Nuffield Trust estimates that it will cost the social care sector £1.2 billion. The sector is already struggling with last year’s national insurance contributions hike, so who will pay for this? Will there be funding cuts to other parts of the health budget? Will self-funders have to fork out yet more again, or will it be passed on to local authorities, inevitably leading to council tax rises? What impact will this national living wage increase have on wider pay in the sector?
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is talking about two completely opposite ends. He says his party wants to invest in and find a way forward on social care, but he is opposing something minimal that will raise the living standards of those who work in the industry. Which one is it: does he want to invest in social care or not?
Stuart Andrew
I am asking the question of who is going to pay for it. There is no detail in anything this Government do. They are full of plans and no delivery. The sectors I have been meeting are asking those questions—where is the money coming from?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
My right hon. Friend worked in the hospice sector, and particularly the children’s hospice sector, long before he came to this place. Does he agree that the pressures on hospices, which are basically run by charitable contributions, have not been taken into account in all the Budget measures introduced since this Government came to power?
Stuart Andrew
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me tell the House, from 16 years of working in the hospice movement, primarily as the head of fundraising, that if you are suddenly asked to find nearly £100,000 overnight, it is almost impossible. It is therefore not surprising that hospices up and down this country are cutting the number of beds that are available. In some instances, up to 40% of beds are being cut, and those people will end up having to be in hospital beds, putting more pressure on our hospitals as we go into winter.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
The right hon. Member asked who will pay for the national living wage increase in the adult social care sector, but something he omitted—and it is quite telling—is the number of private equity companies that are extracting vast profit from adult social care. He did not mention them. He did not mention them taking a hit to their profit. Perhaps they could pay for some of it as well.
Stuart Andrew
I understood from the Secretary of State’s 10-year plan that he wants more involvement from the private sector. Perhaps the hon. Member needs to have a conversation with the Secretary of State and see how that goes. In fact, if he wants, he can invite me along, because I would be quite happy to observe that conversation.
Finally, the Budget did not mention any of the issues that matter to many of our constituents, such as mental health, the hospice and palliative care sector—although I do welcome the announcement of the framework and look forward to seeing it—dentistry and general practice. What about the Government’s upcoming plans and strategies? The workforce plan is delayed. The cancer plan is delayed. The independent review of maternity and neonatal services is delayed. Nothing new was announced, suggesting that any resources to deliver those plans will have to come from existing budgets.
What are this Government actually doing for the NHS—not just press releases and reviews, but actual action? It is more money without a plan for reform and no strategy to end the strikes or help patients and staff this winter. They cannot deliver the reforms to social care the country needs because the Prime Minister came into office without a plan and does not have the backbone to make the tough decisions. They are still too distracted with working out how to abolish NHS England to cut waiting lists.
The Secretary of State claims Labour is investing in the NHS, but that suggests we get some kind of return on our money. It is clear that Labour does not have a plan to achieve its targets. This is a Budget where taxpayers are being asked to pay for benefits, not the NHS, and the Government need to own that. Of course, we wish them well. We want them to cut waiting lists, we want care to improve, and we want patients to get better quicker, but their actions do not match their rhetoric, and their plan is little more than an objective, with no method for getting there. For the sake of all our constituents, I hope the Health Secretary can put his leadership ambitions to one side and focus on the job he has, not the next one he wants, because if he fails to deliver, this will be his last.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
This was a positive, progressive Budget with fairness at its heart. These fiscal decisions will benefit most people, but particularly those who have been really struggling with the cost of living crisis over recent years. Those with the broadest shoulders have been asked to do their fair share of the heavy lifting, with all but the top 10% income households seeing the proportion of their net income increase by 2028-29. Fairer policies benefit us all, not just the recipients. As the International Monetary Fund has shown, reducing income inequality stimulates growth, but we also know that fairer societies improve educational attainment, social mobility, trust between communities, health status and much more.
Collectively, these tax reforms are forecast to raise over £8 billion in 2029-30 from wealth and the wealthy. The total package of tax changes has allowed the Chancellor to make some incredibly important decisions to help with the cost of living crisis and boost living standards, including increasing the minimum wage and living wage, increasing the state pension, freezing rail fares and fuel duty, and cutting £150 from next year’s energy bills.
I particularly want to talk about the abolition of the so-called two child limit. It is now believed that this measure drive the increase in child poverty from 3.6 million in 2010 to 4.5 million in 2024, causing a multitude of poverty-related harms, including an increase in the prevalence of young people not in education, employment or training. A person is five times more likely to be NEET if they experience childhood poverty, and more than half of the current NEET population belong to this cohort. Getting rid of this harmful, damaging policy will lift 350,000 children out of poverty almost immediately, and another 150,000 will be prevented from being drawn into poverty over the life of this Parliament.
I commend the former Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), and the former Employment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), for bringing forward spending on employment support. I know that the current Employment Minister is keen to continue that work and escalate it. Analysis commissioned by the Work and Pensions Committee showed that supportive employment programmes such as the new deal for young people and the new deal for disabled people introduced by the former Labour Government in the noughties led to between 5% and 11% of that group getting into sustained employment for a minimum of three years. Applying this approach to the current group of unemployed and economically inactive people would ensure that schemes such as Connect to Work, WorkWell, and Individual Placement and Support, could increase employment by at least 5%, generating savings to the Exchequer of £20 billion by the end of this Parliament.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising the work of charities such as Kirkcaldy Foodbank and Kirkcaldy YMCA, which joined me in Parliament earlier this year to call on the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who they met, to lift the two-child cap? They underlined the need for this cruel policy to be scrapped. Indeed, Kirkcaldy Foodbank has fed 833 children so far this year, and it has welcomed the lifting of the cap. Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising that lifting the two-child cap was the only possible step to ensure that child poverty levels go down, instead of up?
Debbie Abrahams
I absolutely agree. It is a shame that we need food banks at all—this is the state of what we have inherited, unfortunately.
I commend the Health Secretary for the work that has been done to increase capital investment in the NHS, which will boost NHS productivity. A recent Health Equity North report, “Health for Wealth”, showed that by reducing the inequalities between the north and the south, and by improving health in the north, we can increase productivity by £18 billion a year. On health inequalities, I hope we can focus on the weighting given to resource allocation.
My final point is about the commitment to index pre-1997 accrued pensions for inflation, capped at 2.5%, where scheme rules allow. This means that pensioners whose pension schemes became insolvent through no fault of their own, and that have failed to keep pace with inflation, will now have the situation rectified. That will benefit more than 250,000 pension protection fund and financial assurance scheme members, and I give credit to the Pensions Action Group and the Deprived Pensioners Association, and to the Pensions Minister for listening to me.
This is a very good Budget. It gives hope, particularly to my constituents and others like them, so I am very grateful.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The NHS continues to face a historic crisis after years of mismanagement by the last Conservative Government. Their dire legacy is still felt across the country, with hospitals crumbling and dental deserts across England—not least in my constituency—as well as a mental health crisis and many people struggling to access their GP, waiting hours for an ambulance or suffering in crammed hospital corridors. The British people deserve better.
The Liberal Democrats welcome efforts to bring down the sky-high waiting lists left by the previous Government, and there have been green shoots of recovery across the country. In the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust, which serves my constituents, performance against the 28-day faster diagnosis standard has reached 80.1%—the highest on record. I thank all the hard-working hospital staff there and across the country, who are working tirelessly at the moment to improve the situation.
There are some welcome announcements in the Budget. The prescription price freeze is clearly the right thing to do, and we strongly support protecting victims of the infected blood scandal and their families from inheritance tax. It is an unacceptable injustice for bereaved families to lose out just because their loved ones died waiting for compensation. We also support the lifting of the two-child benefit cap, because it is the type of investment that will reap savings in the future and correct a moral injury.
I am afraid, though, that overall this Budget does not meet the moment. The Government are treading water on their spending commitments, and hundreds of millions of pounds are set to be drained from services to fund a medicines price hike. From the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report, it is not clear whether frontline NHS services will be raided to pay higher prices for branded medicines at the behest of President Trump, on top of the billions already anticipated in the spending review. No. 10’s briefing suggests that the money will come from the NHS budget, yet we have just heard from the Secretary of State that it will not. A statement to this House to clarify the details would be most welcome.
Yesterday we learned that the Government have capitulated to the US Government and will increase spending on medicines by 0.3% of GDP—more than the value derived from some trade deals—or from about 9.5% of the NHS budget to 12%. We desperately need to understand how that will be paid for; I hope it will not be by cutting frontline services. The Secretary of State has previously said that he would not allow the NHS to be ripped off by drug companies, and I hope the Minister will confirm that position.
The life sciences sector is vital to the UK. Rather than defunding vital NHS services, the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to take real actions to strengthen it by implementing a new, bespoke customs union with the EU to slash red tape, along with a major boost to research and development funding so that new drugs can be brought online as quickly as possible. NHS spending should be targeted at where our health service really needs it: ending the crisis in GP services so that everyone has a right to see a GP in seven days, or in 24 hours if it is urgent; guaranteeing that 100% of patients are treated for cancer within 62 days of an urgent referral; and ending unacceptable and degrading corridor care. I urge the Government to adopt these proposals without delay in order to protect patients and prevent trust in our NHS from being irreparably broken.
One of the most visible symptoms of decline is our crumbling hospitals and the degrading scenes that became commonplace under the Conservatives. Those patients falsely promised a new hospital by the Conservatives will continue to be bitterly disappointed. We all know that the 40 new hospitals promised to patients did not number 40, that they were not necessarily new, that they were not all hospitals, and that there was no plan to fund them. However, this Government have chosen not to pledge new investment, which means that the maintenance backlog will continue to balloon at eye-watering levels, having climbed from £13.8 billion in 2023-24 to an astonishing £15.9 billion in 2024-25.
The Chancellor should have guaranteed that no patient, doctor or nurse faces the indignity of substandard, broken and, frankly, unsafe estates. We appreciate that there is pressure on the public finances, but holding back on these improvements is a false economy when a fortune is being spent papering over the cracks to keep substandard buildings that should be condemned limping on. The repair backlog at the sites of new hospitals is set to reach nearly £6 billion by the time construction is due to start. The Liberal Democrats will continue to champion investment in our crumbling NHS buildings in order to protect patients, hard-working NHS staff and the taxpayer.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady is outlining an extensive programme of capital expenditure on the national health service. Between last year and this year, we have had the largest set of Budget increases in the history of this country, but are the Liberal Democrats proposing that we should tax the British public even further to pay for the kind of thing that she has just described?
Helen Morgan
If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to our leader’s response to the Budget, he would understand that the Liberal Democrats do not propose to tax the British taxpayer further. We would sign a customs union deal with the EU and create £25 billion in extra tax revenue every year without going back to the British taxpayer.
The crisis in our NHS is perhaps most acute in our community services. For all the welcome promises on shifting care from hospital to community and treatment to prevention, the truth is that local health services are on their knees, with record waits to see a GP. Liberal Democrats have championed new investment and we welcome the Government’s announcement on neighbourhood health centres, but unless we see health centres in every community, with investment to ensure that everyone can see a GP within a week as a legal right, and the restoration of public health funding, this risks being an expensive failure.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
On neighbourhood health plans, St Dunstan’s House health and wellbeing centre and West Mendip primary care network are seeking to put together a preventive approach to crime, social and mental health issues in the Glastonbury area. Does my hon. Friend agree that this innovative, community-based project should be included in the second wave of neighbourhood health scheme applications?
Helen Morgan
We would all welcome that kind of innovative, community-led approach to improve local health services across the country.
The commitment to set up 250 neighbourhood health centres in communities by 2025 is clearly a welcome step, but there are 543 constituencies in England, so many communities will remain under-served. For example, my own constituency of North Shropshire is part of the pilot for neighbourhood health centres, for which we are grateful, but the numbers indicate that there may be only one neighbourhood health centre, although the constituency has five market towns, spread over a large distance and with different catchment areas. It is not one neighbourhood. Investment in our general practices is essential to ensure that people can continue to access primary care when they need it.
Neighbourhood health is not just about buildings—it is about how teams operate—but when so many local practices are constrained by the physical space in which they must work, buildings are an important part of the puzzle. There is a danger that rural and coastal communities continue to remain under-served and isolated, unable to access services that may be many miles away and only reachable by private car.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
My hon. Friend and I both represent rural constituencies that face similar challenges. Businesses in North Norfolk already face extra struggles to stay afloat, including training and retaining staff, finding affordable premises, and even things as simple as getting a strong and reliable phone and internet connection. Does she share my frustration that rather than tackling those problems, last week’s Budget has just lumbered rural businesses with more tax, more costs and more stress for the future?
Helen Morgan
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration.
Perhaps the most glaring and alarming omission of all in this Budget is that the words “adult social care” do not appear. The sector is already stretched to breaking point and is now suffering from the Government’s 2024 hike in employer national insurance contributions, which is unfunded for most businesses operating in that sector. The pressure is clearly reflected in the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services’ 2025 spring survey, which found that three quarters of directors have only
“partial or no confidence that their budgets are sufficient to meet their legal duties for prevention and wellbeing.”
That is not only terrible for disabled and vulnerable people; it is a disaster for the NHS. One in seven hospital beds are taken by someone who should be discharged but for whom there is no appropriate social care package. The situation could not be more pressing.
We need the cross-party talks to move far more quickly. As we have heard, there has been only one meeting, back in September, and there are no current plans for further engagement. I ask Ministers to ask the Prime Minister to lead those talks and to treat them with the seriousness and urgency that they deserve. We also need a solution to provide the social care beds needed to stop a devastating winter crisis; 2028 is too late for that.
In addition to spiralling NIC costs, there is increasing demand and huge staff shortages in the sector. With an immigration policy that is clearly designed to disincentivise overseas workers in this area, there is no clear plan to ensure how those vacancies will be filled. In formulating their 10-year workforce plan, the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to introduce a funded and higher minimum wage for carers, and a new royal college of care workers to improve training and career progression and to give carers the recognition that they deserve.
When social care is not available, family carers must step in to fill the need. A fairer deal for family carers, such as guaranteeing more respite care and introducing paid carer’s leave, would enable many to continue caring for longer at home. We want to see more support for young carers in school by introducing a young carers pupil premium. These are simple but potentially transformational steps in supporting the millions of carers without whom our health service would collapse.
Winter is quickly closing in, and there are signs that the annual winter crisis could be even worse this year, having already become a year-round permacrisis. The Budget should have funded an emergency package to prevent A&Es collapsing this winter. Liberal Democrats have called for 1,000 extra hospital beds, emergency social care places to free up places in hospitals, a recruitment and retention drive to increase the number of out-of-hours GPs, and a qualified clinician in every A&E waiting room to protect patients who are at risk but stuck on trollies. Without those measures, there is a significant risk of another winter of harrowing scenes of corridor care and ambulances queuing outside hospitals, which should have no place in our society.
Let us take a step back and ask what this Budget really means for the NHS. The topic of today’s debate is investment and renewal, but this Budget means cost pressures are left unaddressed and reforms that are confused and disorientating. Inflation is forecast to run higher than the budget set by the Department of Health and Social Care back in March 2025 for the spending review. As a result, average real-terms growth in departmental budgets has shrunk by 0.1% since then.
The OBR notes that spending on branded medicines alone is expected to rise by 25%—an extra £3.3 billion—between 2025-26 and 2028-29. For context, that is equivalent to the budget for maternity care in England. Yesterday’s recent agreement confirms that it will be at least that sum, and possibly as much as another £6 billion a year, which is an eye-watering amount. Industrial action could add a further £1.2 billion by 2028-29. It is hard to see what would be left to repair our GP services, expand social care or take any of the other measures needed to lift the NHS off the floor.
On top of that, we have no clarity on the impact of the reorganisation of NHS England and ICBs. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has warned that the Department has removed
“a key piece of machinery without articulating a clear plan for what comes next”
and compared the reforms with those of HS2.
The 10-year plan sets out a vision that Liberal Democrats share, but it is missing any clear explanation of how it will be funded within the spending review settlement. Nowhere, across 170 pages, is there a credible costing or delivery plan. Five months on, we still have no idea whether the Government can deliver the essential reforms that they have promised. Unless the Government adopt a genuine “spend to save” approach, investing now to prevent greater costs and worse outcomes later, we are at risk of seeing only managed decline, mounting pressure and the continued loss of faith in the health service.
Rather than Labour’s unfair tax rises, we have set out a number of fair ways to fund our public services properly. Most importantly, this Government are refusing properly to fix our broken relationship with Europe. We are calling for a new EU-UK customs union, which could raise more than £25 billion a year. The Government would have plenty of time to put the deal in place by 2030, raising billions in extra tax revenue in a fair way after 2030. We have also called for a targeted windfall tax on the big banks, which would raise £30 billion in total by 2030.
Let me take this opportunity to say to the Government that if we are to rescue the NHS, they must tackle the crisis at its front door and at its back door. That means investing in public health and early access to community services, including GPs, pharmacists and dentists, so that fewer people need to go to hospital in the first place. It also means fixing the crisis in social care to stop so many people being stuck in hospital beds. Only these measures can bring down waiting lists, improve the quality of care and help people live longer, healthier lives. The NHS needs transformational change; the Government must wake up from their complacency, or it will be patients who pay the price.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
Today, as this House continues to debate last week’s Labour Budget, we turn a spotlight on investment and renewal. Thankfully, we have moved on since the Liz Truss Budget—we are no longer talking about growing pies. This Labour Government are in the business of growing the economy, which has gone up by 1.5% this year, alongside less borrowing and lower levels of inflation. That is helping homeowners with their mortgage rates and enabling businesses to invest.
The Conservatives and Reform would take Britain back to austerity, but we have closed that door. While the popular trend on social media is to wander around with a microphone and do down areas such as Dagenham and Rainham, those divisive campaigns offer no solutions. Labour is making fair choices, such as the incoming mansion tax, allowing us to reinvest in our national health service and build on the progress we have already made on appointments and neighbourhood health centres. As new investment becomes available off the back of this Budget, I will keep banging the drum for Queen’s hospital, in the hope of securing the £35 million needed to expand its emergency department and bring down waiting times for my constituents.
Dagenham and Rainham has felt the pinch for too long, suffering a cost of living crisis in which hard-working families have been pushed to the breadline. It does not have to be like this; we are choosing a different path, but that is not without its challenges. We knew that there would be tough choices to balance the books after 14 years of catastrophe, but thankfully some choices are easier for Labour politicians to make. Above all else, this Budget was a renewal of our Government’s contract with the ordinary working people who form the backbone of Britain. Raising the living wage and the minimum wage and increasing the wages of young workers is putting pounds back into the pockets of my constituents. Those measures, coupled with our action to reduce energy bills by £150 and the continued freeze on fuel duty, mean that working-class communities across the country will have more to show for their hard work at the end of the month.
When it comes to investment in my seat, I could talk about London’s largest film studio, University College London’s state-of-the-art person-environment-activity research laboratory in east Dagenham, or the upcoming new rail station at Beam Park that I am sure will be delivered under a Labour Government. I could mention that only last week, I welcomed the Minister for Energy Consumers—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey)—to my seat for a hydrogen summit at the Centre for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence, where they unveiled £73 million of investment in jobs and opportunities to build the low-carbon economy of tomorrow.
There are lots of promising investment and growth opportunities in the south of my constituency within the Thames freeport area. Working with Ford, the City of London, the freeport and our Government, I am sure that through this and future Budgets, we can deliver on my election promise to bring jobs that people can raise a family on back to Dagenham and Rainham.
For me, though, the real story of investment at this Budget is our investment in the next generation—an investment that will lift 450,000 children across Britain, including 5,050 children in Dagenham and Rainham, out of poverty as we scrap the two-child benefit cap next April.
I will wrap up with a quote that was often cited by my predecessor:
“To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing.”
That is the mission of a Labour Government, and for Dagenham and Rainham, I think this Budget begins that work.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I will start on a positive note by commending the lines on productivity in the Red Book, and the recent comments that various Ministers have made about that. Productivity has to be the No. 1 objective in getting our NHS to where it needs to be to deliver for our constituents. I have to say to the Health Secretary that objectives two and three are probably dentistry and adult social care, and on those, I have heard less positive news.
Dentistry in particular is still struggling as a result of the units of dental activity created by Gordon Brown back in the day—a system that has bedevilled the provision of dentistry in this country and is in urgent need of reform. Without that reform, we will make no progress at all on one of the principal issues in the health service that concern my constituents at the moment.
I think that a degree of humility is important when we talk about the NHS, and I say that with all due respect to the Health Secretary, because otherwise he will be setting himself up for a fall. Reform in the NHS is fiendishly difficult, and we all remember the ghost of PFI, which still stalks the corridors of our hospitals and clinics and will do so for some time to come.
The day before the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave her pre-Budget speech, her boss—the Prime Minister, no less—took the very unusual step of personally moving the Second Reading of a Bill. The Bill was admittedly a very important one indeed, and the Prime Minister might have thought, perfectly understandably, that it was too important to be delivered by his Justice Secretary. It was the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which begins its Committee stage today.
At the heart of the Bill is a new duty of candour, and despite its name, it extends well beyond the holders of public office. It carries a legal obligation to act transparently, creates new criminal offences of misleading the public, and contains new codes of conduct based on the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, leadership and honesty, and it imposes appropriate sanctions. Lying is a very strong test, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you would call me out of order if I applied it to any right hon. or hon. Member, but this Government, through their Bill, are insisting on another test. They are insisting on a test of candour, and a duty of candour is a noble principle, but nobility cannot be confined to one area of the public realm; it has to be universally applicable, and it has to be applied from the top.
Now, I am not accusing anyone of lying, but it should be abundantly clear that in preparing for this Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not approach her duties with the candour that she and her colleagues are demanding of others—which the public have a right to expect—and that is incorporated, in principle at least, in the Bill that the Prime Minister introduced on Second Reading just a few days ago. I suggest that before that Bill comes back to the Floor of the House, the Chancellor might like to reflect on the duty of candour as far as it applies to Ministers. I feel that a new clause that would make it more difficult for her and her successors to stray into the kind of shenanigans that we have seen over the past couple of months would be greatly welcomed by the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman means to be discussing the Budget, not the Bill that is in Committee.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What has unfolded since September reflects badly not just on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Prime Minister, or the Government, but on all of us. On 17 September, the OBR—
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I want to turn to another measure in the Budget that speaks to fundamental fairness in our society: the high value council tax surcharge, known as the mansion tax. Under the last Government, a band D home in Darlington or Blackpool would cost nearly £300 more in council tax than a £10 million mansion in Mayfair, which cannot be right. Working families are paying more to support their local public services than owners of luxury penthouses, but the Chancellor’s Budget will put an end to that. Her high value council tax surcharge will ensure that those living in multimillion-pound homes who have long escaped their fair contribution pay more, easing the burden on other households.
However, this is about more than domestic fairness. For decades, London’s most expensive properties have served as safety deposit boxes for corrupt wealth from around the world. Russian oligarchs have poured billions into luxury London property—not to live in, not to contribute to our communities, but simply to park their wealth beyond scrutiny. These properties sit empty, increasing in value, while some families struggle with overcrowding and soaring rents and many people attempt to sleep on the streets. The mansion tax sends a clear message: if people own property in Britain, they will contribute to Britain; if they use our capital as a private vault, they will pay their fair share; and if their wealth is tied to Putin’s regime, corruption and the exploitation of the Russian people, London will no longer offer sanctuary.
Our Government have intensified pressure on Russia through widespread sanctions. Just in the last year, we have sanctioned Russia’s two largest oil companies—Rosneft and Lukoil—as well as the vessels it has been using to transport its oil and gas around the globe, but we must go further. It is not enough to freeze Russian assets; we must ensure that those assets are put to work rebuilding what Russia has destroyed. In October, our Government joined forces with those of France and Germany to signal our readiness to use frozen Russian Government assets to help Ukraine, and now the time has come for us to put words into action. I urge the Government to continue working with our European partners to establish a clear mechanism for using those frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction. The principle is simple: Russia bombed it and wrecked it, and Russia should pay for its damage. The proceeds from sanctioned oligarchs’ frozen wealth should not remain static while Ukrainian families live without electricity, heating or homes, and with minimal food.
This Budget shows that our Government are prepared to make difficult choices in pursuit of fairness. The mansion tax and our strengthened sanctions regime are two sides of the same coin. They represent a Britain that will not tolerate a system rigged in favour of the corrupt and the powerful.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
The topic of today’s debate is investment and renewal, but that is not what people in Yeovil are thinking about after this Budget. For my constituents, including many local business people who came to meet me yesterday, this is the “Why bother?” Budget. “Why bother?”, people in Yeovil ask after the weeks of leaks, briefings and flip-flopping on the Budget. As David, who supports small and medium-sized business in my constituency, said, all it did in Yeovil was create uncertainty and damage investment. Once we got the Budget, people in Yeovil were left asking, “Why do we bother to trust this Government?”
There were some welcome but long overdue measures, such as those that make online gambling companies pay their fair share, which is good; reduce energy bills, which is good; and lift children out of poverty. However, the Government promised to grow our economy without taxing working people, and the OBR is clear that the Budget has almost no meaningful growth measures at all. What it has is a freeze on income tax thresholds, which is a stealth tax on working people in Yeovil. Similarly, a 3p a mile tax on electric cars will have a disproportionate impact on drivers in my rural constituency, leaving them thinking, “Why bother going electric at all?”
From speaking to business people across my constituency over the last few days, it is clear that so many are left asking, “Why do we bother at all?” Gareth, who owns the Cow and Apple, told me that he asks himself why he bothered battling to keep his business going over the last five years, just for the Government to take and take without even listening, let alone supporting businesses like his. Businesses such as the Cake Box in Yeovil are left in an impossible position. Last year, its business rates went through the roof, and it had to make staff redundant. Because of this Budget, it may have to make more redundancies or increase prices, both of which would damage business. While the Government want to introduce lower business rates multipliers, that is not enough, particularly if higher valuations just cancel out those lower multipliers.
Ultimately, people in my constituency are left asking, “Why bother with a Budget that doesn’t deliver what this country really needs?” What we really need is growth in the economy, and we needed some ambition from the Chancellor, so here are some policies the Government should have bothered with: a windfall tax on the quantitative easing parts of the profits that big banks have received, raising £30 billion for taxpayers over five and a half years; an increase in the digital services tax on social media giants; replacing the broken business rates system with a commercial landowner levy; a reversal of the damaging national insurance and family farm tax rises; and a 5% reduction in VAT for businesses in the hospitality sector over the next 17 months to keep them afloat—that is it: to keep them afloat. Finally, we need a better trade deal with the EU, as Liberal Democrats have been calling for, which could raise more than £25 billion.
The Government have failed to deliver any new ideas just when we need them most, so they should please just steal ours. Our communities need more and they deserve better.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I am listening to this debate and I am discombobulated—I really, really am. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) spoke for 20 minutes, but he never mentioned why his party—and others—absolutely opposes withdrawing the two-child cap. In this country, we have kids suffering from scurvy, beriberi and rickets, among many other diseases caused by malnutrition. And you know what? He has opposed lifting children out of poverty. You’re an absolute disgrace.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Lavery, you will be aware that you have just called me an absolute disgrace with that phrase. I am taking it badly.
Ian Lavery
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would never dream of calling you a disgrace—you are far from that—but I was pointing at the two Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Daventry and the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).
Getting back to the reality, why did the right hon. Gentleman not mention why the Opposition oppose that, in a country where we are one of the richest economies in the world? Why are we not feeding the kids? Why are we not making sure that kids in every constituency in this country are fed when they get into school and get equal opportunities to fill their bellies and learn, and get better opportunities later on? Why? Why did the Conservative party and the media in the press over the weekend continually have a go at the Labour party about “benefit street”? Typical. Reverting to type. Well, I’ll tell you something, Madam Deputy Speaker: 3,000 kids in my constituency of Blyth and Ashington will benefit greatly as a result of just that one policy. I am proud that we looked at that and that we have done exactly what we have done. I just cannot believe people oppose it. I used to have loads of respect for at least one of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
With the time I have left, I would like to mention the efforts of Labour Front Benchers on the inclusion of the BCSSS—the British coal staff superannuation scheme—and the pensions for many mineworkers who worked underground. As the Labour party promised in the 2024 manifesto, the mineworkers’ pension scheme has now agreed to pay the money back from the special reserve fund to the pensioners themselves. It is a great move. People will remember this. For 14 years, the Conservative party refused to pay a single ha’penny to miners who had worked their socks off in the pursuit of black coal for this country.
There is a lot to do. We need to look at a wealth tax. We need to make sure that these billionaires and millionaires are not left out. And if they want to go to Dubai, Madam Deputy Speaker, then bye, bye—nick off to Dubai!
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
It is good to be able to make my presentation today, after the past few days of drama. The Budget is meant to be a showcase for this place. The Conservatives will be well aware of past years when Budgets unravelled in the days just after they were delivered, but I think we all found it quite something to see a Budget unravel in the days before it was even delivered.
Now, there are a couple of more serious points. The Scottish Government get most of their finances from Westminster. We continue to live in an overly centralised state. I say this constructively, because the Health Secretary is a constructive person: engagement with the devolved Administrations should happen before a Budget, not after. It is unacceptable for the First Minister to offer meetings and get no response. That is unacceptable not just for the First Minister of Scotland, but for the First Ministers of Northern Ireland and Wales, who should be afforded a similar courtesy.
We have had a lot of silence from Scottish Labour about the Chancellor over the past few days—a lot of silence.
Stephen Gethins
Ah! Is the hon. Lady about to disagree with her Scottish leader? Please, I would love to hear it.
Melanie Ward
The hon. Member says that he has not heard much from Scottish Labour MPs about the Chancellor, so let me take this chance to put on record my thanks, and the thanks of my constituents, to the Chancellor for ensuring that this Budget gave £20 million to Kirkcaldy to begin the renewal of our town, after almost two decades of his party’s rule in Scotland.
Stephen Gethins
We would have had the money that the hon. Lady talks about had we remained in the European Union and had access to European regional funding, which she does not want any more.
I am astonished at the split in the Labour party over what happens to the Chancellor. I am glad that the Chancellor has the hon. Lady’s confidence, but even the BBC is reporting that “we were misled”. We can all agree that the Chancellor holds a serious post. With the chair of the OBR gone, and the director general of the BBC having recently gone, we have to be sure that the Chancellor has the confidence of this House and those around her. Given the chaos of the past few days, we cannot be sure that that is the case anymore.
On a more positive note, I give the Health Secretary his due: the question of child poverty is close to his heart, as it is to mine, and he speaks passionately and eloquently about it. The Labour party was chucking out Members of Parliament for voting to get rid of the two-child cap, and it voted against our motion just a few weeks ago. A couple of years ago, the leader of the Scottish Labour party even said that getting rid of it would “spook the markets”. The markets have not been spooked. It has been done.
The Scottish Government were ahead of the game. What is the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling? Scotland. What is the only part of the UK that has a Scottish child payment that is driving down child poverty? Scotland. I know that the Health Secretary is constructive and takes this to heart.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Stephen Gethins
I have already given way. I urge the Health Secretary to look at the benefits of the Scottish child payment. I am a believer in solidarity, and would love to see it being rolled out to the rest of the UK, given its successes in Scotland. I say that constructively, and I hope that the Health Secretary will consider it.
We are talking about renewal. On the energy sector, we have heard about Harbour Energy, which is the latest to announce job losses as a direct consequence of the energy profits levy. Offshore Energies UK has talked about the loss of thousands of jobs as a result of the levy. I remind the House that the UK is about the only state in the world that found oil and gas and never introduced a future generations fund. Why have such a fund? Because oil and gas are finite resources, and a fund allows us to invest in the future instead of taxing them out of existence, which is what is happening at the moment. I hear that from my constituents, and we hear it from across north-east Scotland.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister mentioned the failure of Brexit, and the Health Secretary has done the same. According to House of Commons figures, it is costing the public purse £250 million every day. That is a disgrace. It is a Tory and Reform failure that all of us are paying for. Trade is down. Brexit is responsible for a large chunk of the tax rises and, according to the Mayor of London’s research, made the economy £140 billion smaller. I appeal to the Labour party: start doing something differently from the Conservatives and Reform. They failed; please do not.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
Nobody is more pessimistic about Scotland’s future than the SNP. John Swinney has been working extremely hard the past couple of days to ensure that no inappropriate celebrations are held. One of his complaints, covered in the press today, is that Labour is cutting energy bills by only £150, with that doubling for the poorest households. But we on the Government Benches are not pessimistic when it comes to Scotland’s future—we are optimistic, and we are backing that optimism with cold, hard cash.
Some £10 billion of additional funding for Scotland has been announced since the Labour party took office last July. That money is available because in the United Kingdom, we pool resources and we share strength. That money could be used to improve our schools—once our greatest pride, they have slid down the international league tables. That money, coming from a Labour Budget, could be used to deliver significant improvements in the NHS, and yet under the SNP, waiting times keep on rising. That money could be used to tackle crime, something that is needed given the alarming rise in violence.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Further to the remarks of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) about Scotland, where pregnant mothers in my constituency have to make a 200-mile round trip to give birth, would it not be great if some of this money was spent to make the maternity service fair for mums?
Joani Reid
I could not agree more. More than that, the SNP needs to deliver on promise after promise that it has made about the NHS while absolutely failing to deliver any improvements, despite the fact that Scotland has been given a record settlement. The money is out there, but under the tired and wired SNP, the ideas to use it effectively are not.
It is my belief that Labour’s victory in Scotland’s general election rested on the support of three core groups. The first were young families and couples paying their first mortgage. I have met hundreds of such families on the doorstep in East Kilbride, Strathaven and across our villages. I know that the past 18 months have been tough, but we are now delivering for those families; mortgage costs are down and wages are up, and the Budget brings new action to cut fuel bills by between £150 and £300 a year.
Our second key group of supporters were people who are in work but rely on benefits to help to pay their bills. For 14 years, they were soft targets for austerity and denounced by right wingers as scroungers. Despite many of them working every hour they could, they increasingly struggled to support themselves and their families, and many were desperate for help to arrive—and help has now arrived. I am proud to support this redistributive Budget and proud to back a Government who do things like twice announcing substantial increases in the minimum wage, abolishing the two-child benefit cap, with the despicable rape clause, and legislating for a real-terms increase in universal credit. The last measure alone will directly benefit 450,000 households in Scotland.
The third group who voted for us back in July last year were those aged between 18 and 24—the hundreds of thousands of young people whom the SNP Government have completely ignored. They are not the ones living in Glasgow’s west end or Edinburgh’s Morningside, who do not look to further education colleges to give them the training and skills that they need to get on in life. Here I admit that the news is mixed, because yes, a UK Government can invest directly in Grangemouth to lead the way in bringing in the skills needed for the clean energy future, or back Inchgreen dry dock to help access to defence-related jobs—both are happening thanks to this Budget—but no Budget can change the SNP’s policy of starving FE colleges of money or doing everything it can to block the renewal of Scotland’s nuclear fleet. To change any of that, we need to get Anas Sarwar into Bute House as the First Minister next May, and it is our belief that we can see that happen. That is our final piece of optimism for Scotland.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
This Budget is entitled “Strong foundations, secure future”; sadly, it is anything but, with weak foundations and an insecure future. For all this talk of fair decisions, this Budget’s biggest scandal is that my constituents are not being given a fair deal in any way whatsoever. My constituents, like those of Members across the House, who work hard to support themselves and their families and who innovate and start businesses that provide jobs, have been deeply let down by this Budget and Labour’s previous Budget. My constituents and people right across the country will pay more while being deprived of investment in the services they need due to this Government’s political decisions.
My constituents, and those of the Health Secretary himself, were promised by Labour a full rebuild of Whipps Cross hospital, as started by the previous Conservative Government. The health secretary went as far as to say that he supported the “Whipps Won’t Wait” campaign before the election, but as soon as his Government were elected he changed his tune to “Whipps Must Wait”. As a result, Whipps Cross now faces a £170 million backlog of maintenance costs due to the Government’s delay. This rebuild and that of Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow—again promised by Labour—are needed by my constituents now.
Folk in Epping Forest have some words for the Transport Secretary. The Central line is consistently delayed, overcrowded, and over-hot in summer, with screeching rail noise. The trains are in need of modernisation, and all this is compounded by horrendous graffiti like something out of Gotham City, which is getting worse day by day. Could the Transport Secretary have a word with the Mayor of London about investment in the Central line and deterrents for graffiti?
All those decisions come on top of choices that the Government had already inflicted before last week, none of which they have reversed with this Budget. The Government’s plan to jeopardise the heart and lungs of Epping Forest—its precious green belt—under the misleadingly termed “grey belt” is completely at odds with our constituency’s environment and natural beauty. We need the right homes in the right places, but we cannot have this top-down approach.
The rise in national insurance contributions in last year’s Budget means that businesses in Epping Forest face a dilemma: stop hiring new staff or freeze pay for existing staff. That cannot go on. While the Government choose to be ambiguous when it comes to spending, it is very clear where they can make savings. They could save £1.8 billion by cancelling their flawed policy on digital ID, or they could save £35 billion on their flawed Chagos islands policy.
Labour is also now waging a war on motorists by hiking fuel duty and disincentivising electric and plug-in hybrid car drivers with a mileage charge. That is not sustainable moving forward. We have seen political choices from a desperate Labour Government. It is sad that they have completely disregarded Conservative plans that would help our economy, such as scrapping stamp duty and abolishing business rates for retail, hospitality or leisure businesses.
The people of Epping Forest and the UK deserve better than the retrograde decisions made by this Labour Government. We need to push back against this high-tax, low-delivery Budget.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
I rise to welcome the Budget. We know that we have experienced difficult economic times of late, but despite that we have a Budget that is both solid and fair. Wages have grown more since the start of this Parliament than since 2010, and interest rates have gone down five times since the general election.
I particularly welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken to help with the cost of living and energy bills—and, of course, the decision to scrap the two-child benefit cap and raise half a million children out of poverty. Earlier this year I hosted a roundtable discussion with key stakeholders in Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare. Housing providers, Citizens Advice, food banks and others came to Merthyr Town football club to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), who was at that time the Employment Minister and consulting on the child poverty strategy.
The key message from that event was that the single most important thing the Government could do to alleviate child poverty was scrap the cap. I am so pleased that the Chancellor listened and took action. In my constituency alone around 2,590 children face a better future and will have better life chances due to this decision.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend, I have heard relentlessly from organisations about this. Trafford South food bank, G-Force and other organisations in my constituency, and national charities, have all spoken about the importance of lifting children out of poverty and the impact that the measure will have, including for 1,000 children in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend find it surprising that Conservative Members have not heard those calls from their constituency organisations?
Gerald Jones
I thank my hon. Friend and could not agree more. All I can say is, we see that every day in our constituencies, so they must be walking around with their eyes closed and their ears shut. Action needed to be taken, and I am so glad that this Labour Government have taken that action. In addition, freezing fuel duty, increasing the minimum wage and the living wage and increasing pensions by 4.8% in April will help reduce the pressures on many of my constituents.
Over many months, I have been working with dozens of my constituents and the coalfield group of MPs to make the case for changes to the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. The £2.3 billion transferred back to the pension pot will mean about £100 a week for around 376 BCSSS members in Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare, building on the decision in last year’s Budget to right a similar injustice with the mineworkers’ pension fund. Mineworkers powered our country and many Welsh communities for decades. I am proud that this Labour Government are doing right by them.
Melanie Ward
On the BCSSS move, will my hon. Friend join me in recognising the 290 people in my constituency who will benefit and in paying tribute to Billy Ogg from Kingseat in my constituency who has done so much work campaigning for the change alongside many other former coal board staff?
Gerald Jones
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating her constituent. So many people in our constituencies have wanted this and worked hard for it, and it will make such a difference to them in their lives and for their prosperity. I absolutely welcome the decision.
Fuel prices in some parts of my constituency are often 10p per litre higher than in other parts—in some cases even within the same chain. For example, fuel at Asda in Merthyr Tydfil is often 7p to 10p per litre dearer than at Asda in Aberdare, which is bizarre, and it is not the only company that does that. I wrote to the suppliers asking for an explanation, and when those explanations were not satisfactory I wrote to the Competition and Markets Authority urging it to undertake a local inquiry. Continuing to freeze fuel duty will help, and I am pleased that the new fuel finder will be implemented shortly to bring additional pressure to bear on suppliers to keep prices competitive.
Thanks to the Government’s Pride in Place initiative, both Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf local authorities will each receive £21.5 million, which will be spent on priorities identified by local residents. I am so pleased that we are moving towards doing things with communities rather than to communities. Empowering local residents is so much more beneficial to our local areas.
For many years, as touched on earlier, coal extraction built wealth right across the UK—it powered the Welsh and the UK economy for decades—but the previous UK Conservative Government failed to support any costs associated with the remediation of coal tips owing to that being a devolved area. This Labour Government recognise that the legacy of coal and coal tip safety is very much a shared responsibility. I welcome the £25 million that the Government provided in their first Labour Budget last year along with, building over three years, a further £118 million to support the vital work to keep our coal tips safe. That represents all the funding that the Welsh Government requested for safety works for the rest of this Parliament.
With a significant number of category D tips across Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf, that investment is hugely important for my constituents. This is a Government determined to act where Tory inaction left communities unsafe. The funding announcement, along with significant investment from the Welsh Government, shows the impact of two Labour Governments working together for Wales after years of Tory failure.
After years of the previous Conservative Government starving Wales of resources, I am pleased that the Government are building on the biggest settlement to Wales since devolution, with the Budget providing an additional £1 billion of spending power to the Welsh Government through the Barnett formula and by reforming the fiscal framework. That funding will help the Welsh NHS and public services across Wales, and benefit my constituents in Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare.
There is much more I that could say on artificial intelligence growth, the local growth fund, defence sector deals and the youth guarantee. The Budget will help so many in my constituency—families, young people and pensioners—and I urge hon. Members to support it this evening.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Just this weekend, The Telegraph reported a secret plot to reverse Brexit by taking this country into a customs union with the EU. Sign me up for that, because we would generate plenty of investment and renewal if we did. If only that were the case. As everyone on the Government Benches and in this House knows, there is an alternative to some of the pain in the Budget. The Labour party knows that it does not really need to hike taxes on hard-pressed households or batter businesses. There is a better way.
Depending on which economist we ask, the impact of Brexit has been a hit to GDP of as low as 4% or as high as 8%. What is the Government’s answer? A deal with Europe amounting to a boost to GDP of about 0.3% and a trade deal with India amounting to about 0.13%. Let us not forget the deal with Trump’s America that might be worth something or not very much at all, yesterday, today or tomorrow, depending on how well the President’s Happy Meal is going down.
Those piddling trade deals are used as evidence for not pursuing closer integration with the economic bloc that covers 41% of our exports and 51% of our imports. Such freedoms we have gained: the freedom for Britain to punch itself in the mouth for ever while Reform and the Conservatives tell us that the pain we feel is the sweet taste of freedom champagne and liberty oysters. At least the Government now acknowledge that there is a problem, but the delusion continues while they argue that anything other than the obvious is the solution.
What is the result of that delusion? British businesses are mired in post-Brexit regulation. The cost of living is up, the size of the state has ballooned, much to the annoyance of the Conservatives who told us it would get smaller, tax is at record levels and our economy is more vulnerable to international shocks. We are all poorer, apart from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not here but whose profitable grift continues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I just point out that the hon. Member might like to withdraw the choice of word he used to describe the actions of the hon. Member for Clacton?
Max Wilkinson
He is making a lot of money on social media, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am happy to clarify that.
To compound the problem, we have the sort of Budgets that this Government are giving the nation. Last year, they decided to make it more expensive for businesses to employ people. The Government also tell us that their No. 1 priority is growth but persist with needless and harmful trade barriers and increase the cost of employing people. That is at best absurd and at worst a dereliction of duty.
A short time ago, deep into the weeks of endless leaks and speculation, I met concerned local businesses. They wanted the Government to do something to ease the tax burden, to tread carefully when raising minimum wages—they did not say they were against them, though—and to make it easier for their businesses to grow. The opposite has happened. Despite the spin applied last week, here is the feedback. Edward Anderson, who runs three pubs in Cheltenham, tells me his combined business rates for the three premises will increase by £27,000 a year from April. Andrew Coates tells me that the rates across his three premises will rise by £34,500, on top of the impact of the minimum wage rises costing him £25,000. Why?
On occasion, those of us who ask the Government difficult questions about sensitive and divisive matters are shouted down and told we are ignoring the problem. On this matter, it is the Government who are ignoring the problem, and Ministers know it. Without properly dealing with the consequences of Brexit by striking a new trade deal with Europe—a customs union leading to single market access and stronger realignment in future—this country will continue in the slow lane. If this Government continue to be wilfully ignorant of the impact of their actions on the private sector, this country will continue in the slow lane. If the No. 1 priority for this Government truly were prosperity, they would unleash the opportunity of a trade deal with Europe and make it easier to do business here.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
This Budget is a good Budget, and as a proud Welsh MP I am pleased to say that this Budget delivers for the people of Wales. It cuts the cost of living, invests in frontline public services and strengthens our plan for growth. Wales’s frontline public services will be the big beneficiaries of the Labour choices at the heart of the Budget. By asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear their fair share of tax, getting debt falling and restoring stability to the national finances, the Welsh Government will benefit from the largest financial settlement in the history of devolution.
While the Conservatives chose to impose real-term cuts on Wales, this Labour Government choose to invest in Wales. I greatly welcome the additional £505 million in funding for Welsh schools, hospitals and other public services delivered through the Budget. I also welcome reforms to the Welsh fiscal framework, as committed to in our manifesto, which will provide £425 million in additional spending power, with borrowing limits for capital projects increasing every year.
These are important steps to righting the historic wrongs of how Wales has been funded. After 14 years of Conservative failure, Wales has the highest child poverty of any devolved nation in the UK, with almost a third of Welsh children growing up in poverty. That is a stain on our national history, but this Budget reverses the trend. Decisions made by this Labour Government will see child poverty in Wales falling once again. The scrapping of the two-child benefit cap is one of the biggest steps we will take in our mission to end the injustice of child poverty.
Labour choices will see 69,000 children in Wales—more than one in every 10—lifted out of poverty and benefiting from greater financial security. Scrapping the cap is not only the right thing to do; it is economically essential. Poverty and inequality remain a massive drain on our economy and our national potential. People in Wales know this instinctively. Fairness is a key national value. It is who we are. The Conservatives and Reform do not get this. That is why they do not understand Wales.
This Budget also rights another historic wrong, as we have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones). I am thankful to the Chancellor for listening to him and to other coalfield MPs, like myself, and returning the investment reserve of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to its members. Having recently met BCSSS members at the Newbridge Memo, I know how significant this £2.3 billion change will be. One of the people I met there was Alan Watkins, who worked at Oakdale colliery in my constituency for 24 years. He started when he was just 16 years old, working at the pit until it closed in 1989. He is now 76. People like Alan have had to wait far too long for justice, but thanks to the change by this Labour Government, that wrong will finally be righted. My thanks go to all the scheme’s members and trustees, and especially to Bleddyn Hancock for his persistence and for never giving up over decades of work.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for semiconductors, I am proud that this Budget will see an additional £10 million being invested to strengthen skills in the Welsh semiconductor cluster. It is the world’s first compound semiconductor cluster and a real success story for Wales and my constituency of Newport West and Islwyn.
In addition to the two Governments at each end of the M4 working together, I hope to see more joint working between Network Rail and Transport for Wales. The additional £445 million of investment that the Labour Government have already announced in Wales’s rail infrastructure, including five new stations in south Wales, will be beneficial to all across south Wales, but I urge Network Rail and Transport for Wales to go further in working to deliver those ambitions.
This Budget follows a long Labour tradition of being prudent with a purpose. It is based on Labour choices, with Labour values running through it, and our purpose is clear: action on the cost of living, investment in our public services and the delivery of future growth. I commend it to the House.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
This Budget was billed as a plan for renewal. In Waveney Valley, renewal is measured by what people actually feel: lower bills, better services, affordable local food and the protection of our irreplaceable natural environment, yet Kevin, a trustee of the Waveney food bank, told me a few days ago that demand continues to grow, reflecting hardship nationwide. Trussell reports that around 14 million people, including 3.8 million children, faced food insecurity last year. Scrapping the two-child limit in universal credit is very welcome indeed, and something I have long called for, but it alone cannot tackle structural poverty.
The Budget raises £26 billion, but most is held back to expand fiscal headroom rather than easing household pressures. Threshold freezes hit low and middle-income families, creating a disproportionate burden on ordinary households, while the wealthiest are still not paying their fair share. Opportunities to tax extreme wealth have been missed, and this decision punishes the many to protect the privileges of the few while families and public services continue to struggle.
Schools are facing severe financial pressure. Headteachers in my constituency report cutbacks to subject options and support services, and recruitment and retention remain challenging. Special educational needs are under particular strain. Demand for special educational needs and disabilities services has doubled, with deficits rising from £6.6 billion to £13.4 billion in three years and councils warning of insolvency. Thousands of children face long waits for assessments, and schools must meet needs without sufficient staff, training or funding. Urgent action is needed to stabilise SEND and schools funding in order to improve access and support.
The Budget was also a missed opportunity for farmers already struggling with rising costs and succession pressures. Agricultural property relief remains capped at £1 million per person, hitting ordinary family farms rather than the people I know the Government are trying to target: those buying up farmland to avoid tax. Along with experts such as Dan Neidle, I have argued that the APR threshold should rise to around £10 million to clamp down on tax avoidance without penalising family farms that make little money day to day.
Core farm costs have also been frozen. The environmental land management schemes remain underfunded, complex and difficult for smaller farms to access, preventing investment in nature restoration, climate-resilient practices and improved animal welfare. The sustainable farming incentive remains closed to new applicants, stalling access to properly funded schemes that are essential for environmental protection and a secure food supply.
The Budget promises 250 new neighbourhood health centres, which I very much welcome—they could restore rural services, and I look forward to seeing them in market towns across Waveney Valley—but there is no clarity on what it will mean for dentistry, which is already at a crisis point. Financing the health centres through public-private partnerships raises concerns and questions about long-term costs given the failures of PFI. Public investment must serve patients, not private profit.
This Budget makes promises with some welcome elements, but does not deliver the scale of renewal that our country needs. Public services are stretched, farmers are struggling, schools and councils face unsustainable pressures, and families across Waveney Valley continue to battle hardship. Kevin at the Waveney food bank hopes that one day he will be able to close the food bank for good, but on the basis of this Budget, there is a long way to go.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
On the subject of today’s debate—investment and renewal—may I express my delight at the establishment of a local, publicly owned investment fund for Cornwall? It is only by investing in the SMEs and supply chains that underlie our most promising industries that we will ensure that the benefits of growth are spread throughout our communities.
After a longer period of frenetic fiscal debate than I can remember, I would say that we have landed on the consensus that investment is needed to turn our country around and that, where revenue needs to be raised, it must be done in a way that is beyond a shadow of a doubt progressive and does not impact substantially on the finances of working people. I thank the Chancellor not just for going the extra mile for Cornwall, but for ensuring that we are putting more pounds in the pockets of working people and allowing them to get on with their lives by cutting their energy bills, freezing prescriptions and the cost of rail travel, and—as I have argued for many times in this place—protecting pensioners on low incomes from the effects of fiscal drag.
I welcome the fact that some of my calls for farmers, and the calls of rural colleagues, have been heard, although we all know that we must go further to match the intended spirit of the reforms and that those businesses that just happen to be based on agricultural land should pay their taxes like everyone else. We also need to ensure that we put family farms on the best footing possible to invest in the future of our food production.
Some of the best return on investment we can get comes from investing in our NHS, as we heard so eloquently from the Secretary of State at the start of the debate. In fact, investing in our NHS can sometimes yield gross value added returns of over £10 on every pound spent. The same is true of investment in early childhood education. I very much welcome the prioritisation of those things in the Budget.
In August, I set canny young economists the research challenge of squaring the very tricky circle of a tax policy that is efficient, pro-growth and progressive. Delivering on each of those is no mean feat at a time of global instability and during this most prolonged period of weak growth, gifted by the last Government. I commend the Chancellor on her management of those trade-offs and for delivering a Budget that will allow the UK to grow faster than its peers, and one that is truly a Labour Budget.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Secretary of State was absolutely right: the NHS does need to innovate and renew—and indeed any investment in any Budget is welcome—but how this renewal happens and what is prioritised also matters. While I of course agree that the focus on hospital waiting lists is right, I can also be concerned that the focus on physical health risks deprioritising an under-loved but equally important area: mental health.
Today, the Health and Social Care Committee published its report on community mental health services, with a focus on severe mental health. The report is clear: we must take a radical new approach to mental health and its funding. Although parity of esteem has been enshrined in the NHS constitution for over a decade, we have not made enough progress. As Lord Darzi outlined, although mental health accounts for over 20% of the disease burden, it receives less than 10% of NHS spend. Worryingly, the share of NHS spending on mental health has fallen again this year. For five years it went up, slowly but surely, from 8.05% in 2018 to 9% in 2023. That may not sound like much, but it represents billions in extra spending. That started to make a bit of a difference, particularly in workforce numbers, but anyone who uses the system knows that we have a long way to go.
I am bitterly disappointed that the mental health investment standard, which is the principle of increasing the share of ICB spend on mental health each year, has been watered down to be based on flat, real funding growth—just keeping up with inflation. This is an unwelcome finessing of the definition, and it is a backwards step. The Committee urges the Government to change course and, further, to enshrine the original definition in law.
Why spend all that money? There are so many reasons. There is a strong link between mental illness and demand for social care. People with severe mental ill health die on average 15 to 20 years earlier. A Care Quality Commission survey showed that up to 90% of people with mental health issues want to work, but only 37% are working. For people with severe mental illness, that figure falls to 8%. They are not lazy; they are sick. Investing in mental health grows the economy and boosts productivity.
Of course, money is not everything. It is right that we do this for the people—something that I know only too well as the proud partner of someone who happens to have a bipolar diagnosis. They fall through the cracks, denied care for being too well, too ill or not in crisis. They wait years for services, and, unlike for physical health, there are no targets. We need national access and waiting time standards now. The consequences of the system can be tragic—just ask Dianne, one of my constituents. Her son Leon was discharged from the community and he deteriorated. Despite desperate pleas, doctors would not review his case, and he completed suicide.
There is a ray of hope in the system: 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres. Such centres are open access, with an integrated, holistic model, rooted in communities—everything that our experts asked for. One staff member said:
“This place helps people feel like a skilled person, not just an ill person.”
We need the funding for those centres to continue, and for them to be rolled out across the country. I urge the Government to be bold, take on the leadership and ensure that the money is there. If they do, our Committee will back them every step of the way.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
In my maiden speech, I said that one third of all children in my constituency live in poverty. I reflect upon that often, and it causes me great concern. In among the fields, trees and pretty villages, poverty is a real issue. There are many reasons that poverty might exist, but not a single one of them is the fault of the children themselves. That is why I support the removal of the two-child cap.
I welcome the above-inflation increase in the state pension because pensioner poverty is of great concern, too, particularly in rural areas like mine, which struggle with low wages and poor-quality housing. The Government’s commitment to freezing fuel duty and rail fares will greatly help those of my constituents who continue to endure cost of living pressures and the additional expense of living in a rural area with limited public transport options. I welcome the progress that the Labour Government are making on those important issues, picking up the pieces after so many years of Conservative austerity left public services at breaking point.
The proposals relating to agricultural property relief, however, continue to concern me. Although I welcome the concession, it does not address the fundamental flaws. Farming is in crisis. Just this year, we have seen the second worst harvest on record, and confidence is at an all-time low. Longer, hotter summers, drought and flooding, delays to schemes such as the sustainable farming incentive, biosecurity threats, frustration with planning, permits and licensing, and the dominance of the supermarkets all erode the sustainability of the sector and weaken our food security immeasurably. While the Conservatives might be desperate to paint themselves as the face of rural Britain, farmers in my constituency remember all too well the failures of the last Tory Government and the lack of progress over many years. Rather than getting better, life got worse under the Tories in rural Britain, and in a change election, rural Britain revolted.
Nowhere was that change more extreme than in my constituency, which recorded the largest swing from Conservatives to Labour ever in a general election. While a short stint as Prime Minister did my opponent’s re-election chances no favours, it was her direct role in selling out British farmers that had already broken the support of many, for it was Liz Truss’s signature on many of the Tory Government’s trade deals that did so much damage, on top of a litany of other failures. It is no wonder that in the fields of South West Norfolk, where once there were Tory signs aplenty, at last year’s election they were harder to spot than a Reform party policy. This Government have the chance to reset the relationship with rural Britain, and I yearn for those progressive Labour values translated across our green and pleasant lands.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things this Labour Government could do is to bring forward a dedicated rural strategy, which would address many of the issues he is referring to and build a stronger, better rural Britain?
Terry Jermy
My hon. Friend is right that Government policies do not always fall equally across the country, and I absolutely welcome the idea of a rural strategy.
Importantly, if the changes to APR go ahead, they will fail to address one of the key issues, because after 1 April it will still be financially advantageous for the super-rich to purchase agricultural land to avoid inheritance tax. At a rate of 20%, as opposed to 40%, it will remain a tax-efficient form of investment. In Norfolk, as elsewhere, we continue to see large swathes of land purchased by big corporations and the very well-off. This change will therefore not stop that abuse by the celebrities and the billionaires.
APR has contributed to over-inflated land prices, despite the profitability of farming continuing to be a major challenge. Farmers in my constituency rarely make a return on capital of more than 1%, and farming is so often misunderstood and caught out by the view that land ownership equals wealth. If a farmer owns 200 to 400 acres of land, as many of the 500 farmers in my constituency do, they may well be wealthy if they did something with that land other than farm it, but if they continue to farm the land, that value is theoretical and will return very little profit. That should be of huge concern to this country and this Government.
Farmers in my constituency regard themselves as custodians of the land, and in many ways, they provide a public service. I accept, as many in the farming community do, that we need to reform APR. With a few specific changes, this policy can be improved to better target its impact and provide the support for British farming that I know our Government want to provide. While I accept the economic situation and the appalling legacy of the last Conservative Government, the future of farming in this country depends on this Government’s policy being right.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Last week I had the pleasure of visiting a very remote part of Wester Ross—a new part of my constituency—with the intrepid Olivia and Susie from my office. We went first to Badluarach on the south side of Little Loch Broom. There, I spoke with a crofter, Lisa Stewart, across the wall of her croft. She was initially rather startled when I appeared, partly because I was dressed like this, and I think she mistook me for a Mormon missionary.
We spoke of many things, one of which was that we had in the past an outreach clinic at Dundonnell where nurses and doctors would attend, and local people— elderly people in particular—could go with their ailments without having to make the long return trip to Ullapool. After covid, that once-a-week service was reduced to once a month, and Madam Deputy Speaker, you can imagine what concern that causes my constituents in this remote area, particularly the elderly and particularly during winter weather.
Our intrepid trio then travelled in a little open ferry to Scoraig, on the other side of Little Loch Broom. The weather was choppy, the wind was getting up and I, in my suit, got rather soaked by the spray. In Scoraig, the locals told us about their deep concern at the state of their little jetty and of the similar one at Badluarach, which we had left earlier. I might point out that although Scoraig is on the mainland—it is on a peninsula—it is entirely inaccessible by any road; one can only get there by ferry. If one of these little jetties goes down, people cannot get to see the doctor or the nurse, and secondary pupils who spend the week in Ullapool cannot return to their homes for the weekend.
There is a point behind all this, Madam Deputy Speaker. We heard in the Budget that His Majesty’s Government are giving the Scottish Government £820 million, and people in the remote parts of my constituency want to know where that money goes, because we see precious little of it ever coming to where we need it. We need the money to be spent on doing up the little jetties, and it would not cost much to do them up. We need the money to keep the clinic in Dundonnell open. It is incredibly important to people, but we always seem to see the money spent further south.
What I am arguing for is a degree of transparency in the way the Scottish Government go about their spending. I am not saying for one instant that we in Westminster, or the UK Government, should tell the Scottish Government how to spend their money, but if we could see where the money was going, colleagues of any party whatsoever in Holyrood could start to ask the difficult questions—the questions that should be asked.
I am going to abuse my position in my last minute and simply make the following point, which I think would help the Budget. Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks is upgrading the grid all over Scotland, and I accept that that is a strategic necessity for this country. Where SSEN proposes to put in a battery or new pylons, it is offering financial incentives—money—to local communities that will be affected. The important thing is that the electricity generated in the Western Isles will come through a vast undersea cable to Little Loch Broom. It will make landfall at Dundonnell, and then possibly come to where we are today, but the communities either side of that loch—Badluarach on one side, and Scoraig on the other—will receive not a penny. I hope that SSEN is listening to us, because there is a moral argument that it should take into account those communities as well. That money would be of enormous assistance to the UK’s Budget and the Scottish Budget.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
My constituents want to know that the decisions taken in the Budget are fair, that they are necessary to tackle the long-term challenges this country faces, and that they align with their priorities and lived experience of daily life. This Budget achieves that, and I want to talk about some specific measures, beginning with the two-child cap.
I have been incredibly frustrated by the level at which the Conservatives have sought to debate the two-child cap. They should hang their heads in shame for trying to present this as an argument between people who work and those who do not, because 60% of the families who will benefit from the abolition of the two-child cap are working families. I do not think that we in this place talk often enough about the fact that 33% of those who claim universal credit are in work. They go out to work every single day and earn their poverty. That is the Conservatives’ record in government, and they should apologise for it.
Let us talk about the 40% of people who do not work. Many of my constituents will have worked at one stage or another, and they find themselves unemployed for reasons that are outside their control. Prior to the last election, Conservative MPs at least had the opportunity to place bets on their future unemployment, but my constituents did not manage to do the same. The Conservatives should reflect on the fact that many people find themselves in that situation through no fault of their own.
Many other measures in the Budget are aimed at tackling the cost of living for my constituents, including increases to the minimum wage and reductions in energy bills. I place on the record my thanks to the Chancellor for listening to my calls to delay the implementation of changes to the employee car ownership scheme. I heard from many constituents who work at Bentley Motors in my constituency about how that would have left them out of pocket by hundreds of pounds a month. I am proud to have advocated on their behalf, alongside Unite the union, in making that case, and I thank the Chancellor for listening.
I want to touch briefly on investment. In her Budget statement, I was delighted to hear the Chancellor recommit to investing in Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is vital to my constituency as a proud rail town in the north of England. I urge the Government to be bold in their announcements on this subject and ensure that we leave the option open for a broader strategy of north-south connectivity, as well as east-west connectivity. I am delighted by the investments that we have made in the NHS. We are already seeing their benefits in reduced waiting times and improved patient experience.
Finally, I thank the Chancellor for listening to my calls to take steps to tackle the dodgy vape shops on our high streets. My constituency was the subject of a recent BBC undercover investigation on the subject, so I am proud that this Government are taking action to tackle that.
The Government have made fair choices in the Budget, which are the right choices in the economic circumstances, and I am proud to support them.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
While increased investment in the NHS and the lifting of the two-child benefit cap are welcome, for the second year in a row, the Government have largely failed to deliver on their promise to tackle the cost of living crisis and grow the economy.
In neglecting to fix our relationship with Europe, they are overlooking the easiest solution to turbocharge our economy and repair the mess left by Brexit. A closer, more pragmatic partnership with our closest neighbours through a customs union would mean faster growth, improved competitiveness and a reduction in the red tape that is holding back small and medium-sized businesses, like those in my constituency of Melksham and Devizes. Last week, the owner of a transport company in Broughton Gifford told me that he had been up until the small hours doing the paperwork needed for his company to export to Europe. These businesses want to expand, export and hire new staff, but they are being held back by a Government that do not seem to understand, or want to understand, business.
Our hospitality sector tells the same story. In the towns and villages in my constituency, hospitality is not just an industry but an essential part of the social fabric. I have visited a number of the outstanding pubs in my constituency, including the British Lion in Devizes and the Lamb in Urchfont, and spoken to the landlords, staff and customers. They are being squeezed by high energy costs, pressures from supply chains, staffing shortages and rising prices. Wadworth, a family-run independent brewer and pub company based in Devizes that produces the much-loved 6X beer, is facing increased charges of thousands of pounds at its tenanted pubs. Despite the reduced multiplier, those pubs face an increase of 76% in their business rates, and will pay an extra £12,900 on average over the next three years, with some paying much more. That will likely lead to pub closures and job losses. I remind the Chancellor that a closed pub pays no taxes, so those measures are not only a nail in the coffin of one of our most valued assets, namely the Great British pub, but a major shot in the foot for the Chancellor and her Government.
The Liberal Democrat policy to cut 5p on VAT for the hospitality sector would help those businesses not only to survive but to ensure that people can afford the little things that brighten up life, such as a pint after work, fish and chips on a Friday or a family meal, which should not break the bank.
This low-growth, high-tax Budget is punishing people, hitting them with stealth taxes on their wages and failing to tackle the actual problems that our residents and businesses face. It fails to reverse the unpopular and self-defeating farm inheritance tax or at least to raise the threshold so that it protects working family farms. The Lib Dems wanted this Budget to be forward-thinking, going for growth with a deal for Europe, saving our high streets, and helping families with the cost of living. Instead, sadly, it was a missed opportunity and squandered the chance to deliver the change that is needed.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Our fiscal framework is not working. This is the structure that is supposed to manage compliance with our fiscal rules and deliver stability and confidence, yet we are seeing quite the opposite. Our current framework is leading to speculation, policy volatility and short-termism, so is there a better way?
The fundamental problem with the current framework is that it requires the OBR to make binary pass-fail judgments on whether the rules are being met, using highly uncertain forecasts of what the economy might look like in 2029. To compound that, the OBR is allowed to count only the impacts of policies that have a high degree of certainty and evidence. That means that for anything new and innovative, it is likely that only the costs, not the benefits, will be included.
On the one hand, we have the requirement for a binary pass-fail judgment; on the other hand, we have massive uncertainty and significant exclusions within the forecast. How are those compatible? The honest truth is that they are not, but that is what the rules currently require, so focus turns to the midpoint of a probability range, which is called a central point estimate. It has no economic meaning beyond being the midpoint. The OBR openly acknowledges that the number has
“essentially no chance of being the actual outcome”,
yet it is used as if it is the forecast, giving rise to statements such as, “The Chancellor has £9.9 billion of headroom.” Taken at face value, such statements fundamentally misrepresent the inherent uncertainty.
The forced pass-fail system and excessive focus on point estimates has real-world consequences. For a start, binary judgments risk binary responses. A marginal fail is seen as a crisis requiring immediate action, whereas a marginal pass is taken to imply that everything is fine. Given the massive uncertainties in the forecast, the reality is that there is actually no difference between the two situations. Overall, this pressure for lurches between crisis and complacency, driving policy recalibrations in response to binary judgments or changes to forecast methodology, is simply not conducive to policy stability.
There is also a damaging effect on policy design. A pass-fail mindset inevitably incentivises funding policies that deliver easily quantified impacts within the forecast timescale while discouraging longer-term, less quantifiable ones. That is especially problematic for the kind of policies we really need the most—those that prevent ill health, reduce worklessness and manage long-term liabilities. It is essential to address all those areas if we want to bring down debt over the long term. All that inevitably dampens investment and is bad for growth, and speculation and policy volatility are hardly good for bond rates either.
Is there a better way? Many economists and institutions believe so. We need to recognise the really important step that the Chancellor took in this Budget; moving to a single formal assessment each year reduces speculation and policy volatility. That is a significant step and, as it will require the charter for Budget responsibility to be amended, it opens the possibility of further positive change. One such change is that from 2027, the charter introduces a tolerance range for the borrowing rule of plus or minus 0.5% of GDP. That is a big improvement, but there is a strong argument for bringing it forward to 2026 and considering a range for the debt rule too.
We could go further. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is exploring a traffic-light approach based around compliance with a wide range of Budget policy objectives. Thinking about longer-term risk management, we could do a lot more to capture the long-term costs of inaction and show how we are offsetting future risk and bringing down long-term debt projections. Proposals have also been made about reforming the OBR’s overall remit and methodology, along with revising the role of the Treasury, which rightly poses fundamental questions about the best tools for judging compliance.
Our fiscal rules are vital. Maintaining fiscal discipline is an inherent part of delivering a virtuous cycle of investment, growth and renewal, but there is broad agreement that our fiscal framework, with its reliance on highly uncertain forecasts and pass-fail requirements, is leading to speculation, policy volatility and short-termism. We all pay for that through higher borrowing costs and depressed growth. It is clear that there is a better way that could provide greater stability and enable us to meet fiscal rules and build headroom, while incentivising long-term growth and demand reduction policies. That is what we should strive for, and the time to make it happen is now.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to nip out to my Delegated Legislation Committee without missing my spot.
I met with businesses this morning, and it is clear that the people who take risks, invest, create jobs and drive tax receipts are busy scratching their heads to find some positive from this Budget. The truth is that it is a disaster for everyone in Mid Bedfordshire and right across the country—for young people looking for their first job, for hard-working families, and for aspirational business owners and job creators. Our country does need investment and renewal, but to pay for it, we need strong businesses and a strong business environment. The Chancellor is delivering the absolute opposite. Just like last year, she has launched a calculated assault on all our constituents; they are now paying the price for spiralling welfare and higher debt costs with their jobs, all to save the Chancellor’s own. The simple truth is that this Government are backing benefits Britain, not alarm clock Britain, and with broken promise after broken promise, the Chancellor is slipping into a black hole of her own making—one that cannot come quick enough for most of us.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The hon. Member asked whether there were any positives in the Budget. Does he not think that raising more children out of poverty than any other Parliament on record is a positive? Does he not welcome that—does he not think it benefits all of us?
Blake Stephenson
I think everybody in this House wants to bring children out of poverty. The way to do that is to get more families into jobs, so that they can afford to bring their children up and take responsibility.
Conservative Members know that it is business that invests, creates jobs and grows our economy, which enables investment in our public infrastructure. The backbone of our economy includes our high streets. Labour Members may visit their local pubs and cafes and post on social media expressing how much they back their high street—even posting about visits to businesses that have since closed—but the truth is that they have been standing idly by while the Chancellor has thrown the local businesses they rely on and claim to champion under the bus. They did it last year; they will do it again this year when they vote this Budget through; and if the Chancellor comes back for more, as she will, they will do it again.
Let us look at the damage being done to a typical high street pub in Bedfordshire. Charged £7,448 in business rates by the last Conservative Government, that figure increased after the last Budget to £24,309. While local authorities are yet to publish the charge for next year, after the three-yearly business rates revaluation and the abolition of retail, hospitality and leisure relief, the charge is likely to be around £45,000 when transitional relief ends. That is a whopping tax increase of roughly 500% over the course of this Parliament before a single penny has been taken in sales. That is an absolute disgrace. It is an attack on our ambitious small business owners—on our constituents who leap out of bed at the sound of their alarms, work hard, play by the rules and create jobs. Is it any wonder that many of them are now asking themselves, “What’s the point?” Business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses must be abolished, and that is exactly what a Conservative Government will do.
Who is paying for the price for this Budget? It is the very working people whom this Government pretend to support, especially young people starting out as I did—washing dishes in the pub, waiting on tables and working in local shops. Labour Members pat themselves on their backs with smiles all around for increasing the minimum wage, but they are doing so while crushing jobs. It makes absolutely no sense to do this at a time when the market can least afford it. Unemployment is through the roof; some 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training, and that number is rising. That is an absolute scandal that this Government’s economic plan does nothing to fix.
Blake Stephenson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it makes it worse. The benefits of an increased minimum wage are meaningless for those who do not have a wage. We should be investing in a brighter future for young people, one of aspiration, hard work, investment and wealth. Only the Conservatives have a plan to do that, by bearing down on welfare spending, cutting taxes, and repealing every job-destroying, anti-business, anti-growth measure in the Employment Rights Bill. We will kick-start young people’s working lives with a £5,000 first jobs bonus.
Blake Stephenson
I have no time.
We will back young people to buy their first home. We will not stifle the chances of a good job, punish people with higher taxes when they do find employment, push graduates into higher student loan repayments or make it harder to save for retirement, which is what this Government are doing. The appeal of fleeing socialist Britain has never been more obvious, nor has it ever been so easy, and the exodus has already begun.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I am so sorry that the shadow Health Secretary is no longer in his place. After his astonishing speech, I wanted to invite him to the Black Country, where waiting lists of more than a year are down by 45%. I think that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) managed somehow to compare a speech he disagreed with to Hillsborough; that is not worthy of him, and I hope he will withdraw it.
This is a Budget to cut the cost of living. It is a Budget to make work pay, raising the national minimum wage and giving 2.7 million workers a pay rise. Work brings dignity, and everyone who can should work, but work alone is not always enough to beat the wolves of hunger, cold and want. In this country, our deal is this: if you do the right thing and work, bring your kids up well and follow the rules, the country will help you in return. In our tradition, we believe in a strong state that helps people to lift their heads from daily struggle and gives everyone the freedom to set their own path. For so many, that means the simple aspiration of having children and building a family, which is why in this Budget we are funding more childcare, free breakfast clubs and free school meals. It is why we will build 1.5 million new homes, end no-fault eviction and ban zero-hours contracts.
With this Budget, we add one more source of security for working-class families. If you get ill or lose your job, if—heaven forbid—your partner dies, if your husband beats you up and you have to grab your kids and run, the safety net of our welfare state will once again catch you and all your kids. No child is responsible for the actions of his or her parents. The happy event of a little one being born should not tip a family into poverty, and whether a six-year-old eats tonight should not depend on how many brothers or sisters she has. In 2019, many of us watched a “Dispatches” documentary called “Britain’s Breadline Kids” and heard Cameron, then aged nine, say “We try not to eat too much in a day”. It shamed us all. We raged at our lack of power to change it, but now we can, and we will.
Ending the two-child limit at a stroke helps 5,540 children in Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley and 1.6 million nationally—one in every nine of our kids. Most families who are helped—six in 10—are in work, and loads of them—four in 10—have a disabled member. None of them deserve poverty. So to the mums with three or more kids who are using universal credit to top up low wages and high rents, I say this: “I know how hard you work, and how tough it is out there. I know you love your kids fiercely. This is for you.” To the parties opposite, I say, “Don’t talk to me about how families should plan. You have never met a better planner than a single mum in Friar Park making the money stretch.” To my constituents who are working hard to make ends meet, not always able to afford everything they want, I say this: “I get it, but I will not apologise.” Every child deserves a fair start in life.
This is what a Labour Government do. We are seeing not the shame and powerlessness of nine-year-old Cameron telling us that he tries not to eat too much, but, with Labour in government, lower energy bills, higher wages, growth everywhere—not just in London—and lower child poverty. This is a Labour Budget for all our families.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Despite all the “lines to take” that the Labour Whips have handed their MPs in an attempt to sell the Budget as something positive, the reality is very different. The content of this Budget is deeply damaging to pensioners, employees, employers and the wider economy. This is a Government who, it appears, are making up reasons to take back double or treble. While the rise in pension is welcome, it is not a new policy. Yes, the protection for pensioners’ ISA savings is welcome, but it penalises those who have not yet reached pension age and limits their ability to save. Where do hard-pressed workers get the benefit to invest their money? At the same time, saving into pension schemes has become yet another tax grab.
We have been consistently told of a £20 billion black hole, and for weeks we have been fed the line that it has ballooned into a £50 billion crisis in just one year, but now we hear that there is no black hole at all. The OBR has been keeping both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor updated on a bi-weekly basis in respect of their forecasts. We now know that when the Chancellor and other Labour Ministers were out in the media painting their stories of doom and talking down the situation, creating volatility in the stock market, the Government knew all along that their briefings were inaccurate.
What we have in this Budget penalises those who work. I noted a quote yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition about how a working family needs to earn £71,000 per year to be as well-off as a family of three on benefits. This Budget is a burden on workers, and it is clear that Labour Members are not the friends of workers. For years in opposition, they made great promises to the nation that they would lead, but the reality has been very different, with broken promises and broken manifesto pledges, and they are slowly breaking our country’s workers, who cannot give any more.
Looking closer at the Budget, the increase in the minimum wage is positive in principle, but it will mean little in practice when employers are hit with the double blow of the national insurance rise and higher wage costs. Retailers and other businesses will inevitably raise prices to cover these additional burdens, and perhaps have to make redundancies, wiping out the benefit for many workers.
Blake Stephenson
Does the hon. Lady agree that while Labour in government pretends that it is the party of fairness, this Budget is deeply unfair to both her constituents and my own constituents?
Carla Lockhart
I thank the hon. Member for his point.
The poorest will become poorer while workers are asked to pay more to support people who come here from overseas and go straight on to benefits, with little incentive to work. The system means it is more lucrative not to work than actually to contribute. It is time that this Government put British citizens, British workers and British employers first. It is time for the Chancellor to get tough on tax avoidance and offer genuine support to the hard-pressed workers who are doing the right thing and paying their way.
Perhaps the most appalling tax grab in this Budget is the attack on our family farms. The announcement making business property relief and agricultural property relief transferable is a meaningless gesture and an insult. The family farm death tax remains fully intact—farmers gain nothing. Across the UK, the picture is grim. The Government seem intent on taxing family farms beyond profitability. It is a tax on death and a tax on tragedy. What can be more immoral? This path will damage agriculture at its core. Farming is the backbone of our nation. Food security is national security. Undermine it, and food prices will rise and we will rely on lower-quality imports at higher cost. There is no good news for farmers in this Budget, and when we vote on that resolution later, I urge Members to do the right thing.
Furthermore, the Budget does nothing to remove the trade barrier separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. The £16.6 million package does not change the reality that businesses still face checks, paperwork, delays and extra costs when trading with Great Britain. If the Government remove the checks, they will save the £16.6 million immediately. We look with some envy at the Department of Government Efficiency in the United States, and wonder why the UK cannot match that level of waste reduction. There are quick, real-time savings available such as to cut excess immigration spending, make work genuinely rewarding, ensure everyone pays the tax they owe, pulp the costly madness of net zero and tackle waste across Government.
This Budget offers presentation rather than substance. It fails workers, employers, farmers, policing, health, hospitality and our taxpayers. There is a clear solution: get tough on immigration, tough on crime and tough on tax evasion, and get our country back to being the envy of the world. That is where we belong.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last week’s Budget marked a clear turn away from the damage and austerity of the previous Government towards a fairer, stronger country that will deliver on the public’s priorities. People in my constituency have already expressed their appreciation at having a Labour Budget built from Labour values to overturn 15 years of cuts and chaos.
As an OnSide youth champion and a frequent visitor to the Way Youth Zone, as well as schools, the City of Wolverhampton college, the University of Wolverhampton, Juniper Training and the Wolves Foundation in my constituency, I welcome the increased support for young people. Lifting the two-child benefit cap, paid for by a tax on gambling companies, will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, including more than 3,000 children in Wolverhampton West, and expanding free breakfast clubs, including at Penn Fields school in my constituency, as well as free school meals, will mean that children do not go to school hungry. This is what the NHS wants—to remove child poverty—and it will also help the rest of society, and if these children can learn and then earn when older, they will go on to contribute to our economy. Looking after our children therefore also makes economic sense. A child growing up in poverty is less likely to work as an adult, and earns 25% less aged 30.
The youth guarantee means that every young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be offered a guaranteed paid work placement, with the Government investing an additional £725 million to help support apprenticeships, enabling small and medium-sized businesses to offer apprenticeships to our young people at no cost to them.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Last week, I went to Shipley college in my constituency and met some of the students. They asked what the Labour Government were going to do to provide them with training and employment opportunities. Does my hon. Friend agree that giving free training to SMEs to take on apprentices will help to deliver better opportunities for our young people?
Warinder Juss
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Not only is that very good for our young people—they will have apprenticeships—but for our SMEs, as they will be able to offer those apprenticeships without the cost.
Raising the minimum wage and the living wage will also help to increase the spending power of young people to contribute to the local economy.
The Government are tackling the cost of living crisis by freezing prescription charges and rail fares for the first time in 30 years, and by bringing down energy bills by £150. In Wolverhampton West, I am proud that many of our hard-working businesses will benefit by having new permanently lower business rates. That will benefit so many retail, hospitality and leisure businesses throughout Wolverhampton, fulfilling our manifesto promise and paid for by the increase in business rates for the warehouses of giant online companies. That will boost our high streets and strengthen our local economy.
I am very pleased that the Chancellor recognised the importance of horseracing—my constituency has the famous Wolverhampton racecourse—with the new exemption to the planned rises in gambling tax.
To ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share, I welcome the additional revenue from the high value council tax surcharge on homes worth over £2 million. This will reinforce our vital public services.
Pensioners who may have felt left behind in the past will be pleased to know about the triple lock pension rise of 4.8%.
The Budget shows that the Government are listening to the people and that they have made decisions based on the needs of the constituents we represent. This is a Labour Budget rooted in Labour values, and marks a significant shift towards a fairer and more equitable country. I am proud that the Chancellor and the Government have placed our children, our young people, working people, the NHS, the cost of living and the economy at the heart of every decision in the Budget. We are investing in our people, in our public services and in the country we are all so proud to call home.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I think everybody in this Chamber and in this House can agree that we need economic growth, but many question whether the Budget will really help with that. It prolongs Conservative underhand tactics, such as tax threshold freezes, which will have a comparable impact to more honest and up-front tax rises.
Small businesses in my constituency, including Love Beer Brewery in Milton, Ridgeway Cycles and the Vaults in Wantage, the Crown in Chilton and the George at Upton, are extremely worried, in some cases existentially so, about the impact of poorly thought-through business rate changes, which come on top of growing energy costs. As a result, the Liberal Democrats’ proposed 5% VAT cut for pubs and restaurants is badly needed.
The Budget is largely silent on some of the big picture strategic themes we need. A key one is change to the planning system. I know the Government agree, but we need far more real and meaningful changes that go beyond scapegoating newts and bats. Instead, we need a planning system that delivers social and genuinely affordable housing—not just blunt housing targets irrespective of how affordable those houses will be—primary healthcare that people can actually access and which will help more people to get jobs, and investment in transport to boost mobility and reduce congestion. It is not just me who says that about the need for genuinely affordable housing. Didcot B power station in my constituency cites the cost of housing as the biggest barrier it faces in retaining staff.
In my constituency, we have the tedious, multi-decade saga—it will not be a Netflix hit any time soon—of trying to get a GP surgery built in the new housing estate of Didcot Great Western Park. There is a comparable risk of a similar saga affecting a Wallingford GP surgery’s plans to expand. Didcot and Wallingford have both seen significant housing and population growth. Despite similar population growth in Wantage and Grove, there is as yet no clear Government support for a new railway station serving it on the nearby Great Western main line, and Cholsey station continues to lack accessibility improvements.
Constituents understandably clamour for more large-scale leisure facilities, such as swimming pools and leisure centres, which are very difficult to fund using section 106 contributions alone. The Government’s getting moving on social care reform, rather than yet another review, which will last the entire Parliament, would help with productivity.
My Oxfordshire constituency has a lot of potential to build on its strengths, particularly with so much exciting space, fusion, biotech, and many other science and technology contributions to the local and national economy, such as at Harwell campus, Milton Park and Culham. Many of those have already been slowed down by the consequences of Brexit, and businesses are concerned about some of the Government’s rhetoric on migration, which they feel could affect their ability to attract the vital international talent they need to succeed.
Overall, this Budget has injected despair rather than optimism. My constituents and their businesses need the Government to do better.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality is that, as we take part in this debate, the wealth of billionaires continues to soar while ordinary families in our constituencies continue to struggle with a cost of living crisis that is not of their making. That is the legacy of 14 years of the Conservative party, which has decimated our services and devastated our communities.
Perhaps the cruellest of all the Conservatives’ policies was the two-child cap, which put millions of children on our streets and into poverty. Even today, we have heard Conservative Member after Conservative Member oppose the scrapping of the policy. They should be ashamed. In fact, many of them made their speeches and then ran out of the Chamber, because they cannot face the fact that they put millions of children into poverty.
This Budget finally abolishes the cruel two-child policy. I opposed the policy from day one and, frankly, it should not have taken 18 months for this Government to scrap it, but I am none the less pleased that we have. After years of campaigning, the full removal of the two-child limit is hugely welcome. It is a clear vindication of the stand taken by me and other colleagues.
What matters most is that with this Budget, at long last, the cruelty that put millions of children into poverty ends. As colleagues have said, the decision will lift millions of children out of poverty. In my constituency, 6,300 families and 22,500 children will benefit. That is a huge step forward and is long overdue, and it is a direct result of relentless pressure from campaigners and MPs who refused to back down. Not once today have I heard tribute paid to the many campaign organisations that relentlessly put the case forward and lobbied MPs to scrap the cap. I pay tribute to them, and thank them for all their hard work.
This Budget contains some welcome steps—modest moves on redistributing wealth, a tourist tax and a youth guarantee scheme, as well as many other measures—but, frankly, they do not go far enough. This Government have still failed to adopt a genuine wealth tax, and as a result, living standards for most people continue to decline and the cost of living crisis remains unresolved. We could have done so much more in the past 18 months; instead, far too much time has been wasted. That is why I back the plan for a proper wealth tax.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I have heard from many constituents that things just do not change for them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for real change in constituencies like ours, we need a needs-based, targeted funding approach?
Imran Hussain
What we need is a wealth tax. Working families need help now. The Government could raise more than £50 billion a year through a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, equalising capital gains with income tax, cracking down on corporate tax avoidance and implementing a windfall tax on record bank profits—these are modest, moral and reasonable steps. They are what is needed to fund immediate support for struggling families. With that revenue, we could deliver emergency measures immediately to alleviate the cost of living, including not only scrapping the two-child cap, but having direct cost of living grants, introducing more free school meals, tripling the household support fund and relinking local housing allowance to real rents, together costing just £23 billion—less than half of what fair taxation would raise.
Frankly, we need to go further. The measures I have outlined would provide a lifeline to struggling families in all our constituencies. It is what our constituents expect of us, and it is about time we delivered that for them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. As so many Members wish to contribute, the speaking limit has now dropped to three minutes.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Bearing in mind that we are talking about investing in the future, I would like to focus my comments on young people.
Last week I held a youth conversation and was so impressed with the focus of the young people on broad issues including housing and their fear of the far right. I look forward to hearing more about the next steps from the Youth Select Committee, which is currently looking at alternative strategies for student funding; they all accept that their student days need to be properly funded, but they feel—and I agree—that it is completely unfair that they are paying higher rates of interest than the landlords from whom they have to rent their properties, and that dragging them into tax earlier is making it even tougher for them to get on to the ladder, even as a renter.
Sadly, many of our graduates and others who have completed their education are finding it tough to get into work at all. Historically, many would have sought opportunities abroad, but, thanks to Brexit, most of those options are now gone. I welcome the prospect of the youth mobility scheme, but it does not go far enough—if the Chancellor was serious about fixing economic stagnation, cutting red tape and creating jobs, she would announce a new customs union with the EU, generating £25 billion a year in taxation alone and really giving us a period of renewal.
Other young people leaving school or college would have moved into hospitality, but in the past year, that sector has lost 90,000 jobs, many of which were filled by young people. Meanwhile, the businesses not cutting jobs are cutting shifts—something I experienced in my own home last weekend, when, over the payday weekend before Christmas, when most young people are relying on work, two of my children had their shifts cut at two separate successful businesses.
The failure of the Government to hear the Liberal Democrat call to cut VAT means there will likely be more shifts cut for young people, and older people, as the winter months arrive. While the Government have maintained that business rates changes will protect businesses, in reality the recent revaluation will see an increase in most businesses’ value and the loss of their small business relief, so many of them will be worse off. I urge the Government to look at this matter again.
I want to briefly mention the issue of special educational needs. I am pleased that the Government are absorbing these costs from 2028, but I am deeply concerned about what will happen between now and then. I am worried that councils will have gone under before we get to that point.
Finally, as time is short, I want to mention the issue of devolution. There was over £14 billion for mayoral authorities in this Budget, but nothing for my area of Dorset. I am sure the four Government Members from Dorset present will agree that it is completely outrageous to have a period of investment renewal with no money at all going to the area of Wessex. I urge the Government to bring forward the devolution programme for every part of the country and for every generation.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
This was a Budget for young people. We are lifting the two-child benefit cap, bringing half a million children out of poverty; alongside free school meals, breakfast clubs, childcare and uniforms, we are reducing child poverty more than any Government ever. Our youth guarantee will make sure that every young person can access college, apprenticeships or job support, and SMEs will no longer have to pay towards apprenticeship training for under-25s, which is vital in Cornwall.
This was a Budget to tackle the cost of living, with measures to increase the minimum wage, cut household energy bills, freeze rail fares and prescriptions, extend the bus fare cap, and increase the state pension. It was also a Budget for growth. Our economy grew 50% more than the OBR expected in March. The Government have held fast to the decision to strongly invest in our infrastructure and worked to crowd in private investment and encourage companies to grow and list in the UK. I was pleased to hear the Chancellor confirm major investment in Truro neighbourhood health centre, which will be in the initial wave of centres to be upgraded and refurbished.
This was a Budget for Cornwall. The Kernow industrial growth fund is to be given £30 million over the next two years to invest in Cornwall’s economic potential. It reflects the fact that Cornwall has an important part to play in the UK’s industrial strategy. The Government have recently announced the critical minerals strategy and provided backing and investment for it. That is a brilliant example of a key industry vital to our national security being backed to the hilt by this Government. I hope they will do the same for the floating offshore wind.
Another key industry vital to national security is farming. The Government made a concession on inheritance tax by enabling automatic transfer of the £1 million allowance between spouses and civil partners. That will relieve pressure somewhat for older farmers who did not have time to plan. The Treasury says that few farmers and estates will be affected, but perception is everything when it comes to investment. I know that the Government have put a record amount of investment into farming.
I sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and it is clear that as a country we need to set a firm direction of travel on food security. Since Brexit we have diverged, particularly in England, from other places on the way we treat food production. I hope that the publication of various reports, including that of Minette Batters, will help to provide more certainty, and that the new incarnation of sustainable farming incentives will encourage farmers to invest.
James Naish
Although the new measures for farmers announced by the Chancellor have been welcomed by the industry, as Labour MPs we were advocating not for reduced revenue but for ensuring that the wrong farmers were not hit. Does my hon. Friend therefore share my view that Labour Members have fought hard for farmers and that our voices should be listened to moving forward?
Jayne Kirkham
It is important that we look very closely at the measures, as we in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said in our report. Family farms are obviously very important and we need to consider them deeply when thinking about food security.
This is a long game. Fixing what is broken will be a hard path, but this Budget keeps us on that course without deviation. We are moving towards growth and the systematic rebuilding of our public services step by step. We are focusing on making life less of a daily struggle and on pulling our children out of poverty so that they can thrive now and take all the opportunities that this Government will offer them as they grow.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Perhaps the most important commodity for a Chancellor is not finance but trust. We saw how the Conservatives wrecked the country’s trust in them with partygate and the scandal of the fast track to personal protective equipment contracts for those who were in the know. I am afraid to say that what we have seen with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a continuation of the Conservative Government but with a Labour approach. The way that the Chancellor appears to have not kept the Cabinet in the loop on the OBR guidance is shocking.
On the more positive note, I would like to reflect how the Liberal Democrats welcome the support through cuts to fuel bills, but failing to backfill the scheme with core funding is a shame. The Liberal Democrats have campaigned against the two-child limit for many years, so we clearly welcome the change. However, the stealth taxes hitting working people—again, the Labour party has echoed what the Tories did previously—are absolutely outrageous, as is how Labour is now hitting those with student loans with a stealth tax, which actually equates to the mansion tax. Why are we putting recent former students in the same bracket as those who fall under the mansion tax? It is quite shocking.
I come to something we do well for in Torbay: our large number of pensioners. Many of them have small pension pots, yet they will be hit by the fiscal impact of the drag into income tax.
The hospitality industry in the west country is extremely important, yet last year we saw it impacted by the national insurance hike. The Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust in my constituency had a bill of £100,000. That charity, which supported important beauty spots across Torbay, has gone into liquidation because of that move from the Labour Government and the failure of our Conservative council to support it appropriately. There are future challenges for hospitality with the increasing of business rates, and I fear for the future of some of our much loved pubs across Torbay.
I fear that we have seen a failure to invest in the south-west with these proposals from the Government. I ask them to think again.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
The Budget delivers on the main priorities of protecting and investing in the NHS, tackling the cost of living and maintaining economic stability. It also delivers a key ask from my constituents: to support them, their industrial heritage and the unique challenge that brings. Just a week before the Budget, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced additional support for ex-mining and industrial communities with the launch of the respiratory pathways transformation fund—investment to address the inequalities that our communities so often face after a life working down the pits.
The Budget also releases the investment reserved for the BCSSS pensioners, righting that historic wrong. For North West Leicestershire, the decision means that more than 750 BCSSS members will now receive an average of an additional £100 a week. We owe great gratitude to the mineworkers and their families who helped power our nation for so long; this is their just deserts.
North West Leicestershire is a semi-rural constituency. The changes to allow the transfer of inheritance tax allowances to a surviving partner are welcome, but I know the worries of farmers in my constituency, so I ask Ministers to keep the IHT thresholds for farmers under review and to consider them in the light of Baroness Batters’s report on farming profitability that is due to be published.
This Budget, delivered by a Labour Chancellor and a Labour Government, invests in our people by supporting them. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment towards dealing with the cost of living. With energy support worth £150 a year, the warm homes plan, frozen prescription charges and the extension of reduced bus fares, alongside the increase in the minimum wage and through the pension triple lock, we are investing in the prevention of health crises that arrive from cold homes, missed medication and social isolation. It is that kind of renewal that our systems need: targeted support that promotes wellbeing and reduces demand on our NHS.
Let me turn to investment in our young people, and to inequality. The Labour Government are feeding kids through breakfast clubs, expanding free school meals and now lifting the two-child limit. That action alone will see 450,000 children lifted out of poverty, including more than 1,700 children in my constituency. With children more likely to be in poverty than people of any other age group across the UK, lifting kids out of poverty expands their opportunity and, crucially, eases the strain on our public services, which are already grappling with avoidable health and social care pressures.
Young people growing up in poverty are twice as likely to be NEET—not in education, employment or training. We have to get hold of that. The support that the Government are providing for children and families on the lowest incomes is an investment in our future. I also note that the removal of the two-child cap removes the vile rape clause from our statute book. It should never have been okay to put women through more trauma in order for them to get financial support.
There is so much more to do. I will continue to fight for my constituents of North West Leicestershire.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Madam Deputy Speaker, sitting here for three hours for a three-minute speech is a bit like the Budget—there is not much in it for working people. Of course, the Budget is fundamentally controversial because it increases income for benefit families but increases taxation for working families. That is the summary of this Budget. It is a Budget born in controversy because the abiding and yet unanswered question is: since the Chancellor knew that tax receipts were up, why did she continue to conceal that in her Downing Street doom loop speech? There has not been an answer to that.
There is much in this Budget to disappoint. For hard-working family farmers, there is a big disappointment. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) laid out very clearly the disappointment of many of us at the fact that the death tax will continue for family farms. Every Member has an opportunity tonight, on resolution 50, to take a stand on that issue and I trust that many will.
On devolution, yes, there are Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland of £370 million. The problem is that the money is already spent, because Stormont so mismanages its funds that it has already overspent by £400 million. The money is gone. We have the tragic situation of the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland saying this week:
“devolution has simply not worked for policing in Northern Ireland…We have lost out as a result of devolution.”
That is the sad commentary, and that means that people in my constituency are less safe than they should be. Instead of having 7,500 police personnel as promised, we are down to 6,200 because of Stormont’s mismanagement, by and large, of the money it gets. There will probably come a point, I suggest to the Treasury, when it will have to put the Stormont Executive into special measures so that they can understand how to balance their books and account for matters as they should.
This Budget talks about four AI growth zones for the whole country, but there is none in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister tell us whether that is because Northern Ireland is going to be subject not to UK law but to the EU’s AI law? Is that why we are being excluded from those growth zones? Are we going to have another Irish sea border, this time in AI?
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome so much that is in the Budget: the measures to reduce the cost of living, most notably the £150 off energy bills; the lifting of half a million children out of poverty, including 3,210 in my constituency of Hartlepool, paid for by taxes on online gambling; and the decision to introduce a mansion tax for properties valued over £2 million, in a nod to our broken council tax system. Sadly, however, a nod is all it was and it does nothing to fix the underlying problem.
Council tax is the most unfair, most outdated and most indefensible tax in Britain today. The longer the Government refuse to reform it, the clearer it becomes that working-class towns like mine are expected to carry on paying the price for a lack of political courage. Let us be honest about what council tax really is: it is a relic of the 1990s, frozen in time, frozen in injustice and weaponised against the poorest communities in this country. Nowhere is that clearer than in Hartlepool, where a band D property costs £2,500 a year for its occupants and here in Westminster it is just £1,000. That is not just unfair; it is a scandal hiding in plain sight.
For many households in Hartlepool, council tax is not just another bill. It is the bill that breaks the family budget, it is the bill that pushes families into arrears and it is the bill that tips people from coping into crisis. What is the answer from successive Governments? We are told that it is too complicated, we are told that it is too politically difficult and we are told that now is not the right time. For the people of Hartlepool and constituencies like it, it has been the right time for decades.
The worst accusation is that if we introduce a new system, there will be winners and losers. The current system has winners and losers. The losers live in terraced houses and the winners live in mansions.
There is nothing Labour about defending a system that punishes working-class communities and protects high-value wealth. There is nothing Labour about a tax that hits hardest those with the least. There is nothing Labour about lacking the political courage to sweep the system away once and for all. Council tax does not merely fail working-class towns; it targets them. There is a solution: a proportional property tax, as backed by Fairer Share. That is what we have to introduce. I urge Ministers to summon the courage to get rid of this regressive tax that harms the people I represent.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Like many Members across this House, my team and I deal with casework about special educational needs on an almost daily basis, so I welcome the announcement that from 2028 the Government will be centrally funding SEND, in theory ending the postcode lottery of SEND provision and lessening the pressure on financially strapped local authorities. However, there was no new money for schools in the Budget, and the OBR estimated that almost £2 billion would need to be cut from the SEND Budget in 2028-29, so how will this work?
The Government and the Education Secretary have long said that the SEND reforms will not be about cutting funds, yet when asked by The Guardian whether the SEND White Paper would have any role in this cut, it was reported that His Majesty’s Treasury said that it would. It is parents and children that must be at the heart of any reform, not cost cutting, but I worry that the Budget sets the scene for just that. I encourage the Government to assure families that their children’s needs will not be ignored because, amid the cuts, they are deemed too expensive.
Sadly, this Budget worsens the economic outlook for young people. The Resolution Foundation has noted that the rise in the minimum wage for under-20s could make it even harder for this age group to find work because, coupled with last year’s employer national insurance rise, it will make hiring even more expensive. Freezing the threshold for when student loan repayments must start is not just another stealth tax; it is one that is specifically aimed at young people. The Government’s decision to again freeze tax bands will also disproportionately impact young people, who earn most of their income through wages rather than dividends and who spend a much larger share of their income on essentials that are impacted by higher inflation, such as food and rent.
Turning to disabled people, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the long-overdue removal of the two-child benefit cap, but this change does not help families raising disabled children, who were already exempt from it and are far more likely to be living in poverty. Rhetoric suggesting that benefit claimants get luxury cars is simply misleading, unhelpful and ultimately punitive. It does nothing to fix our economy, but it does create an enemy of vulnerable people. People from disabled communities have told me that they used to be forgotten entirely, but are now upset at being scapegoated for the country’s ills, and are getting tired of it. One disabled person told me recently that they almost wished disabled people could go back to being forgotten. Research from Sense, the charity for disabled people with complex needs, points out that two in five parents of disabled children cannot properly heat their homes in winter, with the same proportion skipping meals so that their child can eat. There are so many other measures that should have been in the Budget, but it does absolutely nothing to support these communities.
Finally, on mental health, Renew Counselling, a 100-year-old charity in my constituency delivering mental health support, wrote to me after the Budget to remind me of the extra strain the rise in the minimum wage will place on it. It is not that it disagrees with paying it, but where is the support for those charities?
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes the donations for my work on public ownership of water, crowdfunders and my articles covering some of the topics I will mention today in Byline Times, The Guardian and the New Statesman, which are available from all good newsagents.
There were decisions in this Budget that deserve recognition, as many Members have said, including ending the two-child cap, meaningful moves towards a fairer tax system, higher taxes on dividends, a surcharge on multimillion-pound properties and rightly expecting more from online gambling companies whose profits come with real social harm. Raising the minimum wage will give millions a little more breathing room, and giving local authorities powers to raise revenue through visitor levies will finally give them a long-overdue additional fiscal lever.
These choices matter. They show that tactical interventions can ease pressure on households and help redistribute income and power, but we cannot pretend that a series of tactical fixes adds up to the strategic plan that this country urgently needs. When the very economic system itself is producing the crisis, incremental adjustments will never be enough. Repainting the wallpaper will not fix the crumbling walls. Alas, by that measure, this Budget falls short. It does not answer the two fundamental questions before us: how do we renew our social democracy, and in doing so, how do we finally tackle the cost of living crisis?
The crisis of our democracy, the crisis of social democracy, is inseparable from the cost of living crisis. They are driven by the same forces: first by the climate emergency, which now one of the biggest drivers of inflation through water stress, food insecurity, rising extra costs and global supply shocks. Secondly, the ability of Governments to act in the public interest is being weakened. Silicon valley and finance capital now wield increasing power over our daily lives. Thirdly, the loss of democratic agency leaves us exposed to corporate extraction: extreme price gouging; essential services like water, food and energy run as cash machines; and monopolies with almost no restraint.
If we fail to confront those forces—fail to tackle the profit-maximisation-at-any-cost operation that now dominates our economy—we cannot bring down the cost of living. By that metric, this Budget failed, and until this Government are prepared to tackle those structural failures, my fear is that they will continue to lose their way, as they are currently doing. The Government must change course. They must fix the structural concerns of this country, and they must do so now.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
First, I welcome the £820 million increase in funding for Scotland, the largest real-terms settlement Scotland has received. I have no doubt that my constituents will be pleased to hear of the increase, and I can only hope that they will benefit from it.
Today’s theme is investment, and I would like to address the SNP’s lacklustre investment in our health infrastructure. To be clear, I want to ensure that the money sent to Scotland for devolved matters is not frittered away by SNP Scottish Government mismanagement. The residents of my constituency have been crying out for a healthcare centre for years. I have written to the Scottish Government on numerous occasions, pressing both the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for action. The response is always the same: either a resounding no or silence.
The people of Mid Dunbartonshire deserve better. Nearby in East Renfrewshire, they have received the very same type of health and care centre we have been crying out for, showing what is possible in constituencies like mine when the SNP provides adequate funding. By investing in local health and care, we could make serious long-term savings for the NHS, preventing costly long-term conditions and avoidable hospital admissions through early intervention. That would give the community access to the care, health and wellbeing it needs close to home, reducing the need for often frail or elderly constituents to make the difficult journey to Glasgow.
I urge the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to join me in writing to the Scottish Government to request that the residents of Mid Dunbartonshire get the health and care hub they deserve.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
May I beg your indulgence briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker? This morning, I had the honour of attending the funeral of Makhan Singh, a kind and dedicated public servant in Gravesham. He served as a councillor for 36 years and was the first Sikh mayor in Kent and a freeman. He spent his life living the essence of Sikhism: service to others before oneself. He loved politics, but he loved helping people more, so I would like to send much love to his family as he will be missed.
This Budget delivers on much of the manifesto to help residents of Gravesham. I would like to touch on a few things that will help Gravesham. First, the Budget will help children out of poverty. Children and young people are not just our future; they are here, and the mark of any decent society is how we look after and support our children and young people.
I am delighted to see many of the measures in the Budget, including the removal of the two-child limit, which will help over 3,000 children in Gravesham, as well as money for breakfast clubs and childcare, so that families can balance the competing pressures of work and raising a family. In addition, the youth guarantee scheme will help young people who are starting out.
There is help for Gravesham’s businesses, too. The Chancellor spoke to local businesses in Gravesham about reforming business rates to ensure that high streets have the same opportunities despite the competition with large supermarkets and online retailers. The Budget starts the journey of reforming rates, helping 1,000 businesses and ensuring that warehouses and online retailers pay more, including during the transition.
The Budget will help with the cost of living. Freezing rail fares, reducing energy bills, freezing fuel duty and freezing prescription charges will help in the months ahead, as will keeping the triple lock on state pensions.
In the Budget, the Chancellor mentioned the lower Thames crossing. The Treasury and Transport teams will know of my long-running campaign on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and I will be holding the Government to account on the promises made to our communities. We have been calling in particular for the permanent restoration of the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry passenger service, which was cut by Kent county council and Thurrock council. We think that a small amount of the lower Thames crossing toll money should be ringfenced to provide that service.
Jen Craft
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for mentioning our campaign. As she said, we both care very much about the return of the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry, which is a vital part of local public transport infrastructure. Our plea is for a very small proportion of the projected toll of the lower Thames crossing to be used to pay for the return of the ferry in perpetuity.
Dr Sullivan
I could not agree more.
After 14 years of cuts and austerity for local councils, communities like mine in Gravesham have been impacted by so many reduced services. In welcoming the Budget, I call for Gravesham’s fair share of the fair funding formula. The £1.5 million pride of place funding is a fantastic start as a downpayment for investment in Gravesham, but the Budget will be meaningful only if it reaches places like my constituency, which has carried the weight of neglect for years. Gravesham has the potential, talent and ambition to thrive, but it needs sustained investment to unlock that promise. I support the Budget and will continue pressing for the funded services and local infrastructure that my constituents have been denied for so long.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Government’s abolition of the two-child benefit cap, but it should not have taken 16 months—it should have been the first act of a Labour Government.
I will speak first about the national health service. It is the jewel in the UK crown, but under consecutive Governments, millions of pounds of public money has gone to waste on interest payments for PFI schemes—that is money that should have been spent on frontline care or paying for doctors and nurses. PFI was a costly failure that lined the pockets of private consultants and contractors at the expense of NHS patients and staff. Now, it appears that the Government are planning to do the same again but expect different results.
Failed PFI schemes from the noughties, for three Leicestershire hospitals, saw the NHS sued for almost £30 million by the favoured consortium despite work not being taken and not a single hospital being built. Leicester’s three hospitals are still without any new buildings, as Ministers have pushed their development into wave 2, way beyond the original 2030 target, more than 30 years after the need was first identified. Coventry hospital, which was built, costs £1 million a week alone. The law was even changed to ensure that private contractors were paid before our NHS staff. Since the inception of PFI, around £60 billion of private money has gone into 700 PFI projects. In return, the Government will pay £306 billion. Those escalating costs eat into the NHS budget and leave less for frontline services.
Secondly, I will speak about private providers. As an optometrist, I have referred people for cataracts surgery because the waiting time is much shorter and it makes sense to do so, but unfortunately the transfer of taxpayer money to the private sector reduces resources for NHS services and ultimately limits its ability to treat patients effectively. The Government have apparently set aside £2.5 billion—and that is set to rise to £16 billion—for private services That is disappointing, as they could have used the Budget to expand NHS capacity by building new facilities, rather than buying out private sector clinics, but they did not. They could support local authorities and not-for-profit organisations to take over social care, but they have not. These are political decisions that have consequences in the long run.
Thirdly, I would like to speak about the deal with Palantir on data sharing that the Health Secretary is pressing ahead with. I have had patients contact me who are really concerned about data sharing. In fact, two of them wrote to me in the last week because they are really frightened that they have to opt out of this. It seems that our data is a commodity that is going to the highest bidder.
I would also quickly like to touch on hospices. I am running out of time, but LOROS hospice in my constituency is serving 1.2 million people in Leicester with only 18 beds—
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I would like to focus my remarks on how this Budget will deliver enhanced transport connectivity and further devolution, allowing towns like those I represent to grow their way out of the cuts they have been subjected to for over a decade.
Transport connectivity is the difference between our towns and those within them either getting ahead or being left behind. My constituents have long been overlooked when it comes to transport planning and spending, and I was delighted that at the spending review earlier this year, the Greater Manchester city region received over £2.5 billion to plug the gaps there in local connectivity. As a result, it was announced that the tram will now be coming to Heywood, with spades in the ground by 2028 and a commitment from the mayor that he will revisit the business case for extending the Metrolink to Middleton. This is the difference that a Labour Government make with a Labour-led city region.
This Budget went even further. I was delighted to hear last week that, thanks to the discipline and responsiveness of this Chancellor, the northern growth corridor and the trans-Pennine route upgrade will receive the investment they need. That welcome commitment came alongside the decision to freeze rail fares for the first time in 30 years, making progress in ensuring that anyone, no matter where they come from, can get from A to B. I am proud that, through the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, we have been able to keep bus and tram fares as low as possible, and it is important that rail is not left behind. I am delighted that, as Greater Manchester moves to integrate rail lines into the Bee Network, these prices will now be frozen, too.
If we stick to the plan and ensure that devolution is delivered, I envisage a point in the future when my constituents can get into Manchester city centre on safe and reliable public transport and go on to make their journeys to other cities across the north. That is why I am determined to see the promise of this investment delivered upon and swift progress made to connect the north, after the Tories cancelled the northern leg of High Speed 2.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for investment into her town and the wider region. Does she agree that this investment is only possible because the economy has been stabilised by a Chancellor who is investing in capital infrastructure to the tune of £120 billion and has attracted around £250 billion of private sector investment, which contrasts sharply with the Conservatives, who raided the capital investment budget for day-to-day spending and deterred that long-term investment from the private sector?
Mrs Blundell
I absolutely agree. It is thanks to this Chancellor’s determination to be disciplined that we are able to deliver this investment in Greater Manchester and my constituency.
The people of Greater Manchester are really resilient. Many people try to talk us down, but our city region and our economy are vibrant and dynamic. Looking at this Budget, it is clear to me that this Government recognise our potential and are keen to connect Greater Manchester internally and bind it more closely with those other great cities of Leeds and Liverpool.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I represent a constituency on the other side of the Pennines. Does my hon. Friend agree that this investment in transport in the north, linking across the Pennines to great cities like Leeds and Bradford and delivering on Northern Powerhouse Rail in full, including a station in Bradford, is necessary?
Mrs Blundell
I absolutely agree. This Chancellor recognises that connectivity and ambition are two sides of the same coin. She knows that we do not cut our way to a stronger, more stable economy or a more equal society—we invest our way there.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Budget and its intention to build a better connected and fairer country. It will bring about the change that my constituents deserve, and I look forward to working with colleagues on delivering it.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I begin by thanking the Chancellor for the incredibly important steps that she has taken in the Budget. Five hundred and ten people in my constituency of South Derbyshire who spent their lives working in the mining industry—people who helped power our nation—will now receive a significant uplift in their BCSSS pension each month. That is life-changing support.
I also welcome the measures that will lift 2,020 children in South Derbyshire out of poverty. That is not an abstract number; those are real families, who will now have a fairer start and a future with more opportunities than struggles. From next April, households will see energy bills fall by £150. At a time when every pound matters, that will make a direct difference to people’s lives. I also thank the Chancellor for maintaining a clear and unwavering focus on fixing our NHS, because the health of our nation is the foundation of our prosperity.
Many of the Budget’s measures will be felt in rural and semi-rural constituencies such as mine, and by farming families, who often feel overlooked. I am grateful for the specific concession that mitigates the impact of changes to inheritance tax for married farming couples. That is a welcome change following 13 months of campaigning by many, including farmers, the National Farmers’ Union and the Labour Rural Research Group, of which I am a proud member.
However, although there is much to commend, I must also be honest: for all the good that this Budget does—and it does a lot—many farmers in my constituency simply cannot see past the broader inheritance tax changes. They remember that Labour promised no such changes before the general election and that our manifesto declared that food is the first line of defence, yet right now this country has just six days’ worth of food supplies. With global tensions rising and instability growing even closer to home in Europe, we should be doing everything possible to support the very people who help keep Britain fed.
Most farmers are not wealthy land barons; they live hand to mouth on tiny and sometimes non-existent profit margins. Many were explicitly advised not to hand over their farms to their children, and they now face enormous and unexpected tax bills. For some, that means selling off land; for others, it means delaying or abandoning plans to diversify—precisely the type of innovation we should be encouraging. I look forward to the forthcoming report by Baroness Batters, and I hope the Government take it seriously, because we must acknowledge a difficult truth: we have lost the trust of our farmers and they deserve, now more than ever, our utmost respect, our honesty and our unwavering support.
For farmers who are elderly or terminally ill, the anti-forestalling clause in the inheritance tax policy is creating a level of distress and strain that cannot be overstated. As the Prime Minister has previously said:
“If somebody makes powerful representations, then my instinct is to consider what’s being said. Getting it right is more important than ploughing on with a package which doesn’t necessarily achieve the desired outcome.”
While I welcome this Budget, I plead with the Government to look again at APR and inheritance tax for farmers.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Although he is not in his place, I thank my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for the investment in local hospitals, the 11 GPs across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, the 13,000 emergency dental appointments that we have had across Dorset, and the £1.3 million that my constituency of Bournemouth West has received to reopen the Winton health centre, which closed under the last Government. This is the difference that a Government who prioritise investment can make.
Before I was elected, I met a couple whom I will never forget. He was a refuse collector for the local authority who was at risk of being fired and rehired on less pay, and with less job security, for the very same job that he had been doing for a decade. She was a teacher at an independent school, and they had two young children in our primary schools. They told me with absolute honesty what it felt like for them—the cost of food rising, energy bills creeping higher, the dread of their fixed-term mortgage coming to an end, and not having the time or money that they could use to treat their children. They were doing everything that society asks of them—working hard, raising children and contributing to their communities—yet they felt that they were slipping backwards.
Let me enlighten any hon. Member who asks, “How is that family better off under this Budget?”, because they are at the forefront of my mind. They will be better off because of the £150 cut to their energy bills, because of the freeze on fuel duty, prescription charges and rail fares, because of the bus service subsidies that we are maintaining, and because the national living wage has been raised. In fact, wages have gone up more in one year under this Government than they went up in the previous decade under the Conservatives. Interest rates have come down five times, which will help with the family’s mortgage. Inflation will be down because of this Budget, and these changes come alongside major investments in our energy infrastructure.
Last week I visited a school that is one of the first to have public investment in solar panels, which will save it £8,500 a year. For our roads, my local authority is getting £38 million, double what it got last year. There is investment in our NHS and cultural values. No Budget sits in isolation. This Budget comes alongside a wider programme, including a new EU-UK deal to stabilise prices and support jobs, renters’ rights and employment rights, extending free school meals and free breakfast clubs, and reforming the planning system, along with investment in house building, to deliver the affordable homes that we so desperately need.
Why have we focused so much in this Budget on cutting the cost of living? Because when households feel pressure, our whole economy feels it: local hospitality businesses have fewer customers, bus companies have fewer passengers, and our creative venues suffer when families can no longer justify the cost of tickets. As we have heard so powerfully, poverty also has a knock-on effect on children’s ability to learn, their behaviour, their health and their life chances. Some 2,000 children in my constituency will benefit from the removal of the two-child limit. Tackling the cost of living is an investment in people, their quality of life and their opportunity to contribute to our communities and economy.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
This Budget has delivered some welcome measures, including increasing the minimum wage for young adults, lowering energy bills and, of course, lifting the two-child limit. I want to be clear that I voted to add that measure to the Government’s programme—I did not vote against the King’s Speech—and I am proud to be on the right side of history, alongside other colleagues, standing with my constituents to right this wrong in the sixth largest economy in the world.
Governments are judged on how well they can create the conditions to prevent illness and to enable children and adults to live long and healthy lives. Before the last election, the NHS had already suffered years of austerity and starvation of investment, as confirmed by the Darzi report last year. However, the reality is that the overall announcements in the Budget are not on the scale needed. Patients, NHS staff and campaigners are clear that the solutions must involve proper funding for the NHS, including capital investment, and that there need to be mechanisms to raise money to address the catastrophe that the Tories drove us into. Ending outsourcing and privatisation, through a wholesale renegotiation of current PFI debts to reduce future payouts, is one way of addressing the issue of chronic underfunding. The UK already spends far less on health than do many other countries in Europe.
Politics is a matter of priorities and making choices about in whose interests decisions are made. That is why I have grave concerns about the reintroduction of the use of private capital for building NHS neighbourhood health centres, given that past arrangements, such as PFI and PF2, are still damaging the NHS. In fact, all the evidence shows that the involvement of the private sector in the NHS has been disastrous in east London. The trials and tribulations of Barts NHS trust reveal the significant threat of PFIs to NHS budgets, and consequently the ability of trusts to provide the care that NHS patients deserve and that trusts want to provide.
At its core, privatisation is a question of resourcing. The extraction of profits from the system has been shown to undermine capacity and value for money, and to take money away from vital patient services, in other words undermining investment and renewal itself. My constituents do not want to be told that there will be more of the same. They are absolutely and utterly desperate for change. It is crucial that any NHS reform prioritises building back publicly provided NHS services, ends privatisation and does not become PFI 2.0. Big business should not be lining its pockets at the expense of our society’s health and wellbeing. The Government made a manifesto promise that the NHS will always be publicly owned and funded. Taxpayers’ money should be spent only on the service itself, because health should be a question of people not profit.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I welcome the positive steps taken in this Budget to support our NHS, including commitments to cut waiting lists, investment in technology and the delivery of up to 250 new neighbourhood health centres across the country. Measures like that matter, especially in rural areas like Cumbria, where our health services have struggled for years.
Yet while many of the measures in the Budget are of benefit to my constituents, there remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief. In last year’s Opposition day debate on farming and inheritance tax, I set out my concerns. Over the course of a debate that has raged for more than a year, Members from across the House have made the case against these changes. They are changes that leave many, not least elderly farmers yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.
Before the election, many farmers feared that the changes were coming. Some transferred in advance and others contacted Labour candidates who reassured them, based on public commitments from the then shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that APR would not be touched. I was one of those Labour candidates, and it is for that reason that I will be voting against the Budget resolution enabling these changes.
Colleagues will agree that it is the privilege of a lifetime to be elected to this place, perhaps more so for those of us who represent the communities that we are from. When the good people of Penrith and Solway decide my time here is up, I intend to walk around my community knowing that I did all I could for them, but I cannot do that knowing that my constituency’s 1,665 farms, the farm workers and the supply chains that depend on them were let down knowing that I broke my word. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not yet clear on the Budget resolution grouping, but I would be grateful to be given the opportunity to vote specifically on resolution 50. I gave my word and I intend to keep it.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on delivering a Budget that protects the national health service, reduces the national debt and eases the cost of living. I warmly welcome her decision to find money to reduce energy bills, freeze rail fares and freeze prescription charges. I also welcome her decision to help to lift 2,600 children out of poverty in my constituency.
It is pleasing to see the announcement in the Budget of millions of pounds of new investment to upgrade technology in healthcare. Providing funding for new digital technology to automate administrative tasks and allow swifter access to patient information will improve NHS productivity. Instead of spending time on admin, NHS staff will be able to focus more on caring for patients.
Since being elected to this House, I have pressed for more to be done to shift healthcare to the community and help to take the burden off hospitals, such as the William Harvey hospital in Ashford, so I welcome the announcement of neighbourhood health centres in the 10-year health plan. I am delighted that the Budget provides funding to ensure that the first of those will be rolled out across the country.
The Budget also provides support for young people taking the crucial first step into long-term employment through apprenticeship funding. That initiative builds on the Labour Government’s small businesses plan, which brought prioritised investment in apprenticeships and digital training by working with local colleges and providers. Ashford college in my constituency is doing excellent work in that area.
This Budget and its priorities stand in stark contrast with what is happening in my local area of Kent. While Labour chooses to invest in public services, rejecting the failed Tory policies of austerity, Reform-led Kent county council is continuing with reckless cuts and fantasy economics. The council, the leader of which said that it would be a “shop window” for how Reform would govern nationally, recently revealed that it had a £46 million overspend.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to turn the clock back. She has argued that the Chancellor should not have made the choices that she did in the Budget, including more than doubling the fiscal headroom. That choice has been welcomed by the financial markets and will provide greater financial resilience, but the Conservatives rejected it, arguing instead that we should return to the days of austerity and cut spending instead.
As someone who worked in the NHS, I saw the damage done by the Conservative Government’s approach to our health service and other public services. It also meant that pay for NHS workers, teachers and other public sector workers was frozen for years, which had a detrimental impact on staff morale, recruitment and retention.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I welcome last week’s Budget, which finally, after 14 years of Tory neglect, puts the people of Birmingham Erdington first.
On our NHS, I was delighted to hear that the Chancellor announced further efforts to shorten NHS waiting lists, including an upgrade to Stockland Green primary care centre in Birmingham Erdington. Bringing care back into the community was always a priority for me when I worked in the NHS, and I am thrilled to see a Labour Government finally deliver it.
In addition, more than 6,000 children in Birmingham Erdington will now receive access to the crucial funds they need to thrive through the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. Growing up in poverty seriously harms a child’s life chances. They are less likely to work as an adult and earn around 25% less by the age of 30 than their peers, making us all poorer in the long run. Wages have risen more in the first year of this Government than in the first decade under the Conservatives, whose austerity measures put so many into the poverty trap. When coupled with freezing train fares and prescription charges, this will lower living costs and make everyday life better for so many.
Another consistent area of concern for my constituents is energy bills. Taking levies off energy bills will save families £150 on average next year, and that figure rises to £300 for many of the most vulnerable households. This is exactly the kind of direct action that people have been crying out for. This Labour Government’s mission is to renew our economy and our communities; I am pleased to see that promise being kept, and will continue holding the Government to account and fighting for a better future for everyone in Erdington, Kingstanding, Castle Vale and south Oscott. I support this Budget wholeheartedly.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.
Before the people of Paisley and Renfrewshire North gave me the distinct honour of asking me to represent them, I had a substantial career in business. After qualifying as a chartered surveyor, I joined a practice in Glasgow. After a decade, I was given the opportunity to become the sole proprietor of that limited company, and I grew that business, doubling its staff and tripling its turnover. If I were starting out now, I would be grateful to this Labour Government for five interest rate cuts, reducing inflation, and ruling out another wasteful independence referendum in Scotland. I empathise with entrepreneurs who are working hard to build something and employ people, and who are willing to take the risk to build a business.
I am not the first Member, and surely will not be the last, to remind this House of the words of the American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes:
“Taxes are what we pay for civilized society”.
When I owned my small business in Scotland, that business benefited from the actions of Government, which were paid for through taxation. Taxes are not simply a cost to business; they provide the very foundation on which businesses can succeed. I hear Conservative Members complaining endlessly about the cost of welfare, but let us be clear that almost every penny of every extra payment to the least well-off—almost every penny of any increase to the minimum wage—is a penny spent in our local communities. It will be spent on sustaining a household, putting food on the table or buying clothes for the kids. Almost every penny of extra spending will go through the cash registers of a local business, helping to sustain local jobs and supporting those local businesses; not one penny of it will go directly to an offshore tax shelter.
This Budget has been a Labour Budget, but it has also been a Budget for growth. I look forward with optimism and confidence for the future, and I look forward to what more can be achieved in Budgets to come.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
For too long, my communities in the towns and villages across the Cramlington and Killingworth constituency felt the full force of Conservative cuts and lived with the consequences of austerity. This Budget is the end of that chapter, because growth only means something when communities right across the country feel it. This Budget invests in communities, in jobs, and in the people who make every part of Britain thrive.
One of the great ambitions of this Government is to tackle child poverty wherever it exists. That child poverty was allowed to grow under the previous Government should be a source of immense shame for the Conservatives. There was a 44% increase in child poverty among working households—a tragedy for each child, for each family and for society. That does not just mean missing the additional extras in life; it means going to school with holes in your shoes, being hungry at home, being cold at night and being excluded from everyday opportunities. Ending the two-child benefit cap will lift almost half a million children out of poverty in one action. In the north-east alone, it will impact 70,000 children, including 1,750 in my own constituency. Those children will now have healthier lives, achieve more at school, and go on to earn more throughout their lives. This Budget will protect the children who are most in need—those who most deserve our support.
Other measures in this Budget will address the cost of living. It will cut energy bills, bring inflation down, freeze rail fares and prescription prices, support the lowest paid through increases to the national living wage and the minimum wage, and provide an extra £575 a year to those on the new state pension. As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I am also delighted to see measures to support communities and co-operatives across the country and to deliver on our commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector, because communities deserve to build and share in their own wealth.
We are backing devolution in my region and backing emerging industries in the north-east investment zone, enabling new technologies to thrive. We are getting public services back on their feet, with an extra £15 billion for the NHS to cut waiting times. We are tackling health inequalities, including by creating 250 new neighbourhood health centres.
I want to touch on one issue before I finish my speech: Moor Farm roundabout in my constituency. Locally, some Conservatives have sought to make mischief by claiming that the Budget means that there is no funding for vital upgrades. The Tories never were ones for letting the truth get in the way of a good story. As they well know, there were never going to be any announcements in the Budget about whether the upgrades were going ahead or not; that will be announced in the first quarter of next year, as part of the road investment strategy.
With this Budget, the Government are continuing to fix the foundations following 14 years of mismanagement from previous Conservative Governments, helping to renew our economy and our communities. It is a Budget of Labour values, fairness and justice.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
This autumn Budget will make a real and material difference to families across the country, including thousands in my constituency. Cutting energy bills by £150, capping rail fares and freezing NHS prescription charges are exactly the measures that my constituents have been asking for. We are giving people the breathing space that they need as the Government continue to invest in long-term solutions to bring down the cost of living for good—in energy, transport, homes and the jobs of the future.
The debate about farming inheritance has shone a spotlight on something deeply important, the fragility of farming profitability in Britain today. At the heart of my concern is a simple economic truth: you cannot tax a business that is not profitable. Even in good years, many farmers in my constituency struggle to break even. A typical 200-acre arable family farm, worth about £2 million, makes only about £27,000 in profit. Many family farms in Suffolk Coastal would not recognise even that figure. Farmers are not opposed to reform. They know that for far too long, agricultural property relief has been used as a loophole for the very wealthy to shelter their assets. So yes, closing that loophole is right, but we must do it in a way that protects working family farms, which simply cannot absorb a tax bill that they have no means to pay.
Our farming sector is on its knees, worn down by Brexit, spiralling costs, unfair trade deals, and supermarket price wars that leave British farmers squeezed to breaking point. There are farmers in this country on universal credit, and farmers in Suffolk Coastal are doing two or three jobs just to put food on their tables. This is the human reality that APR reform must take into account. I support the spousal concession announced in the Budget, but we must go further. I am calling on the Government to commit themselves to a full review of the impact of these APR changes in 12 to 18 months. That review must look not only at how farms have funded these changes but at the wider impacts on food sustainability, the rural economy, land management and food standards. In the long term we must consider the role of supermarkets, whose combined pre-tax profits exceeded £5 billion last year, while some paid no corporation tax at all. Let me gently suggest that perhaps we have an opportunity to raise revenue here and protect our family farms.
I support this Government and I support this Budget, but on APR we must keep listening, keep engaging, and ensure that in closing loopholes we do not inadvertently harm the very communities who feed our country.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
This Budget is about aspiration and investing in the future potential of the British people, from the health service to our small businesses to our high streets. It is about supporting infrastructure and development, whether in airports, roads or power generation.
While we are on the topic of astrology, black holes have recently been the subject of debate. I would simply point out to the Opposition that, although they are absolutely right to talk about black holes, maybe they can recall the situation in which they left this country after the last Parliament, with 11.5% inflation and 5.2% interest rates, rising gilt prices, and six Chancellors in five years. That shower, and the circus routine, have ended, and we now have stability with a Chancellor who is once again supported by the markets and engaged with businesses and across industry.
On the benefits for my constituents, not only will the headroom deliver much more market confidence, but the retail offer is reducing the pressures on the cost of living—from the £150 reduction in energy bills, supporting our manifesto commitment to reduce energy costs, to the freezing of rail fares, which will save an average of £320 a year for commuters from Chatham to London stations, and the engagement on free prescriptions, which will save thousands of residents across Kent and Medway money on their repeat prescriptions.
As many of my hon. Friends have said, the ethical mission of this Labour Government is to reduce poverty. The single act of scrapping the two-child benefit cap will reduce poverty by the biggest margin since the last Labour Government under Gordon Brown and the previous one under Denis Healey, and I am really proud to support it. In my constituency, 3,300 children will be lifted out of poverty by this move, and I think it is testament to the hard work of those on the Front Bench that we have been able to deliver that.
Lastly, this Budget is about building the foundations of a more confident, prosperous country. We have had no quarters under this Labour Government when we have not had growth, in contrast to the recession under the last Government in 2023. This country is growing and has stability, with a firm Chancellor who has a grip on the finances and is setting a clear direction for the future. I am proud, as a Labour representative, to support the Budget tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To make the final Back-Bench speech, I call Jo Platt.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The autumn Budget shapes the choices we make and the kind of society we want to build together. After 14 years of mismanagement, this Budget is about turning the page. It is about moving from uncertainty to opportunity, and about giving people the confidence that the Government are on their side. That is why I welcome the Chancellor’s autumn Budget. It marks the start of a series of measures that will make a real difference, such as helping with the cost of living, supporting our NHS and giving our communities the opportunities they need to reach their potential.
From our proud coalfield communities involved in the BCSSS scheme, who will finally receive the justice they deserve, to the 2,840 families in Leigh and Atherton who will benefit from lifting the two-child benefit cap, this Budget demonstrates that the Government are listening to communities like mine. It shows that the voices of ordinary people and the concerns raised in towns like Leigh and Atherton are being heard. I want to give special thanks to William Hancock, a local mineworker who fought tirelessly to support his fellow workers in getting the justice they deserve.
I was delighted when the Chancellor announced measures to tackle illicit activity on our high streets. For too long, fake shops and rogue traders have undermined confidence and damaged local pride. That ends now. Backed by £45 million over four years, the new crackdown will create a cross-Government taskforce, strengthen trading standards and give law enforcement the tools it needs to protect honest businesses. This is a direct response to the campaign I have led, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), to shut down dodgy shops and restore pride to our high streets. We do need to go further, but this is a huge step forward. It is the start of the change that our communities have demanded for so long.
This Budget is not the end; it is the beginning. Together we will rebuild trust, restore pride and create the kind of society that reflects the best of who we are. That is the future we promised, and that is the future we will deliver.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start my comments on the subject of this debate, let me say that I am aware, and I think a number of right hon. and hon. Members are aware, that since you presided over the opening of this debate last Wednesday, you have been subject to abuse online, with a series of presumptions on your ethnicity and your place of birth. I would like to say—I think on behalf of all of us here—that you have presided over this debate fairly, competently and in the best traditions of this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Whereas—what a colossally inept and incompetent Budget process this has been. The public believe they have been misled, seasoned journalists have been shamefaced, and the head of the OBR has resigned. This is a Budget not guided by principle or a road map for the future, but by a sleight of hand on the British people. It is a Budget that means even lower growth in real disposable incomes for households up and down the country, that increases taxes and increases borrowing rather than controlling them, and contains a total of zero measures that will have any impact on economic growth.
Yet after all the chaos, after all the briefings, and after all the kite flying, leaks and resignations, the core theme of the Budget remains what it has always been: a Budget for “Benefits Street” paid for by raising taxes on working people—a Budget delivered by a Chancellor who is out of her depth, enabled by a Prime Minister who is out of touch. Held captive by Labour Back Benchers, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister decided to put party before country, but despite all the pandering, their careers are still held captive. This Budget is the most expensive botched hostage rescue operation in British history.
This Budget process has raised important issues of accountability. Labour’s election manifesto said:
“Labour will not increase taxes on working people”.
But this Budget extends the freeze in tax thresholds for a further three years. Last year, the Chancellor said:
“we now wipe the slate clean”
and that she would not need to come back for more. But this Budget increases taxes by a further £37 billion and borrowing by a further £57 billion over the next five years. The Chancellor held an unprecedented breakfast address to the nation. But the BBC’s Chris Mason said:
“the words on the day left an impression not at one with the facts we were later to discover and which the chancellor knew at the time.”
Yesterday, the chairman of the OBR resigned. Many in the country believe the Chancellor should reflect and make the same decision.
This could have been a Budget for alarm clock Britain: for the people who work hard to create a better future for their families, their children and grandchildren—the sort of people who believe in an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, and who think it is unfair for the Government to increase their taxes to pay for more benefits; for the people who understand personal responsibility, especially when it comes to having children, and do not see why people on benefits should not have to make the same choices that they have to make.
Debbie Abrahams
When the shadow Minister talks about people in work, is he referring to the families with three or four children who, despite the fact that they are working, are living in poverty? How dare he castigate them and say those awful things, when working families are struggling because of the appalling circumstances that the previous Government left us with?
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady needs to recognise that people are struggling because of decisions made by this Government.
The people do want better public services, but they do not understand why, after the Government handed out a 15% pay hike to train drivers, more trains are running late this year compared to last year. People are striving to make ends meet as prices rise, perhaps putting a little aside to create a better future for their children, and they say that this Budget will make their lives worse, not better. The verdict is in: by more than two to one, the public think that this Budget is unfair, and only 2% think it will make them better off. They are right.
This Budget attacks the strivers in our society—the engines of our economic growth. It confirms the devastating attack on family farms when we need greater food security, increases taxes on dividends when we need to encourage risk taking, discourages saving for retirement, and widens the division between pension protections for public sector and private sector employees. It deals a blow to start-up businesses that want to share their success with their employees, and raises taxes on working people, breaking the Labour party’s own manifesto promise.
This Budget makes it clear that the Labour Government do not believe in personal responsibility, do not understand the spirit of enterprise, will punish aspiration and are too weak to make the hard choices that our economy so desperately needs if it is to get back on the right track.
Jessica Toale
I am sure that the Chancellor appreciates the hon. Gentleman’s input into the Budget, given that the public roundly rejected your approach to our economy just a year and a half ago.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The terms “you” and “yours” should not be used, and interventions need to be short, so quickly get to the point.
Jessica Toale
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the OBR saying that a decade of austerity and the impact of Brexit have had a much more pernicious effect on productivity than we believed before?
Richard Fuller
Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to reflect on the fact that, when she stands in the next election, real household incomes will have gone up by just a quarter of the rate they went up by under 10 years of Conservative government.
If we are to fund the defence of our nation against greater threats, enable young people to have the same security in their retirement as pensioners have today, and maintain public services, we have to create wealth. This Government offer no hope of wealth creation, but the Conservative party does. A society that encourages people to succeed and take the risks that underpin success; a society that expands individual freedom and the scope for personal responsibility; a society that is prepared to make sacrifices to make the lives of our children and grandchildren a little better—we will build that wealth-creating society by bringing down energy costs, cutting spending, cutting taxes, backing business and getting Britain working again.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for opening the debate.
Of course, today’s debate follows yesterday’s publication of the OBR’s report into the early release of the “Economic and fiscal outlook” and the subsequent resignation of Richard Hughes. Let me be clear that what happened last week with the EFO should never have happened, and nor should it ever happen again. We take the report’s findings very seriously. As I informed the House yesterday, we will work with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward a forensic examination of potential premature access at previous fiscal events.
The OBR is a key part of our fiscal framework, and the OBR’s Budget Responsibility Committee continues under the experienced leadership of Tom Josephs and Professor David Miles. In the coming weeks, the Treasury will launch a competitive external recruitment process to appoint a new chair. As with all appointments to the Budget Responsibility Committee, the appointment of the new chair will be made by the Chancellor and will be subject to the consent of the Treasury Committee.
This Government put the utmost weight on Budget security, including the prevention of leaks of information, and a leak inquiry is under way. The Treasury will work closely with the OBR to ensure that robust security arrangements are in place before the spring forecast and for all future forecasts, and the permanent secretary to the Treasury will conduct a review of the Treasury’s security processes to inform future fiscal events.
As the Health Secretary so powerfully set out when he opened today’s debate, cutting NHS waiting lists is a top priority for this Government. We prioritised the NHS at the Budget because a strong health service where people can get the treatment they need is a priority for the British people. Our determination to get the national health service back on its feet and invest in the future of our country stands in stark contrast to the Conservatives, who offer nothing but decline. They offer cuts to funding for public services that are equivalent to firing every police officer in the country twice. After 14 years in power and one year in opposition, the Conservatives still refuse to take responsibility for the state they left the country in, and offer no apology for the damage they did to our public services and our economy when they were in power—and on top of that, they boast that they would do it all again.
The Government are taking the fair and necessary choices to renew our country. Last year at our first Budget, we fixed the foundations by funding the largest ever capital settlement for health, introduced fiscal rules to ensure that the books are always balanced, and chose to invest in roads, rail, energy and homes across the UK.
Chris Hinchliff
Throughout the Budget debate, all those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the concerns of Labour MPs who represent rural constituencies, as I have, about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief. Many of us feel that those changes are not properly calibrated. Will the Minister commit to keeping those changes under close review as they are rolled out, and will he take immediate action if we begin to see farms disappear?
James Murray
The changes that we have set out to agricultural property relief are a fair way forward. They represent generous relief for people, while raising money for the public finances. In this Budget, the Chancellor announced that any unused £1 million allowance for the 100% rate of agricultural property relief and business property relief will be transferable between spouses and civil partners.
Following the Budget last week, we are going further. Despite the challenges that we faced, with the OBR recognising the deep scars to the economy caused by the previous Government, we refused to repeat the mistakes of the past. We rejected uncontrolled borrowing and refused to slash investment. We chose to keep cutting NHS waiting lists, to cut the cost of living and to cut debt and borrowing.
The Chancellor delivered a Budget last week that made fair choices on tax, protected investment in our public services and made our economy more secure. As a result of our choices, people will see more money in their pockets, thanks to the increase in the living wage; they will see rail fares and prescription charges frozen; they will see £150 off their energy bills; and they will see action across the country as we tackle the scourge of illicit businesses blighting our high streets. In short, this was a Budget that we were elected to deliver—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way to you, Mr Hoare, and the rest of us want to hear what he has to say.
James Murray
As the hon. Gentleman knows, Madam Deputy Speaker, I give way to him week in, week out in this place, so I know pretty much what he is going to say. I do not have much time, so I am going to make some progress. [Interruption.] The Opposition are very loud at the moment, but time and again there is deafening silence when they are asked to defend their record in government. They simply refuse to own up and face up to the damage they caused to our economy by slashing investment.
Our decision not to slash investment and to reject uncontrolled borrowing means that we have had to take fair and necessary choices on tax. We are being up front that those choices will mean everyone contributes more, but, as we promised last year, we are keeping taxes on working people as low as possible. We are doing that by reforming the tax system, increasing the rate of tax on property income and on those with £2 million-plus homes, increasing tax rates for online gambling while removing bingo duty, and ensuring that HMRC has the right technology for a modern, effective tax system. We are making the changes that the Conservatives always ducked, and we are keeping taxes on working people as low as possible.
When it comes to growth, the Chancellor has already beaten the forecasts once, with improved growth reported this year. We are determined to beat the forecasts in future years too, because we will not let the previous Government’s record hold Britain back in the future. We are backing entrepreneurs with tax breaks for businesses to scale and stay in the UK. We have secured hundreds of billions of pounds of private investment, and we are making sure that investment goes to every region and nation of the UK, so that everyone across the country feels the benefits of growth.
Families across the country plan how much to spend week in, week out. They budget, save and economise to stay on top of their household finances. We will hold ourselves to the same, and higher, standards when it comes to taxpayers’ money. We will always make sure that the Government live within their means and make every penny count. We have already begun to improve the efficiency of Government, saving £14 billion a year by 2029 through greater use of AI and automation, as well as reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication through the abolition of NHS England.
At last week’s Budget, we set out our plan to make a further £4.9 billion of efficiencies by 2031, beginning by getting rid of police and crime commissioners, cutting the cost of politics and selling Government assets that we no longer need. This means we can make sure that taxpayers’ money—
Sir Edward Leigh
As a matter of interest, why did Labour Chancellor Hugh Dalton resign?
James Murray
The right hon. Gentleman may not have been here, but a colleague of his asked me that same question before. Unfortunately, I did not know the history of that story; I shall have to look it up on Wikipedia tonight to find out. [Laughter.] Clearly, it was before my time.
Our focus on spending public money wisely means we can make sure taxpayers’ money is spent on what matters: the NHS, schools, roads and railways, our armed forces and the police. This Budget means that we can continue to invest in the future. That investment in our future includes our decision to lift 450,000 children out of poverty. Those children should not go hungry simply because of the circumstances of their birth, and their life chances should not be written off before they have even got going.
We do not want to be a country where one in ten 15-year-olds goes hungry once a week because they cannot afford a meal. We want to be a country that recognises the profound damage that child poverty causes to us all. This Labour Government are taking the opportunity to change that. We do not want to be a country where £1 in every £10 of public money is spent on the interest on our national debt alone. That is why it is crucial that we cut borrowing and increase our fiscal headroom. That is the way to make sure that our country is less vulnerable to global shocks. We are determined to make our economy more resilient and ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent on taxpayers’ priorities.
There is an old saying that to govern is to choose. Politics is about making choices, yet the Conservatives are never keen to be judged by the choices they made when they were in government. They chose to cut investment in the foundations of our society, gutting our NHS, failing our schools and abandoning great swathes of the country and the next generation. They botched the Brexit deal, which stifled British trade and wrapped our businesses in red tape. They oversaw a covid recovery that left us lagging behind our neighbours while their donors and cronies pocketed millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, and they were responsible for a mini-Budget that crashed our economy, did great damage to our global reputation and cost mortgage payers hundreds of pounds a month.
Our Government are willing to choose and ready to stand by our choices. I am proud of the choices that we have made in this Budget. Those are choices that protect the NHS and get waiting lists down; cut the cost of living and take £150 off energy bills; and reduce the national debt and bring down the cost of borrowing. We will invest in the infrastructure that will drive growth and productivity across the country. We will not leave the broken welfare system unchanged, and we will spend every penny of taxpayers’ money wisely. Those are fair choices, those are necessary choices, and those are the right choices for the future of our country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That income tax is charged for the tax year 2026-27. And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).
2. Income Tax (Main Rates)
Resolved,
That for the tax year 2026-27 the main rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the basic rate is 20%,
(b) the higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the additional rate is 45%.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
3. Income tax (default and savings rates)
Resolved,
That—
(1) For the tax year 2026-27 the default rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the default basic rate is 20%,
(b) the default higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the default additional rate is 45%.
(2) For the tax year 2026-27 the savings rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the savings basic rate is 20%,
(b) the savings higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the savings additional rate is 45%.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
4. Income tax (dividend rates)
Question put,
That—
(1) In section 8 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (which provides, among other things, for the dividend ordinary rate and dividend upper rate)—
(a) in subsection (1) (the dividend ordinary rate), for “8.75%” substitute “10.75%”, and
(b) in subsection (2) (the dividend upper rate), for “33.75%” substitute “35.75%”.
(2) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2026-27 and subsequent tax years.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I come to the next motion, I have been informed that certain Members are taking photographs in the Lobby while we are in session. Members know that taking photographs is strictly prohibited. The Members names have been given to me. I expect them to come and apologise before the evening is out. If any of those photos is published, there will be severe repercussions.
51. Inheritance tax (pension interests)
Question put,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year about the charging of inheritance tax by reference to benefits payable under a pension scheme on the death of a member of the scheme.
Alcoholic strength of alcoholic product | Rate of duty per litre of alcohol in the product |
Less than 3.5% | £9.96 |
At least 3.5% but less than 8.5% | See Table 2 |
At least 8.5% but not exceeding 22% | £30.62 |
Exceeding 22% | £33.99 |
Description of alcoholic product (of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but less than 8.5%) | Rate of duty per litre of alcohol in the product |
(a) Still cider (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength not exceeding 5.5% | £10.39 |
Beer | £22.58 |
(a) Spirits, wine and other fermented products (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | £26.61” |
Description of alcoholic product | Rate of duty per litre of alcohol in the product |
Alcoholic products of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | £8.58 |
(a) Still cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but not exceeding 5.5% | £8.95 |
(a) Beer, spirits, wine and other fermented products of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% (but less than 8.5%) (b) Sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | £19.45” |
Alcoholic products, other than spirits, of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal discount (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 9.96 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.53 | 49.80 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 1.52 | 163.74 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 0.51 | 239.71 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 290.35 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 290.35 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.08 | 290.35 |
Still cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but not exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal discount (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 10.39 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.64 | 51.95 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 1.59 | 170.87 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 0.53 | 250.15 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 303 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 303 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.09 | 303 |
Beer of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal discount (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 20.67 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 11.48 | 103.34 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 10.33 | 1,337.72 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 5.74 | 2,500.33 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 3.44 | 3,792.12 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 5,342.27 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -1.70 | 5,342.25 |
Wine and other fermented products of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal discount (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 26.61 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.71 | 133.05 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 2.71 | 254.84 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 1.35 | 390.16 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 525.48 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 525.48 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.15 | 525.48 |
Spirits of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal discount (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 21.65 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.71 | 108.26 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 2.71 | 230.04 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 1.35 | 365.36 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 500.68 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 500.68 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.14 | 500.68 |
Alcoholic products, other than spirits, of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal discount (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 8.58 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.18 | 42.90 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 1.31 | 141.06 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 0.44 | 206.50 |
5 | 200 | 600 | - | 250.12 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 250.12 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.07 | 250.12 |
Spirits of an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal discount (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 5.67 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.18 | 28.36 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 1.31 | 126.51 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 0.44 | 191.95 |
5 | 200 | 300 | - | 235.58 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 235.58 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.07 | 235.58 |
Still cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% but not exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal discount (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 8.95 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 2.28 | 44.75 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 1.37 | 147.19 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 0.46 | 215.48 |
5 | 200 | 300 | - | 261.01 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 261.01 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.07 | 261.01 |
Beer of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal discount (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 17.80 | - |
2 | 5 | 112.5 | 9.89 | 89.02 |
3 | 112.5 | 225 | 8.90 | 1,152.29 |
4 | 225 | 450 | 4.95 | 2,153.74 |
5 | 450 | 900 | 2.97 | 3,266.46 |
6 | 900 | 1350 | - | 4,601.73 |
7 | 1350 | 4500 | -1.46 | 4,601.73 |
Wine and other fermented products of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5%; sparkling cider of an alcoholic strength exceeding 5.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal discount (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 19.45 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 1.98 | 97.25 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 1.98 | 186.27 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 0.99 | 285.18 |
5 | 200 | 300 | - | 384.09 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 384.09 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.11 | 384.09 |
Spirits of an alcoholic strength of at least 3.5% | ||||
Discount band | Start threshold (hectolitres) | End threshold (hectolitres) | Marginal discount (£) | Cumulative discount (£) |
1 | 0 | 5 | 15.83 | - |
2 | 5 | 50 | 1.98 | 79.13 |
3 | 50 | 100 | 1.98 | 168.15 |
4 | 100 | 200 | 0.99 | 267.05 |
5 | 200 | 300 | - | 365.96 |
6 | 600 | 1000 | - | 365.96 |
7 | 1000 | 4500 | -0.10 | 365.96” |
1 Cigarettes | An amount equal to the higher of— (a) 16.5% of the retail price plus £353.50 per thousand cigarettes, or (b) £471.93 per thousand cigarettes. |
2 Cigars | £440.93 per kilogram |
3 Hand-rolling tobacco | £503.80 per kilogram |
4 Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco | £193.87 per kilogram |
5 Tobacco for heating | £363.36 per kilogram” |
Wes Streeting
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to confess a sin. Earlier today, in the debate on the Budget, I referenced the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and did not notify him in advance. This was particularly egregious because I was not very nice about him. With that in mind, and out of respect for the customs and conventions of this House, I would like to apologise to the hon. Member and put this note on the record. I have, of course, written to him in similar terms.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me advance notice of his putting this point on the record. I am not sure that it is a sin, or whether he will be absolved of it, but it has been noted.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I present this petition on behalf of my constituents on day 8 of the United Nations 16 Days of Activism.
Dangerous depictions of violence in offline pornography, such as in magazines, are rightly prohibited under UK law, yet no equivalent laws apply to online pornography, despite its scale and accessibility. The Internet Watch Foundation published over 290,000 reports, with 97% depicting violent child sexual abuse against girls.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow,
Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003138]
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
No place is more inappropriate for a 25-hectare solar farm than the nature-rich farmland in Loxwood and Wisborough Green. One hundred and seventy-four residents and four separate parish councils have objected to the proposal. Solar on this scale is better off on supermarket roofs above car parks and on brownfield sites. I am sad to say that the local Liberal Democrats have failed to take a stand, demonstrating that no green field in Sussex is safe.
The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with local residents’ groups and to encourage Chichester District Council to refuse planning permission for the proposed 20MW solar farm in Wisborough Green.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Arundel and South Downs,
Declares that the proposed site on land to the south, south-west and north-west of Malham Farm and north-west of Oakwood Farm, Wisborough Green is inappropriate for the construction of a 20MW solar farm by Renewable Connections, due to its scale, location, and associated impacts on the rural setting and residents; further declares that there are no exceptional circumstances that require a solar farm to be built there, and that the local harms far outweigh the merits of this proposal.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with local residents’ groups and to encourage Chichester District Council to refuse planning permission for the proposed 20MW solar farm in Wisborough Green.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003140]
Government Procurement
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
On 1 October, it became mandatory for Government contracting authorities to include social issues like jobs and skills in their procurement processes. That in itself is a good thing, but the social value model they have prepared is flawed.
I welcome the consultation on further reforms to public procurement issued by the Cabinet Office in June. In his related press release, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made an explicit connection between the consultation and the Government’s proposals for obtaining social value benefits that are specific to the needs of a community. That aligns well with section 12 of the Procurement Act 2023 and the national procurement policy statement, which connects procurement with the Government’s core missions—for example,
“encouraging suppliers to recruit from groups that struggle to access employment opportunities”
as part of the “Take back our streets” mission;
“removing barriers to entry for young people and under-represented groups”
as part of the “Break down barriers to opportunity” mission;
“encouraging suppliers to recruit from economically inactive cohorts”
as part of the health mission; and
“opportunities for small businesses and social enterprises across the country”
as part of the “Kickstart economic growth” mission.
The Act sets clear objectives that, in effect, call for targeted recruitment and training, and local initiatives for small and medium-sized enterprises. The current position builds on an approach that evolved during the last Labour Government, when a range of local and regional initiatives were developed to target jobs and training opportunities at disadvantaged local communities. The term “community” could refer to people living in a specific geographic area or people who share disadvantages in the labour market, such as the long-term unemployed, young people, ex-offenders or care leavers.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s influential 2002 report, “Achieving community benefits through contracts: law, policy and practice” kick-started this whole approach. Later, the Labour Government published the first UK guidance, “Social issues in purchasing”, in 2006. That was followed by the Scottish Government’s “Community benefits in public procurement” document, which included policy, a methodology and model clauses, and remains widely used today.
Similar toolkits were adopted in other areas. Those included the targeted recruitment and training toolkit produced by the north-east improvement and efficiency partnership, the Can Do toolkit adopted by Welsh housing associations, and the west midlands procurement framework for jobs and skills.
As a proud Glaswegian, I am pleased to say that Scotland was an early adopter of targeted recruitment and training through procurement. A 2014 Glasgow University study that covered 24 contracts identified 1,000 people recruited from priority groups, of whom 38% were recruited as a result of the contract requirements; 200 apprentices recruited, of whom 73% were as a result of the contract conditions and all were still in employment; and 6,700 individuals who had received training, of whom 31% would not have done so without those contract conditions.
Glasgow housing association—the stock transfer recipient for roughly 100,000 social homes in the city council area—incorporated new entrant trainee requirements into its regeneration contracts at the outset. The overall achievements by 2014 were that 657 apprentices received an average of 73 weeks’ employment; 501 other new entrant trainees obtained an average of 22 weeks’ employment; a total of 60,000 person-weeks of employment for new entrant trainees were delivered—11.4% of all person-weeks utilised on the contracts; and 48% of new entrant trainee opportunities went to residents of the most disadvantaged areas of Glasgow.
That counts as a great success by any standard, as I am sure the Minister would agree. The outcomes demonstrate the benefits of getting senior management buy-in and staff resources from the outset. Targeted recruitment and training then become a normal part of commissioning, procurement and contract management. The approach set out in the Scottish Government guidance is underpinned by the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which remains good law in Scotland.
Let us come back to 2025. The Government’s “Procurement Policy Note 002: The Social Value Model” updates the 2013 social value model. Both iterations of the model originate from discussions between the Government and civil society organisations that resulted in the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. For services contracts, the model encourages contracting authorities to procure some wider community benefit from the way their services contracts are delivered, often following good practice developed by innovative community-based service providers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on an important subject. He always provides much detail and information to help us. When it comes to procurement, cheapest is not always best. We should consider the very thing that he refers to—the social value—to ensure that we support local businesses and the community. In listening to what he says, I can see things that we in Northern Ireland could and should take advantage of. Will the Minister consider sharing these ideas with the Assembly in Northern Ireland? That would be advantageous not just for the Minister, but for us all.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman is right, of course: cheapest is not always best. That is partly what the social value model is all about; it is designed to ensure that there is genuine social value, not simply the cheapest model.
The 2025 version of the social value model extends the scope to all contracts of central Government Departments, Executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies that fall within the scope of the Procurement Act 2023. It then encourages other contracting authorities to apply that approach. As a result, the social value model must now be used on most infrastructure and building contracts as well.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When I had the privilege of leading a council in north Staffordshire, we tried to invent a model that allowed us to use the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 in exactly the way that my hon. Friend describes, so that when we were working with a registered social landlord on house building, for example, we could stipulate that a proportion of the bricks should come from the local area and that, in turn, apprentices would be working in those factories. I found that it was a matter of political will, but also that procurement officers sometimes struggled to understand how to quantify social value. Does my hon. Friend have a solution—one that the Minister could then cascade through Government—for working out the social value that we are all seeking to achieve?
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend gives an apposite example of some of the problems that can arise. I will not be so bold as to say I have the solution, but I will at least try to set out the problem with clarity, so that the Minister can ensure that his officers are able to provide a proper solution.
The model details eight types of social value, each with several areas of activity. Those cover fair work, training to address skills gaps, support for small business and community business, action for sustainability, crime reduction, overcoming barriers to work, and support for health and wellbeing. Contracting authorities can choose which of those are relevant to a particular procurement, but one element is mandatory: where a type of social value is selected, the standard reporting metric set out in the model must then be used for monitoring and reporting. Herein lies the problem. These monitoring requirements will influence how social value requirements are described in tenders and contracts. A contracting authority using a targeted recruitment and training toolkit would struggle to comply with the standard reporting metrics, as they would not relate to the tried and tested specifications that are used.
Many of the options in the social value model are related to the jobs, skills and SME opportunities that are contemplated in the national procurement policy statement. However, the model appears to be expecting procurement officials to create tender requirements whereby potential contractors will identify labour shortages and community needs and then propose ways to fill these gaps in the delivery of the contract. That may be possible with a services contract, but it is really not workable in a large, complex building and infrastructure development.
What are my concerns? First, apart from the way outputs are recorded, no specific elements of the social value model are mandatory for contracting authorities, so the provision of opportunities for people who are currently disadvantaged in the labour market is not mandatory. Contracting authorities can choose to focus on other activities contained in the social value model.
Secondly, the approach for every social value option is to require bidders for the contract to provide a comprehensive method statement at tender stage. That puts a heavy burden on potential contractors and is a huge barrier to small businesses bidding for contracts, which is perverse when breaking down barriers to SME engagement is one of the Procurement Act principles and a core mission of the Government.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and a powerful argument. I have been dealing with an advanced manufacturer of metal and steel wires in my constituency that has been put off by the very thing he describes. That company stands ready to support the Government’s mission on clean and green energy—it wants to supply its steel wires to wind farms—but things like this deter it from getting involved in the first place. Does he agree that that needs to change?
Barry Gardiner
I am heartened. When some hon. Members approached me about this Adjournment debate, I said, “Look, it’s extremely boring—you won’t want to be in it,” but to have had three interventions that have been so apposite is really gratifying.
An alternative approach would be for most social value requirements to be included in the tender and contract documents as conditions relating to the delivery of the contract, rather than an item that is scored at the tender stage. Here, a method statement would be required shortly after the award of the contract, but only the winning contractor would have to prepare it. I hope that that goes some way to answering the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards).
My third concern is that the social value requirements may not be deliverable in large construction contracts. These have many layers of employer involved in delivering the contract and a significant turnover of employers and workforces at different stages of the contract. That is very different from the majority of service contracts. Key issues arising from this could include: ensuring that the subcontractors who employ most of the workforce deliver the social value requirements and provide the necessary monitoring information; getting highly mobile subcontractors to recruit and train locally based people; and ensuring continuity of employment and training for new entrants when subcontractors have limited engagement with the project and the training requires one or two years of on-site support. The current social value model demonstrates no awareness of those issues. If it feels impractical to achieve jobs and training on a particular project, procurement teams may opt for alternative social value outputs or opt out altogether. That could undermine the high priority given to providing opportunities for disadvantaged groups in the delivery of major projects.
Fourthly, the social value model uses terms such as “people under-represented in the labour market” and “disabled people”. Most applicants from these groups will not be identified on any register or easily categorised for recruitment and monitoring purposes. Indeed, they may not want to be labelled in this way, whatever the standard metrics require. In the toolkits to which I have referred, the focus of attention is on local people’s need for employment and for in-work training and support. Often months or years of employment is needed if new entrants are to become fully productive and embedded in their trade. Targeting comes by recruiting from training and support organisations that work with the target communities, especially local organisations.
Fifthly, the term “community” may have widely different meanings. Where there is a locality element in the model’s mandatory standard reporting metrics, “community” is defined as a UK region, but people living close to a major infrastructure development probably see their community as having much narrower boundaries. These more targeted benefits seem closer to the Government’s missions as described.
There is an additional question. The annex to procurement policy note 2, from February this year, states that employment opportunities arising from a contract must be advertised via the Department for Work and Pensions’ “Find a job” website, as well as local jobcentres. In the past, the website has offered the employer suitable candidates from anywhere in the UK, often within hours. That creates additional barriers for local new entrants, as they are competing with candidates from a very wide area. If the requirement is still applicable, this issue needs to be addressed by the Department for Work and Pensions.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important subject to the House. Will he join me in welcoming the announcement that is hot off the press this evening from the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how councils, police and fire authorities in England will now be able to reserve bidding for lower-value contracts to local and UK suppliers? This is all about opening up Government work to small businesses and enabling—exactly as he was saying—small businesses and local people to get high-skilled jobs from such Government procurement.
Barry Gardiner
Goodness me! It is very rare that I stand in this Chamber and get such immediate results from the Government. If this is a precedent, it is one that I wholeheartedly welcome. I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has just reported is the new Government policy. As I was saying about the Department for Work and Pensions, defining some job vacancies as “new entrant trainee opportunities” and naming local organisations as potential recruitment partners can increase opportunities for local people without damaging competition, and he has just mentioned a very good example. This is especially important in the context of the youth guarantee announced by the Government in September. Likewise, local business support organisations can help increase opportunities for local SMEs. Many combined authorities have a role to play in promoting good practice, on a shared basis, in their regions.
Finally, I am concerned that the current model provides a complex shopping list of what social value might be sought. It leaves procurement teams to unpack what each will involve and then turn that into a tender requirement. This is in a context in which many of the procurement staff involved, especially in works contracts, will be new to social value. I am struck by the critique of the social value approach that was made in the 2024 report published by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, one of the leading organisations in the field. It says that
“an entire industry has grown up around the demand for methods, measures and consultancy time to help understand and measure social value. As a result, there are concerns that the original purpose of social value and the nuanced social dynamics involved in measuring its impact may be lost to bureaucracy and rigid frameworks.”
I think that sums it up perfectly.
In my view, the current social value model will bring a bonanza for consultants. Both contracting authorities and contractors will feel that they need to seek help to engage with these relatively new requirements. It would be far more efficient to simplify the requirements and equip procurement teams with the tools, systems and training to put these into contracts and monitor delivery.
I have three urgent questions for the Minister to consider. First, will the Government review the social value model to reduce the negative impact on small businesses seeking services contracts? Secondly, will the Government, perhaps working with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, commission urgent work to develop a targeted recruitment and training approach for large works contracts, using the experiences gained through the toolkits elsewhere in the UK? Thirdly, will the Government clarify whether all vacancies on works contracts have to be listed on the DWP “Find a job” website, and if so whether employers are able to exercise a local preference when delivering a social value obligation?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing the debate. He raised a number of important and specific points, which I will answer shortly. If he will permit me, I will briefly set out the Government’s approach to procurement, not least because it is the first opportunity that I have had to do so as the Minister responsible for procurement.
I want to emphasise that this Government and I see public procurement as an incredibly important vehicle for social and economic change, and not in the slightest bit boring. Public procurement accounts for one in every three pounds of public spending, totalling some £400 billion a year, so it is a huge opportunity and responsibility to make sure that that budget is spent wisely, and that it does everything possible to boost British jobs and growth, and delivers opportunity and fairness across the country.
Gareth Snell
To follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) about the great announcement that police forces will be able to buy things locally, when will the Minister extend that to ensure that British police services are buying British cars, that the Government car service is buying British cars, that the Motability scheme is using British cars and that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fleet is using British cars? All those currently use foreign-made vehicles, which is not using British taxpayers’ money for British jobs.
Chris Ward
As my hon. Friend knows, the Budget announced progress on that with the Motability scheme, and the Chancellor has spoken many times about the need to buy British. Hopefully, we can start to roll that out and make much greater progress on it. I am glad he welcomes today’s announcement, which I will come to, but whether we are talking about British steel, British shipbuilding, wind farms or, as we saw in the Budget last week, driving innovation and spurring investment across the UK, we need to do far more to ensure that we buy British.
That is also why, just this week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said, we have announced measures to allow local authorities to reserve contracts for suppliers in their area. That will help to keep more than £1 billion of potential spend in local communities, and it will benefit small and local firms considerably. This flows from our decision earlier this year to publish a national procurement policy statement that required contracting authorities to consider wider objectives, such as creating local skills, jobs and opportunities, and to maximise procurement spend with small and medium-sized enterprises.
Over the summer, the Government consulted on a range of proposals to go further, including broadening the definition of national security to economic security, allowing greater support for critical UK industries, such as shipbuilding or steel, and plans to introduce a public interest test to support and help deliver a wave of insourcing. The proposals also included further expanding support and opportunities for SMEs, including tackling the scourge of late payments, and, to go to the thrust of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West, reforming and tightening the definition of social value to see it delivered much more effectively.
We are working through the consultation responses. I have met with a number of businesses, unions and contracting authorities to discuss this further, and we are drawing up plans to bring forward legislation in the next session for a new procurement Bill to deliver these changes.
As the Minister responsible for procurement, I have two central goals. The first is to make the current procurement regime less bureaucratic and burdensome—streamlining the processes wherever possible, reducing unnecessary form-filling and, in particular, making it easier and fairer for SMEs. The second is to ensure that every pound of that £400 billion procurement budget is used to support British jobs, British industries and growth across the country. Within that second goal lies the question of social value, which my hon. Friend raised. I am sympathetic to a number of points he made, and I have discussed particularly with SMEs recently how we can do more in this space.
As my hon. Friend said, the social value model was introduced in 2019 and refreshed in 2025. It is not currently mandatory for all contracting authorities or contracts, and it is applicable only to central Government Departments, executive agencies and non-departmental bodies. As I said, we are consulting on changes that will open up procurement on social value grounds much more widely.
As my hon. Friend will know, the purpose of the social value model in the guidance, which has been in place for only a couple of months, is to ensure that contracting authorities can reward suppliers for more than simply best price, so that they can reflect quality jobs, support people into work and do training opportunities. For example, if we want to build a new road or a new infrastructure project, the contracting authority can consider more than price; it can consider what it does to help the community.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the definition of “community” needs to be improved and clarified. We need to be much clearer about community voice and view on this issue; again, I want to try to bring that forward in the legislation. It is early days to assess the impact of those measures, but I take on board the points that he raises regarding flaws in the process and the need to go further. As I said, that chimes with some of the points that he made.
I am particularly conscious that social value does not become just a tick-box exercise, particularly where large companies can employ more people and consultants and win contracts simply by being able to fill in a form better. That is absolutely not what social value is or should be, and it will absolutely not be what this Government allow to happen when we bring forward legislation in the next Session.
We also need to look at the threshold at which social value requirements apply so that we can ensure that SMEs and community groups have a much more level playing field and we can open up the requirement much more. Again, that will be a part of the consultation.
My hon. Friend asks about the targeted recruitment and training approach for large contracts, and again he made some very good points. I agree that it needs to be a tool to provide local communities with the skills they need. At the moment, the social value model provides some flexibility for contracting authorities in that regard—for example, things such as skills gaps or local problems in the area—but we can do more. I will consider the points he raises and get back to him, and I thank him for those.
My hon. Friend also asks whether all vacancies for works contracts are on the DWP “Find a job” website, and the answer is yes. As of February 2025, there has been a requirement for all Government suppliers to advertise jobs relating to Government contracts in the local jobcentre. As I am sure he can recognise, the aim is to ensure that local people have every opportunity to access quality jobs, but again I will look at the points he makes about how that is playing out and if we can improve it.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned Northern Ireland and how we can do more to support procurement there. I am talking with the Northern Ireland Executive about how we can work together and try to ensure that new legislation that we bring forward in the next Session can apply in Northern Ireland, should they wish it to do so.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West for securing this important debate. Procurement is one of the most important levers we have in government, and we should have far more debates in this House on it. Procurement matters to Government, to taxpayers, to British business, to workers and to people across the country. The best way that we can support UK businesses further to deliver growth is to go further and faster on reforming public procurement. That is what this Government have already done, and that is what we will continue to do. We will deliver a simpler, less bureaucratic process, better value for taxpayers and more opportunities for local jobs and skills in all parts of the country, and we will bring that forward soon. I thank again my hon. Friend and other Members for contributing to the debate tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Heat networks are a pivotal part of our mission to achieve net zero. They are proven to be the most affordable low carbon heat solution in high-density areas, and they can access heat from a variety of sources, including waste heat from growth sectors such as artificial intelligence, which will support energy resilience in an uncertain world. That potential has fuelled Government ambition, and by 2050 we aim to grow heat networks from the current 3% of the UK’s heat demand to 20%. For that ambition to be realised, consumers need to know that they can trust heat networks to provide safe, reliable and cost-effective heat. That starts by ensuring that the nearly half a million households that already rely on heat networks are getting the best possible levels of service.
As the Minister for Energy Consumers, I have met people who are experiencing poor customer service and frequent outages, and people who have been left frustrated by poor communication and opaque prices—most recently two weeks ago in Edinburgh. There can be no greater motivation to get on and put in place a market framework that delivers for all heat network consumers. The Energy Act 2023 provides powers for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to apply in Great Britain. As per section 220 of the Energy Act, we have consulted Scottish Ministers on these regulations and we have their support in this matter. These regulations, as Members will know, do not apply to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Executive have their own powers to introduce regulation.
In March, when this House approved the Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025, we took the first step in ensuring that consumers in a heat network will receive protections comparable to those for gas and electricity. Those regulations introduced the authorisation regime, which will work similarly to the domestic gas and electricity licensing regime and will provide heat network consumers, including the most vulnerable, with the protections they need and deserve.
From 27 January, Ofgem will have the powers to investigate and take action where heat network prices are unfair, to put in place protections from disconnection for vulnerable consumers, and to establish complaints handling processes and standards of conduct that require heat network suppliers to treat their customers fairly. That is just the start, as we seek for the first time ever to establish a regulated market framework to protect heat network consumers and support sector growth.
This statutory instrument builds on the previous statutory instrument by amending it. The amendments expand on the authorisation regime that Ofgem will implement. That includes the provision of powers to Ofgem to assist with the conduct of pricing investigations. Those powers are essential if Ofgem is to protect consumers from unfair high prices and ensure that price decisions are fully tested and transparent.
Other new requirements include the introduction of deemed contracts for households that are being supplied without an official heat supply contract in place. That will ensure that their rights are protected and they will not have their supply disrupted. Additionally, the regulations include provisions to protect consumers if a heat network becomes insolvent. A special administration regime will seek to ensure that consumers do not experience interruptions to their supply of heating and hot water in the event of a heat network operator or supplier insolvency. The statutory instrument also makes it clear that air conditioning systems will be explicitly excluded from the scope of these regulations. Those systems are different from heat networks, and we believe that including them would not be proportionate or in the interests of consumers.
The regulations include provisions to partially revoke the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014. This is designed to avoid duplication in legislation, as some existing requirements and obligations on heat suppliers in the 2014 regulations will be simplified and made more user-friendly, rather than removed entirely. Finally, the regulations make changes to the scope of the ombudsman scheme. The addition of small businesses aims to align the scope for heat networks with the scheme’s application in gas and electricity markets.
Members may notice that there is a slight error in regulation 10, which would have the effect of applying a different definition for a micro-business from that in gas and electricity markets. My officials are aware of this issue, and we will ensure that this error is rectified before the authorisation regime comes into effect.
Technical standards for heat networks are a crucial element of the market framework. We have committed to mandating minimum technical standards, and we aim to consult on proposals shortly. However, those are not in scope of this statutory instrument. There will be an opportunity to discuss that in Committee in more detail at a later date when we introduce regulations.
The regulations have been informed by four public consultations dating back to February 2020, in the time of the previous Government. Feedback from those consultations has been crucial in developing the final proposals included in the earlier 2025 regulations and in these ones. The detailed Ofgem authorisation conditions are still being consulted on and will be published before the authorisation regime commences on 27 January 2026.
This statutory instrument is the culmination of years of engagement with the sector, consumers and their representatives. It seeks to introduce the final elements of the heat network market framework, providing better consumer protections and outcomes. That and the wider heat network regulatory regime represent the first big step in providing heat network consumers with equivalent protections to those in gas and electricity markets. It provides regulation proportionate to the size of Government’s ambitions for the heat network sector and its future growth.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Alec. Congratulations on your appointment to the Panel of Chairs.
This statutory instrument amends The Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations, building on the commitments made in part 8 of the Energy Act 2023—what an Act that was. Heat networks are largely unregulated, leaving consumers vulnerable to expensive heat network contracts with little to no control, since the decentralised heat and water networks are not governed by the same regulation as other utilities. The remaining components of those regulations come into force in January 2026, and along with the Energy Act 2023—with which I am incredibly familiar, having spent hours, weeks and months of my life as the Bill Minister for that legislation—they create the foundation of a regulatory framework.
The statutory instrument establishes a special administration regime for protected heat network companies, designed to maintain essential heating services to ensure continuity of service if a heat network operator becomes insolvent. It mirrors similar arrangements in other regulated sectors, such as electricity and gas. As the Minister said, the statutory instrument also gives Ofgem the powers to investigate disproportionate pricing on heat networks. What guarantee can the Minister give that that will adequately protect the 500,000 homes across the country, including some in my own constituency, that have very little power over the price they pay to be connected to a specific heat network?
The lack of regulation for heat networks has created challenges for consumers. The Energy Act addressed that by introducing a comprehensive regulatory framework for heat networks. Under that Act, Ofgem will become the statutory regulator for heat networks from January 2026. The Act also provided for the appointment of consumer advocacy bodies and ombudsman services, which began earlier this year, and it sets out a staged implementation timeline. From 27 January 2026, the full authorisation regime and special administration permissions will come into effect, marking a significant step towards a regulated market—something that we very much welcome.
Although the statutory instrument is a necessary step towards the regulation of heat networks as set out in the Energy Act, I take this opportunity to reiterate the genuinely desperate situations some of our constituents find themselves in as a result of unregulated decentralised heating, paying extortionate fees with no way out. There have been well-documented cases of consumers facing high cost and limited options under existing arrangements.
With the new framework live at the end of January, it is essential that Ofgem and the Government are fully prepared to deliver effective protections for consumers. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed what steps are being taken to ensure that the special administration regime will effectively protect consumers, and that the amendments introduced by this statutory instrument are sufficient to ensure fairness. We do not, of course, intend to oppose the regulations, but I emphasise the need for robust implementation to ensure that heat network consumers receive the protections promised under the Energy Act.
Martin McCluskey
I am sure that, having experienced the original work on the 2023 Act, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine has a firm grip of exactly what is in here. I am pleased to have been able to relieve him of the burden of the heat network regulations by taking on this role as Minister for Energy Consumers.
On the two points that the hon. Gentleman raises, I am confident both that what we are doing with zoning—that does not apply to Scotland, as he will know—will provide more regulatory power for those who are connecting to heat networks; and that this measure and subsequent regulations will ensure that people are properly protected. I agree with his comments about unregulated, decentralised heating networks. Many Members will have heard from constituents who have experienced real detriment because of a lack of regulation in this area.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are more than 12,000 heat networks across the country, many of which are old legacy systems, and other regulations that we will introduce will address some of the legacy issues with older heat networks. However, I am confident that what we have laid out today will provide additional support. Obviously, there will be further detail on the SAR process, but today is about setting out the general principles. The detailed processes and procedures will be delivered through separate instruments further down the line. I hope that that provides him with the reassurance he was looking for.
With the introduction of market regulation to this sector, the Government are doing something that has never been done before. All households that are connected to a heat network, including the most vulnerable, will now enjoy statutory protections. Heat networks, as I said earlier, could play a crucial role in helping to deliver our ambitions to become a clean energy superpower. To support that, we are proposing proportionate protections for current and future heat network consumers. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025.
Lucy Rigby
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
I turn first to the environmental, social and governance ratings order, which I note the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee flagged as an instrument of interest in its 41st report. The draft order will bring the provision of ESG ratings within the regulatory perimeter of the Financial Conduct Authority. Regulation will improve standards in the market, boost investor confidence and reduce greenwashing, and it has strong support across the financial sector.
As hon. Members will be aware, ESG ratings are a spectrum of products usually marketed as providing an assessment of the ESG profile, characteristics, risk exposures or impacts associated with a company, fund or other financial instrument. ESG ratings are widely relied on by investors to guide investment decisions in line with sustainability risks, opportunities and preferences. Of the £10 trillion-worth of assets under management in the UK in 2024, half had integrated ESG factors into the investment process. In the UK in 2024, more than 5,400 firms were using ESG ratings.
However, the ESG ratings market has developed rapidly and without formal oversight. This has led stakeholders and users to raise concerns about transparency, governance, internal controls and potential conflicts of interest within ESG ratings providers. Identifying these concerns, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions published recommendations for ESG ratings and data providers, calling for higher standards and sufficient oversight in the sector. The Government have acted quickly to deliver progress on this important agenda.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome this measure, but what work have the Government done to ensure that the regulation will be in line with that of international regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, to reduce the burden on our businesses?
Lucy Rigby
We remain open to the prospect of regulatory alignment with other regimes. We want to get this done first, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important point.
As I say, the Government have acted quickly to deliver progress. As hon. Members will know, a consultation was issued by the previous Government; this Government have ensured that the consultation response and draft legislation were published for technical comments as part of the Chancellor’s first Mansion House speech. That draft legislation has been refined into the ESG ratings order before the Committee.
The draft order will create a new regulated activity of providing an ESG rating where that rating is likely to influence a decision to make a specified investment. This will require providers of ESG ratings to be authorised and be supervised by the FCA. In recognition of the fact that ESG ratings are provided by a range of different persons, the scope of the regulated activity is designed to be proportionate to the risk of harm, avoiding dual regulation and maintaining consistency with the existing regulatory framework. The draft order contains specific exclusions to that effect, for example where a firm is providing ESG ratings as part of another regulated activity.
To support the integrity of the UK market and ensure a level playing field, ESG ratings that are provided to a UK customer by an overseas provider will fall into the scope of the regulated activity, except where those ratings are provided without remuneration or financial incentive. The Government support open, competitive and internationally connected financial markets, and we therefore intend to give further consideration to market access arrangements for overseas ESG ratings providers.
In the interests of allowing plenty of time for industry to engage, while also delivering a regulatory regime in a timely manner, the FCA launched its consultation on the specific regulations for ESG ratings providers on 1 December, on the basis that the draft order had been laid on 27 October. The FCA rules will be designed to be proportionate and tailored to address harms while protecting innovation, in line with the regulator’s secondary growth and competitiveness objective.
The proposal to bring ESG ratings providers into regulation has received strong support from industry. The move will strengthen market integrity and boost investor confidence, helping the sector to attract new users and providers. The draft order is a core part of the Government’s agenda to drive growth in the UK’s sustainable finance market.
The draft prudential regulation of credit institutions regulations are a technical instrument that makes changes to support reforms to UK banking regulation. The regulations will keep our legislation for financial services effective, and they will assist the Treasury in applying the FSMA model of regulation to set a prudential framework for banks. The regulations do not introduce any new regulatory requirements for firms.
As hon. Members will be aware, banks are required to follow a set of prudential regulations to manage their risk appropriately and maintain adequate levels of capital to protect against any losses. In addition, the biggest banks are required to hold additional loss-absorbing debt to ensure that they can be allowed to fail without the need for taxpayer-funded bail-outs such as those seen during the global financial crisis.
A significant amount of prudential regulation is set out in the capital requirements regulation, or CRR, which formed part of domestic law during our time as an EU member state. Following our exit from the EU, the Government have been tailoring the existing financial services framework to the UK’s needs. That includes the CRR, which will be removed from the statute book and largely restated in the Prudential Regulation Authority’s rulebook, providing more flexibility and allowing the PRA to set the relevant requirements.
To do that, legislation has been passed to revoke the CRR—notably in FSMA 2021 and FSMA 2023. In that context, the Government have brought forward these technical regulations to make a small number of consequential amendments to pieces of legislation that refer to specific CRR articles—specifically, they amend the Banking Act 2009 to ensure that definitions relating to share capital instruments and banks’ own funds reflect the revocation of certain CRR articles.
In summary, although these draft regulations are technical and do not introduce any new rules, they are nevertheless a necessary step in continuing the reform of our banking regulation to ensure that our regulatory framework remains coherent. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is always a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I will follow the Minister’s lead by starting with the ESG ratings order before moving on to the draft regulations.
The Minister usefully and clearly set out the Government’s view of the ESG ratings order and what it aims to achieve. I want to ask two questions in particular, straight out of the gate. First, although she referred to this slightly in answering the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, could she go into more depth about the approaches taken in other jurisdictions—particularly the United States and the EU? What are the specific implications for our competitiveness? She mentioned that she is open to alignment with other jurisdictions, and she specifically said that she is open to allowing the ratings of overseas ratings providers to be recognised in this country. But will she address the specific point about competitiveness and where the order stands in the global ecosystem of ESG ratings regulation? It would be helpful to understand that.
Secondly, I understand that in the responses to the consultation concerns were raised about charities being granted an exemption. Is the Minister concerned that charities, and particularly household names, might publish ESG scores against certain companies and sectors that investors take seriously, despite there being a lack of transparency on how those scores were reached? I have taken a particular interest as that legitimate concern stood out from the consultation.
As the Minister considers those answers, it is useful for us to step back as we think about ESG to ensure that, as we scrutinise the draft order, we talk about the overall effectiveness of ESG in supporting the interests of savers and investors in the country. My view, having led an ESG team in my previous life—I think this view is shared by a lot of savers and investors in the industry— is that investment managers should always act with the aim of delivering sustainable returns for investors. From the teacher who has paid into their pension their whole life to the entrepreneur who has just sold their business and invested all their money, many people from all walks of life entrust their money to investment firms and portfolio managers, and they rightly expect financial professionals to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities.
In recent years, however, many, including me, have expressed the view that the rise of ESG has allowed and encouraged some fund managers to impose their own values on investment portfolios, thereby potentially impacting the returns achieved for thousands of investors. Of course, where individuals have enough money for a separate account, or where other retail investors choose to invest in a dedicated ESG fund, that is their choice. They may well pay a premium for not investing in certain industries and be comfortable with that.
Chris Coghlan
The shadow Minister makes an interesting point about the personal views of some fund managers. What is his view on including defence stocks in ESG portfolios, given the change in the geopolitical situation?
Gareth Davies
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to that point. It is a very hot topic right now, in terms of our national security, and I think there are implications when it comes to ESG ratings and the overall ESG approach that many fund managers take.
As I was saying, the overall picture is that there is a risk that everyday savers might miss out on returns because of the values and ideals pursued by a particular fund or fund manager, without their expressed wishes necessarily being taken into account. If we accept, as many do, that this is a problem for funds, it follows that it extends to those who provide ESG ratings, too. Therefore, more transparency, which this measure achieves, could and should help to mitigate the risk for savers.
At a broader level, I have made very clear my personal opinion that ESG has gone too far towards values-driven investing, while neglecting to include our collective national, strategic and economic interest. At a time when the world is increasingly geopolitically unstable, and with an aggressive Russia at the door of Europe, is it really responsible or ethical to shun investment in defence companies?
I believe this mindset undermines our national security effort, but it also means that savers and investors could miss out on better returns. The FTSE 100 index is up around 19% for the year to date, compared with shares in Rolls-Royce, which are up 77%; shares in BAE, which are up 38%; and shares in Babcock, which are up 118%. Those companies form the bedrock of the British defence industry. Over the past year, they would have delivered better-than-average investment returns for savers, but so many savers have been excluded from investing in such companies, perhaps without their knowledge.
Similar national importance could be attached to oil and gas companies and investments. Even the Climate Change Committee has been clear that the consumption of oil and gas will be needed for years to come as part of our energy security. Yet just last week, the National Energy System Operator warned that Britain could face gas shortages by 2030 if the industry—
The Chair
Order. While I appreciate the shadow Minister’s thoughts, could he please keep his speech within the context of our debate?
Gareth Davies
I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs Harris. This is related to ESG, which is about environmental, social and governance principles, and accordingly an investment approach and ratings. I was talking about defence as part of the “S”, and oil and gas as part of the environment.
The Chair
Order. I have to be guided by the Clerk, who fears that we may be going out of scope. I would appreciate it if the shadow Minister kept his remarks to the task in hand.
Gareth Davies
I will end my point by simply suggesting that it is not serving investors or the country well by being excluded from oil and gas companies or defence stocks as part of an ESG strategy that they perhaps did not know about.
I now turn to the draft regulations, which revoke assimilated EU law relating to financial services and replace it with rules set by the Bank of England and the PRA. This is part of an ongoing process to repeal and replace assimilated EU financial services law following our departure from the European Union. The purpose of the draft regulations is largely to revoke the relevant parts of the assimilated prudential regime, as set out in the capital requirements regulation, and replace them with the PRA rules, as the Minister set out.
As the Minister made clear, the draft regulations make consequential technical amendments to UK legislation for the purpose of legal coherence. In practice, any references to revoked CRR provisions will be read as references to the corresponding PRA rules. Where no PRA rule exists, the amendments will help to avoid gaps in the legal framework, with which I think we can all agree. This instrument continues the process begun under the previous Government, as the Minister said, and therefore the Opposition do not oppose it.
Lucy Rigby
I welcome the consensus on the draft regulations. Four principal points were raised in relation to the draft order. The first was on the international position, and the recommendations we are putting in place in this draft order are in line with the IOSCO and OECD recommendations. The EU framework has been legislated for, but it will not come into force until 2026. In many areas of financial services, we have the ability to put in place an overseas recognition regime—an ORR. We do not yet have the ability to do that in relation to this, but we hope to take the power in the next financial services Bill to enable us to bring forward exactly this kind of measure where we wish to do so. The shadow Minister might be aware that Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan have codes of conduct of this nature.
In relation to charities—this is a good point and was considered—the scope of the regulated activity set out in the draft order is designed to be proportionate to the risk of harm. As such, charities will be excluded from regulation where a rating is provided on an occasional or one-off basis, or where there is no remuneration or other financial benefit provided to the charity. As I said, this approach, informed by consultation, ensures that the regulation is risk-based and proportionate while avoiding loopholes.
The shadow Minister also mentioned defence. The Chancellor has stated very clearly her view that supporting the defence industry, and indeed Ukraine, is consistent with ethical investing. The regulation will allow investors to more fairly evaluate ESG risks and opportunities related to defence companies. I should make it clear that we have engaged extensively with the defence sector, and we think there is quite limited evidence that defence firms have struggled to access finance on ESG grounds.
Briefly, the fiduciary duty is important and, as the shadow Minister knows, it has been much discussed. The Pensions Minister will address it further in subsequent stages of the Pension Schemes Bill.
Gareth Davies
I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the Government’s position on defence stocks. I wonder whether she could do the same for oil and gas.
Lucy Rigby
The point in relation to oil and gas is exactly the same as that for defence. There is no conflict between what we are doing here and investment in those areas. If anything, it will be helpful across the board. Fiduciary duty was the final point raised, so I will leave it there.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS ACT 2000 (REGULATED ACTIVITIES) (ESG RATINGS) ORDER 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025.—(Lucy Rigby.)
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start, I ask Members to ensure that their electronic devices are switched to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed in the room during sittings. If any Member wishes, and feels robust enough, to remove their jackets, they may do so.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses and amendments are selected and grouped together for debate. Many of you will have done this before, but some may not have. This is a fairly arcane process, so let me try to take you through it.
The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. In debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first, and other Members may indicate if they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing as usual. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I will call the Member who moved the original lead amendment of the group to wind up that debate. Before that Member sits down, they need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw it or put it to a vote. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment, including other clauses in the group, that is for the Chair to decide. Mr Dowd and I will decide, at our discretion, whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments.
Again, let me explain that. We will start, as it happens, with a stand part debate. Ordinarily, when we have a group of amendments, it is up to the Chair to decide whether the matters grouped in that clause have been sufficiently debated not to warrant a stand part debate. I have always taken a fairly relaxed view of that, because sometimes it is helpful to have in effect a stand part debate at the beginning, to cover a whole group of amendments, to set the background to a debate. That is, as far as I am concerned, largely up to you, but you cannot have two bites at the cherry. Do not expect to have a stand part debate in effect at the beginning of the debate and another one at the end. You will not get it—at least, not from this channel.
Before we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill, we have to consider an addition to the order of consideration that was agreed last week, so that clauses 19 and 20 to 26 are included. That is just to correct a tabling error, for which we apologise.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 27th November be amended as follows—
(1) in paragraph 3, after “new Schedules;” insert “Clauses 19 to 26;”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
Clause 1
Purpose of Act: implementing duty of candour etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Public interest—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must define in regulations what constitutes the ‘public interest’ for the purposes of—
(a) Section 1(1)(a),
(b) Schedule 1(8)(b).
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made until a draft has been approved by both Houses.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to define public interest for the purposes of this Act by regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger, on this historic and momentous Bill Committee. With your permission, I will say a few words about just how momentous this is.
Last week, this Committee heard evidence directly from the Hillsborough families about the Bill and what it means to them. I know that the Committee will agree that that was a huge privilege for us. The Bill is of great and national importance to so many people up and down the country, and we will not play politics with this legislation. I hope my colleagues in the Opposition will do the same. What we will do is listen: we will listen to the families, Hillsborough Law Now and the members of this Committee. It is right that they and the Committee push us and challenge us. They have my commitment that if we can find ways to improve the Bill, we will.
Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston. They have each tirelessly campaigned for justice for the Hillsborough families, and played no small part in seeing this legislation brought forward. I am honoured to have them by my side in Committee.
Of course, we have all said this time and again, but we would absolutely not be here without the families. This is for them, and for those who have campaigned tirelessly for so long to seek justice and to ensure that no one ever has to go through what they went through. This is not just for the Hillsborough families, but for anyone who has experienced cover-up or had to fight for the truth, and for the memories of all those who are no longer with us.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As we consider the clause and new clause 2, I want to be clear that the Opposition recognise the importance of the Bill’s overarching aims. Candour, transparency, frankness and, above all, the requirement that public officials act in the public interest are principles that I am sure Members from all parties support.
As we commented on during evidence sessions about the chief coroner, it would be quite wrong to portray good-faith efforts to ensure that we give due consideration to each and every possible implication of the Bill as in any way not giving due regard to its noble aims, in particular the considerable effort and good intentions of the many campaigners supporting it, including the ones we heard from during the evidence sessions. As the Minister commented, I do not think that anyone could have been anything but deeply moved and reflective on hearing the experiences that the witnesses went through in such appalling circumstances. They were a limited group, but one made up not just of those affected by Hillsborough but those affected by many other scandals in which the state and its bodies covered up and mistreated people.
Ultimately, even if we believe that the Bill could be improved, and we will hold the Government to account for any unintended consequences, we support the Bill and do not expect to oppose it on Third Reading. I hope that that is an important message for the campaigners supporting it. However, we want to probe the Government’s thinking and suggest possible improvements.
Before we come to the specifics of our new clause, I will comment on clause 1 as a whole, as it lays out the core purpose of the Bill and highlights just how far the political class as a whole has to come in delivering candour, and how contentious these matters can be. In the very weeks we have been considering this Bill, with the Government professing to want to drive further improvements in the candour and frankness of accountability, we have been having a heated and highly contested public debate about what constitutes candour and frankness. I raise that debate not to further discuss it in Committee—it would not be appropriate to engage in it for its merits—but just to highlight exactly how contentious such things are. We have a Chancellor who, in my view, has clearly failed to operate with candour and frankness, but I am sure that view is fiercely opposed by other members of the Committee.
The Chair
Order. I ask the Opposition Front Bencher to stick to the matter under debate.
Dr Mullan
Thank you, Sir Roger. Committee members have been fiercely disagreeing on something that relates directly to the matters that we are considering today on frankness and candour. I think that demonstrates just how challenging these things will be. We are the politicians who are putting forward this legislation.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member accept that matters of party political difference in a political system are not the same as telling the truth about what happened in a disaster or an event? There is a distinction.
Dr Mullan
Absolutely. The Bill is focused on those examples that are clear and egregious, where it is easy to say that there has been a failure of candour or a deliberate attempt to cover up. The legislation will cover many other situations, however, including Members of Parliament. As Members of Parliament, we are expected to operate with a degree of frankness and candour, and yet just this week we have been fiercely debating whether one of our own has or has not done that. It is important for Members to reflect on the wideness of the ramifications outside the purely obvious examples of what might constitute candour, or a lack of it.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have, in yesterday’s resignation of the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, quite a sensible example of what he is trying to express? That gentleman was due to be in front of a Select Committee of this House this morning, but by resigning, he has skipped being held to account for what he must know about the situation. Candour should surely also apply to those who have resigned.
If I may, Sir Roger, I refer back to the fact that one of the deepest problems has been the resignation of senior police officers. Because they have resigned, they skip away over the horizon and are not able to be held to account. There is only one way that someone should not be held to account, which is through not being on this earth any longer.
The Chair
Order. Sorry I have to keep intervening; let us get this right from the beginning, and then it will stay right all the way through. Interventions must be interventions, not speeches. There is a degree of leeway in Committee that does not exist on the Floor of the House, but nevertheless, please try to confine interventions to brevity if possible, because otherwise Members will be here all night. I concede to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that, while the Bill clearly relates —and has related very heavily in terms of evidence—to Hillsborough and Grenfell, it covers a much wider range of issues. We need to remember that.
Dr Mullan
Thank you for that further clarification, Sir Roger.
These issues are absolutely live and happening all the time—this week alone, we have seen examples of it—and we need to understand the implications of the Bill. I am far from alone in recognising the difficulty in defining terms such as “candour” and “public interest”. John Coggon, professor of law at the University of Bristol law school, writes:
“The public interest has no single, fixed definition. Even as a technical term of art its sense varies both for being context dependent and for being a question that may be settled by different sorts of institutional actor. It may, for instance, demand consideration of national security, national economic interest, protection of health, maintenance of a justice system, protection of fundamental rights. And determinations may be made by courts, politicians, legislators, executive agencies, and so on. Each can and will bring different forms and ranges of consideration to the process of determining what the public interest demands, and whether those demands are compelling.”
Anyone who has spent any time inside a public body—a police force, a regulator or a Government Department—knows that the public interest can mean very different things to different people. It is shaped by context, role, circumstance and sometimes professional norms. What one official believes to be in the public interest, a Minister, senior civil servant or statutory body might see very differently. That is not mere theory; it is the daily reality of modern governance.
Questions were raised during the evidence sessions about how the public interest might be used inappropriately in defence of an allegation of misconduct in public office. As new clause 2 points to, paragraph 1(8)(b) of schedule 1 specifically allows for the withholding of information in the public interest. Failing in that area could lead to both those we would wish not to be prosecuted being prosecuted and those we want to see prosecuted escaping justice. It is an important area of how the Bill will operate.
I am not so ambitious as to suggest that through the Bill the Committee will be able to create a perfect definition of public interest, but I speak in support of the new clause in an attempt to ensure that the Government recognise that they need to properly engage with that issue if the Bill is to be successful. A definition of the public interest need not be exhaustive, as I have said, but the wide-ranging ramifications of the Bill place an onus on the Government to ensure that the frontline civil servant of any kind has somewhere to look and turn to when wrestling with these matters—a starting point that might help them to structure their thinking and make decisions.
By failing to define the term at all, even in the most basic way, the Bill risks giving us a duty that is challenging to operate for a junior civil servant. It risks more uncertainty about compliance, inconsistency between institutions and even potential litigation where prosecutors or courts are left to decide after the fact what Parliament must have meant. The obvious challenging scenario is when officials need to consider situations where there are competing public interests—national security versus transparency, value for money versus speed of delivery, or personal privacy versus public accountability. Without more assistance for thinking those matters through, how does an official protect themselves from the—possibly criminal—allegation that their judgment call was not in the public interest among competing interests?
The new clause does not attempt to dictate exactly what public interest must mean; it simply requires the Secretary of State to set out a structure or framework in regulations, subject to approval by both Houses. Ultimately, if this legislation is to achieve the cultural change that the Government claim it will, the foundations must be clear and easy to understand. Public officials should not be left purely guessing what Parliament might have meant, or how we expected them to weigh these issues—Parliament should tell them. New clause 2 offers the Government the opportunity to do exactly that, and I hope they will take it.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 1 sets out the purpose of the Bill as a whole to ensure that public authorities and public officials perform their functions at all times with candour, transparency and frankness, and in the public interest. As the clause describes, the Bill sets out those duties in the substantive provisions that follow. The clause does not have any separate legal effect itself; it is designed to set out clearly and simply the intention behind the Bill to assist those who will be subject to it and the general public in their understanding.
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for tabling new clause 2, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to define exactly what is meant by the term “public interest” in clause 1. Clause 1 is a purpose clause and does not have any legal effect in and of itself, separate from the other provisions in the Bill. It sets out the intention behind the Bill, and how the Bill achieves that intention by describing the relevant provisions.
In this context, acting in the public interest means fulfilling the obligations and duties in the remainder of the Bill that arise from it; it means being candid at inquiries and investigations; and it means that those working for public authorities must adhere to the codes and ethics required by the Bill. In general, “acting in the public interest” is usually not defined in legislation, as the hon. Gentleman said. This is because what is in the public interest will depend on the circumstance and context of that particular situation. Seeking to define what it means might have the effect of narrowing what could be considered to be in the public interest.
In schedule 1, the public interest is referred to in the context of public interest immunity. Public interest immunity is an established concept in law: it is a rule of evidence where documents are withheld if their disclosure would be injurious to the public interest. What is the “public interest” will be dependent on the particular circumstances, and we should not seek to constrain this or undermine a very long-established legal doctrine that is applied by the courts. The Inquiries Act 2005 and other legislation already contain provisions of this kind to ensure that appropriate protections are attached to sensitive information, which the Bill is replicating. I hope that clarifies the purpose of clause 1 and why defining “public interest” would not be appropriate and could actually hinder proceedings.
Dr Mullan
The Minister rightly describes how tightly the courts consider these matters in detail. As the Bill puts a whole range of very junior civil servants in the firing line, does she at least accept that guidance or materials might be helpful to assist a broader audience in how they approach these issues in their day-to-day work?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that intervention and the whole purpose of this legislation is to ensure exactly that. Obviously, there will be guidance in the codes of ethics that are produced, and public authorities will probably provide training for their individual public servants who will now be captured by the Bill, if, as I hope, it receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act. I am due to attend a session at the University of Liverpool to look at exactly how we can implement the Bill, should it become legislation and reach the statute book. All of that is being taken into consideration to advise everyone about what is expected of them under the duty of candour. Therefore, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 2 to a vote, and I pledge to work with him on exactly that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
This is one of those moments when, should the hon. Gentleman wish to press new clause 2 to a vote, which he may not, it would not be called now; it would be called later in the proceedings, because all new clauses are voted on at the end of the consideration of the Bill.
We come now to amendment 31. This is one of those occasions when we are debating two separate groups of amendments to clause 2. We have the choice: the clause stand part debate can take place now or at the end, but not both. Let us bear that in mind.
Clause 2
Duty of candour and assistance
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(ba) their failure to act, omission, or approval or tacit approval of an action are or may be relevant to the inquiry or investigation, or”.
This amendment clarifies that an indirect wrongdoing would be considered as an occurrence of misconduct or failure when examined as part of an inquiry, investigation or inquest.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(ca) where the authority or official has relevant records, including digital messages and communication, retain and disclose those records;”.
Amendment 32, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(f) ensure all relevant public officials can safely disclose information to an inquiry, investigation or inquest.”
This amendment requires public authorities or officials who assisting an inquiry, investigation or inquest to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to an investigation.
Tessa Munt
Amendment 31 would clarify that an indirect wrongdoing would be considered an occurrence of misconduct or failure when examined as part of an inquiry, investigation, inquest or independent panel. The purpose of and rationale for the amendment is that it would ensure that the Bill clearly covers situations where a public office holder has contributed to wrongdoing. I emphasise that this is about senior figures; I am not talking about junior civil servants and others who have little power. The amendment would apply where that senior public office holder has contributed to wrongdoing through not only direct action but a failure to act, such as an omission or tacit approval.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister. Amendment 32 would require public authorities or officials assisting an inquiry, investigation, inquest or independent panel to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure that relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to that investigation. The amendment would require public authorities to take proactive steps to ensure that all relevant officials can safely disclose information. It would strengthen protections for those providing evidence, helping to prevent retaliation or intimidation, and ensure that inquiries and investigations have access to all relevant information for thorough scrutiny of public officials’ decision making.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills for tabling these amendments. Amendment 31 seeks to ensure that, under the duty of candour and assistance, an inquiry or investigation, or, as she stated, a review panel, is notified by public authorities and officials of all relevant acts or information, including omissions or failures to act. We agree wholeheartedly, and I reassure the hon. Lady and all members of the Committee that the Bill already achieves the intent of the amendment.
Clause 23 provides definitions for terms used throughout the Bill. It specifies that an
“‘act’ includes an omission or a course of conduct”.
Therefore, in clause 2, “act” is to be read as including any omission or course of conduct that may be relevant, which could include approving the actions of others. To “have information” could include information that a person approved the actions of another person, or had knowledge of them and did not prevent them.
Amendment 42 would place a requirement on public authorities under the duty of candour and assistance to retain all relevant records, including digital records. Again, the Government agree with the intention behind the amendment, and believe that the provisions in the Bill are designed to achieve it in practice. Clause 2(4)(a) requires authorities and officials to provide information likely to be relevant to an inquiry or investigation if requested. They will not meet that obligation if they allow the information to be lost or destroyed when they ought to be providing it. In addition, the individual in charge of an authority has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to secure the authority’s compliance with that duty. That would necessarily involve ensuring that information is accessible within the authority, so that it can meet its obligations under the Bill.
Amendment 32 seeks to ensure that the Bill has adequate safeguards to protect those complying with the duty of candour and assistance. We agree that ensuring that public officials feel safe to disclose information is essential, and several aspects of the Bill speak to that point. The duty of candour and assistance provides appropriate safeguards for the protection of sensitive information and onward disclosure and ensures that officials can feel confident that the information they provide will be handled appropriately.
Tessa Munt
Can I ask the Minister for clarity? A lot of the proposed legislation seems to deal with when an investigation has been called for or set up. There may be a significant gap between that and when an authority knows that something has gone wrong and that an investigation, inquiry, inquest or independent panel is likely to follow. Is there is a way in which the duties can kick in the moment that somebody recognises that something will come of that rather than when an investigation is called for formally?
Alex Davies-Jones
There are two versions of the duty of candour: the always-on duty of candour by which every public servant should have to act in their everyday life, and the duty of candour with criminal sanctions attached to it that kicks in when there is an investigation or inquiry. The whole point is that they will work hand-in-hand. The former will prevent the latter—that is the intention. The code of ethics and the guidance that we talked about in an earlier debate will assist, but that will require a significant culture change across the whole public sector; it will not be easy or happen overnight. I am not naive enough to believe that it will be fixed just because we have the legislation. It will take a momentous effort by all of us to ensure that the culture seeps down from the top. That is also the intention behind the implementation, which we will come to later in the debate.
I reassure the hon. Lady that part 2 of the Bill requires public authorities to set out the process for exactly how public officials can raise internal complaints, to promote a culture of internal challenge. It also requires public authorities to set out their whistleblowing procedures, drawing officials’ attention to any legal protections they may benefit from. Although we are sympathetic to the intent behind amendment 32, we do not think that it will provide sufficient clarity on what public authorities would be expected to do to ensure that officials feel safe to disclose information, nor how that would operate as part of their duty of candour and assistance, for which non-compliance entails criminal sanctions.
Given those assurances, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Tessa Munt
The Minister has made her points. I am hopeful that we will end up with those reassurances. We will pick up these points later in the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a public authority or public official is under an obligation to respond to or assist an inquiry or investigation under subsection (4) they should do so within 30 working days.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, after “expeditiously” insert
“and within 30 working days”.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 20, in clause 3, page 3, line 19, leave out
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
and insert “within 30 working days”.
Seamus Logan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I have a number of confessions to make. First of all, this is my first Bill Committee in my 18 months as a Member, so I am a complete novice in terms of how these procedures work—I will be guided by the Chair at all times, of course. Secondly, I am afraid that my office has been decimated by illness, so I am flying blind this morning on some of the details of these amendments. I would be grateful if one of the Clerks could provide me with a hard copy of the amendments under consideration, if possible—actually, I am sure I can get one from the table.
I welcome the Minister’s statement about working together in a collegiate way to try to ensure that the Bill is as strong as it possibly can be. I am very conscious of the evidence that we heard last week and the strength of feeling about the Bill among those affected by not only the Hillsborough tragedy, but the many different tragedies and inquiries that have occurred over the years. That is why we tabled our amendments in a collegiate way to try to strengthen the Bill. That includes these amendments, which, as I understand them—though I am flying blind—seek to replace rather loose wording with a more specific timescale. I have no prior experience of other Bills to go on, but as a mental health officer in a previous life, I know how vital it is to understand the timescales that apply to the duties that fall upon public bodies. The Bill at present—[Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston for bailing me out by providing me with a copy of the amendments.
The current language of the Bill is imprecise. Whenever a duty is placed upon a public authority to perform a certain duty, the legislation should specify a timescale. Notwithstanding the Minister’s advice as to how things might progress with these amendments, we have suggested a timescale of 30 days. That may not be operationally possible—I am happy to consider extending it if that is what the Minister decides—but we believe that this amendment would significantly strengthen the duty on public authorities to operationalise this Bill.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I will speak specifically to clause 2 and the duty of candour and assistance to inquiries, but my remarks are relevant to the Bill as a whole. I want to let the Committee and anyone watching know that I will be talking about the death of a child.
I should have a six-year-old constituent called Ida Lock. She should be at school, playing with her siblings and running rings around her parents. But I do not have that six-year-old constituent, because she died in 2019 at just one week old, despite having been healthy in her mum Sarah’s womb. Ida’s death was preventable: the coroner described her death as caused by gross failures in her care. There were eight opportunities to save Ida, and after Ida’s death there were many more opportunities to make sure that what happened to her never happened again. However, the hospital trust, rather than opening its arms to the family and trying to learn from its mistakes, instead carried out a completely inadequate internal investigation and then, according to the timeline laid out by the coroner, attempted to head off further investigations. In fact, Ida’s case went to the coroner only this year, in 2025. Ida died in 2019. It went there because of the family’s persistence and for no other reason. It was not referred to the coroner, as it should have been, by the hospital trust; in fact, the trust originally graded Ida’s death as “moderate harm”.
Maria Eagle
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger. I just want to say a few words on this clause about why the duty of candour and assistance is so important, and why it means so much to Hillsborough families, some of whom are my constituents. We heard from a small number of them in the evidence sessions, but there are many more who could have told equally difficult stories about their own experience.
What happened at Hillsborough was a disaster. Nobody who worked for South Yorkshire police left their homes that morning intending to cause it, but the reality is that their gross negligence and inadequate organisation did cause it. Within four and a half months, the public inquiry had identified a loss of police control as the main cause of the disaster. Had our state been operating fully and correctly, we would have recognised that as a country and that would have been the end of the matter. There would have been accountability for those failings, lessons would have been learned, and the families could have grieved for their lost loved ones and moved on with their lives.
Instead, what happened was that the South Yorkshire police, aided and abetted by the West Midlands police, set about telling a story, intent only on deflecting blame for their own failings—even though those failings were then identified within four and a half months. One can understand, perhaps, why a police force faced with that disaster would have wanted to give their side of the story and understanding of what had happened. However, once the public inquiry—within four and a half months—had made findings that excoriated the police response to the disaster, accused a senior officer of telling a disgraceful lie and said in terms that the police would have been better advised to have accepted responsibility rather than sought to put forward a different story that was not credible, one would have expected that there would have been accountability, that the truth would have been accepted by the South Yorkshire police and that there would have been no more attempts to put forward a different narrative.
That did not happen. Instead, the then inquest proceedings—the longest in British legal history at that time, taking over a year—were used in terms by the South Yorkshire police to tell a different story: to put it in the public mind that they had not been at fault, as the public inquiry had clearly found, but that it had been the fans who had attended the match who had been at fault. It had been those who died who had contributed in some way to their own deaths. It had been the survivors of that terrible disaster who had somehow caused the problem. It had been hooliganism and drunkenness—it had been ticketless fans who had forced their way into the grounds.
That is the story that the police told, aided and abetted by the media of the day, some of which behaved disgracefully and suffer for it still on Merseyside, I might say. That story was told repeatedly. It was in every newspaper and all the mini-inquests for over a year of those inquest proceedings. At the end of it, the public perception about what had happened at Hillsborough was completely different from what the public inquiry had found. It was as if the public inquiry had never happened; yet it was right in almost every aspect, and within four and a half months of the disaster.
It is now 36 years since the disaster. In our evidence sessions, we heard from some of the families about the ongoing impact of the lies that were told and the story that has been repeatedly told by South Yorkshire police and those responsible for the disaster, who have been completely unable to accept their culpability. Even as late as the second inquest, they tried again to tell that same discredited story, so the importance of this clause cannot be overemphasised. It gets to the heart of why one might wish to call this a Hillsborough law, even though that is not the Bill’s short title. It might be known colloquially as that, because the fact is that, had those public authorities had the duties provided for in clause 2, there is no way they could have undertaken that campaign of lies, disinformation and propaganda against the wholly innocent families and wholly innocent survivors of that disaster.
It is for that reason that I think it is important that the duty of candour and assistance is an essential part of the Bill. If we enact it and implement it properly without any concerns or problems, that duty is one of the things that will enable us to say that this is a Hillsborough law because, had it been in place at the time, the South Yorkshire or West Midlands police could not have engaged in the disgraceful way that they did, simply to deflect the blame on to anybody else but them—even if that hurt those who had died, the families of those who had died, or the thousands and thousands of survivors. We forget that it was not only my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby who was at the match; thousands of people saw what happened. It was filmed and shown live on TV, so the idea that it could be distorted in the way that it has been—at great public expense and over decades—is a terrible disgrace to the way that our systems work.
If the Bill can put that right, it will have done our whole nation a service, and it will be right to call it a Hillsborough law. It will mean that those families can stop their campaigning and start to grieve and live what is left of their lives. Some 36 years on from what happened, surely they have a right to expect that.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for tabling amendments 18 to 20, which would require public officials and authorities to notify and provide information to any inquiry or investigation within 30 days. The Government agree entirely that public authorities and officials should provide assistance to inquiries and investigations as quickly as possible, and the Bill requires that. Clause 2(6) requires authorities and officials to act “expeditiously” when complying with the obligations placed on them. In some cases, it will be possible for officials and authorities to provide the assistance required within 30 days, but there may be times when it is not.
There will be situations where an inquiry or investigation requires an authority to provide a very large amount of information or data, requiring it to set staff and resources aside to search through potentially thousands of documents and assess their relevance, with all the necessary checks and verification that follow. We think it is important that authorities are given sufficient time to conduct thorough searches and provide accurate information, and that the inquiry or investigation will be best placed to set a reasonable timescale for that.
The duty would also apply to former officials who may have a different job or be retired—or have resigned, as we heard earlier—and there may be situations where it is impossible for them to provide the assistance required within a 30-day time limit. Although I totally agree with the sentiment, a degree of flexibility is therefore important so that we get all the information that inquiries and investigations need. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press his amendments, but I agree to work with him on a way forward.
I now turn to clause 2. We heard powerfully from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston exactly why the duty of candour in clause 2 is integral to the Bill. As has been rightly said, this is a Bill for the Hillsborough families, and it will be known colloquially as the Hillsborough law, but it is also a Bill for Ida, for the Grenfell families, for the Manchester Arena families and for anyone who has been wronged by the state.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Today, as well as this Committee, the Independent Office for Police Conduct report on Hillsborough is being published. Within that report, I think there is a recommendation that fully supports the Hillsborough law and says why, because there are officers there who would not have been. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston outlined, history would have been different if those officers had been held to account by clause 2 of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree with my hon. Friend and that is exactly why the Bill is so important and integral. We have all heard the stories—the reality—of what the families, the bereaved and the survivors have been through. No one should ever have to go through that again. The intent behind clause 2 is to do just that: to ensure that no family has to go through the unimaginable again.
Clause 2 sets out the requirements of the duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations; in short, what those under the duty need to do. As subsection (1) states:
“Public authorities and public officials must at all times act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations.”
The duty has two stages to it. The first, in clause 2(3), is the requirement for public officials to come forward and make themselves known to an inquiry or investigation if they have reason to believe that their actions or information they hold might be relevant to it. The second, in clause 2(4), is to then provide any assistance that the inquiry or investigation requires.
Clause 2(4) lists the types of assistance that might involve—for example, drawing attention to information that is particularly significant and, for public authorities, to provide a position statement to an inquiry. The head of a public authority may be asked for information and assistance as an individual public official in their own right, where relevant, but subsection (5) places them under an additional obligation. When the authority that they manage is under the duty, they are personally required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that it complies. We believe that that is crucial to the success of the Bill and for the leaders of public authorities to feel personally accountable under the duty.
Seamus Logan
I welcome the Minister’s response. Having heard what she said about working with me about how we might operationalise the issue, I am prepared to withdraw the amendments. However, it is important to remember, in that conversation, that justice delayed is justice denied.
We have seen so many examples of inquiries and investigations that take years, when months would be much more appropriate. In the circumstances we are speaking about—in this case and the many others that this law will apply to—we must give chairs and leaders of inquiries and investigations some sense of what is reasonable when it comes to public authority responses.
We heard from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale about the health service; I worked in it for 33 years. There is no good reason why it should not be able to respond in if not 30 then 90 days. Some backstop needs to be applied in relation to these responsibilities. I am happy to continue the conversation with the Minister and beg to ask leave withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Application of duty of candour and assistance
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 35, in schedule 1, page 25, line 23, leave out from “direction” to the end of the sub-paragraph and insert
“should be given to a public official working for an intelligence service or the head of such a service pursuant to section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025 as applicable to any other public authority, but may not be given to any other public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning of section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and any such public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this sub-paragraph.”
See Amendment 38.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 36, in schedule 1, page 28, line 38, leave out from “direction” to the end of the sub-paragraph and insert
“should be given to a public official working for an intelligence service or the head of such a service pursuant to section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025 as applicable to any other public authority, but may not be given to any other public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning of section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and any such public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this sub-paragraph.”
See Amendment 38.
Amendment 37, in schedule 1, page 31, line 34, leave out from “direction” to the end of the sub-paragraph and insert
“should be given to a public official working for an intelligence service or the head of such a service pursuant to section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025 as applicable to any other public authority, but may not be given to any other public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning of section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and any such public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this sub-paragraph.”
See Amendment 38.
Amendment 38, in schedule 1, page 34, line 15, leave out from “direction” to the end of the sub-paragraph and insert
“should be given to a public official working for an intelligence service or the head of such a service pursuant to section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025 as applicable to any other public authority, but may not be given to any other public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning of section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and any such public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this sub-paragraph.”
Amendments 35 to 38 would extend the application of the duty of candour and assistance to the intelligence services but would disapply it to individual officers.
Mr Morrison
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. These amendments do nothing more than fix something in the current draft of the Bill, which seems inadvertently to have carved out the security services—an area that could be strengthened, as we heard during the evidence session last week. The amendments seek to extend the duty of candour and assistance to the intelligence services as organisations, ensuring that they as bodies are required to be open and co-operative with the inquiries and any investigations. The amendment balances accountability with national security, by stating that direction will not be given to public officials
“if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence”.
Several of our witnesses last week gave evidence that laid out various examples of how the security services had failed to be fully candid, disregarded accountability, and, at times, misled inquiries. We also know that the Government assured campaigners, Members and other interested parties that there would be no carve-out for the security services in the Bill. The security services do an incredible job in keeping us safe and ensuring that our country’s interests are protected. It is right that their work is covered by the secrecy Act; no one wishes to change that. However, because of that power they should be held to highest standards of accountability. We know that in recent history that has not been the case.
Last week we heard from Pete Weatherby, who, as well as working with the Hillsborough families, supported several families impacted by the Manchester Arena bombing. He said:
“There was a major failure of the intelligence services and the way they dealt with the aftermath of the bombing…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.”––[Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 6, Q3.]
The amendment would ensure, as much as any law can, that that could not happen again, by explicitly ensuring that the security services are accountable to this Bill and therefore to a public who willingly consent to how these organisations work to protect us and our country. This amendment would not endanger national security. It would not impact the way in which some evidence is required to be provided in closed sessions. It would provide the security services with the necessary safeguards to ensure that secret and classified information is protected.
This is what happens now. We heard from the journalist Daniel De Simone, who worked on the agent X story, where the security services tried to mislead and were found out. His testimony stated:
“I do not think it is wrong that there are special advocates in closed material procedures; it is now an established part of a court process. What it does do, though, is place a special responsibility on MI5 to be candid, because their evidence is often very important in very significant cases, where there has been significant loss of life, where people’s citizenship is being removed or where people are being deprived of their liberties.”––[Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 95, Q138.]
Because of that, it is vital that we do not allow any carving out, intentional or otherwise, of the security services, to ensure that they, too, are held to account and must tell the truth. That will strengthen not only their work, but the trust that we place in them.
Dr Mullan
I emphasise that we need clarity on this. Those of us who were able to attend the meeting with the intelligence services will know that they seemed to provide quite a clear account of their individual personal responsibility and all the ways in which they thought the Bill would affect them. That was quite clearly contradicted in our evidence from other witnesses. I am grateful to the Minister for sending round a further note to Committee members this morning, and for our brief chat ahead of this sitting. Even that note raises further contradictions, however, because it says, and I quote, that “the individual public officials working for the UK intelligence services are capable of being caught by the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour”. It lists some other ones, but it includes the duty of candour. Further down, it says, “the Bill specifies that the duty of candour and assistance can only be addressed to public authorities and not individual public officials”.
The Minister was able to give me a brief, informal explanation of that, but I do think this is extremely important. It may be that people are happy for the security services to be excluded to a certain extent, but we have to vote on a shared understanding of what exactly the Bill does in relation to them as entire organisations, as well as to the people who work for them and those who are in charge. I would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarity on that.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank hon. Members for raising those important points. In this Bill, we have aimed to ensure candour while protecting national security. As it stands, inquiries and investigations will be able to demand any information and assistance they require from the intelligence services. Where national security information is concerned, the agency as a whole will provide that assistance to the inquiry or investigation by complying with a compliance direction, rather than individuals directly in their own right.
To balance that, and to ensure that there are no gaps, carve-outs or exclusions, those in charge of the agencies are subject to specific requirements to put arrangements in place for individuals to maintain records of information relating to any acts that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation, and to provide information to the authority to ensure that the duty is complied with as set out in clause 6. Rightly, a failure to have these arrangements in place will result in criminal sanctions.
Intelligence services obtain and retain sensitive security and intelligence information in order to protect the public from national security threats. Vital public interests, including national security, would be at real risk of harm from the unrestricted disclosure of this sensitive information. We all share the same aims here—ensuring that candour is in place while protecting national security and the public.
Taking on board the points raised by Hillsborough Law Now and others, we constructed clause 6 in such a way as to ensure that there is a secure process that the intelligence services can work through so that any information required by an inquiry or investigation reaches that place safely, so that there can be full candour. However, we have heard the concerns from Hillsborough Law Now and from members of this Committee about our provisions. I assure hon. Members that the Government have taken their points on board, and we will commit to working with them and others actively to consider steps to address this in time for Report.
I turn to the other amendments, which set out that the intelligence authorities are to be listed as a public authority for the purposes of the duty of candour and assistance, and the code of ethical conduct in schedule 2. Clause 6 already makes it clear that the duty applies to the intelligence services as it applies to all other public authorities; therefore, it is beyond doubt that they are included, as a public authority, in the Bill.
We have not set out an exhaustive list of public authorities in schedule 2 to avoid unintentionally excluding some bodies by failing to list them. No individual Department or arm’s length body of central Government is included in the list for that purpose. If we begin to list public bodies, there is a risk that we imply that those not listed are not covered, which could weaken the Bill. I urge the hon. Member for Cheadle to withdraw his amendment, but I reiterate my commitment to working with Members on a way forward to capture all the concerns raised both in the Committee and outside of it.
Mr Morrison
I thank the shadow Minister for the points that he made; he is spot on that the lack of clarity in the Bill, particularly surrounding what came out of the evidence sessions, raises more questions than answers. However, I am pleased that the Minister has said that the Government are happy to work with us on tightening those gaps before Report. This is not about unrestricted evidence; it is about getting to the truth, which must be our focus throughout. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Mullan
I beg to move amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 26, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) Inquiries under subsection (1) include those designated by the Secretary of State as local inquiries into grooming gangs.”
This amendment would apply the Duty of Candour to the five local grooming gangs’ inquiries announced by the Government and any further ones established.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 29, line 9, after “an inquiry” insert
“, independent panel or review established by a Minister”.
This amendment ensures that the statutory duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak to amendment 3, and I also welcome the intention behind amendment 1. Amendment 3 relates to the scope of the duty of candour as it applies to non-statutory inquiries. Members will know that the Bill does not just impose a duty of candour on public bodies in major statutory inquiries that are set up under the Inquiries Act 2005; it allows Ministers to apply that same duty to non-statutory inquiries—or inquiries that, for various sensible reasons, may not require the full statutory machinery but none the less investigate matters of profound public concern.
Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 sets out the conditions under which a non-statutory inquiry may fall within the Bill: it must be initiated by a Minister; it must be intended to produce a published report; and the Minister must certify that the events in question have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern. That is a broadly drawn but important framework. However, there is a real risk that some of the most sensitive, complex and deeply distressing inquiries currently being established will fall entirely outside this regime.
I refer specifically to the local grooming gangs inquiries announced by the Government. These inquiries were promised to victims, survivors and affected communities as part of the commitment to shine a light on failures by public agencies over many decades to protect vulnerable children. They will be examining events that could not be more clearly connected to public concern and public confidence. Unless they are expressly captured by the Bill, however, the public bodies involved will not necessarily be subject to the statutory duty of candour that the Bill intends to deliver; it will be left to the whims of the Government of the day. Given the chequered history of this Administration, that is not a position that we would want to be left in, and it is not a position that many victims would want to be left in.
The amendment is therefore designed to remove any doubt by making it clear that the non-statutory inquiries designated by the Secretary of State as local grooming gang inquiries fall squarely within paragraph 2. It is a simply, clarifying amendment that protects victims, the integrity of the process and the public from the possibility of these inquiries falling into a grey area.
It is worth reminding the Committee why this matters. Across multiple towns and cities, victims were failed because agencies did not share information, confront uncomfortable truths and, in some cases, tell the public the full story. A duty of candour is not a mere formality in this context; it is an essential means by which we ensure that the same patterns of silence, defensiveness and institutional self-protection do not re-emerge.
If the Bill’s purpose is to raise standards in public life, to restore trust and to ensure openness in the face of institutional wrongdoing, surely these inquires—the very ones where a failure of candour has had the most devastating impacts—must be included explicitly. The Government may well argue that the wording already allows these inquiries to be covered. If that is the case, there is no harm in making it clear. If it is not the case, there is every reason for us to fix that today.
This amendment is not partisan. We heard from Mayor Burnham about his direct experience of a local grooming gang inquiry that lacked a duty of candour, and how he felt the inquiry would have benefited enormously from one. He supported our amendment to ensure that all other local inquiries would be subject to such a duty once the Bill became law.
The timing may not be perfect, but given the speed with which the Government seek to proceed with the Bill, and the positive impact it could have even now if public officials knew that this was incoming, I cannot see any reason why the Government would oppose the measure. It is straightforward and would ensure that when victims and survivors are told that lessons will be learned, we will do everything possible to guarantee that that is done honestly, fully and transparently by ensuring that inquiries have all the information they need.
Amendment 1—I believe this was touched on earlier, in relation to panels and what will fully constitute inclusion in the Bill—is helpful to ensure that when a Minister commissions one of these important panels, it is not simply left to them to decide whether it suits them to include the duty of candour. I therefore welcome that amendment.
Maria Eagle
I rise to support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), and supported by several other hon. Members, both on the Committee and outside it.
The amendment would ensure that the Bill’s duty of candour and duty to assist apply automatically to independent panels and reviews established by a Minister of the Crown. It makes a simple and technical addition to schedule 1 and, as it has been accepted, is within the scope of the Bill and does not therefore extend it. Hon. Members know that I have a particular interest in independent panels, but the amendment simply seeks to apply the duty of candour and assistance to independent panels that Ministers can set up at any time if they so wish. It would be an anomaly for it not to be included, particularly given that independent panels are becoming a more common way of trying to get to the truth about somewhat complex events.
Hon. Members may be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden is chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Primodos. I, too, have constituents who have been affected by Primodos. I think there was a particular penchant in the north-west for prescribing it as an oral pregnancy test. It was not a drug or a treatment as such; it was a diagnostic test to see whether someone was pregnant. There seems to have been a lot of it prescribed in the north-west of England.
Since the 1960s and 1970s, there have been campaigns to try to find out whether—and, latterly, to try to get it accepted that—Primodos, an oral hormone pregnancy test, caused life-changing and devastating congenital abnormalities, stillbirths and miscarriages. I have constituents who have been affected, both those whose children are still alive and those whose children are not. The all-party group has been campaigning for many years, under my hon. Friend’s chairmanship, to get some resolution for those families.
The all-party group has conducted investigations. There have been failed legal actions against the manufacturers of Primodos. In 2017, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency expert working group gave rise to great hope that there might be a way forward for those affected, but that was a disappointment. In fact, I think that if my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden were moving this amendment, she would say that it was quite clear that key evidence was minimised or discarded, that families were excluded from those considerations and that the conclusions appeared to go further than the remit that the working group was given.
Ian Byrne
I want to put on record our thanks to Marie Lyon for all the work that she has done. She outlined exactly what my right hon. Friend has said about that report, and the families’ disappointment about the lack of a duty of candour. I therefore fully support the proposal.
Maria Eagle
I know Marie Lyon; I have met her on a number of occasions because I have constituents who are affected. She runs the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, and she has been the mainstay of the campaign, which has been going on since 1978, to try and get some resolution for these matters. I am happy to support my hon. Friend’s thanks to her.
One thing that could assist those families in respect of Primodos is an independent panel, which would go much further than the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency expert working group, and which would collect documents and approach the issue from a transparency point of view. Given that the families’ attempted legal actions have not succeeded, that seems to me a likely next way forward. But the reality is that if the Bill comes into force and independent panels are not specifically included, those families may feel as though they are in a disadvantageous position. It is on that basis that I seek to move amendment 1.
The Chair
The right hon. Lady will understand that amendment 1 will not be moved now; it will be taken when the schedule is reached at the end of the Bill. At that point she will need to indicate if she wishes to press it to a Division.
Tessa Munt
I rise to support amendment 3, proposed by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. I am also a co-signatory of amendment 1, and I thank the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston for her reference to it. I echo the comments that have been made about Primodos and many other things. We have investigations, inquiries, inquests, and independent panels—and no doubt something else will come up at some point. Will the Minister clarify that point and agree that we should have some common language to cover all those things? As has been mentioned, independent panels do come up quite often.
I seek clarity on investigations and inquiries that might be taking place already. My understanding is that the Bill will not affect them, so if someone has something that they want to raise, they will probably need to wait until the Bill has become law. That seems slightly perverse, in that there may be people who want something done within the next six months who are going to have to sit and wait. I would like some clarity on that.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank hon. Members for a useful debate getting into the detail the provisions—that is why we have Bill Committees. It would be beneficial for me to clarify exactly how the Bill applies to non-statutory inquiries, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston. The duty of candour and assistance will apply to all statutory and non-statutory inquiries and inquests described in schedule 1. Non-statutory inquiries are defined as those caused by a Minister; those that include the delivery of a report with a view to publication; and those that the Minister has confirmed in writing relate to matters of public concern.
This is the first time non-statutory inquiries have been set out in law, but we envisage that this category could include investigations held under other names, such as independent panels, provided the criteria set out are met. Amendment 1 would automatically extend the duty of candour and assistance to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers. The Bill includes a power to extend the duty to other categories of investigations, or to specific investigations via secondary legislation. It is therefore not the case that if an investigation is not covered in the Bill, the duty of candour can never apply.
Tessa Munt
To give an example, if the local authority children’s services department sets up an investigation into something or does one of its serious case reviews—or whatever they are called now—are that organisation, the people within it and the actors in the event that prompted it covered by the duty of candour? Can the Minister be really clear about that?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to confirm that they will be. They are not currently, but the Government are tabling an amendment to cover that point, and we will come to it later in Committee. Should that amendment be made, the Bill will cover those local authority investigations.
The Cabinet Office is undertaking further work to look at how we reform inquiries. As part of that, we will consider how the different types of inquiries, reviews and investigations could be more clearly defined, and when and how they could best be used. That will inform how the duty is used.
The duty of candour and assistance is a powerful tool to ensure co-operation with investigations, but it would not be useful in all circumstances. Most reviews focus on matters of policy or technical issues— for example, the curriculum and assessment review, the net zero review and the review of the future of women’s football. In those cases, applying the duty would be unnecessary and might risk making reviews more difficult to establish and slower to report. Where the duty is applied, it must be properly monitored and enforced, and therefore frameworks for compliance and the protection of information need to be in place. We must avoid unintentionally impeding or delaying certain types of investigations by introducing unnecessary and unhelpful processes and bureaucracy. We therefore think the Bill strikes the right balance in which investigations it applies to, with the power in the Bill providing us with the tools and flexibility we need to extend the duty where it could be useful.
I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden about how we move forward with her campaign. She has been an incredible and ferocious campaigner for the Primodos families for many years. I have met her and the Primodos families, and I am committed to working with her on a way forward to ensure that the duty of candour can assist.
Amendment 3 is designed to apply the duty of candour and assistance to inquiries that the Secretary of State has designated as local inquiries into grooming gangs. I thank the shadow Minister for raising this important issue. As he will be aware, we are moving at pace to establish a national inquiry into grooming gangs under the Inquiries Act 2005. It will be overseen by an independent commission with statutory powers to compel evidence and testimony so that institutions can be held to account for current and historic failures. The inquiry will be independent of Government and designed to command the confidence of victims and survivors and the wider public.
The Bill already applies the duty to statutory and non-statutory inquiries called by Ministers, including this new inquiry. To strengthen the Bill, we have also tabled an amendment extending the duty to inquiries called by local authorities, and we will debate that shortly. That amendment, combined with the existing provisions in the Bill, will enable the duty to apply to either local or national inquiries into grooming gangs. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Mullan
On amendment 1, I accept the Government’s intention to clarify further how these things will operate. On panels and non-statutory inquiries, although there is sometimes in Government a resistance to public inquiries for the wrong reasons, sometimes it is because they are expensive and time-consuming. The real opportunity for applying the duty of candour more widely is that if we can ensure that non-public inquiries get all the information they need, they are much more likely to be successful, thereby avoiding a future public inquiry with all the associated costs that lawyers make a huge amount of money from.
On amendment 3, although the Minister outlined the future public inquiry, the local inquiries have not been cancelled. There is clearly a view that they must also proceed. I cannot see any reason why we would not want them to proceed on the basis that they are subject to the duty of candour.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to reassure the shadow Minister that, should the Bill receive Royal Assent, its provisions will apply immediately to ongoing investigations and inquiries. That includes local inquiries, if we pass the amendment that the Government have tabled. We cannot allow that currently, because the Bill has not become law, but once it has done, it will cover existing ongoing inquiries and investigations and those that are yet to commence.
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 27, line 29, after “applies” insert
“by virtue of this paragraph”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
Alex Davies-Jones
As I stated previously, the Government have committed to only strengthening this Bill as it moves through Parliament. That is exactly what this group of amendments does. Provision of 2005 Act Extent of application Section 17(1) and (2) (evidence and procedure) Apply only in relation to procedure and conduct of inquiry so far as relating to requirements imposed under the duty of candour and assistance Sections 19 and 20 (restrictions on public access etc) Apply only in relation to restrictions imposed in respect of evidence etc given in compliance with the duty of candour and assistance Section 21(3) to (5) (contents of, and challenges to, notices) Apply to a compliance direction as they apply to a notice under section 21 of the 2005 Act Section 22(1) (privileged information etc) Applies in respect of evidence etc given under the duty of candour and assistance as it applies to evidence etc given under section 21 of the 2005 Act Section 22(2) (public interest immunity) Applies only in relation to evidence or documents that would otherwise be required to be produced under the duty of candour and assistance Section 36 (enforcement by High Court or Court of Session) Applies to a failure to comply etc with a compliance direction as it applies to a failure etc to comply with a notice under section 21 of the 2005 Act.
Before I move on, I want to say how severely disappointed I am that the Opposition pressed the previous amendment to a vote, given my assurances that those types of investigations and inquiries will of course be covered by the Bill. That seemed to fly in the face of the statements at the beginning of the Committee sitting, where we said that we would not play party politics with the Bill. It seems, sadly, that the Opposition do not have the same ambition in mind.
Amendment 7 extends the duty of candour and assistance to apply to local authorities and local authority inquiries into serious incidents called by combined, unitary, borough, county and district councils. We have prepared the amendment with previous local inquiries firmly in mind, such as the Kerslake review into the preparedness for and emergency response to the Manchester Arena attack and local grooming gangs inquiries. It would also cover the Edinburgh tram corruption inquiry mentioned by the Mayor of Greater Manchester in oral evidence.
For the duty to apply, inquiries must relate to matters in the local authority’s area and that are within a local authority’s competence or control. There must also have been a significant risk of causing death or serious physical or psychological harm to one or more persons or substantial economic loss to one or more persons as a result of conduct involving dishonesty, impropriety or a serious breach of ethical or professional standards. That ensures incidents that have caused a significant risk to life or corruption are rightfully brought into scope, with the appropriate threshold in place to avoid unintended pressures and inappropriate use.
The rest of the amendment replicates the provisions set out for statutory and non-statutory inquiries in part 1 and part 2 of schedule 1. Amendments 6 and 4 are consequential on amendment 7.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment made: 7, in schedule 1, page 30, line 18, at end insert—
“Part 2A
Local authority inquiries
3A (1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) a local authority in England has caused an inquiry (however described) to be established,
(b) the terms of reference of the inquiry do not require it to determine any fact, or make any recommendation, that is not wholly or primarily concerned with a local authority matter,
(c) the inquiry’s functions include the delivery of a report to the authority with a view to its publication, and
(d) the authority has given written confirmation to the person leading the inquiry (“the chair”) that it appears to the authority that the inquiry is established in connection with an event or series of events in respect of which the condition in sub-paragraph (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that the event (or series of events) caused, or created a significant risk of causing
(a) death or serious physical or psychological harm, or
(b) substantial economic loss to one or more persons as a result of conduct involving dishonesty, impropriety or a serious breach of ethical or professional standards.
(3) As soon as reasonably practicable after the start of the inquiry, the chair must (subject to sub-paragraph (11)) give a compliance direction—
(a) to a public authority or public official, or
(b) to a person who had a relevant public responsibility in connection with an incident to which the inquiry relates,
if it appears to the chair that the person’s acts are or may be relevant to the inquiry or that they otherwise have information likely to be relevant.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not limit the power of the chair to give a compliance direction at any other time during the course of the inquiry.
(5) Where a compliance direction is given to a public authority or body within sub-paragraph (3)(b), a compliance direction must also be given to the individual appearing to the chair to be in charge of that authority or body.
(6) A “compliance direction” is a direction to comply with the obligations under the duty of candour and assistance imposed by—
(a) section 2(4), and
(b) in the case of a direction given to an individual under sub-paragraph (5), section 2(5).
(7) A compliance direction—
(a) must be given in writing;
(b) must set out the terms of reference of the inquiry;
(c) may specify particular requirements to be complied with (and for that purpose may specify the form and manner in which, and the period within which, those requirements are to be complied with);
(d) may be varied, supplemented or revoked by the giving of a further direction.
(8) In determining the objectives of the inquiry for the purposes of complying with the duty of candour and assistance under section 2(4), regard is to be had (in particular) to the terms of reference as set out in the compliance direction.
(9) The reference to a report in sub-paragraph (1)(c) is to a report that sets out—
(a) the facts determined by the chair, and
(b) the recommendations of the chair (where the purposes of the inquiry include the making of recommendations).
(10) The provisions of the Inquiries Act 2005 (“the 2005 Act”) listed in the first column of the Table apply, to the extent specified in the corresponding entry in the second column, to an inquiry in relation to which the duty of candour and assistance applies by virtue of this paragraph as they apply to an inquiry under the 2005 Act—
(11) A compliance direction—
(a) may be given only—
(i) in respect of evidence, documents or other things that are wholly or primarily concerned with a local authority matter, or
(ii) for the purpose of inquiring into something that is wholly or primarily a local authority matter;
(b) may not be given so as to require any evidence, document or other thing to be given, produced or provided by or on behalf of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland Minister (including the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly);
(c) may not be given to a public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and a public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this prohibition (but this paragraph otherwise applies to an intelligence service as it applies to other public authorities).
(12) A person ceases to be subject to the duty of candour and assistance when the inquiry to which it relates comes to an end.
(13) In determining when an inquiry established by a local authority comes to an end for the purposes of sub-paragraph (12), section 14 of the Inquiries Act 2005 applies as it applies to an inquiry under that Act as if—
(a) references in that section to the Minister were to the authority, and
(b) subsection (4)(b) of that section were omitted.
(14) In this paragraph—
(a) references to a local authority in England do not include a parish council;
(b) references to a “local authority matter”, in relation to a local authority, are to any matter—
(i) which relates to the area of the authority, and
(ii) in respect of which the authority exercises functions;
(c) “terms of reference”, in relation to an inquiry established by a local authority, means—
(i) the matters to which the inquiry relates;
(ii) any particular matters as to which the chair is to determine the facts;
(iii) whether the chair is to make recommendations;
(iv) any other matters relating to the scope of the inquiry that the local authority may specify;
(d) the reference to a person who had a relevant public responsibility in connection with an incident is to be read in accordance with section 4.
(15) Paragraph 3 applies to a compliance direction given under this paragraph as it applies to a compliance direction given under paragraph 2.”
This amendment extends the duty of candour and assistance, and the related power to give compliance directions, so as to include certain local authority inquiries in England.
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 30, line 33, after “of the” insert “senior”.
This is a drafting refinement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 9 and 10.
Schedule 1.
Alex Davies-Jones
These three amendments are minor and technical. Government amendments 8 and 9 update schedule 1 to refer to a “senior coroner”, thereby identifying the statutory office for consistency with the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and other legislation. Government amendment 10 replaces a reference to this “Schedule” in schedule 1, paragraph 4 with a reference to this “paragraph”. This is a drafting refinement to clarify that the definitions in new paragraph 2A of schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 apply only to that paragraph rather than to the entirety of schedule 5. I commend these amendments to the committee.
Tessa Munt
Might I seek some clarity on what happens with area coroners as opposed to senior coroners?
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm that an area coroner, for the sake of the Bill and under the Coroners Act, is classed as a senior coroner.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendments made: 9, in schedule 1, page 30, line 38, after “to the” insert “senior”.
This is a drafting refinement.
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 32, line 1, leave out “Schedule” and insert “paragraph”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This is a drafting refinement.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3
Section 2: further provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 3 works alongside clause 2 in making some more detailed provisions about the operation of the duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations to ensure that they are practical, effective and proportionate. Clause 3(2) provides important flexibility for inquiries and investigations to alter or disapply the requirement for public officials and authorities to notify the inquiry or investigation if they have reason to believe they are relevant.
There may be situations where the requirement would be impractical or unhelpful for the inquiry itself. Clearly, it would have been impractical for every single NHS worker involved in the response to the pandemic to notify the covid-19 inquiry of their possible relevance, or an inquiry may wish to hear from those relevant to different subjects at different times and in different stages. Clause 3(3) reinforces clause 2 by requiring public officials and authorities to notify inquiries and investigations of their potential relevance as soon as is reasonably practicable. Subsections (4), (5), and (6) attach some procedure to the duty to make it practical, which schedule 1 builds on.
Inquiries and investigations will specify the assistance they require and what are called compliance directions in schedule 1. These give control to the inquiry or investigation to set out the assistance they actually require, and provide important clarity for those under the duty, so they know exactly what is expected of them. Clause 2 sets an expectation that public authorities will provide a position statement at inquiries. Such statements, made early on in proceedings can help inquiries to identify the key issues to investigate and to home in on the points of contention. In most cases, we expect these to be useful, but subsections (5) and (6) give inquiries the discretion to disapply that requirement if it would be contrary to the efficiency and effectiveness of the inquiry.
Seamus Logan
Could the Minister give an example to the Committee of such a circumstance?
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, of course. I have mentioned the covid-19 inquiry—it would have been impractical for every single worker to come forward to an inquiry—but I add that the chair of an inquiry must give reasons, publishing them and outlining why it would not be practical, or not helpful to the inquiry, not to bring forward a position statement.
Subsection (7) is vital to ensure that the duty of candour does not cut across existing laws, such as those on data protection or safeguarding.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Extension of duty to other persons with public responsibilities
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 4, page 4, line 19, after “authority” insert—
“or any sub-contractor in any chain of provision to a service provider”.
This amendment ensures that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider which was subcontracted will fall under the duty to comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry or investigation.
Tessa Munt
I am delighted to have got to this bit. I speak to this clause in particular, because I am extremely concerned that the duty of candour should capture subcontractors and the contractors to subcontractors. It is unbelievably common for those committed to carrying out contracts with local authorities, Government or public bodies generally to subcontract and subcontract and subcontract. There is absolutely no reason why those organisations and the people involved should not fall under the duty—those people are often the whistleblowers who tell the primary organisation, or their own, what it is that they have seen. I feel strongly that we should ensure that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider, where there is subcontracting in place, should comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry, investigation or all the other panels and various things that we have referred to this morning.
The duty should apply not only to the primary service provider, but to the subcontractors, whether individuals or organisations. That would close a potential accountability gap by making it clear that all parties involved in providing a service must co-operate fully with inquiries, investigations and panels. It would help to ensure that relevant information is not withheld purely due to contractual arrangement. That would support comprehensive scrutiny of decisions, actions, omissions and service delivery.
Dr Mullan
I rise briefly to support the amendment and the points made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. It is about not just existing contractual arrangements, but how there might be perverse incentives for people to create different structures if they think that, through contracting or subcontracting, they will escape the accountability under the Bill. I am keen to hear from the Minister.
Probably the example that everyone has in mind is the Post Office scandal. That was a direct contractor, but it could have had subcontractors and so on. When the Post Office was conducting its private investigations, it might have used subcontractors to do some of those investigations. That would not be an unusual step for an organisation to take, so it is important that we get clarity on this issue.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The amendment would apply the duty of candour to subcontractors as well as contractors of a public authority, as has been outlined. In the Bill, we have sought to extend the duty into the private sector in a manner that is proportionate and effective. The focus is, and must be, public authorities and public officials—those whose role is to serve the public. That has to be the starting point. The Bill then extends the obligations of the duty of candour and assistance to private bodies and individuals that either had a statutory health and safety obligation in connection with the incident under investigation or were a contractor to a public authority and, in that capacity, had a significant impact on members of the public in connection with the incident. As we have heard, these provisions are designed to capture the equivalents of Fujitsu in the Post Office inquiry.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that intervention. As I have stated, if there was a statutory health and safety obligation in connection with an incident under investigation, then, yes, those individuals would be captured by the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
If there had been an investigation or inquiry into that then, yes, it would.
Subcontractors are one or more stages removed. They are responsible to the main or another contractor. Where relevant, we would expect a main contractor to account for the performance and actions of a subcontractor and be candid in doing so. Statutory inquiries and inquests already have the ability to compel evidence from such persons if necessary. Therefore, on balance, we do not think it necessary or proportionate to extend the duty to all subcontractors. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Tessa Munt
If subcontractors get contracted and know that they are working for a local authority or Government body, they just need to pass on that responsibility within the contractual terms. The difficulty comes the moment there is separation between the organisation that is subject to duty of candour and a subcontractor of a subcontractor. It is not difficult—we do these things with payment terms—so I plead with the Minister to make sure that we cover subcontractors. It will not be satisfactory for a subcontractor at tier 1 to speak for a subcontractor at tier 3. It will not happen. It will not be robust enough. I foresee all sorts of slippage, especially when there are whistleblowers two or three tiers down the contract. I plead with the Minister again to reconsider what she is saying.
Secondly, what happens when the senior body—the overarching organisation—is abroad? If I may use an example, Wessex Water—I am not picking on them for any particular reason—is owned by Pennon Group, which I understand is Malaysian. What happens when the head office is abroad?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to pick up both those points. On the first point, I will work with the hon. Lady to ensure that we find a way forward in terms of ensuring that there is no unintended gap and that we are not missing anything. A balance has to be struck between how far we go in the private sector before we are covering everybody with a duty of candour. However, we can find a way forward here.
Ian Byrne
That is a hugely important intervention. In Grenfell, many subcontractors did not fall under the scope. It is a real concern that we need to look at before Report to make sure that subcontractors are in scope. This is all about a change of culture. We need a change of culture within the building industry.
Alex Davies-Jones
I agree. I am committed to working with hon. Members on a way forward.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills about what happens if the head office is abroad, the Bill will provide the inquiry or investigation with the powers to obtain information from an individual wherever they are, even if they have retired, if they have resigned or if they now live abroad.
Tessa Munt
On the basis that we can all work together to make sure that we cover subcontractors, including the different tiers of subcontracting, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I was going to press it to a vote, but the Minister has assured me that she will try to do something before Report and I recognise that we have support on both sides of the Committee. I thank the Minister very much indeed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Offence of failing to comply with duty
Ian Byrne
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 5, page 5, line 18, after “objectives” insert:
“or are reckless as to whether it will do so,”.
This is simply a strengthening amendment that has come from the lawyers, and which I hope the Government will take on board. It is worth pointing out that we only have one shot at this. We need to ensure that there is no unfortunate language that perhaps does not allow the Bill to be as strong as we need it to be, so I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
The current wording in clause 5(1) sets the mental element of failing to discharge the duty as intent, and the mental elements of failing to provide the information in the duty as intent or recklessness—being cognisant of the risk and choosing to take it nevertheless. We feel, and I certainly feel, that this is a baseless distinction and an anomaly. The mental element should be the same, and the amendment would rectify that. It is simply a strengthening amendment to make sure that we shut any gaps.
Alex Davies-Jones
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for his amendment, which seeks to lower the mental standard threshold from intent to include recklessness for the purposes of the offence of failing to comply with the duty. Recklessness already applies to breaches of the obligations in clause 2(4) and (5), so the amendment would extend the application of recklessness to obligations in clause 2(3). As the Committee has heard, under clause 2(3), those whose acts or information may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation are obliged to make themselves known to the chair. We think there is uncertainty about what recklessness in this context would actually mean and therefore do not think it right for there to be uncertainty about the test for a criminal offence.
Conversely, it is straightforward and clear for the test to be that an individual or authority intends to impede the work of the inquiry or investigation by failing to make it known that they might be relevant. Once an individual or authority has received a compliance direction from the inquiry or investigation specifying the assistance that is required—the second stage of the duty—they will then know clearly what is required of them, so the test for the offence becomes either intention or recklessness. Recklessness in that context makes sense. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment, although I am happy to meet him to discuss these concerns.
Mr Morrison
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am not sure whether this is the right time to ask, but on the amendment paper, amendment 34 is down as a Liberal Democrat amendment, but on the groupings that were sent across to us, it was down as an SNP amendment. I just wanted to clarify where we are with that.
The Chair
I understand that that has been corrected online, and the matter is now on the record as well.
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) If an offence under this section is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—
(a) a senior officer of a public authority, or
(b) a senior officer of a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act, or
(c) a person purporting to act in such a capacity,
the senior officer or person (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would hold senior officers liable for the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance if it is proved that they consented or connived in that failure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 33, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by—
(a) a public authority, or
(b) a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act,
the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority or a corporate body with public responsibility under Clause 4 for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance.
Amendment 44, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the duty falls on a public authority or other body, responsibility for the discharge of that duty falls on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section.”
Amendment 34, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by a public authority, the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority for an offence of misleading the public.
Amendment 45, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the act or statement is made by or in the name of the public authority, responsibility for it lies on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section”
Tessa Munt
The amendment would ensure that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider—we are back to our subcontracting discussion —will fall under a duty to comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry or investigation or any other body, which we have discussed this morning. The intention is to ensure that senior officers cannot evade accountability simply by turning a blind eye to failures to comply with the duty of candour and assistance. The amendment would make them liable where it is proven that they consented or connived in a breach and would close the loophole around responsibility for indirect wrongdoing.
Sir Roger, do you wish me to speak to amendment 33, too?
The Chair
Yes. Amendments 33, 44 and 34 are grouped, but you are only moving amendment 27.
Tessa Munt
Thank you, Sir Roger.
Amendment 33 would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer, or the chief executive of a public authority or corporate body with public responsibility under clause 4, for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour or assistance. What is needed is clear personal accountability on the chief officer or chief executive for any failure to comply. That ensures that senior leaders cannot avoid responsibility for breaches within their organisation, and reinforces the expectation that those at the top maintain a culture of openness and co-operation.
Ian Byrne
Amendments 44 and 45 go to the heart of what we are trying to do regarding the Hillsborough law, which is about command responsibility. It is about cultural change. I got the briefing note from the Minister, which I am very thankful for, which outlines where we feel the Government are now, but I think there is a debate among many of us about whether we feel that is strong enough. I just want to outline why I feel that, and why I feel that these amendments are worthy of consideration by the Minister.
The duty of candour and assistance applies to both public authorities and individuals. Where the duty falls on an authority, responsibility for compliance and enforcement measures must land on individuals; otherwise, those measures are basically rendered ineffective. The clause 5 and clause 11 offences require intent or recklessness, a concept that is difficult to apply to a legal—rather than natural—person. Where the criminal law has corporate offences, including proof of intent or recklessness, liability is established by attributing the mental state of directing minds to the corporation. That may be appropriate in some contexts, but here, proof of wrongdoing or failure leads only to liability on the authority and a fine paid by the taxpayer. I just do not feel that goes far enough.
The original 2017 Public Authority (Accountability) Bill dealt with that by making the chief officer or chief executive responsible for the discharge of the corporate duty. We feel that that is both fair and practical, as it places the responsibility on the person with the ability to ensure that authorities are properly led, and a high hurdle of intent or subjective recklessness ensures that he or she does not get prosecuted for inadvertence, or if he or she is misled by others. That also provides an effective deterrent.
I go back to the fact that we are looking at cultural change here; I feel that understanding that they would be responsible would sharpen their minds. Prosecution of a corporation just means that the taxpayer pays a fine, and we have seen that before, with a slap on the wrist and no cultural change.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. I remind the Committee that, on Second Reading, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box:
“This Bill will tackle that injustice so that when tragedy strikes and the state is called to account, in inquiries, inquests and other investigations, public officials—from police officers to the highest offices in the land—will be subject to that duty. That means that an injustice like this can never again hide in some dark corner of the state. Failure to comply—failure, therefore, to act with candour, transparency and frankness—will now carry criminal penalties, including being sent to prison.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 655.]
I just wanted to add that to this debate.
Ian Byrne
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and she is absolutely right; a commitment was made not to weaken that. Clause 2(5) of the Bill imposes a duty on the chief officer or chief executive to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure corporate compliance, but that is not command responsibility—I think that is a really important point. It is far weaker, and I feel it will be ineffective. Command responsibility is straightforward and places the responsibility for the discharge of the corporate duty on the head of the body.
Mr Morrison
Does the hon. Member agree that, when someone is in that position of power over a public body, they have a huge responsibility, not just for the culture but for the training, the personnel, the HR practices and the policies? With that responsibility, someone needs to ensure that that goes throughout the whole of the organisation, and command responsibility focuses the mind to ensure that everything below them is working to clock.
Ian Byrne
I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot envisage a circumstance where clause 2(5) would be enforced. All reasonable steps could include deferring to the authority lawyers or senior leadership teams.
We have seen exactly this example in the Kerslake inquiry following the Manchester Arena attack, where the former chief constable of Greater Manchester provided a false narrative regarding the police response. At the subsequent public inquiry, he accepted he had made a grave error but still blamed the senior leadership team and lawyers. It is unlikely that he would have risked misleading said inquiry if he had command responsibility, which goes to the absolute heart of this legislation.
Section 3 extends clauses 5 and 11 offences to officers within authorities, such as managers who deal with particular investigations or statements, but only when they can be identified as the wrongdoers. It is a welcome provision, but it is only complementary to command responsibility. It would catch all those contemplating a cover-up lower down the authority, but it does not impose command responsibility on those at the top. We saw that with the evidence last week with regard to the NHS. Healthcare regulations have been pretty ineffective in this regard, partly because enforcement applies only to the organisations, and not the command. That lies right at the heart of the Bill.
Seamus Logan
The hon. Member is making an important point, but am I right in thinking that his motivation—and the motivation of many people in this area—is about getting to the truth, rather than punishing people?
Ian Byrne
Absolutely. Many of us here have experience trying to get to the truth. What we tried to do will be highlighted in the Independent Office for Police Conduct report. Unfortunately, the people who should have been punished will not be punished, but that is a story for another day, I suppose.
Ian Byrne
A fine on a public body, paid by the taxpayer, does not concentrate minds in the way that personal responsibility does. In a recent joint inquest into three self-inflicted deaths at HMP Lowdham Grange, the hearing was adjourned twice due to the Ministry of Justice’s failure to comply with directions for disclosure.
The coroner’s court ultimately took the unusual step of fining the Ministry of Justice because of that. That example shows that existing powers to fine organisations that fail to comply with directions of disclosure do not effectively address the persistent lack of candour, duty and transparency from public bodies. That is why I feel the amendment is so important, and I really hope the Minister takes it onboard.
Maria Eagle
I rise briefly to emphasise some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby and urge the Minister to consider whether more can be done in that respect. The lesson of Hillsborough is that the organisations at fault set about using every pound they had available to defend themselves—and we will hear more in the IOPC report, to be published later today.
Those senior offices who made decisions to use the public money that they had in that way simply elongated and lengthened the amount of agony and pain. A corporate fine against an organisation may not be enough to deter that kind of behaviour, so I urge the Minister to consider what more might be done in terms of command responsibility.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank all hon. Members for tabling these amendments and for today’s debate. As we heard on Thursday, command responsibility is a priority for change and accountability, and I therefore hope I will be able to provide further clarity as to how our Bill ensures clear accountability right at the top. Hillsborough families were clear that there must be individual accountability, with those who have engaged in state cover-ups held responsible. Our Bill clearly delivers that.
Any individual who commits a duty of candour offence can be prosecuted. That includes chief executives or the equivalent. If a public authority breaches its duty of candour or misleads the public, anyone in a management position who consented or connived with that breach can also be prosecuted. As such, amendment 27 would duplicate the provisions in schedule 3(3). Given that clarification, I ask the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills to withdraw the amendment.
Our Bill is consistent with the approach taken in other legislation, including the Bribery Act 2010 and the Fraud Act 2006, where personal liability for offences committed by a corporate body relies on consent or connivance. Anyone in charge of a public authority has a legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their authority complies with the duty of candour and assistance. If they fail to do so, they will face prosecution.
Amendments 33, 34, 44 and 45 would hold the chief executive personally responsible for offences committed by the public authority even if they did not have knowledge of the offence being committed, and even if—in the case of amendments 33 and 44—they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the organisation’s compliance with the duty of candour. We do not believe that that is the intention of the amendments, and we do not think it fair to attach criminal responsibility in that way. We intend the duties to apply widely. For example, we plan to extend the duty of candour and assistance to NHS investigations. It would not be reasonable or realistic to expect the chief executive of an NHS trust to be across every single detail of every response in any investigation into an incident at that trust. Instead, we would expect them to have systems in place to ensure that the authority is complying, which is precisely what the Bill requires them to do.
Seamus Logan
To build on my point to the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, the issue here is that the criminal responsibility focuses the mind of the person with command responsibility. It requires that person—the chief executive or otherwise—to ensure full compliance. That is the point.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree. I am absolutely reassured that the Bill, as drafted, does just that. It ensures that there is criminal liability on the head of a public authority to ensure that everything is covered. However, as I have already stated, when something goes wrong in an NHS setting and we know that something has gone wrong but are unable to find out exactly what, despite the head of that NHS trust having all the procedures in place for applying the duty of candour, it would not be fair or reasonable to put criminal sanctions on the head of that NHS executive.
Tessa Munt
Is not the point that, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East said, it focuses the mind of chief executives and very senior officers in an organisation if there is the possibility of punishment—of criminal sanction and imprisonment? I take the point made earlier about a fine probably being of absolutely no consequence to an organisation. So often we have heard that what people who have been offended against, in whatever way, really seek is a swift apology and acceptance that something has gone wrong. That is going to come from the duty of candour, but we need to have a sanction available against chief executives and senior officers so that they focus on making sure that their organisations comply and act in an appropriate way.
Alex Davies-Jones
I genuinely do not think that we have crossed wires here. The intention of the Bill is the same as that of the amendments; it is just about how we are doing this. Our approach holds the heads of authorities and the heads of all public organisations accountable for the things that they can reasonably be expected to do or not do. There is no exemption here: it is about whether they have done it or not, and about what is reasonably to be expected of them. We are confident that such accountability, as drafted in the Bill, will drive positive cultural change. The amendments in this group would unintentionally have the potential to criminalise a chief executive even if they did not have knowledge of the offence being committed and they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the compliance of the organisation. We can find no precedence for such an approach and are deeply concerned that it could have a chilling effect on recruiting public sector leaders.
I reassure the Committee that the Bill ensures accountability right at the top. I am happy to share further information with the Committee, setting that out exactly as it is, and I urge the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills to withdraw amendment 27.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 33, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by—
(a) a public authority, or
(b) a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act,
the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority or a corporate body with public responsibility under Clause 4 for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance.
Amendment 44, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the duty falls on a public authority or other body, responsibility for the discharge of that duty falls on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section.”
Amendment 34, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by a public authority, the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority for an offence of misleading the public.
Amendment 45, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the act or statement is made by or in the name of the public authority, responsibility for it lies on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section”
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I welcome you to your place, Mr Dowd. As I rise to speak, the four people who gave evidence to us on Thursday are holding a press conference regarding the Independent Office for Police Conduct report, and their opinions of what it consists of. I am sure that they feel as though they have been robbed of any justice. With that in mind, Minister, let us go through the amendments we spoke about just before the Committee adjourned.
It is so important that we emphasise how fundamental command responsibility is to the Bill. We must never have a repeat of what those families will be saying in the next 30 minutes. Without clear responsibility resting with the chief officer or chief executive, the corporate offences in the Bill will be basically impossible to enforce, leaving bereaved families, like those we will listen to today, and survivors with an aspirational duty, I feel, rather than a practical one. We cannot allow that to happen, and this opportunity to be missed.
Minister, you have done so much to get us to this position. So much of this legislation is down to your efforts, and our collective efforts over the last six months, but I urge you to listen to the fears that are being voiced today by Members on both sides of the Committee, because I firmly believe that, in its present form, this provision fatally undermines the effectiveness of the Bill, and the intention behind it, which we all support, to change the culture of cover-ups.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
Having had the chance to have a very quick look at the report being published at 1 o’clock, does my hon. Friend agree that the IOPC has found that the chief constable of South Yorkshire police at the time, the match commander, the deputy match commander, the deputy chief constable and a total of 10 senior officers at South Yorkshire police likely should have been charged with gross misconduct, which, had it been found, could have led to dismissal, even by the rules that pertained at the time? The fact that there has been no accountability for any of those people in 36 years shows that we have to make sure that there is a way in which the individuals responsible can be properly held to account, and justice can be reached.
Ian Byrne
I thank my right hon. Friend for outlining that beautifully. It goes to the heart of where we are now. As I said, we are watching a live example of why this matter is so fundamental to the Bill, and how effective it will be. I urge the Minister to listen to those concerns and work with us.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Earlier, I asked the Minister for an example and she pointed to the national health service. I think that was a fair point, but not every issue here relates to a complicated organisation like an NHS trust, where the chief executive has senior clinicians who have clinical responsibilities that perhaps outweigh the managerial responsibilities of the chief executive. The Minister rightly pointed to paragraph 3 of schedule 3, backing up the point that she was making, and I accept that, but the difficulty with that paragraph, and the way the Bill is currently written, is that it puts the responsibility initially on the body. The point that has been made to me by folk like those at the Hillsborough Law Now group is that that will allow someone—a chief executive, chief inspector or whoever—simply to say, “I didn’t have the knowledge because X or Y didn’t tell me about it.” The proposed amendment would very clearly put the command responsibility on the chief executive or the leading officer.
Ian Byrne
I think the Minister can hear the concern from Members on both sides of the Committee that this will not be as effective if there is no individual responsibility, and if those who have done wrong can hide behind the corporate wall and ride off into the sunset with their full pensions, with no accountability or justice. Once the Minister listens to the evidence, and certainly the response of the families today, hopefully we can reflect on whether we feel this is a loophole that could be utilised by those who are responsible. It is our responsibility in this place to shut that down. I hope the Minister will listen to and reflect on what we have said today, and meet me after this sitting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
We talk about focusing minds. The Bill will clearly focus minds, because a chief executive can face criminal prosecution and potentially prison if they are not candid, if they consent or connive with someone not being candid, or if they fail to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the authority is candid. Those are three different and distinct routes to criminal prosecution that will sharply focus minds. We need to hold senior individuals to account for things that they can actually do. Clearly, they cannot personally verify the accuracy of potentially hundreds of thousands of documents.
The whole Bill is about creating a new culture and accountability. Whenever an individual fails in their duty, they should be held accountable—whoever they are—and that can carry up to two years’ imprisonment. It is a privilege to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, but in this morning’s session, before you were in the Chair, I said that this entire Bill Committee is about listening. It is about listening to the families, campaigners and those who have come before, and considering all the work they have done to get us to this place. It is about listening to them with regard to what it means for the Bill to be a Hillsborough law.
I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby and other Committee members today, and I am committed to meeting him and finding a way forward. If there are genuine concerns regarding command responsibility, and Members feel that we are not going far enough, I am committed to listening and working with my hon. Friend on a way forward.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I am delighted that the Minister is listening; that is helpful. I would be grateful if she could consider my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and me to be part of the discussions with the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby. That would save me a great deal of trouble in quoting the questions from the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston in our evidence session last week. I was intending to read out a good deal of the further comments from Hillsborough Law Now and Pete Weatherby in my summing up. I do not know whether the Minister is up for this, but it might be helpful to invite that particular gentleman.
Tessa Munt
I am delighted to hear that he will be part of that discussion, because I think he has a good grip on everything, and it saves me reading the Minister a page and a half of his comments today.
Tessa Munt
I am sure the Minister has seen them, but I was going to quote them none the less. I have mentioned the Office for Budget Responsibility, which I know is an organisation with fewer than 100 people. There we have somebody—regardless of the fact that, I am sure, he is not all over the emails and all the rest of it; the work that his office does with his employees, those who work with him and so on—who took what might be considered an incredibly honourable stance and resigned his position over something that happened in the last week. That is absolutely laudable. He is an illustration of how command is absolutely at the centre of this issue.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree that there should be responsibility and accountability at the top of any organisation. We are not doubting that; that is the intention of the Bill. Does the hon. Lady believe that the head of the OBR should have potentially been subject to criminal sanctions in that instance? Resigning is one thing; going to prison for up to two years is very different.
Tessa Munt
No, but it might be difficult to quantify. There certainly was no danger of anyone losing their life or being very seriously injured, and I presume we would not be looking for whistleblowers in his organisation, because he has taken responsibility. I take the point, but he has done the right thing in that situation. Will the Minister clarify something that I raised earlier: what will happen with people who resign—by resigning, the head of the OBR has avoided any chance of going in front of the Treasury Committee today—and those who have retired? It is clear that people can remove themselves from the framework, currently. Does the Minister have something to say about that?
Alex Davies-Jones
I believe that I stated this earlier, but should an official inquiry or investigation be called, the head of the OBR, who has now resigned, or the head of any organisation—we are speaking in hypotheticals here—who was involved in an inquiry or investigation and had resigned, retired or moved abroad would be compelled to come to give evidence under the duty of candour. They would not be excused.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister for that clarity. On the basis that we are going to meet to discuss this, and that Pete Weatherby and hon. Members from the Minister’s party will be involved in those conversations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tessa Munt
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am not entirely clear about the process for this, but I realise that in the morning session I should have declared that I have an interest as the vice-chair and a director of WhistleblowersUK, which is a non-profit-making organisation. I want to retroactively declare that in relation to this morning’s proceedings and start this afternoon’s proceedings by making that absolutely clear.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 5 sets out the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance, as set out in clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill, so that the duty has bite. The offence is intended to provide a powerful deterrent effect to drive culture change. As I set out when covering clause 2, the duty has two stages: first, the requirement for public authorities and officials to make themselves known to an inquiry or investigation if their acts or information may be relevant; secondly, the requirement to provide any assistance as specified in a compliance direction from that inquiry or investigation. There is also a requirement for the public official in charge of the authority to take all reasonable steps to secure that the authority complies with the duty.
Clause 5 provides that an individual or authority
“commits an offence if…they fail to comply with the duty”
In relation to the first stage of the duty, the duty to notify, they must have intended to impede the inquiry or investigation by that failure. As for the second stage, the duty to comply with a compliance direction, they must have either intended to impede the inquiry or investigation or been reckless as to whether they would do so.
The intention and recklessness threshold also applies in relation to any breach of the duty on leaders of authorities that fail to put in measures to secure compliance with the duty by the authority and its officers. We have made this distinction in tests between the two stages because, in relation to the duty to notify, we do not want to criminalise someone for genuinely being unaware of an inquiry or investigation. Clause 5(2) sets out the penalties for those convicted of the offence, either on summary conviction at a magistrates court or on indictment at a Crown court. In the latter, the maximum prison sentence for this offence is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Security and intelligence information
Seamus Logan
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end insert—
“(2A) Where an obligation to give notification would have arisen under section 2(3), save for the exemptions in subsection (2), the head of the relevant intelligence service must provide a written notification to the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament summarising the acts that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation.”
This amendment aims to provide accountability for intelligence services and their operations in relation to the duty of candour and its exemptions from them.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 39, in schedule 2, page 41, line 14, at end insert—
“(ja) the intelligence services, or”.
Amendment 40, in schedule 2, page 43, line 31, at end insert—
“(ia) the intelligence services, or”.
Amendments 39 and 40 would add the intelligence services to the lists of public authorities in Schedule 2 for the purpose of defining “public authority” in relation to this Bill.
Seamus Logan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. We have had an excellent debate on command responsibility, and I am heartened to see a very positive outcome from that discussion.
Clause 6 is separate and distinct because it applies to the intelligence services. We heard evidence about the provisions in clause 6 in the evidence session, as well as at a useful special meeting that some Committee members attended with two heads and a deputy head of the three intelligence services. As the shadow Minister pointed out, the evidence from that special meeting and the evidence session has highlighted that there are potentially some contradictory views. Nevertheless, my problem with clause 6(2)(a) is that it is basically a get-out clause; it allows the head of an intelligence service to opt out of the overall duty of candour where that would, according to the Bill, contravene the Official Secrets Act 1989.
I understand that there are special circumstances regarding the intelligence services, as was ably described to us by Sir Ken McCallum, when he said, “I don’t know who all my agents are, and I am not sure that I know all of their activities.” That is fair enough; one can readily understand why that might be the case. Nevertheless, there should be no overall escape clause for the intelligence services. Having said that, I understand that there will be circumstances in which it is necessary to maintain secrecy about certain aspects of what the intelligence services do.
My amendment would give a role to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is a Committee of the House, by requiring the head of an intelligence service, in these specific circumstances, to make a report to the ISC on what the exception is. In even more exceptional circumstances, I understand that the ISC can also communicate with the Prime Minister alone—it has no obligation to do anything else.
I believe that that sensible mechanism would give us confidence, in drafting the Bill, that there is no get-out clause. Critically, it would also restore trust even within our intelligence community on how it operates. We do not need to go back over all the evidence that we heard from an employee of the BBC, for example. I hope the Minister can take on board the thrust of what I am saying in the amendment, and perhaps she can even see fit to endorse it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. I will respond to amendment 21 and the other amendments in turn, before moving to the question that clause 6 stand part of the Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman stated, amendment 21 would ensure that when clause 2(3) of the duty applies to the intelligence services, the head of the intelligence service must give the Intelligence and Security Committee a summary of any relevant acts or information. The Government have taken his points on board, and we are actively considering options to be introduced on Report. I commit to continuing to engage with him, other Committee members and external stakeholders to make sure that we find a way forward that is fit for the Bill and fit for protecting national security.
Seamus Logan
I thank the Minister for that. Given she has said that we will see an amendment on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Yes, sorry. In the last evidence session, we discussed a very similar situation when we heard from both Pete Weatherby and Daniel De Simone, one of whom is a KC trying to get to the truth through his work in the courts, and another of whom is a journalist trying to expose the truth, particularly around the Agent X story. We are not looking for a change to the Official Secrets Act or its operation. We simply want the Bill to encompass the security services explicitly.
There is a list of public authorities on the Bill. The security services are not on there, which begs the question, why? I thank the Minister for saying that further work will be done on that and that she will be engaging with all Members across the House before Report. On that basis, we are happy to withdraw the amendments.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the withdrawal of the amendments. We had a discussion earlier about why we have not listed organisations in the Bill. We did not want it to be an exhaustive list and to miss an organisation out unintentionally, which could lead them to think that the Bill does not apply to it. We have been extremely clear that intelligence services are covered by this Bill, including clause 6. I reaffirm that to reassure the hon. Gentleman.
Clause 6 sets out that the duties in the Bill apply to the intelligence services, but it requires that proper arrangements and protections are in place to safeguard national security. As subsection (2) states, the obligation in clause 2(3) for a person to notify the inquiry or investigation does not apply to
“a person who works for an intelligence service”,
or where doing so would result in the release of security or intelligence information.
To be clear, inquiries and investigations are able to demand assistance and information from the intelligence services under the obligation in clause 2(4), but appropriate arrangements need to be in place for an inquiry or investigation to receive that sensitive information, as is the norm now. Individuals revealing acts or information outside of those arrangements could be detrimental to national security, as I am sure all hon. Members would agree.
Subsection (3) places a requirement on the heads of the intelligence services to put in place internal arrangements to ensure that those who work for the service comply with the requirements to record any acts or any information that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation. They must inform the service if they hold such information that is not already available to it. That ensures that the services have all the information they need to discharge their obligations under the duty as an authority. However, as I have already stated, I am committed to working with hon. Members, external stakeholders and the UK intelligence services to make sure that we have as a robust Bill as possible that fulfils the aims, objectives and intentions of us all.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Transitional provision in relation to this Chapter
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
The clause provides that the duty of candour and assistance will apply to inquiries and investigations that are already ongoing at the time of commencement, as well as those that start afterwards. It may be necessary to set out further transitional provisions in the commencement regulations to ensure that ongoing inquiries and investigations can make effective use of the duty and are not delayed or forced to repeat stages by its procedural requirements if they are already far advanced.
Clause 8 sets out the meaning of key terms used in this chapter of the Bill, which deals with the duty of candour and assistance. Specifically, it defines “inquiry” as meaning
“an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005”
and a non-statutory inquiry meaning where
“paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 applies”.
Subsection (1) defines the terms “investigations”, “position statement”, “public official” and “public authority”, and references the appropriate Act or schedule from where the definitions are drawn. Clause 8(2) defines what the individual “in charge” of a public authority means. Clause 8(3) then defines “chief executive” as meaning an
“individual working for the authority who…is responsible under the immediate authority of the board of directors for the general functions of the authority.”
The clause is essential for allowing us and any future readers to interpret the key terms used throughout the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment made: 4, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
“, or
(c) an inquiry to which paragraph 3A of that Schedule applies (local authority inquiries);”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Expected standards of ethical conduct
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in clause 9, page 7, line 38, at end insert—
“(d) consult with representatives of recognised trade unions to promote co-operation in the making and maintenance of the code and in checking its effectiveness.”
Amendment 47, in clause 9, page 8, line 1, leave out “set expectations” and insert “require”.
Amendment 48, in clause 9, page 8, line 1, leave out “should” and insert “must”.
Ian Byrne
What we are talking about is culture change. Interestingly, in last Thursday’s evidence session, culture change was mentioned 69 times. When talking about standards of ethical conduct, I think it is extremely important. That is why I have tabled these amendments, and I hope the Minister considers them.
Turning to amendment 46, the Bill currently states that public authorities
“must promote and take steps to maintain high standards”.
That wording permits minimal or symbolic compliance, which is exactly what the Bill sets out not to do. Clause 2(5) sets out that a public official must take “all reasonable steps” to secure public authority compliance with the duty of candour and assistance. The same “all reasonable steps” should bind public authorities to the duty of candour in chapter 2—not “promote and take steps”.
All reasonable steps is a standard with which employers and employment tribunals are familiar. Section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out an employer’s duty to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent discrimination. Those reasonable steps include training for new workers, annual performance reviews, opportunity for discussion on equality and discrimination, clear messaging on posters and regular mandatory equality training for all workers. The Minister touched before on how we change culture and standards through training.
A comparison with the Equality Act 2010 is not only legally relevant; it is a source of evidence about how the law can achieve cultural change through the “all reasonable steps” standard. The Equality Act secured cultural change in matters of equality and anti-discrimination; the Hillsborough law we are debating today seeks cultural change in matters of ethics and candour. The “all reasonable steps” standard is appropriate and improves legal clarity, and I believe it is needed, so I hope that the Minister considers the amendment.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. As we all heard last Thursday, true cultural change is a key part of implementing the Hillsborough law, and the professional duty of candour required by clause 9 is at the heart of that. Amendments 46 to 48 admirably seek to strengthen the duties imposed on public authorities to promote ethical conduct and adopt a code of ethical conduct.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, clause 9 places a duty on public authorities to promote and maintain high standards of ethical behaviour and conduct. Professional duties of candour will be tailored to the specific sector to which they apply, making them meaningful to staff and responsive to the needs of those who use that organisation’s services. While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting these amendments, we believe that our drafting achieves the same purpose as the proposed amendments and is sufficiently clear and robust.
Amendment 49 seeks to require public authorities to consult with recognised trade unions on the creation and maintenance of a code of ethics. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the issue of trade union engagement. I am a proud trade unionist myself—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to the unions that I am a member of. I agree that if a code of ethics is to be truly successful, it is important that those working for the authority and their representatives, including trade unions, should have a proper opportunity to contribute to its development.
However, given the complexity and diversity of arrangements across the public sector, the Government’s view is that it would not be advisable to prescribe standard procedural arrangements for all public authorities in this Bill. Many organisations already have an existing code of conduct or a code of ethics. These exist in different forms and may have different underpinnings and links to other organisational governance arrangements. For example, the civil service code forms part of civil service contracts, and the code of ethics in policing is produced by the College of Policing, which does not directly employ individual officers.
Adapting and adopting a code of ethics will require different processes of development, engagement and consultation for each organisation and sector. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach, nor should it be. Public sector employees and employers will have existing arrangements and consultation with trade unions. Creating a specific requirement in the Bill could create confusion and usurp the existing processes and relationship arrangements between public authorities and their trade unions. I am keen to work with my hon. Friend to consider how we can encourage employees and their representatives to be engaged in the processes of developing the codes. In fact, we are already in discussions with trade unions on how we can best include them in the process through consultation and guidance to ensure that we have the most robust practices. With those assurances, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Morrison
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 9, page 8, line 2, after “work” insert—
“including the retention and disclosure of digital records including messages relevant to their public functions”.
This amendment ensures that digital messages and records are added to the duty of candour in relation to inquiries and inquests.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Offence of wilfully destroying information or records relevant to an inquiry or investigation—
“(1) A public authority or public official commits an offence if—
(a) they deliberately destroy relevant information or records relevant to an inquiry, investigation, or inquest;
(b) they know that, or are reckless as to whether, the information is relevant to or required by an inquiry, investigation, or inquest.
(2) A public official who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).”
This new clause introduces an offence for wilfully destroying relevant records after a major incident that may lead to an inquiry or inquest.
Mr Morrison
We spoke this morning about the issues dealt with by amendment 43, but to clarify, WhatsApp messages formed a big part of the evidence in the recent covid inquiry—it seemed to be government by WhatsApp at the time—and yet many of them seem to have disappeared. The amendment would provide an extra way of ensuring that public authorities and those responsible are keeping proper records and preventing that from happening again.
New clause 3 would prevent the deliberate concealment of evidence that could obstruct investigations, hinder fact-finding and undermine public trust. I would like the Committee to consider the element of public trust here. How people perceive what happens in this place, and in the organisations and public authorities that surround us and the power structures that are there, is vital to the legitimacy that we have and that those public authorities also have. By criminalising such conduct, the clause would reinforce the obligation on public authorities and officials to maintain and safeguard records, ensuring that inquiries and inquests can access all the information necessary to understand what happened and hold the responsible parties to account. This is a way to make sure that the truth can be found in those areas and hopefully ensure that WhatsApp messages are not deleted in future.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue. Amendment 43 would, as he states, make authorities set expectations for staff on how to retain and disclose their digital records in accordance with the obligations under the duty of candour. Proper record keeping is important to ensure accountability and propriety in decisions made by public authorities. That applies where records are on paper or held digitally— for example, in a WhatsApp group—and it is important that organisations have policies and processes in place to manage these effectively.
However, the Government’s view is that the code of ethical conduct is not the correct vehicle for establishing those processes. The Public Records Act 1958 already places certain requirements on public authorities. Under that Act, the Keeper of Public Records issues guidance to supervise and guide the selection of historic records —including digital records—worthy of permanent preservation.
Disclosure to inquiries and inquests will require the detailed consideration of various factors, including the fact that the authority’s legal obligations include the duty of candour and assistance, the protection of personal or sensitive information, and the relevance to the inquiry’s terms of reference or the inquest. Authorities may also require specific legal advice. Separate and bespoke policies will therefore be required. The professional duty of candour established under clause 9 is intended to focus on what candour means for each public official going about their business in their day-to-day role. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Cheadle withdraws the amendment.
On the point about whether WhatsApp messages are covered, and specifically disappearing messages or those deleted in the course of work, as they sometimes are, the duty of candour and assistance requires all public officials and authorities to provide all relevant information. If a public official was part of a WhatsApp chat in which relevant information was exchanged, they would be obliged to inform the chair of that fact, and if disappearing messages had gone or the chats had been deleted, they would have to provide an account of what was discussed, to the best of their recollection, even if the messages had since been deleted or vanished.
Tessa Munt
I know that we dealt with this matter earlier, but I again put on the record my concerns about subcontractors in tiers 1, 2 and 3, who often hold key information. We need to find some way to make sure that they are within the scope of this provision.
Alex Davies-Jones
I recognise that concern, which I share, and we are looking at that in terms of the passage of the Bill. As I have stated, the duty would be on the public authority, official or subcontractor to disclose all the information to the chair of the inquiry or investigation.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Perhaps the point the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills was making was that the Minister referred to a separate piece of legislation, the Public Records Act 1958, and I am not sure that that legislation includes things like contractors and subcontractors.
Alex Davies-Jones
The information provided to the inquiry would be covered and, as per the provisions of this Bill, subcontractors would be caught under the duty of candour and would have to disclose any relevant information, as per the information disclosed in that Act. I hope that clarifies it.
Tessa Munt
How helpful has the existing law been in relation to the covid inquiry, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle mentioned? I am not sure that has quite got to the base of everything. Does the Minister have any suggestions about improving the Bill to be explicit about what we expect?
Alex Davies-Jones
Again, I totally agree with the policy intention. If the Bill had become an Act when the covid inquiry was under way, might that inquiry have carried things out differently, or provided information in a new way or in a new light? We cannot answer that. All I can say is that the purpose and intention of the Bill is to ensure that any inquiries or investigations seek the whole truth and that all information is disclosed so that we are never put in that position again. That is the intention of the Bill, and we have made sure it is as robust as possible to provide for that.
Maria Eagle
I can understand why Members might feel a certain amount of scepticism about the idea that an obligation to try to remember disappearing messages might be adequate. I do not know how many messages other Committee members send, but I think we have all got into the habit of sending rather a lot. Could there not be an arrangement, either in the code of ethics or in the policies and procedures of organisations, to make sure that people do not use WhatsApp for official business? We could also make sure that whatever chat people do use—it might be an internal arrangement—messages are properly kept and we therefore do not have to rely on dodgy memories of disappearing messages to make sure that messages are preserved for any future inquiry.
Alex Davies-Jones
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point: it is for each individual organisation to determine the policies and procedures for their record keeping. It might be wholly appropriate for one organisation, if it has a small number of employees, to use a WhatsApp group, but we would expect records to be kept appropriately and for employees not to turn on disappearing messages. That would be part of the terms and conditions in the guidance and practices for the employees.
It would be for each different organisation to determine what is right and appropriate. It is not for Government to tell any organisation how to run its business or manage its employees. However, we have set out the bare minimum that is expected: the Bill makes it explicitly clear that records of any information relevant to an inquiry or investigation should be kept, and that such information should be disclosed to the inquiry or investigation if requested.
Mr Morrison
I thank the Minister for her comments. In the spirit of cross-party working, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seamus Logan
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 9, page 8, line 12, leave out “may” insert “must”.
I am aware that we have debated amendment 48, although perhaps not as fully as I would have liked. In the interests of getting our business done within the time available, I decided not to intervene in that debate. However, I believe that the particular change in amendment 24 is necessary. Where amendment 48 spoke to the duty of candour, amendment 24 speaks to the code of ethics.
There are legal minds in the room that are much better informed and trained on legal definitions than my own, but amendment 24 addresses the need to replace “may” with “must” in the code of ethics, as opposed to the duty of candour. I believe this is important given my experience in the health service, where there is a responsibility on individuals to report child abuse, or where a colleague might clearly be able to see that a surgeon carrying out procedures is repeatedly doing something injurious or harmful. By replacing the word “may” with “must”, we place a responsibility on anyone to blow the whistle on those particular issues.
In my working life I have experience, as might others present, of consultants who suppressed information relating to child abuse. We certainly heard similar evidence about surgeons during our evidence session. Colleagues will be able to think of many such examples, which is why it is important that the amendment replaces “may” with “must”.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. The Government believe it is imperative to have policies and processes in place to enable officials and public servants to speak up when they see that something is wrong. If we are to address the culture change that we have heard about a hundred times, it is important to have that in place. That is why the Bill requires all public authorities to set out how a person can raise concerns if they think their colleagues are not acting in accordance with the code, and the process for making a protected disclosure, also known as whistleblowing.
The amendment would require individuals to take a particular course of action. This risks cutting across established disciplinary and whistleblowing regimes, with potentially significant implications for employees. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working across Government with the Department for Business and Trade on how we reform whistleblowing more generally, and as the Bill progresses we will be looking quite carefully at whistleblowing and protections for individuals. However, we do not think the amendment would have the intended consequences, and it might cause us more issues, so I request that the hon. Gentleman withdraw it.
Seamus Logan
I thank the Minister for that response, but I am at a loss to know how the responsibility suggested by the amendment would cut across any existing code of ethical conduct. If the legislation simply stated that the person who works for the authority must take steps if they believe that another person who works for the authority has failed to act in accordance with the code, I fail to see how that would cut across any existing procedures. It would simply make the provision more robust by saying “You must take that step” rather than “You may take that step”. That is what the amendment calls for; perhaps the Minister might like to expand on why she wishes me to withdraw it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily come back to the hon. Gentleman. Say, for example, that someone in the police force believes that a colleague is not acting in accordance with the code of ethics, but that individual may not be privy to the details of an undercover operation that their colleague is aware of and they are cutting across existing provisions in the police force. If that individual had to do as the hon. Gentleman intends with his amendment, they could hinder the investigation or cause unintended consequences.
With the Bill, we are saying that there must be a way of reporting. Every public organisation must have that built in but, as we have discussed, a one-size-fits-all approach does not work across all public sector authorities. What will work in the NHS will not work in the police or for probation. This all has to fit the specific authority. Therefore, there has to be a mechanism for reporting, but we are not designating a specific one.
Dr Mullan
I hope I can be of assistance. I think the clause is about the public authority’s obligation to explain to its employees all the things they can do to raise a concern. I do not think that it is directed at the individuals who might be required to do things. It might be better for it to say that the authority must ensure that that information is available. If we read it in the context of the public authority’s obligations, it is about what the authority should tell people, rather than placing any obligation in relation to individuals’ actions. I hope that might explain it more clearly.
Seamus Logan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which is helpful. Perhaps when the Minister and I, and others, meet to discuss other matters, we might explore this in more detail. If the Minister is willing to accept that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Seamus Logan
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ian Byrne
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 9, page 8, line 15, leave out subsection and insert—
“(b) the making by any person of disclosures which are protected disclosures in terms of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or which would be such disclosures had they been made by a worker or employee, including information about any policies the authority has adopted in relation to the making of such disclosures;
(ba) the affording of enhanced protection to any persons making disclosures under paragraphs (a) or (b), including policies ensuring that those persons are not subjected to bullying, harassment or any other form of detriment in relation to the making of such disclosure;”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 9, page 8, line 17, after “disclosures” insert “and to whom such disclosures should be made;
(ba) how a person making a protected disclosure under paragraph (b) is protected;
(bb) a list of prescribed people and bodies to whom a potential whistleblower may speak to in confidence about a relevant concern.”
This amendment would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information on whom a person can make a protected disclosure to and how that person would be protected.
Amendment 22, in clause 9, page 8, line 17, at end insert—
“(ba) the affording of enhanced protection to any persons making disclosures under paragraphs (a) or (b), including policies ensuring that persons are not subjected to bullying, harassment or any other form of detriment in relation to the making of such disclosure”.
Ian Byrne
I go back to the change of culture we have been talking about. Thankfully, the Minister has touched on the idea of a listening exercise regarding strengthening the laws around whistleblowing, but it was clear from the evidence we heard last week that there is real concern that the existing measures to protect whistleblowers are insufficient to remove the fear of reprisal, and that they do not adequately protect persons who make protected disclosures. This is fundamental to what we are attempting to do. The protection of whistleblowers is a hugely important issue that many Members from all parties are fearful about. Amendment 50 is intended to strengthen the protections, and I hope the Minister accepts it and considers it in the round with what she said about listening and hoping to strengthen the protections once we have had the relevant discussions.
Tessa Munt
I rise to speak to amendment 26, which has some similarities with what the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby just outlined. I am extremely keen to ensure that people are really clear about what they have to do when they wish to report. This relates to clause 9(5)(c) as well.
As has been mentioned, the Employment Rights Act 1996 tends to guide people towards the employment tribunal if something has happened. Currently, if something has gone wrong, that is where people can end up. As I mentioned last week, my understanding is that the employment tribunal has a backlog of 47,000 cases. My sense is that when the Bill comes into effect, which will not be very long, there will be masses more people who find themselves guided by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to head for the employment tribunal, which does not seem to be an adequate place for people to deal with their complaints.
The employment tribunal is for those who are considered to be a worker, be that an employee or somebody acting in a voluntary capacity. Amendment 26 would require a public authority’s code of ethical conduct to include information on the person to whom someone can make a protected disclosure—what we know as whistleblowing —and how the person would be protected against detriment. It is incredibly important that the code of ethical conduct sets out clearly how individuals can make a protected disclosure and the protections available to them.
The amendment would strengthen the whistleblowing safeguards by providing staff with clear guidance on the safe reporting of wrongdoing. It should address some of the gaps in protection without creating a specific outside body. I have already spoken to the Minister about the idea of an office of the whistleblower; I understand that is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is really important that whistleblowers can come forward with confidence while remaining within the statutory framework, and that they have somewhere safe to go.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank Members for raising those important points. We discussed whistleblowers and the protections needed for them a lot in the oral evidence sessions. It is essential that if there is wrongdoing in an organisation, those working for the organisation can come forward and raise the alarm, and be confident that they will be protected when doing so.
Through the Bill, public authorities will be required to promote and maintain standards of ethical conduct, and their leaders will be held accountable for that. In doing so, leaders must ensure that their authority’s code of ethics contains information about any whistleblowing policies or procedures.
Tessa Munt
Does the Minister accept that a huge number of authorities, bodies and organisations may not, whether wittingly or not, recognise somebody as a whistleblower? There is a real danger in people believing that they are whistleblowing and that they will have protection, yet the companies not recording them as whistleblowing incidents. How does the Minister see that working?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady has pre-empted my next comments. The Bill will ensure that workers who are protected against retaliation by an employer for blowing the whistle about wrongdoing—known formally as making a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996—are more aware of their rights.
We believe that certain elements of the amendments are unnecessary. For example, while we are absolutely sympathetic to its aims, amendment 26 would require employers to provide information on prescribed persons that is already online, on gov.uk. The amendments could also introduce confusion—
Alex Davies-Jones
And that is the very confusion the hon. Lady mentioned. If she lets me finish my point, I will give way.
Amendment 50, for example, may lead some people who work for a public authority, but are not workers, to believe that their disclosure may qualify for whistleblowing protection under the Employment Rights Act 1996. We do not wish to cause that confusion. I point the hon. Lady to our work on whistleblowers across Government, which will of course inform work on the passage of this Bill.
Tessa Munt
I want to mention the huge number of occasions when I dealt with constituents and others, when people have been—I would say—entrapped into signing non-disclosure agreements or NDAs, which mean they feel that they cannot talk to anyone. They even fear talking to their MP. It is not clear to whom they can speak, and part of my desire is to ensure that each authority—I am not saying that the Minister should say what should be disclosed and to whom; this is for every organisation—should have someone identified. They should make public that safe place or safe person to whom anyone can report, be they in or outside the authority—that comes under the next subsection, I accept—as workers or employees. This business of NDAs needs to be sorted out once and for all, because it is pervasive and incredibly destructive.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady will be aware of the work we are doing on NDAs in the Victims and Courts Bill and the Employment Rights Bill. A lot of work is happening across Government on how we can protect individuals who are being forced to sign NDAs or those who feel unable to come forward and whistleblow. That work is being done holistically and is led by the Department for Business and Trade. I am happy to discuss her concerns more broadly in Committee, during the passage of the Bill, and outside the Committee.
Seamus Logan
Thank you, Mr Dowd. Pursuant to the issues already outlined by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, amendment 22 is about affording enhanced protections. The main point I make to the Minister is this. If the existing protections actually worked, then why—as we heard in the evidence sessions—are so many people falling foul of whistleblowing provisions? Their careers can be blighted, and in some cases they lose their jobs. If the existing protections are sufficient, why is it necessary to consider making these amendments?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to discuss our broader work on this and how we move forward on whistleblowers with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills outside the Committee Room.
Ian Byrne
I am filled with confidence by the Minister’s response on whistleblowers. I know that she will be taking this seriously, because it goes to the heart of changing the culture of organisations that have failed us time and time again. This whistleblowers element is extremely important. I am happy to hear that Minister is up for engaging with us across the Benches to strengthen these provisions, which is desperately needed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 9, page 8, line 22, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must introduce a standard template for ethical conduct of conduct for completion by public authorities which satisfies the requirements in this section and which may be added to by public authorities to include information specific to their organisation or function.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce standard template to ensure a consistent and high standard approach to completion of code of ethical conduct documentation across public authorities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 25, in clause 9, page 8, line 25, leave out “may” insert “must”.
Amendment 23, in clause 9, page 9, line 5, at end insert—
“(13) The Secretary of State must ensure appropriate and adequate funding is provided to enable public authorities to train public officials so that they are aware of the standards contained within the code of conduct relating to them.”
New clause 4—Monitoring compliance with duties under the Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission and publish annually an independent report which monitors public authorities’ compliance with their duties under the Act.
(2) The report must assess—
(a) public authorities’ record-keeping, disclosures and responses to inquiries and investigations;
(b) the effectiveness of enforcement and sanctions provisions in the Act in helping to ensure that public authorities and public officials perform their functions in line with the duty of candour in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; and
(c) the effectiveness of the provisions in the Act for supporting persons, including public officials, making protected disclosures and for reporting wrongdoings to an inquiry or investigation following a major incident.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) The first report must be laid within the period of 12 months of the passing of this Act.
(5) Each subsequent report must be laid annually beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to commission and publish annually an independent report with the purpose of providing an oversight mechanism to monitor compliance with duties under the Act.
Tessa Munt
The amendment seeks to ensure that all public authorities and organisations adopt a consistent and high-quality approach to their codes of ethical conduct by requiring the Secretary of State to introduce a standard template. This should not be prescriptive, but it should at least form a basis for every organisation and a minimum standard, in order to promote clarity, uniformity and accessibility, making absolutely sure that staff can understand it.
Maria Eagle
I was looking at the amendment paper this morning. It was probably mistyped, but my copy says that the Secretary of State must introduce a standard template for “ethical conduct of conduct”. Should that be “codes of conduct” or “ethical conduct”?
Tessa Munt
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. She is absolutely right: the amendment should not say “conduct of conduct”, it should indeed say “codes of conduct”. I hope the Chair can note that, and forgive me for any confusion.
I am hoping—by misspelling everything—to promote clarity, uniformity and accessibility, making it easy for staff to understand their obligations and the processes for reporting wrongdoing. By standardising the minimum content in ethical codes, the amendment would strengthen accountability, support a culture of integrity and help to ensure that protections, such as those for whistleblowers, are applied effectively across all public authorities and organisations. I recognise that the Minister has spoken pretty strongly against doing this; none the less, I am seeking clarity. Having a minimum standard set by the Secretary of State might be helpful, but I recognise that the Minister has already had a good old go at saying no.
Seamus Logan
I rise to speak to amendment 23. The Minister will be aware that if the Bill is enacted, as we are all confident that it will be in due course, a large number of public authorities will face significant new training requirements. When we met with the intelligence services chair, Sir Ken McCallum, he readily acknowledged that there will be significant training implications for his organisation, and MI5 is quite small in the broader context, particularly if one thinks of the national health service, the civil service, the police, and so on.
The Minister has told me that the money resolution has already been passed, and there are no new additional resources attached to this Bill, other than in relation to legal aid—I think that is in the schedules. Amendment 23 seeks to ask the Minister to reconsider that in the light of what I have said about training needs. One only has to think of things such sexual harassment, equality training, and so on, and the massive training requirement that fell upon the public bodies many years ago. I was one of those who underwent that training. It was a significant training requirement, and I expect that the duty of candour and the code of ethics, and so on, will also have a major training requirement. With amendment 23, I am asking the Government to reconsider whether adequate funding is available to organisations to undertake the training that will follow from passing this Bill.
Seamus Logan
Amendment 25 has already been covered in our discussions about “may” or “must”, and I am happy to take that discussion into further meetings with the Minister.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank both hon. Members for tabling the amendments in this group; I will respond to each in turn.
First, amendment 28 would require there to be a standard template for a code of ethics. The Government recognise the importance of supporting public authorities to develop their codes of ethical conduct, and we commit to doing so. Clause 10 confers a power on the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments to issue guidance that authorities will be required to have regard to when drawing up codes for their organisations.
The newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission will in time also have a role in supporting public bodies by making toolkits, best practice and guidance available for public sector bodies. Although we envisage that standard templates will be useful, as I have already said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. We wish to retain the flexibility to allow each individual organisation and sector to consider what would work best for them, but support will of course be available for them in doing so.
Amendment 25 would require a public authority to modify its code for specified circumstances or for specified people who work for the authority. I want to reassure Members that clause 9(7) provides for public authorities to specify that their code may apply with modifications in specified circumstances or to people of a specified description who work for the authority.
The intention of clause 9(7) is to enable authorities to reflect different expectations or obligations that apply to different groups of employees—for example, a school’s code of conduct may apply differently to teachers and janitorial staff. It could also reflect different processes that apply in different situations, for example, in an emergency situation compared with everyday business as usual. The Government’s view is that it should be for the authority to determine whether and how it uses that flexibility, noting that it must set out the reasons for doing so—that is important. We do not think that authorities should be required to do so, which is what the effect of amendment 25 would be.
Amendment 23 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that adequate funding is available to public authorities to provide training to their officials on compliance with the code of ethical conduct. I again want to assure hon. and right hon. Members that the Government have an ambitious plan for the implementation of the Bill. The Bill is just one part of the puzzle; it needs to be implemented fully, workably and effectively. It is just part and start of the culture change that we want to see in public sector organisations. The plans will of course include training for public servants, as well as oversight of the codes themselves.
A number of public sector organisations are already working on cultural or leadership programmes, and implementation of the Bill may be undertaken alongside or as part of existing initiatives to ensure that the code is seen as central to driving change in the organisation’s culture on a sustainable basis. The Bill requires public authorities to promote and maintain standards of ethical conduct among those who work for the authority. The duty ensures public authorities will be accountable, while allowing flexibility for the practical arrangements that each authority might put in place. I hope that assures the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, and I am happy to work with him and others on the implementation of the Bill as it goes forward.
Finally, new clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent report setting out whether and how public authorities have complied with the duty of assistance and candour. The Government agree that it is essential that the duties in the Bill are properly upheld and enforced. That is why the Government are ensuring independent oversight of implementation of the Bill’s provisions. The Government have committed to commissioning an annual independent assessment report to ensure that public bodies are complaint with the codes of ethics requirement in the Bill. That report will make clear which parts of the public sector are rising to the challenge and which are failing to do so. We will not be afraid to name and shame who is abiding and who is not.
Compliance with the duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations can, sadly, be judged only by the inquiry or investigation itself. They are responsible for monitoring compliance with the legal duty and for taking enforcement action, such as referring the case for criminal proceedings if necessary. I would like to assure all Committee members that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring effective implementation of all the measures in the Bill and to achieving the cultural change that is so desperately needed. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Tessa Munt
I am glad to hear what the Minister has to say. Sunlight is the best disinfectant; if anyone in the public can track through their complaint to something that is published on annual basis—I assume the Minister means annual—that will give people a lot more confidence that this being taken incredibly seriously.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister for her contribution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seamus Logan
In light of the Minister’s clarification, I am happy to withdraw amendment 25. However, with regard to amendment 23, I am still unclear as to what exactly the Minister is saying. Is she indicating that beyond the passage of the Bill there will be further clarifications to public bodies as to what training requirements there might be, and that resources will flow from that?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to get back to the hon. Gentleman—but yes, essentially. We will need to look at how we implement the Bill once it becomes an Act—hopefully it will become an Act—and at the requirements that will come from that. I will happily have those discussions with him and every other public authority on how best we do that. Should other resources be needed, that is something that the Government will consider.
Seamus Logan
Given the proceedings today are a matter of record, I am happy to withdraw amendment 23.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
To ensure that public sector culture changes for the better, clause 9 introduces a new duty on public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain high standards of ethical conduct at all times by people who work for the authority. This means acting in accordance with the seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan principles: honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness and leadership.
Under the Bill, all public authorities will be required to adopt a code of ethical conduct. This will ensure comprehensive coverage across the public sector. It will not be enough to simply have a code; authorities will be legally required to publish their codes and take active steps to make their staff aware of the code, and the consequences of failing to comply with it.
Clause 9(4) and (5) set out minimum standards that all codes must meet. Each code must establish a professional duty of candour, and an expectation that those working for the authority will act with candour at all times. Professional duties of candour will be tailored to the sectors to which they apply; they will be meaningful to staff and responsive to the needs of those who use an organisation’s services. The code must set out the practical ways in which ethical standards should be upheld and the disciplinary consequences of failing to act in accordance with the code. This will ensure that the code acts as an aspirational document, setting out best practice, but also as an effective deterrent against unethical behaviour.
Ensuring there are routes where individuals can raise concerns about public institutions is essential for ensuring that issues are identified and addressed as early as possible. Clause 9(5) requires an authority’s code to set out: how staff can raise concerns if they think their colleagues are not acting in accordance with the code; how staff can make protected disclosures, including any whistleblowing policies; and a clear process for external complaints about the conduct of the authority or those working for it.
Recognising the diversity of the public sector, the Bill includes some flexibilities. A code can provide for its standards to apply differently in specific circumstances or to specific groups of people, but it must set out reasons for doing so. For example, it may not be appropriate to apply all of the same standards to doctors as to the cleaning staff in an NHS trust. The Bill allows a public authority to adopt a code produced by another body. For example, schools can adopt a code published by the Department for Education, or local authorities can adopt codes from the Local Government Association. This is to ensure consistency across sectors and will minimise the burdens on smaller organisations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Non-statutory inquiries
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 59, in schedule 2, page 42, line 32, leave out lines 32 and 33.
Amendment 60, in schedule 2, page 42, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (7).
Amendment 58, in schedule 4, page 46, leave out lines 33 to 37.
Schedule stand part.
Clause 10 stand part.
Ian Byrne
I rise to speak to amendments 55 and 58 to 60, which would strengthen command responsibility. On amendment 55, schedule 2(5) appears to mean that responsibility for the actions of a Government Department is corporate only, and there is an exclusion for civil servants exercising their functions wholly outside the UK. Surely responsibility should lie with the chief executive of the Department, usually the Secretary of State, which I feel that amendment 55 would achieve.
Amendments 59 and 60 would once again strengthen the command responsibility. The purpose of deeming what was done by an office holder as being done by a Department itself is unclear. If those words are simply intended to avoid putting command responsibility on a Minister for the actions of their Department, with respect to the compliance with the duty of candour and assistance, it potentially goes too far.
Schedule 2(3)(6) excludes civil servants from inclusion as public officials if they exercise all their functions outside the UK. I do not see the reason for this exception, and I am seeking some clarification through amendments 59 and 60. I have also tabled amendment 58 for similar reasons to those I have stated for amending schedule 2(5), which would delete sub-paragraphs (3)(d) and (2).
Alex Davies-Jones
I again thank my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. I hope that I will provide him with some clarification and assurances on exactly why we have adopted this approach in our drafting. The provisions that amendment 55 would amend are typical in legislation. They provide that actions legally done by the Crown or the holder of a particular office, such as a Secretary of State, can be attributed to a Government Department.
The definition of a “public official” in schedule 2(3) includes an individual who
“holds office under a public authority”.
By removing the explicit reference to the holder of a particular office, the amended paragraph would actually, and no doubt unintentionally, narrow the scope of what can be attributed to a Government Department. Only actions that are strictly acts of the Crown could then be attributed to a Government Department for the purposes of the duty of candour provisions and associated offence, as well as the misleading the public offence, not those done legally in the name of the Secretary of State. In our view, this would actually weaken the Bill, and I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw amendment 55.
Amendments 58 to 60 seek to apply the duty of candour and assistance, along with the misconduct in public office offences in part 3, to staff employed on local contracts overseas, including consular staff at embassies. My hon. Friend is correct to note that there are two examples of this exclusion in the Bill, one from the definition of “public official” in relation to the duty of candour, and one from the definition of “civil servant” in relation to part 3. They exclude what are known as country-based staff. These are, for example, locally engaged staff who are employed by an embassy or consulate generally to do administrative or support work, such as site maintenance.
While employed by the embassy or equivalent, these individuals are subject to the laws of the country in which they live, and they are supervised by United Kingdom civil servants who are subject to all parts of the Bill. In excluding locally employed staff from the provisions in the Bill, the Bill follows all precedented approaches relating to these staff, such as the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. To take a different approach would be a significant and unprecedented change. I hope my hon. Friend understands that clarification and is content not to press amendments 58 to 60 to a vote.
I turn to schedule 2 and clause 10. Many of the Bill’s substantive provisions apply to a public authority or public official. Schedule 2 defines those terms for the purposes of part 2 of the Bill. There are different definitions of “public authority” for different parts of the Bill, and I appreciate that this can be confusing, so I hope to clarify why. Part 2 of the schedule sets out the definitions of “public authority” and “public official” for the purposes of the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public. These are broad definitions that are intended to capture anyone, including private companies, who exercises a public function.
Paragraph (2)(4) sets out that there are express reservations for the courts, Parliament and the devolved legislatures, reflecting long-standing constitutional conventions of self-regulation and independence. The north-south bodies established under the Good Friday agreement are also excluded to avoid capturing officials in the Irish Government.
Tessa Munt
In the interests of clarity, will the Minister explain whether the intelligence and security services are now captured by the list in part 2? Will she also explain what happens to regular or reserve forces when they are abroad, when they might be subject to devices such as the court martial? Those are two very specific things.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to clarify both those points, and I assure the hon. Lady that they are captured in this part of the Bill.
“Public official” is defined in schedule 2 as all of those who work for a public authority or hold office under a public authority—including those that the hon. Lady mentioned—and individuals who hold a relevant public office. That is defined to include offices that are established in legislation or by Ministers, where the UK or devolved Government are wholly or mainly constituted by appointment made by the Crown or Ministers, and they exercise functions of a public nature. Former public officials are also included in that—for example, retired civil servants and those who have resigned from the service. There are various exclusions, such as for individuals acting in a judicial capacity, non-executive elected members of a local authority who operate executive arrangements, and those in the private service of the Crown.
Part 3 of the schedule sets out the definition of “public authority” for the provisions on standards of ethical conduct, including the requirement to adopt a code of ethics. That definition of “public authority” is limited to the core public authorities, those commonly understood to be part of the state. The definition includes a list of named public authorities. That includes Government Departments, the devolved Governments, the armed forces, the police, local authorities, NHS bodies, schools, and any bodies that are both established by Ministers of the Crown and are wholly or mainly constituted by public appointments. That is intended to capture the wide range of arm’s length and other public bodies. The definition does, however, include the same exclusions for Parliament, the courts and those north-south bodies that were previously mentioned.
Tessa Munt
I again seek clarity. Are non-executive directors of an NHS trust, for example—who might be party to all sorts of information—within the scope of the Bill? I would also like to check whether school governors—and schools that are academies sometimes use different names, such as “partners”—are also picked up in the list.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, I can confirm that. Those provisions of the Bill contain a power to allow the definition to also be extended by secondary legislation to private companies that exercise specified public functions. That would allow the code of ethics provisions to be extended to specified high-risk public functions by secondary legislation—for example, in privately run prisons.
Finally, I turn to clause 10, which provides that guidance can be issued by the national authority if it wishes to do so, for the purposes of chapter 2, which relates to the standards of ethical conduct. That means that the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments can issue guidance on how public authorities can fulfil their duty to maintain high standards of ethical conduct, including in drafting and adopting their codes of ethical conduct.
Clause 9 sets out minimum standards in law that all codes must legally meet. We have the option to use guidance under clause 10 to set out best practice in each of those areas, encouraging authorities to consider what arrangements they can put in place to ensure that the highest standards of ethical conduct are in place. However, as we have already discussed, given the diversity of the public sector, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and any guidance that is issued will allow each authority to consider how those requirements in the Bill can best be implemented to serve them in a way that best suits them and the needs of their organisations and sectors. All public authorities will be legally required to have regard to the guidance.
UK Ministers will be responsible for guidance for UK and England-only bodies, and the devolved Governments will have powers to issue guidance that relates exclusively to devolved matters. That is to reflect the devolution settlement, and it ensures that the devolved Governments can provide guidance to the public authorities to which they are responsible and—speaking as a Member of Parliament for a devolved area—also that they could potentially also be bilingual, as they would have to be to comply in Wales.
We intend to work closely with our devolved colleagues on the development of any such guidance, and I again put on record my thanks to all the devolved Governments for their collaborative and collegiate approach to working with us on the Bill to ensure that we have a unified approach.
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
Homelessness: Funding
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the adequacy of funding to support homeless people.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This debate brings together three members of the Backbench Business Committee, which agreed to schedule the debate in the first place.
The reality is that homelessness is rising. In its 2025 homelessness monitor for England, Crisis found that it is at record levels; in 2024, 300,000 individuals and families experienced the worst forms of homelessness, an increase of 22% on 2022. What is worse, Homeless Link estimates that 8,732 people were rough sleeping in England throughout June 2025, a 5% increase on the same time in 2024. Data gathered by the Combined Homelessness and Information Network shows that in London, 759 people were classed as living on the streets, 11% more than the same time last year.
London is suffering the most severe homelessness pressures in the country. London Councils reports that the capital accounts for more than half—56%—of all homeless households living in temporary accommodation in England. It also estimates that 200,000 Londoners are living in temporary accommodation arranged by their local borough. That is equivalent to one in 50 Londoners overall, and the figure includes over 97,000 children, meaning that on average at least one child in every London classroom is homeless.
As we approach Christmas, many of us will be doing our shopping, making arrangements to see family and loved ones, and probably turning the heat up a bit, but think of those sleeping rough at this time of year: cold, wet, hungry, on a park bench or in a shop doorway, in sub-zero temperatures overnight. Although there are no official statistics on how many people sleeping rough sadly die in their sleep, one only has to imagine the harsh and life-threatening conditions that people have to endure.
It is clear that local authorities are struggling to cope with the demands of homelessness. Crisis reports that 79% of local authorities struggle to meet their main rehousing duty either all the time or most of the time. That is backed up by research from Homeless Link, which shows that for many the picture has worsened in the last year, with services reducing capacity or closing down at the time they are needed most. The biggest short-term drivers of homelessness, outside the chronic undersupply of social rented housing, are the continued freeze on local housing allowance and homelessness from public institutions. Crisis found that the causes of homelessness with the biggest increases last year were people being asked to leave Home Office accommodation and people being discharged from hospitals or prisons, which saw increases of 37% and 22% respectively.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for bringing this subject forward for debate. Across the UK, a disproportionate number of homeless people are former military personnel. Does he agree that this Government need to get real about supporting those who serve this country in their hour of need? We cannot continue to abandon them.
Bob Blackman
Under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, local authorities have a duty to assist veterans who have put their lives on the line for this country. They should be given full support.
The wider context of homelessness is important in discussions of funding. It demonstrates that if we simply allocate the funding to prevent homelessness to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and local authorities, we ignore the major drivers of homelessness and will not see the reduction that we all want to see. I have raised this issue many times, and it has become increasingly clear that we need the Government to take action. They need to set out in the forthcoming homelessness strategy a clear direction for how they will tackle the drivers of homelessness, with an approach that prioritises prevention rather than cure, and securing access to stable housing with support as quickly as possible. They also need to make serious reform to funding models to ensure that they are adequate and can deliver outcomes on preventing and ending homelessness.
The cross-Government strategy must address the drivers of homelessness and be clear on the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. We await its publication, which will be a key opportunity to set a clear strategic direction from the heart of Government on the outcomes that we want to see, and to design funding to maximise the chances of achieving them.
Changes to homelessness funding are not isolated from wider Government policy. The numbers show that welfare decisions, Home Office policy changes, and the ongoing failure to end street discharge from hospitals and prisons are pushing more and more people into homelessness. The Government must consider any changes to homelessness funding alongside wider policy and the cross-Government strategy for homelessness and rough sleeping—in particular, how welfare policy decisions increase demand on local government services.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
In my constituency, Caritas provides homeless support through its day centre and supported accommodation facility. It supported over 1,000 people last year, and demand for the service has risen by 19%. Does the hon. Member agree that long-term sustainable funding would help organisations such as Caritas provide their vital services and support those who most need it?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which leads me on to the aspects of what local authorities have to do. They are the front door; they are dealing with this crisis 24/7, 365 days a year. The Government must provide them with more help with temporary accommodation costs. Last year alone, local authorities spent £2.8 billion on temporary accommodation, which often came from homelessness budgets. It is positive that TA funding is being moved into the revenue support grant, but the lack of Government subsidy for housing benefit and temporary accommodation costs means that the core issue remains unaddressed.
The welfare system and other public services must do more to prevent homelessness. The lack of social homes and the continued freeze of local housing allowance leaves people with nowhere to go. Fewer than three in every 100 homes for rent are affordable for someone who needs local housing allowance. Furthermore, according to the Crisis monitor, homelessness on discharge from public institutions—hospitals and prisons—has risen by 22%. I have raised that repeatedly in this place, but I have seen no action on it. If it does not change, councils will continue to face impossible levels of need with inadequate levels of funding.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Liverpool is paying £25 million in the current financial year to house 1,700 people in temporary accommodation, 450 of whom are children. Does he agree that, although it is welcome that temporary accommodation funding is being moved into the revenue support grant, local authorities urgently need more support, given that they spend £2.8 billion on temporary accommodation, and we need to look at raising the local housing grant?
Bob Blackman
I am grateful to a Liverpool MP for calling me an hon. Friend; as I spent four years at the University of Liverpool, I have a shared interest in the great city of Liverpool. I agree that we have to do something about the local housing allowance, and I believe that that was a missed opportunity in the recent Budget.
Supported accommodation funding must be addressed. The removal of ringfencing has led to many supported housing services relying on exempt housing benefit to cover the cost of provision, spurring a proliferation of rogue providers. That must be addressed, and the Government must urgently bring forward the powers introduced by my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which we are still waiting for despite deadlines having passed and the Government now technically being in breach of the law.
Fundamentally, the homelessness strategy must be backed by adequate funding models to enable an evidence-based approach to tackling homelessness. The Government have made welcome funding announcements regarding housing and homelessness—funding for rough sleeping and temporary accommodation hit £1 billion in 2025-26; 60% of the £39 billion of social and affordable housing funding has been committed to social homes; and they have committed to developing a £2.4 billion homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant for 2026-27 to 2028-29—but the fact that homelessness continues to rise is clear evidence that we need to review the adequacy of funding and the overall approach to homelessness at a systems level, via the cross-Government strategy. That includes ensuring that the new homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant enables local authorities to provide effective homelessness support in line with evidence-based best practice.
To do that, the MHCLG must ringfence the new grant, so that local authorities do not use it for purposes that do not meet the requirements in the guidance. It must also develop outcome-based scrutiny mechanisms, such as reductions in presentations to housing options through preventive work; higher assessment rates relative to presentations; the introduction of face-to-face assessments; and housing-led approaches to addressing homelessness, so that people’s ability to access a secure home, with support if needed, is prioritised over temporary solutions.
In their response to the fair funding review, the Government propose consolidating all homelessness and rough sleeping revenue grants, except for temporary accommodation grant funding, which is to be moved into the revenue support grant. That will be £2.4 billion over the next three years, matching the call from the sector and the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, of which I am co-chairman, for consolidated multi-annual funding.
Throughout that process, we should ask whether the Government are ensuring efficacy. To ensure that funding tackles homelessness, the Government must work with councils, strategic authorities and the sector to develop appropriate scrutiny and accountability mechanisms, requiring local authorities to demonstrate how the new grant funding has been used to achieve targets. In doing that, the Government must link funding to outcome-based targets, with clear lines of accountability and performance monitoring. Examples of outcome-based targets are reductions in presentations to housing options, through proactive preventive work; increases in face-to-face assessment; and the development of local housing-led approaches to addressing homelessness, which we know are the most effective ways of sustainably ending homelessness.
Although the Government did not propose including domestic abuse funding in the new consolidated grant, I am a firm believer that that might encourage local authorities to consider the intersections between homelessness and domestic abuse. In the 2023-24 financial year, domestic abuse accounted for 12,130, or 25%, of the households with children owed a relief duty.
Homelessness funding reached £1 billion for 2025-26, with two main funding pots and several smaller ones. Should that level of funding have continued over the 2026-27 and 2028-29 periods, councils would have received £3 billion. That does not match the provisional funding allocation for the next two to three years, so it is fair to ask whether that is a cut just when services need more support. Remember that the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant does not include funding for temporary accommodation. Of the £633 million allocated to the homelessness prevention grant this year, 51%—£322 million—will be allocated to temporary accommodation, so this could leave councils with just £310 million to spend on homelessness support.
At the heart of the matter are the pressures faced by temporary accommodation. Government data shows that in 2023-24, local authorities in England spent nearly £2.3 billion on temporary accommodation, including very expensive nightly paid accommodation and more specialist emergency housing such as hostels and refuges. Spending on nightly paid accommodation has increased from 6% to 30% of the total temporary accommodation bill in the past 10 years.
For the next three years, temporary accommodation funding will be separated from wider homelessness funding and included in councils’ revenue support grant. For that three-year period, councils will receive temporary accommodation funding worth £969 million, which is around £323 million a year. That was previously part of the homelessness prevention grant, for which councils had roughly the same amount of funding. I welcome the decision to separate the funding, but we should not allow local authorities to choose between paying for expensive and often unsatisfactory temporary accommodation and homelessness support.
There is concern that the impact of temporary accommodation funding reforms will be limited because of the shortfall in financial support, paid at 90% of 2011 local housing allowance rates. It is unlikely that the reforms proposed by the Government will mitigate that subsidy gap, particularly given that the proposed level of funding is similar to that in the current year.
Let me take us back to 2003, when English local authorities were allocated ringfenced Supporting People funding to commission housing support. In 2009, that ringfence was removed, enabling local authorities to decide how the funding was used in their areas. That has led to significant variation in how services are commissioned across local authorities, with some supported housing services directly funded and commissioned by local authorities and other, non-commissioned services receiving no direct grant funding from the Government. The impact is that many providers are ending up using the higher rates of exempt housing benefit to offset higher housing management costs and pay for support. Although housing benefit should not be used to pay for that support, many providers report having to do so.
Many of the problems that we have seen in the exempt sector are driven in part by reductions in funding for support and increased dependence on exempt housing benefit. Unscrupulous landlords have used the higher rates of exempt housing benefit to profit from the provision of supported accommodation, while providing poor and sometimes unsafe services. That was the core reason for my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, whose implementation we still await. When the Minister responds to the debate, she can give us the good news that we will implement that without any further delay.
A lot of good work has been done. People are more aware of the struggles of homelessness and the enormous amount of charitable work that continues to support, lobby and raise awareness for us all. The three-year grant is welcome, but homelessness continues to rise. It is clear that we need to review both the adequacy of funding and the overall approach, via the cross-Government strategy, so the next question for the Minister is when we will see that strategy actually being delivered.
Basic principles are still missing. Indexing local housing allowance to cover just the cheapest 30% of local homes is one of the most impactful measures that the Government could introduce. The cross-Government strategy must address the drivers of homelessness and be clear about the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. We cannot forget that local authorities are the front door—they are dealing with the crisis literally every single day, and 24 hours a day at that—and we are still waiting for the protections and regulations enshrined by my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act to be enacted.
Let us not forget these points. Homelessness is rising. More than half of homelessness cases are in London. The cost of temporary accommodation is rising. Council budgets are shrinking. That is all while thousands are sleeping rough, on a sofa or on the street. The weather will be changing and temperatures will be dropping in the coming weeks. We stand here and call for change, and change must come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. To accommodate all those who wish to speak, I ask Members to impose on themselves a four-minute limit.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for initiating this debate. I ask Members to note my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a patron of my local homelessness charity, St Petrock’s.
As the largest urban centre for a very wide geography, Exeter has always had a pull factor for people whose housing situation deteriorates. We know that under 14 years of Tory government, homelessness increased substantially again after a period under the last Labour Government when it fell to historic lows due to political attention and drive. The factors driving homelessness are often complex, ranging from benefit changes and poverty to family breakdown, family violence or substance abuse. Researchers at the University of Exeter also look at the little-understood link between acquired brain injury and homelessness. Most people sleeping rough have experienced trauma, either as a child or—as with the veterans who find themselves homeless—in their working life, serving our nation.
According to CoLab Exeter, the city’s homelessness cases have the highest prevalence of complex support needs in the region. I am sad to say that Exeter has one of the highest rates of homeless deaths in the country. That is due in part to the pernicious impact of the highly addictive and dangerous drug Spice on our homeless population. I would like to see that scourge gripped by national authorities.
In this context, there are some bright spots, but there are also areas of significant concern. First, I am pleased that the Government have recently added a further £500,000 to Exeter city council’s budget for homelessness from the rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant, taking our budget this year to £1.8 million. That new money will partly support substance abuse services and children in temporary accommodation. I thank the Minister for that. However, our city, despite being the economic driver for the region and a fast-growing city, sits in a two-tier local government system, with Devon county council as the upper-tier authority with a far larger core budget. Supporting homeless people has historically been divided between the remits of Devon county council and Exeter city council, with housing a city council responsibility and the provision of care and support to an individual a county responsibility. That is where we have far more serious problems.
After proposing at a budget meeting in 2023 to cut its entire £1.4 million homelessness budget for this financial year, the majority of which is spent in Exeter, Devon significantly reduced that budget from £1.4 million to £1 million and then to just £500,000 next year, or to zero; it is not entirely clear to stakeholders. For this year, I am told that the grants have not been paid in full. One stakeholder was informed that they would get Q1 and Q2 payments and a smaller payment—about half of one quarter payment—for the remaining two quarters of the year. There has been little to no communication to service delivery partners, including our local YMCA, which delivers transitional housing for previously homeless people, about the funding decision since it was proposed about 18 months ago.
Providers are therefore working on the assumption that they will lose a majority of their funding from April next year. That means that vital emergency off-the-streets bed spaces and longer-term supported accommodation will be lost. The local support pathway out of homelessness will be significantly damaged, with no funding from other sources available to replace that lost funding.
One organisation, Bournemouth Churches Housing Association, has confirmed that its funding for this financial year has been reduced by 28%, after 10 years without inflationary increases. Its contract with Devon county council ends at the end of March 2026. There is a realistic possibility that Gabriel House, the main hostel provision for people transitioning out of rough sleeping, may close. Gabriel House accommodates 42 former rough sleepers and provides the main stepping stone from the street to more stable housing.
Exeter is already feeling the impact of the decision. At November’s annual rough sleeper count, our team saw a significant increase in the number of people they identified sleeping on the city streets. Another provider, Julian House, has had to close services, as funding to Exeter city council from the rough sleeper initiative and rough sleeper accommodation programme has been cut over previous years.
Labour introduced the Supporting People programme in 2003 as a ringfenced fund, which successfully reduced homelessness and rough sleeping, along with providing a net saving to the Exchequer due to the impacts on other budgets such as health, criminal justice and so on. However, ever since the ringfence was removed in 2009 and the budget absorbed into local authority core grants under the coalition Government, as the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned, local authorities have been diverting funding to other uses, with the results that we see daily on the streets. I therefore ask the Minister to give serious consideration to reintroducing the ringfence on homelessness prevention funding from central Government to local authorities.
I have received helpful information from the Department, through the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, about the replacement of the rough sleeping initiative and the rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant. However, given that the funding for next year is wrapped up in the local government financial settlement, stakeholders and delivery partners are, at this point, assessing their ability to make it to the end of March without knowing what funding will be made available. That will have a destabilising impact on homelessness prevention services. RSI contracts end in March, so providers will potentially be winding down the projects and beginning redundancy processes in advance of those contracts ending.
I encourage the Minister to view homelessness prevention and elimination through a Total Place-style model in the upcoming homelessness strategy, which is essential if we are to tackle multiple disadvantage rather than continually managing crisis. Although Total Place was mentioned in the Budget, it was limited in its development to five mayoral authorities, which risks leaving places such as Exeter behind at a time when instability is accelerating. Exeter could be an ideal pilot for a Total Place model in a smaller city undergoing transition and, hopefully, devolution, allowing us to demonstrate how integrated preventive investment can work effectively outside larger metropolitan areas.
I pay tribute to the excellent organisations in Exeter that, despite pressures on capacity and funding, have provided vital support for our homeless population and have a wider beneficial impact in our city, including St Petrock’s, the YMCA, CoLab, Gabriel House and Julian House. These organisations do not just need an adequate sum of funding; they also need clarity on where that funding will come from.
Funding uncertainty is part of a long-standing challenge embedded by two-tier delivery of local services—one that I am hopeful will be addressed by local government reorganisation. That is why Exeter city council has applied for unitary status on expanded boundaries. I look forward to working on that with MHCLG.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I am afraid that that was not a good example of a four-minute speech. Jim Shannon will show us how it should be done.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Mr Vickers, for the chance to speak; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for leading today’s debate. He always leads on homelessness issues, whether in this Chamber or the other, and we thank him for all that he does.
Our housing provision differs across the United Kingdom: in the devolved nations it is different from the provision here in England. One issue I must highlight is the funding that we receive via the block grant, which is used to support the most central services in Northern Ireland. I believe that we need to improve the adequacy of that funding.
I echo the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) made about veterans. Last winter, I sat out for about an hour in the cold weather—it was enough for me—with a veteran who was trying to highlight the very important issue of homelessness for veterans. I look forward to the Minister telling us what will be done across the United Kingdom.
In the Assembly back home, the Communities Minister Gordon Lyons has announced an additional £2.5 million funding package for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to boost homelessness prevention services. Homelessness across Northern Ireland is rife; the stats are shocking. There is not a day in my office back home in Newtownards, or indeed in the Ballynahinch office, when we do not have homelessness brought to us as a constituency issue—especially within Ards and North Down, which continues to be such a popular area to live in. The figures speak for themselves. In Ards and North Down, 1,233 households are presenting as homeless and 898 households have been accepted as full-duty applicants; in other words, they were in priority need.
We hear so often what “homeless” means, but full-duty applicants are the priority and in many cases they have not intentionally made themselves homeless. People buy houses over the years, rent them out and then want to release their capital and be better off. We cannot blame them for doing that, but it does put pressure on homelessness teams.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the big problems in Northern Ireland and across the UK is the lack of affordable homes? Many families are finding that that is the difficulty with getting on the housing ladder, and there are social housing issues as well.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is right. I have been presented with those cases in my office many times. People want to get a mortgage and cannot get one, because of the price of houses in Northern Ireland. In my constituency, they are the highest in all Northern Ireland; indeed, they are comparable to other parts of the United Kingdom.
I put on the record my thanks to my local housing team and particularly to the manager Eileen Thompson, to Irene May and to the many others who go the extra mile every day to help those in need. We do what we can with what we have, but because of the skyrocketing demand in my constituency and across the whole country, funding is not stretching far enough. Some 29,000 households in Northern Ireland have homeless status, and the policy approaches are not sufficient to meet the scale of demand. Although the Northern Ireland Executive receives money through the block grant, which is allocated accordingly, the figures show how much of an issue homelessness is, and there is more that we can do on home building.
My ask to the Minister—it is not her responsibility where the money goes, but maybe she can pass this on to the right person in the Cabinet—is a commitment to social housing delivery across the whole country and better integration with counterparts in the devolved nations, to ensure that we can support those who are in desperate need of safe and secure housing.
It is essential that Westminster provide stronger and more consistent support through fairer and more responsive Barnett consequentials. We have argued for many years that the Barnett consequentials do not reflect Northern Ireland’s needs. If they did, perhaps we could address the issue of temporary accommodation and homelessness, keep pace with demand and deliver long-term solutions. We must take the necessary steps to make the United Kingdom a safe and secure place to call home.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is great to speak under your chairship, Mr Vickers.
On Sunday, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), my wife and I took part in the Doncaster 10k with more than 3,000 other people. We chose to raise money for Doncaster Housing for Young People, of which we are patrons. I am pleased to say that we have raised more than £2,000 between us already. Doncaster Housing for Young People is a remarkable organisation that supports young adults who are vulnerable and at risk of homelessness. It not only provides decent accommodation, but supports them in gaining key life skills and by preparing them for the world of work. That means that, when young adults are ready to move into permanent accommodation, they have the physical and mental means to support themselves.
Why is that important to me? I come to this debate not just as a Member of Parliament but as someone who was homeless as a child. I know what it feels like when the word “home” means a room that is not really yours, and your whole life depends on decisions that are taken away from you. It somehow took until the 1970s to grasp what should have been obvious: for someone trying to recover from trauma, illness, addiction or financial catastrophe, a safe, stable home is not a luxury—it is the foundation on which everything else rests.
Today, the scale of the crisis is more stark than ever. Research in my own area of Doncaster and in the South Yorkshire area shows that 61% of people sleeping rough in December 2023 had slept rough before. Nationally, that figure is closer to 13%. That tells us something important: our system is managing crisis; it is not resolving it. We pour billions into temporary fixes, with families stuck in one room for months or years, schools disrupted, work made impossible, mental health deteriorating and people cut off from various networks that keep them safe and hopeful. We then act surprised when they fall back into homelessness and the cycle begins once again. A constituent of mine, a mum in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, is living in a room with a baby, and of a night time she has to go out to the service station to use its microwave to warm the baby’s milk. That is ridiculous. How is that possible in this day and age?
Housing First offers a way to break that cycle. In simple terms, it turns the old model on its head: instead of asking people to prove that they are housing ready before they get a permanent home, Housing First starts with the home and wraps support around it. It means a settled, self-contained tenancy as a first step—not the last—and intensive, flexible, person-centred support to help people keep that home. It does not make help conditional on being abstinent or already in treatment, but gives people the support they need to tackle those issues head-on. It offers that support for as long as it is needed, not just the length of a short-term programme. We are not talking about a theory; the three Housing First pilots in Greater Manchester, Liverpool city region and the west midlands have already supported over a thousand people with some of the most complex needs into independent tenancies. Around 84% of those tenancies were sustained after three years, which is remarkable given the level of trauma, poor health and repeated homelessness that people had experienced.
What do we need to do now? First, I urge Ministers to commit to a national Housing First strategy, making it the default offer for people who are repeatedly homeless or have more complex needs, and not a small pilot on the margins. That strategy should include clear targets for the number of Housing First tenancies. Secondly, we need long-term ringfenced funding. Programmes such as the rough sleeping initiative and the single homelessness accommodation programme are vital, but local areas need multi-year certainty so that they can recruit and retain specialist staff and build proper services, not live hand to mouth.
Thirdly, we should link Housing First to the Labour Government’s mission on house building. We have committed to 1.5 million new homes and the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation. A share of those generally affordable homes should be reserved for Housing First. Finally, I hope Ministers will prioritise areas with high levels of repeat homelessness, including Doncaster and South Yorkshire, as early beneficiaries of any expansion.
I know that many volunteers out there this Christmas will be helping the most vulnerable and the homeless, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for doing that, but if I could ask Santa for one Christmas wish this year, it would be that those volunteers could be redirected into something else, and that homelessness be ended for good.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate.
We have Shelter’s vicious cycle:
“No home? No address. No address? No bank account. No bank account? No job. No job? No home.”
Rural homelessness is a unique challenge. In a way, it is unlike homelessness in urban centres; it is less visible, which makes it harder to tackle. I suppose people always imagine quaint villages and rolling hills, so the association with homelessness does not necessarily fit, which perhaps makes it easier to overlook. There are many people in my constituency who sofa surf, staying temporarily with family and friends, and therefore are not classified as statutorily homeless. There is a hidden homelessness crisis. If hon. Members came to visit the Hope Centre in Minehead with me, they would see the excellent volunteers from the Baptist church support the many people who are sofa surfing in Minehead and west Somerset.
In 2024-25, 30% of people in mid Devon became homeless because friends or family were either no longer able or willing to provide accommodation. That figure is about the same in Somerset. Homelessness in rural areas has increased every year since 2018, with the most recent statistics indicating there are around 28,000 homeless people in rural parts of the country. They are most highly represented in the south-west. At the end of 2023, homelessness in the countryside had jumped by 40%—nearly half. An English Rural report found that rural areas receive 65% less funding for homelessness per capita compared with urban areas.
We need more social housing. I had a look at what the CPRE said about rural homelessness following the Government’s publishing of the housing figures in June. In the south-west, almost 65,000 people are on waiting lists for social housing. Figures from 2023 showed that just 8% of homes in rural areas were affordable, whereas that figure is 17% in urban areas. Without building the homes, people will continue to face destitution and homelessness. The Liberal Democrat manifesto last year included a commitment to build 150,000 social houses. I am proud to say that in Minehead, Somerset council has built social housing for the first time in a generation. The Liberal Democrat Mid Devon council is making good headway. Given the comments from the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), I will make sure that he gets an update from Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon county council.
I always tell people there is no point in talking about affordable housing if someone earns only £20,000 a year. What we need is social housing, not affordable housing, and we need it in Tiverton and Minehead first and foremost.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate.
The latest annual rough sleeping snapshot has recorded thousands of people sleeping rough—just 2% below the highest level ever recorded. I am afraid to say that it is not getting better quickly enough. Monthly data still showed a 5% rise in rough sleeping between last June and this June. Temporary accommodation has already reached record highs in the recent period. At the very moment when demand for housing is soaring, there is still not enough support for the people who need it most. Nearly half of the homelessness services that we have across the country are now reported to be at risk of closure, and the number of bed spaces available has fallen by 43% over the last 17 years.
As with so much that has gone wrong in this country over the last couple of decades, the root cause of all this is the underfunding and public sector cuts that we saw under the previous Government, led by a short-termist, narrow focus that wilfully ignored the tried and tested ways for economies to get out of the growth doom loop that we have been in. What we need to do is stop storing up more problems in years to come and start addressing things like the homelessness emergency head-on. That means ensuring that services are properly funded to provide safe, year-round bed spaces. It means making sure that new regulations on supported accommodation do not unintentionally punish good providers. It means reversing Tory Government decisions that actively drive homelessness, most notably the freeze to the local housing allowance and the benefit cap—things that make it almost impossible for many households to access the stable housing that they need.
In addition, we need cross-departmental working. Ending homelessness cannot be the responsibility of just one single Department. Decisions in health, justice and welfare, immigration—Departments across the board—all shape who becomes homeless and who does not. This is not the sort of thing that might get the pulses racing, but we need to ensure shared accountability and a shared delivery agenda across Government, not just here in Westminster and Whitehall but through the devolved layers of government, especially at the new strategic authority level.
We all come into politics for good reasons. The moral case for action is clear, as is the financial case. In that vein, I want to highlight the importance, from an efficiency perspective, of Housing First. The Housing First model has consistently demonstrated its effectiveness, here and internationally. It is based on a simple principle: first and foremost providing people with a stable home, then wrapping support around them. It prioritises dignity, choice and long-term stability, and by dealing with the root causes of social issues, it helps the state save money.
The Government’s own evaluation of the three national Housing First pilots confirms what frontline service providers have long known: the model delivers good value for money, achieves remarkable tenancy sustainment rates, reduces rough sleeping, and leads to improvements across health, wellbeing and wider metrics. Crucially, it works for people with the most complex needs—those who have been systematically failed by traditional models of accommodation. Housing First can help us break the cycle of homelessness, crisis care and retraumatisation, which leads to more homelessness. When properly funded and scaled, it can prevent rough sleeping, reduce demand on the NHS and the criminal justice system, and help people to rebuild their lives for good.
If we are serious about combating homelessness, in particular rough sleeping, we should protect and expand Housing First. That requires long-term, ringfenced funding, and a national commitment to scaling provision and to ensuring that it is embedded in the wider homelessness strategy for Government.
I thank the Chair and colleagues for their attention, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate, which is important for the country and, indeed, for Birmingham.
In Birmingham, more than 25,000 families are currently on the housing register, and shockingly, around 10,000 children live in temporary accommodation. In some cases, families are split, with a father and some children living in temporary accommodation in one part of the city, while the mother lives with other children in another part. That causes me great anxiety not only because of the impact on mental health, but because of the direct impact on families and children. Children may not be able to go to local schools because they have no fixed abode.
Another growing problem in Birmingham—and certainly in Birmingham Perry Barr—is rough sleeping. On some of the high streets in my constituency—Soho Road, Villa Road in Lozells, Aston Lane—and at the One Stop Shopping centre, desperate individuals are out in the cold, looking for some small change for a hot drink in weather that will only get worse. Some of them have difficult and complex needs, some are drug addicts and some have had problems with alcohol. There are also people who have been in the military. I am not going to mention his name, but I know of a young man, who I think is in his mid-30s, living in temporary accommodation but without the support that he needs. He is frequently out on the streets until the early hours of the morning. That, in itself, can cause a degree of antisocial behaviour because, with increased crime and people on the street late at night, there are always ramifications in a local neighbourhood.
I totally agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East about ringfenced funding. That is so important in Birmingham, which has been run by Labour for the past decade. It is not just because Government funding has been reduced but because there has been a high degree of funding mismanagement by Birmingham’s Labour-run council. Ringfenced funding for housing will ensure that people get the support they deserve.
It is not just about the funding that central Government provides to councils under the Barnett formula but about the recent Pride in Place funding the Government have announced. Edgbaston, Erdington, Hall Green, Hodge Hill, Ladywood, Northfield, Selly Oak and Yardley—eight constituencies in Birmingham, all with Labour MPs. But which constituency did not get any funding? Birmingham Perry Barr. We only have to Google or ChatGPT search the deprivation indices to see that Birmingham Perry Barr has among the highest. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues about why Birmingham Perry Barr has been excluded?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate—Mr Vickers, you and I know he got a real grilling from the Backbench Business Committee when he proposed the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), the chair of the APPG, for her work in this important area.
I declare an interest: before coming to this place, I was a project outreach worker for a brilliant homelessness charity in my Harlow constituency called Streets2Homes. I pay particular tribute to its chief executive officer, Kerrie Eastman, to her manager, Lisa Twomey, and to my former colleagues Jamie and Alice for all their work to support people in Harlow who are rough sleeping or sofa surfing—as we often discuss, sofa surfers are the hidden homeless.
My role was very varied, but one thing I had to do was go out into the community—sometimes into a wooded area, and sometimes into industrial estates—to find people who were rough sleeping, to encourage them to register with our charity and to support them into secure accommodation. I echo the comments made by Members across the House about the importance of the Housing First approach to tackling rough sleeping.
I also welcome the Government’s commitment to an additional £1 billion of funding to tackle rough sleeping. However, we also need to recognise that there are a multitude of reasons for people becoming homeless. Sometimes, it is addiction to drugs, alcohol or gambling, and sometimes it is mental health issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) correctly identified the root causes coming down to trauma. How we support people who have faced trauma is really important.
Before I worked for that homelessness charity, as people know, I was a teacher. I do not want to get into the politics of why I left teaching, because this has not been that sort of debate. However, what I will say is that, within my first two weeks of working for a home- lessness charity, a man came in who had recently become homeless. He was a former teacher who had had a mental breakdown, turned to alcohol and found himself homeless. It was a seminal moment for me, because I thought that it is only by the grace of God that our positions were not reversed. There is a saying that we are only ever two payslips away from homelessness—with the cost of living crisis and the increased costs of the private rented sector, it may now be fewer than two payslips. It really struck me that we could all potentially be affected by this issue.
Harlow council is in the 40% most deprived lower-tier authorities, and at any one time there could be more than 250 people in temporary accommodation. When I was a district councillor in Harlow, one of the last questions I asked was about the cost of temporary accommodation. Harlow is quite a small district council, but it still cost roughly £2 million a year to house people in temporary accommodation. Clearly, if we can get this right, there is a saving to be made.
My wife is currently a teacher, and she speaks about having to visit families in temporary accommodation. We recognise how difficult it is for young people growing up in such accommodation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme mentioned. It hugely affects their schooling.
I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Harrow East—there is Harrow-Harlow agreement in Westminster Hall today—on the issues affecting people leaving prison. We have had a number of people come into Streets2Homes who had been released from prison with nowhere to go. Clearly, if we want people not to reoffend, that is a huge issue.
I am running out of time, so I will quickly say that I support the Housing First approach, but I am concerned about what supported accommodation is and what it is not. I am concerned about people claiming to provide supported accommodation and not actually providing it. Under the last Labour Government, we brought down the number of rough sleepers. Let us make sure this Labour Government do the same.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate, and for his continued advocacy on this topic. He has been a reliable voice in this space for quite some time.
I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the latest statistics, but today I will also make the case that tackling homelessness is the right thing to do not only for individuals and communities but for public spending and our economy. We have done so much already, but there is a lot more to do, so I will share with colleagues some details about the cost of temporary accommodation, particularly in London, and then propose some possible solutions and make some requests of the Minister.
Currently, 56% of homeless households living in temporary accommodation are in London. In fact, one in 50 Londoners live in temporary accommodation, which is nearly 200,000 people, including 97,000 children. London boroughs collectively spend £5 million a day on temporary accommodation, with the rate of temporary accommodation in Westminster reaching 3%. In 2023-24, Westminster city council spent £95 million on temporary accommodation, and in the same year spending on temporary accommodation in the City of London increased by 52%.
It is positive that there are plans to spend capital money on temporary accommodation, which is part of the solution, but we are now in a situation where the average household in London spends £202 every year, or 11% of their council tax bill, on temporary accommodation. The net current expenditure on homelessness in London has risen by 42% since last year, compared with a 16% increase across the rest of England. And of the 4,254 households in temporary accommodation in Westminster, 768 are in bed and breakfasts, which are an appalling place to grow up, and only 244 are in local authority or housing association stock.
The most expensive type of temporary accommodation is in the private rented sector and paid for nightly. It is the most common type in many London boroughs, including Westminster, where it is used for 1,684 of the 4,254 households in temporary accommodation. Local housing allowance has been frozen, and analysis by the Local Government Association shows that local authorities are due to spend an additional £400 million a year from their own funds on temporary accommodation. At present, 30 in every 1,000 households in the City of Westminster and seven in every 1,000 households in the City of London live in temporary accommodation.
This Government have done a lot. We have committed £39 billion to increase the supply of genuinely affordable housing, and my own local authorities have received significantly more money to tackle some of the worst forms of rough sleeping. I am grateful for all the work the Minister is doing, and for how open-minded and open-spirited she is about tackling this problem. All of us in this Chamber have come forward to solve some of these problems.
Will the Minister bring local government and housing associations together for an emergency meeting, to have a frank conversation about the ludicrous situation of local authorities driving up the cost of temporary accommodation because they are competing with each other to procure it? Will she update the House on the Office for Value for Money report on the cost of temporary accommodation? And will she consider using funding models that have been used in the past that help people to transition from leased temporary accommodation into permanent social housing?
These families live and have children growing up in London communities, and we simply cannot continue putting them out to other local authorities that I know have struggles with identifying temporary accommodation. I also know how seriously this Government take this issue, and I firmly believe that we will be able to end the scourge of rough sleeping and tackle the temporary accommodation crisis if we have the will and the spirit to get it done.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate hon. Members on their speeches so far.
The homelessness crisis is a national scandal, and it has a human cost that we all see in our constituencies. In Oldham, there are 517 households, including 633 children, in temporary accommodation. Over half of those are in nightly procured accommodation, and a quarter are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Even though we call it temporary accommodation, many young people are there for such a significant part of their childhood that it becomes their home, and these are not homes that any of us present would choose to live in. Over 10% of those households in Oldham are in temporary accommodation for between two and five years, and 32% are in temporary accommodation for between one and two years. For a child growing up in primary school, those are the formative years of their childhood and they make a significant difference to their development and education.
When procuring temporary accommodation, local authorities are often looking further afield. There are many out-of-borough placements, but even within a borough, with local transport not always as it should be, it can be very difficult for parents to get their children to school. It can be difficult for working parents to rely on family members to support childcare before or after school. In practice, it means that many young people are missing out on a good education and their wider support networks during that period.
A lot has been said about the impact of local authority budgets. All of us appreciate the work that the Minister is doing to reconcile not just the financial cost to local government but the human cost to families, particularly children. But let us be honest: this is a gold rush for private landlords, who are absolutely rinsing the taxpayer dry for substandard accommodation. The average cost of nightly accommodation in Oldham is between £25 and £35 a night, and those are single rooms. The accommodation that I visited with the Shared Health Foundation in Oldham had three mattresses with a cooker, a sink and an extractor unit that was supposed to take out the cooking smells from that room, but went nowhere.
I met a woman who had fled domestic violence, and she was contemplating going back to her abuser because she was fearful of what staying in that temporary accommodation meant for her children. I visited the room next door and spoke to her 14-year-old son, who wanted to be an engineer when he left school. He could not get any sleep because he was put on a mattress in the corner of that attic room, and there were holes in the skirting board where, every single night, the mice were chomping through the woodwork and keeping him awake. He showed me the holes in the wall that he was using old socks to fill because he did not want the mice to come through into the room. Mice and rats were running through the whole building. A six-room HMO used for temporary accommodation in a town such as Oldham brings the landlord £65,000 a year in income.
We are also seeing family homes being taken off the housing market, because these private landlords will snap up terraced houses and convert every single room into a letting room for temporary accommodation, charging £25 to £35 a night. As an example, one person—an Oldham councillor who drives around the town in a Rolls-Royce, for God’s sake—had a facility from which eight children and 16 adults had to be removed because of health and safety violations. These were attic rooms again, filled with mattresses and shared facilities, and he was on a £7,000-a-month contract for just that one property.
We have to deal with the human costs, but the system has to be put in order. The Minister is one of the good people in government who absolutely believe that, but she has a job to do with her Home Office colleagues. That is not the Minister, I should say, but there is certainly a culture within the Home Office. Unfortunately, I would say they have a disregard for the impact of their policies on local communities, whether that be the move away from extended support for people moving out of temporary accommodation or even the artificial market that they are driving with the procurement of dispersal accommodation for asylum seekers. If we do not have a whole-of-Government approach to dealing with the housing crisis, we will just not solve it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
We have three remaining speakers and 10 minutes, so you have about three minutes each.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to contribute with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate. He has focused homeless prevention, but we need also to think seriously about homeless recovery and permanence as we move forward.
It is right that Housing First provides that blueprint for us. I thank Professor Nicholas Pleace at the University of York for all his work on that, and for showing the value to people as well as the economy of putting housing first. We need to be able to support the transition into Housing First, particularly changing accommodation. We are trying to retrofit our hostels to ensure that there are single-based units to accommodate people in that path to permanence. I also draw the Minister’s attention to some of the work the Salvation Army has done. We have a NAPpad, which is a temporary unit where people experiencing chronic street homelessness can see a transition step into accommodation, by having a very simplified unit which gives them the feeling of independence but comes before taking that big step into Housing First.
I agree with colleagues that we need to look at the local housing allowance again. It is far too limited. It is almost at 50% in York, which goes nowhere near the costs. The local authority then has to pick up the tab for the differentials that people experience. That is unsustainable, not least as we have the lowest funded unitary authority in the country yet far from the most affluent. I also have my eye on the Department for Work and Pensions budget. We spent £31.8 billion on housing support, so I urge the Government to look again at rent controls, because we are seeing a spike in the escalation of housing costs in the private rented sector, which is often where people find themselves. That is unsustainable. People are falling out of housing but cannot get back in. Looking at rent controls is important, alongside social build, which we know is really needed as well.
Supporting People has been mentioned. That was introduced by the last Labour Government and was absolutely a game changer in recognising the holistic needs. We have heard about the financial and health risks people have, but also the levels of trauma. We do not have a real focus on trauma capacity to support people. Supporting People did keep people in their homes, provide support, build resilience and gave people independence and confidence so they could manage their own affairs and be able to sustain their living. I trust we can look again at how we can ringfence that money and ensure we address those complex needs. As York introduces its focus round a multidisciplinary, multi-agency, independent team to provide that support, we need to ensure we do not only move people out from the streets into temporary accommodation, but also break the cycle of homelessness into the future.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Before coming to this place, I worked on the frontline of homelessness policy at the charity St Mungo’s and also in the housing industry for over 15 years, as well as being cabinet member for housing at Medway council. Those experiences taught me how quickly people can fall into crisis when systems fail, and how powerful the right interventions can be when they are properly funded and sustained. It also highlighted how complex the homelessness landscape is, and how important it is that we have an integrated Housing First approach, driven by evidence.
Under the Tories, we saw rough sleeping more than double between 2010 and its peak, while local authorities faced a significant real terms reduction in core spending power—the very budgets that funded homelessness prevention. As a result, the system has become crisis-led, reactive and structurally incapable of meeting demand. Most strikingly, the Everyone In scheme demonstrated what is possible when homelessness is treated with the urgency it deserves, with over 37,000 people brought in off the streets overnight. It also highlighted the clear truth that rough sleeping is not an unsolvable issue, but a resource one.
When we talk about homelessness, we are not only talking about those who are rough sleeping. We are also talking about those who are sofa surfing, hidden homelessness, and thousands of families who are placed in temporary accommodation, often miles from their schools, support networks and places of work. For example, many London councils are placing people in my constituency, driving up prices locally but also putting a real pressure on an already overstretched local authority.
The scale of this crisis has got to the point where temporary accommodation has become a parallel housing system in its own right. Unfortunately it is no longer a safety net. Instead it is a symptom of a system under acute strain, and represents one of the clearest arguments for long-term, sustainable funding for homelessness prevention.
The Government’s commitment to significantly expand the supply of genuinely affordable and social homes will help to ease the relentless pressure on temporary accommodation, as more families can access stable, long-term housing, rather than being trapped in the cycle of emergency placements. However, we must be honest about these structural issues and we cannot shy away from addressing them at their root. I therefore urge the Minister, whose work I really respect in this area, to look closely at the local housing allowance and ensure it is set at a level that reflects real rental markets. It will be one of the most effective levers we have to preventing homelessness at scale, and it must be a part of any credible long-term strategy.
Finally, our approach to ending homelessness has been discussed for many years. The solutions that can work are ready and available. Now is the time for action.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers and I thank the chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing this debate.
Winter is coming and the temperatures are dropping. I remember a particularly bitter winter 28 years ago, in 1997, when a new Labour Government, with Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, opened up Admiralty House to 60 young people to serve as a winter shelter. That was as powerful symbol of the change that came from that Government. I remember a certain Conservative MP, Crispin Blunt, was not happy with this scheme. He said that it would reduce a historic building to a flagship for undesirables. That is the difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government, I have to say. In subsequent years, homelessness was indeed slashed by that Labour Government, but sadly, during the last 14 years under the Conservatives, it has risen again. This year, thankfully, this Government are investing £1 billion in pursuit of ending homelessness and rough sleeping. I am pleased that this winter we have topped that up with a further £84 million cash boost.
I will talk a bit about what can work. In Rochdale, we are seeing the tangible results of what happens when there is sustained investment and a relentless focus on combining early intervention schemes with investment in temporary accommodation options that actually get people back on their feet and build better, more sustainable pathways out of homelessness. Rochdale council has seen a 79% reduction in B&B placements compared with November 2024. That is the difference that a Labour council can make when it is working with the Labour Government. I pay particular tribute to Hannah Courtney-Adamson and her team at Rochdale council for all their work in this area, but of course, there are also lots of people on the ground who make such a difference to charities such as the Army of Kindness in Rochdale, Petrus, Sanctuary Trust and Angie’s Angels, who do fabulous work with people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own.
The provision of affordable housing is not keeping pace with demand. In Rochdale, over 7,000 households are on the housing register and we have almost 1,500 live homelessness cases. That is precisely why we need to build more homes for rent. The £39 billion we are investing in affordable and social homes is ultimately the only way out of this crisis. In the meantime, the private renting sector is often the only option, but rising rent prices and cruel section 21 evictions are cited by Rochdale council as the main cause of homelessness, and make the private rented sector impossible for many. That is why I am so proud that this Government has abolished section 21 evictions.
Finally, I will say something about the need to tackle homelessness among veterans. It should be a source of national shame that those who served our nation cannot find a home, or they find a safety net filled with holes when they end up on the streets. We are proud of our support networks for veterans in Rochdale, and I am pleased that the council is renovating Denehurst House, a Victorian manor house, and turning it into five new apartments for veterans. I pay tribute to Get Together After Serving for every bit of work they do in this area. Finally, the people of Rochdale really care about fellow Rochdalians who fall on hard times and have no roof over their head. As a Government, we will be judged by how quickly we tackle this crisis—not just in winter, but all year round.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to take part in this debate about the adequacy of funding to support homeless people. At the outset, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for securing this debate. I know how important this topic is to him, and his forensic opening speech this morning emphatically underlined that. I am confident I speak for all sides of the House when I say how appreciated his tireless efforts have been to address the tragedy of homelessness. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate.
Just over a month ago, I had the pleasure of coming to this place and hearing 17 speeches from a range of hon. Members on the issue of homelessness. Some of them are here again today and some are not. I said at the time that homelessness is a “social tragedy” wherever it occurs and for whatever reason. That we are back here again shows both the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and its significance to hon. Members across the House.
Unfortunately, since the last debate, things have got worse rather than better. The future cost of living looks worse—certainly in the wake of last week’s rather gloomy Budget. The future of house building and the Government’s manifesto promise to build 1.5 million homes appear to be in dire straits, and the state of local government finances again appears bleak and unlikely to improve. On top of all of that, the long-awaited homelessness strategy, first pledged in the Government’s manifesto a year and a half ago, continues to be late and remains unpublished.
The strategy was first promised to us in 2024, with the publication repeatedly said to be forthcoming. We were then repeatedly told by the Minister’s predecessor that it was due for publication following the conclusion of the spending review—which was six months ago. In a parliamentary question answered just last week we continued to be told that it will be published “later this year”. It is 2 December today and the year is running out. It may be advent, the season of waiting, but there are many who consider this to be an unacceptable and damaging delay, particularly the charities and homeless people waiting for the Government to take serious action. It would be a very welcome early Christmas present if the Minister were to announce its publication this morning.
In saying that, I acknowledge that the Government have not been totally idle. They have introduced some additional funding: a £69.9 million uplift to the rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant, an additional £10.9 million for supporting children experiencing homelessness, and £3 million for the rough sleeping drug and alcohol treatment programme. The funding is welcome, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said in his opening speech and others have mentioned, funding must come with strategy and purpose and that is something we are yet to see.
As I said in this Chamber in October:
“prevention must be at the heart of any national strategy for tackling homelessness”.—[Official Report, 21 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 312WH.]
That was a central focus in the last Government’s approach which produced £2.4 billion of funding to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness including the rough sleeping initiative and £547 million over the period from April 2022 to March 2025 before schemes such as the RSI were rolled up into one by the current Government. The rough sleeping initiative provided locally led tailored support and services for rough sleepers, providing direction and strategy at the most local levels.
The Minister’s Department has so far failed to provide itself and its fellow Departments with a national strategy. Simply spending money will not do the job, and funding without purpose or direction can actually damage efforts to achieve the critical goal of ending homelessness.
Much of the responsibility and funding for tackling homelessness lies with local government. Bills for homelessness accommodation have soared to £3.8 billion across 2024-2025—a 25% increase in a single year. There are now a record number of people in temporary accommodation, including 169,050 children in England—a 12% increase in a year. The result of that is that councils are now warning that homelessness poses one of the biggest threats to their financial viability.
Homelessness is a statutory demand-led and highly acute pressure on local government. The Government’s answer so far has not been to provide more support, but to take money away from many councils as part of their so-called fair funding formula. In introducing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) has called their “unfair funding” model for local authorities the Government are funnelling money away from councils predominantly in the south to send to councils predominantly in the north. It is hard to see that as anything other than a partisan cash grab and a punitive targeting of many well-run councils, especially penalising those who have historically kept council taxes low and controlled spending better.
Some of the most affected areas, including the south- east, are witnessing a large rise in homelessness and simultaneously a potentially catastrophic drop in funding thanks to the fair funding policy. How does that reconcile with the need to go further to tackle this soaring issue? The answer is that it does not. It certainly does not help that councils are being punished and losing money for the crime of being comparatively well run when they are still trying to play their role in providing temporary accommodation to those 126,040 households.
Gareth Bacon
I will not. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I know he cares passionately about this issue, but we are running out of time. I need to leave time for the Minister to respond and for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to conclude.
The figure of 126,040 households is a 15.7% increase on 2023. The Government need to rethink this policy for the sake of local government and those who have a statutory requirement to help. It is not just local authorities that are under additional pressure. Homeless Link found that thanks to the Chancellor’s national insurance hike, the 2024 autumn Budget removed between £50 million and £60 million of vital funding from smaller organisations that provide homelessness services. It is sad that the Government’s announcements on homelessness funding, as welcome as they are, to some extent merely fill the gaps that the Treasury created.
It is also important that the Government work to make housing more affordable, including with proper funding for social and affordable homes. Unfortunately, the Government are not making the progress that they promised. On funding for affordable housing, despite the Chancellor’s boast when announcing the package at the previous spending review, the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted:
“Upon closer inspection the promise of £39bn over 10 years is less generous than on first appearance…The small print suggests spending of about £3bn a year over the next three years, which is not a million miles away from what is currently spent on the AHP”—
affordable homes programme—
“This is why enormous-sounding numbers should always merit further scrutiny”.
The Government are also failing on making social and affordable homes available. Figures show that, with the lowest number of additional homes for nearly a decade, the Government are on track to fall well short of the target of 1.5 million additional homes in this Parliament, possibly not even reaching 1 million. That is considerably worse than the 2.5 million new homes delivered by the previous Government, including 1 million in the previous Parliament, of which 750,000 were affordable homes. That was despite having to grapple with the pandemic for the better part of two years.
In conclusion, it is clear that Ministers must work more quickly and effectively to provide local authorities and charities with the strategy and direction they need. It is vital to move at a greater pace to ease the temporary accommodation crisis, get more social and affordable homes built in the most affected areas, and finally publish the homelessness strategy first promised in July 2024 but repeatedly delayed to the detriment of those relying on it to work. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his continued work on homelessness. He is respected across the House, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), said, and we are all grateful for his work.
I thank the 14 hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I again agree with the shadow Minister that that number, along with the 17 hon. Members who spoke in the last such debate, sends a message to people outside this place that tackling homelessness is a priority for Members on both sides of the House of Commons. I will encourage all officials in the Department to read this debate to understand where MPs are coming from and the priority that this subject represents for them. The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 of the hon. Member for Harrow East is a priority for me, and I want to work with him to implement it. I hear what he said about its delay and take that as an instruction to work harder to get it done.
More broadly, I thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. As has been said, although homelessness is a problem of not having enough houses, it is not just a housing problem; it is a profound injustice that devastates lives. Everyone has a right to a roof over their head. Homelessness is a visible reminder that our society falls short in the duties that we owe to one another—something that the Labour Government are determined to change.
Some hon. Members mentioned the homelessness strategy, about which I can only say, “Watch this space.” I am determined to get on and publish it before Christmas, and I am really keen to work cross-party with hon. Members to make it work. We had an excellent parliamentary engagement session last week, which was less formal than this debate, and I think it works really well to have a combination of informal opportunities and debates such as this for hon. Members to talk through what they want to see in the strategy.
As we move towards the delivery phase of the homelessness strategy, it will be right for us to continue holding those parliamentary engagement sessions on a range of issues to make sure that hon. Members can feed into them. Last week, we talked through the preventive nature of the strategy from the point of view of housing and affordability, and how we can enable the support that the most vulnerable people need. A couple of hon. Members also made important points about people with complex needs.
You will forgive me, Mr Vickers, if I briefly mention the Budget. I have no doubt that, as with any Budget, not every hon. Member got all their heart’s desires, but ending the two-child limit was one of mine. I have met many kids in temporary accommodation, or otherwise living in poverty, who will benefit. I think of those children every day when I walk into the Department, and what we can collectively do to give them their futures back.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) said, we announced in the Budget that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will lead a review, involving me and other Ministers, of value for money in homelessness services. It will include looking at ways to improve the supply of good value for money and good quality temporary accommodation and supported housing, such as through greater co-ordination in planning and procurement in different parts of the state.
A couple of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon)—who I commend for his work as my predecessor as Minister for Local Government, setting in train a really important set of reforms that will help in this area—mentioned the absolutely dire state of temporary accommodation, both for the kids in it and for the taxpayer, and the fact that we are not getting value for money at the moment. I encourage all Members to engage with that value for money review; we want to see some of the worst cases so that we can provide an evidence base.
Ayoub Khan
The Minister is making some powerful points in recognition of the challenges that we face. On the Budget, it will always be difficult to balance the books and maintain the status quo. Does she accept that the mammoth task of addressing homelessness can be achieved only with the substantial amount of investment that can come through wealth taxes—with wealthy people paying more for the vulnerable in society?
Alison McGovern
I think the record will show that the Government have taken action to bring in more tax from people who owe it—from those at the top of society—and that, because we have done so, we have been able to get rid of the two-child limit and commit £39 billion to build more social and affordable housing. That investment will make a difference in tackling the social injustice of homelessness.
As a few hon. Members mentioned, we are taking action now, even before we have published the strategy. This year, we have invested more than £1 billion— the largest annual investment to date—to enable local authorities to invest in prevention, provide tailored support and reduce the reliance on costly short-term solutions.
Several hon. Members also mentioned the tension that exists between ringfencing funding and allowing local authorities the flexibility to lead solutions that work for their place. Following the work of my predecessor, I am very glad that we have been able to provide local authorities with a three-year funding settlement and reconnect council funding with deprivation. The twin effects of those policies will help in that area.
We as Members of Parliament have to recognise, however, that there is a tension between curtailing local authorities’ freedom through things like ringfencing, which might target resources in the right place, and enabling them to tailor support to their local area. We will square that circle through the local government outcomes framework that we will publish shortly with the full settlement. We will show how we will have visibility and transparency over outcomes so that we can understand exactly where the problems are and take steps to tackle them. I look forward to engaging with all hon. Members on that framework.
We know that our investment in councils on homelessness is making a difference. The latest annual figures show early signs of progress, with 11% fewer households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is a small bit of progress, but I agree with all hon. Members who have expressed real concern about where we are at the moment; we still have a long way to go.
Far too many people are experiencing homelessness and we have to provide the homes that they need, as I have said. Alongside increasing supply, as I mentioned, we need to reform the private rented sector. Section 21 no-fault evictions are a leading cause of homelessness, forcing thousands of families into crisis every year, but we have abolished them through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. The best way to prevent homelessness is to stop it before it starts, and that is what the Renters’ Rights Act will do. We have also strengthened protections for the social housing stock by reforming the right to buy.
Many hon. Members mentioned supported housing, which is crucial. I say to the hon. Member for Harrow East that I am working very hard on the implementation of his Act. It is vital that we drive out rogue landlords. As I mentioned, I will welcome the engagement of hon. Members on our value for money review, because we know that we desperately need more resources in this area and some of the resources that are there at the moment are not being spent in the way that we as Members of Parliament would wish. We have a collective duty to resolve that situation in the strategy’s implementation phase.
I will conclude and allow the hon. Member for Harrow East to say a few words. In the end, we want to see lasting change, whether through social homes being built or our goal to improve disposable incomes so that people are less likely to be unable to fulfil their tenancy. Those are the steps that we can take to end homelessness for good and make sure, for anybody experiencing homelessness, that it is a brief period and never repeated. We need the cross-party collaboration that we have demonstrated again here today, and a whole-system approach. On hospital discharge, on prisons, on victims of domestic abuse and on veterans, I have engaged with Ministers in those areas and I will continue to do so. We have an interministerial group meeting coming up before we publish the strategy, and I can report that all those other Departments are engaging enthusiastically on the strategy.
We need to prevent homelessness. That will mean less cost for the state and, crucially, much better outcomes for families and individuals who desperately need better support. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today. It has been inspiring, again, to understand how important this issue is. Most of all, I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East for securing the debate. I have absolutely no doubt that when it comes to debates in Westminster Hall on this subject, this ain’t going to be the last.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), and the 13 Back-Bench Members who contributed to the debate. It is clear that we have a serious challenge on our hands. In relation to the long-promised strategy, it is only a few days till we break up for the Christmas recess and the strategy is supposed to be released before Christmas, so we look forward to it coming very soon. During the debate, we have exposed the fact that it is not just funding that is required. The reality is that we need a wholesale strategy to prevent homelessness in the first place and then to make sure that local authorities and other bodies are carrying out their duties properly.
The Minister rightly referred to my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act. The reality is that the regulations were prepared before the general election, consulted on when new Ministers took office and should now be enforced. Local authorities are going off and doing their own thing when we should have a clear strategy for how we do this. There are measures in the Act that the Minister could introduce today, without having to rely on the consultation that is taking place. I urge her to take that opportunity so that we can make sure that we prevent homelessness in the first place.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the adequacy of funding to support homeless people.
Pandemics: Support for People with Autism
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for people with autism during pandemic-type events.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful for the opportunity to secure this debate, and to discuss a matter of deep importance for one of my Ipswich constituents, Ivan Ambrose, as well as thousands of people across our country who were failed during the pandemic. It is because of Ivan and his tireless campaigning that we are here today. He has given me permission to share his story. It is deeply personal to him, but tragically, it will be recognised and shared by many people.
Ivan is a 41-year-old man who lives in Ipswich and has been housebound for the past four years. He has autism and severe mental health problems. Prior to the pandemic, Ivan had suffered multiple breakdowns, the most recent of which resulted in him being hospitalised for three weeks. However, he had gradually started to reach a more stable place. It had taken a long time, but he had begun to feel somewhat better.
Ivan was on the road to recovery, but then the pandemic hit. Constantly changing rules left him confused and distressed. He was made extremely anxious by rules that were revised on a daily, and sometimes even hourly, basis. The mass bombardment of information in completely unsuitable formats left him overwhelmed and debilitated. His parents could not have the TV on around him, as he was unable to deal with the relentless stream of information about the pandemic, and none of that information was delivered in an autism-friendly way. No consideration was given to making information easier for autistic people to process and understand, and there was no guidance to help autistic people understand why the rules kept changing. Accessibility was simply not a concern.
After the second lockdown, as pubs and restaurants reopened, no thought was given to housebound autistic people such as Ivan. While the relaxation of rules came as a relief to many of us as we enjoyed a greater sense of freedom, Ivan was not allowed to invite anyone home—not even his favourite aunt. Those years were incredibly difficult for many people.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving a passionate speech. I also thank Ivan for sharing his experiences with the House; they are hugely important. I declare an interest as a trustee of the charity Razed Roof, which provided online sessions during lockdown to support people with autism and other learning difficulties. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes charities giving that support, but does he agree that we cannot rely on charities, and that there needs to be state support for people with autism?
Jack Abbott
My hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work in this area and he is absolutely right. I pay huge tribute to all the people in our charity sector, and the many organisations that played such a crucial role in supporting people during the pandemic. However, this was a failure of the Government at the time, and we should not just let charities pick up the pieces from that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. I always try to be helpful by mentioning some of the things we have done in Northern Ireland, and the Minister may find it helpful to know that many universities, including Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University, offer work-based support for students with autism to help them navigate placements and internships in a way that assists them in preparing for future employment. It is really important that there is face-to-face activity. Does the hon. Member agree that, should we experience another pandemic-like event, there must be more focus on ensuring that support is still available and that the employment opportunities and health of people with autism are not hindered because they cannot access the support they need? Queen’s University and Ulster University did that, and they did it well.
Jack Abbott
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come to some of that in a moment. I pay huge tribute to those who were working in Northern Ireland at the time. The pandemic was worldwide and the response hit all parts of our communities.
The years of the pandemic were very difficult for many people, but for people like Ivan they were deeply and profoundly traumatic. Ivan still bears the scars of that time. He lives with post-traumatic stress disorder and continues to experience flashbacks. He has not left the house at all in four years, and to this day the TV stays off. I will be really blunt: Ivan and those like him were betrayed by the previous Conservative Government. They utterly failed him, along with so many other autistic and neurodivergent people.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is speaking so eloquently about his constituent Ivan. Does he agree that children with autism were failed by school closures during lockdown? That was particularly difficult for children who rely on structure and routine. Research from Queen’s University Belfast shows that that measure harmed children’s rights to play, rest and leisure, with autistic young people reporting fear, uncertainty and isolation. Does he agree that any future response should avoid school closures?
Jack Abbott
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that had a huge impact on many autistic and vulnerable children, not least because of the lack of clear and consistent communication that I am outlining. I will not go into the issue of school closures—the Minister may touch on that in a moment—but of course they had a profound impact on all children, and we are seeing the effects of it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member and his marvellous constituent Ivan, who he is speaking about so passionately and affectionately. Does he agree that support for autistic children and their families must be treated as a priority during and in the aftermath of pandemics and other crisis events of that sort? In my constituency, the parent of a three-year-old child who is showing clear signs of autism has been waiting for 18 months for a community paediatric assessment and just as long for dietetic support for suspected avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. That delay is already affecting his development and nutrition at a critical stage. Does the hon. Member agree that neurodevelopmental and early years services must be properly resourced and protected, and not sidelined, so that such children are not left without support when they need it the most?
Jack Abbott
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman.
In February 2021, Ivan’s parents, Jayne and Gary, wrote to the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, describing how their son was struggling and pleading with him for help. Ivan sent me a copy of the letter a few months ago, and it is truly heartbreaking; you can hear Jayne and Gary’s desperation, helplessness and heartbreak as they watched their son in immense pain, powerless to help. They did finally receive a response, but it was a full 13 months later. It is not lost on me that illegal parties were likely taking place in No. 10 at the very time the Ambroses’ letter arrived.
I have met Ivan several times and I think he is a hugely inspirational person. He has turned his trauma and suffering into incredible determination, and he has spent the last four years campaigning and fighting to make sure that no one has to go through what he did. He launched an online petition in 2022 calling for autistic people’s needs to be met in a future pandemic response. Although he failed to get the 10,000 signatures for a Government response, he persisted none the less. He has featured across our local media, trying to raise awareness, and over the last few years his campaign has had a real impact. Recently, he was asked to submit evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Autism Act 2009 and his evidence features in the Committee’s report. I know he is very proud of that, as he absolutely should be.
We hope and pray that pandemic-type events never occur again, but hope and prayers alone are not a responsible strategy. If this sort of tragedy should occur again, we need to make sure that autistic people, neurodivergent people and all vulnerable people are properly considered and supported.
The UK covid-19 inquiry recently published its module 2 report of its investigation into the previous Government’s response to the pandemic. The verdict was clear: that Government did not adequately consider the needs of disabled people. Neither the Minister with responsibility for disabled people nor the disability unit played a direct role in the Government’s initial strategy from January to March 2020. Neither had any part in the discussions about whether to implement lockdown, or how the effects of that decision might be mitigated.
It was not until 21 May 2020, two whole months after the country went into lockdown, that the position of disabled people was even considered at interministerial level. Disabled people were an afterthought; their needs and how the Government response to the pandemic might affect them were not considered. Ivan and thousands of other autistic and neurodivergent people across the country bear the consequences of that negligence today.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for the powerful and persuasive argument he is making in relation to his constituent, Ivan. Neuro- divergent children who went through the trauma of the pandemic are finding it very difficult to establish themselves in schools. It is already the case in Birmingham, certainly in my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, that schools are underfunded when it comes to addressing some of these challenges. Would he ask the Government to provide additional funding for schools that now have these classic symptoms, which are ever-growing?
Jack Abbott
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We also saw severe cuts to early intervention support during the pandemic in my home area of Ipswich and Suffolk. At the height of the pandemic, children’s centres were closed and the number of visits by health visitors was slashed. I absolutely echo his call for more funding, which is why I am really pleased that the Government provided £1 billion in extra funding for special educational needs and disability in comparison with the previous year. In Suffolk, £10 million of that will be spent on specialist places. I absolutely echo and support what the hon. Gentleman said.
Data reporting on disabled people during the pandemic was also woefully inadequate. In October 2020, it was noted that data on disability across the Government was “fragmented” and did
“not allow comparisons to be made across Departments.”
The information mainly came from anecdotal reports or charity sector surveys.
Departments were tasked with improving the collection of data on disabled people. Needless to say, however, nothing much improved and no preparations were made for communicating properly with disabled people in appropriate formats. For example, for a significant period, there was no British Sign Language interpreter on Government broadcasts. The list of clinically extremely vulnerable groups who received online deliveries in the early stages of the pandemic was entirely medicalised, based on an outdated medical model of disability. Thousands of disabled people with mental distress, mobility challenges, energy limitations, sensory impairments and learning disabilities were not placed on that list for online deliveries, even though many of them could not visit supermarkets or other important outlets in person.
According to the chief executive of Disability UK, that was
“one stark example of the abandonment of the Social Model of Disability.”
That model, which was developed by disabled people, says that people are disabled by barriers in society, rather than by their impairment or condition. It is widely accepted and has been the recommended model for all Government Departments for several years.
The failures that we have heard about in the first two inquiry reports are utterly shameful. Between June and July 2020, the National Autistic Society ran an online survey looking at autistic people’s experience of coronavirus and the lockdown. Autistic people were seven times more likely to be lonely and six times more likely to have low life satisfaction; nine in 10 autistic people worried about their mental health during lockdown; and one in five family members had to reduce work because of caring responsibilities. That is an appalling legacy. It cannot happen again, and our Government must ensure that it does not.
I know that the Government are currently looking at the UK’s pandemic preparedness and recently concluded Exercise Pegasus, a pandemic simulation exercise assessing our ability to respond to another pandemic. One of the core objectives of the exercise was to explore the impact of inequalities and consideration of them during pandemic decision making. I look forward to seeing the results of that work.
As the Government prepare the pandemic response plan, I am very glad that the impact on vulnerable people, including autistic people, and preventing such events from happening again are front and centre in that work; I look forward to the Minister outlining in more detail what steps the Government are taking to ensure that. What happened to Ivan is a tragedy and a gross injustice. He is still suffering today and might suffer for many years into the future. That cannot be undone, and the damage inflicted on him cannot be taken back—but, as we prepare for future pandemics, we must make sure we do better.
I finish by thanking Ivan and his parents Jayne and Gary for their tireless work in raising awareness and campaigning so relentlessly and selflessly. Ivan’s resilience and commitment to fighting so that no one goes through the torment that he did and still suffers from is commendable. We should all be inspired by him. I will be frank, however: warm words of inspiration and thanks are simply not enough. We need to see lasting and permanent change, so that what Ivan went through can never happen again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for raising this important topic. Having known him for the last 14 months, I know how passionately he feels about the national health service in his area, particularly the mental health service provision in his area. His constituents can be rightly proud of his doughty advocacy on their behalf. My hon. Friend spoke about his constituent’s campaign to improve support for autistic people following his very difficult experiences during the covid-19 pandemic. I also place on the record my commendation of Ivan for his tireless work to ensure that autistic people will receive the right form of support.
We have heard today of the challenges that autistic people faced during the pandemic. It is important that we learn from those experiences and ensure we do better in future. In 2020, the Department of Health and Social Care commissioned research into the impact of the pandemic on autistic people and their families. The report, published in May ’21, made several key recommendations that chime with the issues my hon. Friend so eloquently raised today. It included findings about access to education for autistic children during lockdown; lack of respite and support for family members and carers; the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of autistic people and the challenges they face accessing healthcare in the round; and, as highlighted in this debate, the need for clear communication and transparency of decision making to help autistic people to follow advice and guidance appropriately.
I want to provide reassurance that the Government remain committed to learning the lessons from the pandemic, to help us to prepare better in future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich alluded to, the Government have acknowledged the disproportionate impact that the pandemic had on vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom. Module 1 of the UK covid-19 inquiry was published in July last year and focused on the UK’s resilience and preparedness for the pandemic. The Government’s response, published in January this year, sets out the changes we have made to ensure that we reduce the potential unequal impacts of events on particular groups or individuals in any future pandemics. However, as my hon. Friend also highlighted, we recognise that there is a lot of further work to do to ensure that the impact of inequalities and vulnerabilities in pandemic decision making is fully anticipated and planned for.
The inquiry recently published module 2 of its report, focusing on UK decision making and political governance. The report highlights that considerable numbers of people suffered from the social, economic and cultural consequences of steps taken to combat the pandemic, such as lockdown, including the impacts of social isolation, loneliness and declining mental health, and of course the chopping and changing of advice—which was sometimes necessary, but perhaps, on reflection, sometimes unnecessary. Module 10 of the inquiry is focusing on the impact of the pandemic on society in more detail and will carefully consider the findings in due course.
It is clearly critical that the UK is prepared for a future pandemic, and that is rightly a top priority for the Government. The Department’s new strategic approach to pandemic preparedness continues to recognise the disproportionate and unintended impacts that pandemics can have on vulnerable people and groups. The Department is therefore committed to publishing a new pandemic preparedness strategy, which will be published next year and will show how the unequal impacts of pandemics on social health and healthcare are considered in all areas of preparedness and response.
As my hon. Friend also alluded to, we have recently concluded participation in Exercise Pegasus, the largest ever simulation of a pandemic in UK history. Exercise Pegasus gives us an opportunity to examine our preparedness, capabilities and response arrangements, and we will continue to learn as we plan for phase 4 of the exercise in 2026. The Government have committed to communicating the findings and lessons, and a post-exercise report will be delivered in due course.
I recognise the concerns raised about accessible communications during the pandemic, and hear loudly my hon. Friend’s reflections. The UK Health Security Agency was established in 2021 and is responsible for preventing, preparing and responding to infectious diseases and other environmental hazards. The UKHSA collaborates closely with the voluntary and community sector, including organisations working with and representing autistic people. That close collaboration has allowed it to gain rapid feedback from those organisations regarding the efficacy of communication and guidance materials so that they can be adapted as required, in real time, to communicate with all members of our society and not just some.
More broadly, the Government recognise the importance of accessible communications and have published guidance on that for all Government Departments. Within health and social care, all NHS organisations and publicly funded social care providers are expected to meet the accessible information standard, which details the approach to supporting the information and communication needs of people with disability, impairment or sensory loss. NHS England published a revised standard in June this year to ensure that the communication needs of people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss are met within health and care provision. We are also taking steps in the health and care system to improve the accessibility of services for autistic people more broadly. For example, there is work underway in NHS England to make sure that staff in health settings know that they need to make reasonable adjustments for people. That includes the introduction of a reasonable adjustment digital flag, which enables the recording of key information about a citizen or a patient, including that a person is autistic, and the reasonable adjustment needs to ensure support can be tailored appropriately.
Chris Vince
Would that digital flag also flag up something like someone being a young carer or having caring responsibilities?
Dr Ahmed
I will have to go back and check that particular sub-group of flagging and get back to my hon. Friend, but I think the point he makes is that, wherever possible, we should be identifying those groups that have specific communication needs, by virtue of either their own personal health or social needs, or the needs of those they are looking after. He makes a very valid point and I will be delighted to write to him with a more detailed response than I can give at the moment.
More broadly, I have heard concerns about support for autistic people. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that we are committed to supporting autistic people, who should have the right support in place, tailored to their individual needs. Our 10-year health plan sets out an ambitious reform agenda to transform the NHS and rightly make it fit for the future. That future must at its core include early intervention and support for autistic people and those with specific needs.
We are working with the Department for Education on reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system, ensuring that joined-up support is available across education and health, including for autistic children and young people. We are also taking steps to improve access to adult social care services for those who need them. To build consensus on plans for a national care service, Baroness Casey is chairing an independent commission to shape the medium and long-term landscape reforms needed, and we have been putting the core foundations in place to facilitate that. That includes strengthening joined-up care between health and social care, so that people experience more integrated, person-centred care, including through the development of neighbourhood health services.
I have also heard about the impact of the pandemic on autistic people’s mental health and wellbeing. We know that autistic people are, sadly, disproportionately impacted by mental ill health and face challenges in accessing services in relation to their mental health. We are taking steps to address that, including raising awareness and understanding of autism within health and social care systems. We have been rolling out the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism to support Care Quality Commission-registered providers to meet their statutory requirements and ensure that their staff receive specific training on learning disability and autism. NHS England has been rolling out additional training services across its mental health services, and has published guidance for mental health services on meeting the needs of autistic adults and guidance on adaptations of NHS talking therapies specifically designed for autistic people.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the House of Lords special inquiry Committee on the Autism Act 2009 published its report and recommendations for Government on 23 November. I understand that his constituent Ivan contributed to the inquiry, and I personally thank him and others for sharing their valuable insights and experiences, despite all the trauma that they have been through. The Government are carefully considering the Committee’s recommendations on the next autism strategy and support for autistic people, and we will respond formally in due course.
I end by reiterating my thanks to my hon. Friend and his constituent Ivan. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for their contributions.
Whether through Exercise Pegasus, looking at how we can better co-create guidance with vulnerable groups, using better guidance tailored for specific communities, using digital flags on health records, or indeed better mandatory training, I give my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich this assurance: no longer will disabled people or people with specific or additional needs be treated as an afterthought. They will be at the forefront of our minds when planning future pandemic training and preparedness—and when executing that preparedness, should we be so unfortunate as to suffer another pandemic. He has my assurance, and I am once again grateful to him for securing this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Gambling: Regulatory Reform
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reform of gambling regulation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We are here to talk about gambling regulation and to discuss the scale of the problem. There is clear evidence that current regulation of the gambling industry is not adequate to protect people from harm, including children and young people. Figures published by the Gambling Commission this October showed that 1.4 million people in Britain have a gambling problem. That number is not spread equally: young men aged 25 to 34 are most affected, with 5.5% experiencing at least moderate-risk gambling, and rates are much higher in more deprived communities, with men in the most deprived areas twice as likely as those in more well-off areas to be moderate-risk gamblers.
Evidence suggests that while many people gamble a bit, the vast majority of profits derived by gambling firms come from a small number of gamblers. The House of Lords Gambling Industry Committee found that 60% of the industry’s profits come from just 5% of customers, who are either problem gamblers or at risk. Recent Gambling Commission figures also show that the harms caused by gambling are increasingly being experienced by children, with the proportion of young people being exposed to significant harms more than doubling between 2023 and 2024. Moreover, the harms caused by gambling are not isolated to the individuals who take part; when it reaches a harmful level, it can have devastating impacts for families and right across communities, in every constituency.
Gambling is linked to addiction, debt and other serious harms, and can negatively impact mental and physical health, relationships, finances, employment and education, but it is comparatively less regulated than other harmful industries and not taxed to directly reflect the harms it causes. In my home patch of Witney, Oxfordshire county council identified gambling addiction as a key risk factor in its recently updated suicide prevention strategy. Research by Gambling with Lives, a charity established in 2018 by families bereaved by gambling suicides, shows that, shockingly, there are hundreds of gambling-related suicides each year, an average of around one a day.
The impact on the public purse is also significant. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that a person experiencing problem gambling leads to an additional £3,700 spend per year in higher welfare payments, healthcare and criminal justice costs, and the cost of homelessness. A research report from the University of Oxford by Dr Naomi Muggleton showed that as many as one in four gamblers are harmed.
The industry continues to develop rapidly, and regulation must keep pace and remain fit for purpose. The Lancet public health commission on gambling found in 2024:
“Digitalisation has transformed the production and operation of commercial gambling… The commercial gambling industry has also developed strong partnerships in media and social media. Sponsoring and partnering with professional sports organisations provides gambling operators with marketing opportunities with huge new audiences.”
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In the light of that, some two years ago it was recommended very clearly that a gambling ombudsman should be set up. So far, across two Governments, nothing has happened on that. That is needed to check that all these elements are being dealt with at the same time. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that that should be one of the first acts that the Government should get on with right now?
Charlie Maynard
I fully agree and will cover that shortly.
The Lancet commission concluded that
“gambling poses a threat to public health, the control of which requires a substantial expansion and tightening of gambling industry regulation”.
So what should we do? First, we should limit the impact of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship, especially the extent to which children and young people are exposed to it. The industry spends £2 billion a year on gambling advertising and would not be putting that money in without a high degree of certainty that it will be more than paid back in profits. Some 80% of that is spent online, which is why children so often come across gambling and gambling companies.
Research undertaken by the Gambling Commission found that 34% of British bettors admitted to being influenced by advertising, and 16% stated that ads caused them to increase their gambling. Research published this year found that 96% of people aged 11 to 24 had seen gambling marketing messages in the month before the study, and were more likely to bet as a result. On Twitter—or X—alone, there are more than a million gambling ads in the UK each year. Football matches are saturated by gambling ads; there were thousands of gambling messages during the opening weekend of the English premier league alone, across various channels.
Many of our neighbours have taken action. In 2018, Italy banned all online advertising of gambling products. Spain added strong restrictions in 2020. Germany did the same in 2021, as did the Netherlands and Belgium in 2023. Finland and Sweden are set to implement restrictions in 2027. By contrast, here in the UK, the 2023 White Paper on reforming gambling for the digital age acknowledged the harm caused by marketing but opted to continue with a mostly self-regulatory approach. I think such an approach means a huge amount of harm will continue, so I urge the Minister to look again at that, given the damage the sector does and the action already taken by others to mitigate it in their countries. There is strong public support for greater restrictions, too, with polling showing that 51% of people think all gambling advertising, promotion and sponsorship should be banned, and 78% think that nobody under the age of 18 should be exposed to it.
Secondly, underpinning all this, we need a statutory independent gambling ombudsman with real power, exactly as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) stated. That was recommended in the 2023 gambling White Paper and was intended to be established and operational within 12 months, and yet no progress has been made. I also understand that the Government have asked the gambling industry, of all people, to come up with ideas on how the ombudsman should be run—a case of poacher turned gamekeeper if ever there was one. If that is the case, are the Government really serious about setting up an ombudsman with effective powers that it actually uses? Will the Minister please clarify what steps are being taken to achieve that?
Thirdly, another area where our regulation has a disconnect is licensing frameworks. Pubs are licensed by local authorities. Licensing for vape shops, requiring retailers to obtain a personal licence to sell the products and a premises licence for their storage and sale, is currently under consideration in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Given that, why do local authorities not have the powers they need to prevent new gambling premises from opening? We should review and implement the relevant commitments in the 2023 gambling White Paper, which seeks to strengthen local authority discretion and better reflect community harm. I would welcome an update from the Minister on plans to review and progress the recommendations in the White Paper.
Finally, I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to increase gaming duty in last week’s Budget—that was an important step. I now encourage the Government to consider directing some of the revenue raised from that towards taking steps better to regulate the industry and reduce the personal and social harms it contributes to in the long term.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. Can I suggest eight minutes to start? I call Gareth Snell.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will not need that long, Sir Desmond, don’t worry. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing the debate. After the recent Budget, it is a timely moment to discuss how we regulate the gambling sector in this country, and what that means both for taxation as a way of regulating and for regulation itself.
I will be up front: I come to this debate from a slightly different position. The single largest employer in my constituency is bet365, which employs 5,500 people in some of the high-value jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, and there will be job-loss implications as a result of the Budget. I am not here to plead the case of bet365; the company will do that itself. I also have no interest to declare, because I have never taken any hospitality or financial support from it. However, it is important to put it on the record that there are always consequences to the way that we regulate companies, and real people will lose their jobs as a result of the decisions that this House will presumably take later this evening.
As a result of that constituency interest, I have had to do some rapid learning in this area. I have genuinely had to consider and understand how we do regulation in a way that is good. I am a firm believer that regulation should genuinely be a force for making things better. In this country, we often pull the regulation lever when we see something bad, because we think that regulating can solve it. Sometimes that regulation works; sometimes it does not.
Not all 62 recommendations in the White Paper have been implemented. I think that everyone would agree that there are things that have been identified and worked on with the sector that need to be implemented, and implemented more quickly, so that the full package of actions that was determined as being necessary for better regulation of the sector is implemented. There is a cost to the sector from that, and a cost that often gets passed on to consumers.
The other issue, which I will touch on later, is how we do regulation in a way that does not drive people into the unregulated sector. I think we would all accept that one of the huge challenges we face, not just in gambling but in a whole host of other areas, is that access to the unregulated sector is becoming easier. I would wager that every single one of us has a smartphone in our pocket and, within a couple of clicks, can be in a highly unregulated gambling environment that does not subscribe to any of the normal social protections that have been put in place for the big regulated industries.
Quite often, consumers do not know whether they are in a regulated sector or an unregulated sector. Those in the unregulated sector have larger cash-outs and better odds, because they are not restricted in how they conduct their operations and frequently they are headquartered far away, in much more favourable tax regimes, so none of the tax they pay comes to the UK at all. However, consumers will not know that. They will not really know from looking at a website on their phone whether or not they are in a regulated sector.
We must change that. We have to find a way of making sure that if someone in this country is choosing, as 22 million people do each year, to access to gaming or gambling, they know that they are doing it somewhere where they will get protection and security, and that the lockouts are there so that, if they need to access help, they can get it. At the moment, too many people do not. Too many people in this country are able to access unregulated gambling services that bleed them dry and take them for everything they have got, leading to the social harms that the hon. Member for Witney rightly referred to.
Regardless of where we sit in this debate—we might be avid gamblers who enjoy doing so regularly; as it happens, I do not gamble myself, other than perhaps on the Grand National once a year, because I did it with my grandad 20 years ago and it is a fond memory—we all want to make gambling safer and to ensure that it operates within a system that is regulated, secure and provides the help and support that people want. That is where I am trying to come from with my comments today.
We all have constituents who enjoy gambling, but we all have constituents for whom gambling is a problem, and fundamentally we must take action to support them. I was heartened to see the written ministerial statement that the Minister recirculated today about the amount raised through the statutory gambling levy. There are genuine questions that we need to answer about who will get that money in order to provide support services. I think that £120 million has been raised since April, yet, other than a couple of large organisations, there is not really clarity about who will receive that funding. That needs to be sorted out very quickly, because there are people who need that help and support who are not getting it.
There is also work that we need to do to ensure that some of the provisions in the review that took place previously are properly implemented. I welcome the fact that we have things such as the whistle-to-whistle ad ban, so that there is no advertising of gambling while sports matches are happening. Stoke City, who are sponsored by bet365, are currently fourth in the championship. They might get promoted to the premier league, at which point they would have to think about their sponsorship arrangements, because they would not be able to have their shirts sponsored by a gambling company; that is something the sector has signed up to. I really hope that Stoke get promoted—it has been a long time since we were in the premier league—but if they have to make that change, there will be a cost to both the football club and the company in my constituency.
More work could probably be done around the seventh industry code for socially responsible advertising. The mandate is for someone to be over 25, unless there is the targeting technology to do it specifically to over-18s, but I freely accept that there is leakage in that. How we tighten that to ensure that under-18s are not exposed to gambling adverts, as part of the code that the sector has signed up to, is important. I am the father of a 15-year-old who has access to myriad social media apps. There are many I do not like but I have lost the battle. I am confident that she is able to make some decisions for herself, but I know that there will be other young people who will be more attracted to that.
We need to think about what the Gambling Commission is able to do. The Office for Budget Responsibility report, on the back of the tax changes this week, says it expects to see some leakage into the black market. As a result, the Treasury must allocate £26 million to the Gambling Commission to try to resolve that possible movement—a £500 million reduction in yield due to that leakage. We must think about that. If the social and behavioural change caused by regulation and taxation pushes more people into the black market, we must be cognisant of that consequence of our actions and think how to prevent it.
We also need to think about how to ensure that more people do not try to access riskier, higher-value games—I am thinking about games rather than sports betting in that instance, because the 40% rate of the remote gaming duty will mean that some companies will remove products from the market and shrink their offer, and that gap will be filled by others who do not take it so seriously. We have to think about the social consequences of that.
I did say I would not take eight minutes; I have barely 30 more seconds. It is almost certain that next week we will put through the tax changes announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, so this debate is timely in allowing us to explore those issues. We now need a regular reporting mechanism, which I hope the Minister will consider. Significant parts of the White Paper have still not been implemented; those parts that have been implemented have had only 18 months to bed in, and now we have a new tax regime, which means that people will move towards the black market.
We must measure and deal with that, to combat abuse by nefarious gaming organisations that work outside the regulated market and inflict harm. We collectively cannot allow that to happen. We need to be clear that the more we regulate and tax an industry that wants to be part of the solution, the easier we potentially make that move towards an unregulated market.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I call Lee Dillon. It seems he is not here, so I call Cameron Thomas.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), I thank you, Sir Desmond. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this important debate.
As a teenaged boy, every morning on my way to school I would stop off at the home of my friend M and we would walk the last few hundred metres to school together. We shared a number of classes, and every lunch time we would abscond back to his house to play video games. As we became adults, we enjoyed betting on weekend football accumulators as we watched the live scores come in, at the small cost of a few pounds.
As I came to spend fewer weekends with our friendship group, and gradually lost interest in betting, M continued to bet more consistently and with ever greater stakes. The rise in online gambling firms was followed by increasingly invasive advertising campaigns, not only on the shirts of the footballers he watched or on the hoardings of premier league football stadiums, but increasingly in his social media feeds. Everywhere M looked, there was a betting company chipping away at his judgment, enticing him to put money down.
Adverts showed groups of young men cheering at TV screens in packed bars. They did not show dark bedrooms dimly illuminated by computer monitors or mobile phones. They did not show vulnerable young men in despair, having lost a pay packet on the first weekend of the month. M was well into his 20s by the time he realised he was a problem gambler. By the time he had reached his 30s, family members were protecting his wages from his addiction. By the time he was 40, he had twice lost deposits he had been saving to buy a home.
There is a sensible and nuanced course of action to be charted here. People such as my friend M need action, but establishments such as Cheltenham Racecourse in my constituency of Tewkesbury must not be conflated with online betting companies. Cheltenham Racecourse’s 250,000 annual visitors generate £274 million for the Gloucestershire economy, but the Jockey Club, which operates the racecourse in my Tewkesbury constituency, generates a tiny fraction of the huge profits enjoyed by large online gambling companies.
Taxation that fails to discriminate between such vastly different operations risks undermining the viability of horseracing, one of Britain’s oldest and most recognisable national sports, which contributes more than £3 billion annually to the British economy. I welcome the Government’s implementation of a Liberal Democrat policy in its increase to the remote gaming duty, though that money should be ringfenced to treat victims of gambling-related harms.
The most crucial action that must be taken, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said, is to restrict betting advertisement, particularly of the type that bombards sports viewers and seeks to blur the lines between sports and betting. Effective affordability checks could better protect those vulnerable to gambling addiction. I also note the speech by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who said that a betting ombudsman is long overdue.
The Government should tackle gambling harms, but they must distinguish between those operations that prey on the vulnerable—at all hours, across all platforms—and those that genuinely contribute to our culture and economy.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this timely debate. It is interesting to hear different Members from across the House taking a stand on this issue. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who has bet365 in his constituency; he spoke about his need to make sure his residents have good jobs, but also about how to balance those harms. It is interesting to hear how we can move forward with that.
I welcome the Government’s Budget announcements increasing remote gaming duty and general betting duty as a way to tackle some of our more harmful forms of gambling, particularly in online gaming. That is something that the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform and many Members across this House have championed—it is a cross-party issue.
This move from the Chancellor goes some way towards addressing the many billions of pounds that gambling harm costs the public purse. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities estimates that the public health costs of gambling in England alone are between £1 billion and £1.77 billion, but that figure captures only a subset of costs: it relies on self-reporting and the methodology does not include costs including secondary mental health services, alcohol and drug use, lost tax from employment and the cost of lives lost to gambling suicide.
Furthermore, the cost of gambling goes far beyond the individual themselves. For every person experiencing problem gambling, it is estimated that up to six others are affected—their families, children, employers and community members.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
On the point about the effects going beyond the person experiencing problem gambling, I was contacted by my constituent Chloe Long, who tragically and heartbreakingly lost her brother to gambling-related suicide last year. In his case, the challenge was not the regulated gambling industry, as we have been discussing; he was doing all the right things in terms of self-excluding and signing up to GamStop, but was still able to access the black market sites. We have to think more creatively about how we can solve that problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be much more awareness out there of just how severe the risks of gambling addiction can be and of the devastating effect it can have, not just on the people we lose through it, but on their families, children and friends for decades to come?
Dr Cooper
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Gambling has become ubiquitous in our society. It is endemic. We watch the television; we have online roulette in our pockets—it is everywhere. We must also be mindful of the black market as well as the legal gambling companies, and go after both with ferocity to make sure the harms are reduced.
Having established the need to recognise the public health costs of the most dangerous gambling products, we should review the taxation of other harmful forms of gambling, particularly the most dangerous category—the B3 machines in adult gaming centres. It is right that the duty paid by those machines is set at a higher rate. The Gambling Commission, which we have already heard about, must do more to ensure that licence conditions are followed by adult gaming centres. There are widespread reports of breaches of the rules, notably the 80/20 rule relating to the most harmful category of machine, and games that facilitate much higher stakes than is permitted in the licensing codes.
Let us be clear; gambling is highly profitable, and that profit cannot be separated from the harm inflicted. We have already heard this, but it is worth stating again: 60% of the industry’s profits come from 5% of customers who are either addicted or at risk.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for the excellent and knowledgeable speech she is making. One other important piece of context in all this is the men’s health strategy, which I know was widely welcomed across the House and was published two weeks ago, and which identified gambling harms as a key element that it needed to tackle. Most of us have welcomed the introduction of the remote gambling tax; that fits very well within the men’s health strategy, because it seeks to disincentivise the most harmful forms of gambling. Does she agree that, while the tax was very welcome, we need to make sure that the money coming in via the levy is as well spent as possible to tackle the harms caused by gambling?
Dr Cooper
Those are points very well made. Tackling gambling harms should be at the top of our public health priorities—I make a declaration of interest: I am a public health consultant—to ensure our country thrives economically as well as in health terms. The two are intertwined; we cannot separate them.
Gambling profit cannot be separated from the harm inflicted. In online gambling, 86% of profits come from the top 5% of customers. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Witney and others about the ubiquity of advertising. A recent report showed that the industry spends £2 billion a year on advertising—an astronomical sum that is fuelling a public health crisis in this country. Targeted digital marketing means that someone with a gambling problem is nine times more likely to be offered a so-called free bet, according to the Gambling Commission.
We need regulatory and legislative tools to tackle industry marketing practices, and we must make sure that children are protected from the proliferation of gambling ads, sponsorship and influencer marketing. As someone who has teenage children, I am only too aware that responsible mobile phone usage only goes so far; we must ensure that our children are protected from this insidious way of introducing people to gambling far too early and far too often. Gambling Commission statistics show that 1.2% of children experience problem gambling, and 3.4% of 11 to 17-year-olds are already being harmed by their gambling. That is astonishing and outrageous. Children should receive independent education about the dangers of gambling, and we must stop incentivising them to gamble through widespread advertising, both online and offline.
We cannot treat gambling as a harmless leisure activity when 14% of British adults are at risk of gambling harm and gambling-related suicides occur in their hundreds every year. Gambling is a matter of public health. I appreciate that it is overseen by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but I think it should be overseen by the Department of Health and Social Care, with a legislative framework that is fit for purpose for the digital age.
We have heard about the last Government’s White Paper, which does not give us the right road map to address this public health crisis; it does not address the fact that councils have no adequate powers to prevent adult gaming centres from proliferating locally, sucking the life out of our more deprived communities, and it fails to address advertising, sponsorship and the modern marketing of gambling. We must look to review the White Paper and set a timeline for a new gambling Act.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for leading this important debate, and for setting the scene so well for all of us. What brings me here, like many others who have spoken, are personal relationships with those who have a gambling addiction. That is foremost in my mind when we have debates that refer to gambling regulation.
Not so long ago I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate on gambling harm, particularly the impact on health and the damage it does to people across the United Kingdom, especially in Northern Ireland, where the rates are much higher. I am going to give some very worrying stats, but it is great to be here to further advocate better gambling regulation.
About 10 years ago, a couple from Northern Ireland came to me when they heard about gambling legislation and the problems with addiction, and they told me the story of their son. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) told the story about his friend, and this started off similarly, with small bets. However, all of a sudden it escalated to giant amounts of money, and he found himself in so much debt that he could not deal with it, and unfortunately he took his own life. When I think of gambling addiction, I think of those parents and their son, and I think of that loss of life. That story reminds me that there are consequences to gambling. There are many people who gamble for whom it is a flutter and nothing else, but for others it becomes an addiction—a life-focusing addiction that ultimately takes away their life.
I remember one morning getting some petrol from the garage, and there was a wee lady ahead of me in the queue, who had a pram and youngster outside. She bought £10-worth of lottery tickets. Forgive me for saying this, but as I see it, that lady had perhaps hoped that the £10 of lottery tickets would give her the money that she needed for her shopping—the money she needed for her children. I was at the back of the queue, she was at the front, so when I walked out of the shop, she had scraped off all the coverings on the tickets, but there were no winners. She had not won anything, but she had spent £10 on tickets. I realised that this lady was desperate, and had thought a flutter on lottery tickets would bring her the money she needed to help her pay for the groceries and look after her children. It was desperation. Sometimes gambling does that to ordinary people.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I look forward to his response. I will probably have an ask of him—indeed, I always do. In Northern Ireland there is legislation that is trying to change things, so I hope the Minister can update us on the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to where the legislation is and how we can help them advance it. My understanding is that something has to be done here to make it happen there.
In the last Parliament, I was vice-chair of the APPG for gambling related harm. I was pleased to hear of the proposed changes to gambling regulations in last week’s Budget, when the Chancellor announced that the duty on remote online gambling will increase from 21% to 40%, starting next April. I fully support the Government’s Budget intentions—they are doing the right thing, in my opinion. There was also a change to online sports betting duty, from 15% to 25% from April 2027. Again, I support the Government on that; it is the right thing to do and it should have happened a long time ago.
We are all aware of the dangers of online betting, especially for young people. In the last 12 months there have been very worrying figures about Northern Ireland: 30% of 11 to 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland have gambled in one form or another. Imagine if that was here on the mainland, in England, Wales or Scotland. It is really worrying.
There is no doubt that gambling is becoming increasingly more accessible, with the prevalence of people present online. The DUP leadership in the Northern Ireland Assembly has previously endorsed and used updated legislation that regulates gambling in Northern Ireland, due to the knock-on effect it has been proven to have on people’s lives. The recognition of the potential harm, based on evidence, is important. There is a willingness in Northern Ireland to change the legislation and to perhaps follow the direction that this Government have taken. The older framework for gambling has been described previously as outdated and there is no doubt that there is a need for change.
There are major issues surrounding the accessibility of gambling throughout the United Kingdom. I have seen first hand the devastation that gambling addiction can cause. From the emotional to the financial, the impacts are endless. Unfortunately, it is a hole that many struggle to get out of; they just seem to get in deeper and deeper, and into more and more debt. Sometimes, they see no way out.
The prevalence of gambling in Northern Ireland is among the highest in the whole of the United Kingdom. Reports have shown that Northern Ireland exceeds the mainland statistics by yards—indeed, probably by miles. We also have higher levels of poverty, poor mental health and social disadvantage. Adding gambling on top of that creates a very heavy issue and a potential for harm that is at times hard to comprehend.
We have the potential through this Budget to mark a turning point in how we regard gambling, particularly online and remote gambling. This is a clear step to taking responsibility, but more must still be done. This is not enough. The Government and this Budget have set a trend that I and many others welcome, but it is not enough.
All regions across the whole of the United Kingdom need to do more to ensure that this is not an accessible process. We must embed robust safeguards to protect young people, address online gambling and aid vulnerable individuals and those who already face hardships, which means stronger regulation of advertising and tighter restrictions.
I look forward very much to seeing the plans put into action and to enhancing the regulation across the whole of the United Kingdom. Today, I look forward very much to the Minister’s reply to the requests we are putting to him. I believe the Government are going in the right direction. Let us do more. Let us save all these young people with addictions and give them the chance to have a better life, which we are duty bound to provide.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for bringing forward this incredibly important debate. We have heard some sad and powerful stories.
Reforms to address the risks and harms associated with gambling are long overdue. Many families and communities across the country continue to feel the consequences of problem gambling.
The gambling industry has grown significantly in recent years. Excluding the National Lottery, it is an £11.5 billion sector, with profit margins in some companies well above the UK average for non-financial businesses. Yet taxation levels in the UK for online gambling remain lower than those in several other countries.
At the same time, gambling harm imposes a substantial cost on society. It is estimated to cost our economy around £1.4 billion a year through financial harms and impacts on physical and mental health, employment and pressures on public services. Research from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that a person experiencing serious gambling problems may cost the public purse an additional £3,700 a year. Further analysis from NERA indicates that the economic contribution of remote gambling is relatively modest compared with other forms of discretionary spending.
We must also acknowledge the serious mental health consequences linked to gambling. Public Health England has estimated that there may be more than 400 gambling-related suicides a year. Recent data from the Gambling Commission also suggests that the scale of harm may be greater than previously understood, with 2.5% of respondents in its latest survey scoring eight or above on the problem gambling severity index scale, placing them in the highest risk category. The numbers are concerning and highlight the need for a regulatory framework that can better identify and reduce risk.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for an increase to remote gaming duty. we were pleased to see the Government implement that policy at the Budget, but we believe they can go further, by ensuring that more of the revenue raised is directed specifically towards treatment and support for those affected by gambling-related harms.
Taxation alone will not reduce risk or ensure accountability. That is why the Liberal Democrats have consistently called for stronger restrictions on gambling advertising, particularly given the sheer volume of adverts on television and online, and for effective, proportionate affordability checks, so that people are not gambling at levels that put them at significant financial risk. It is also essential that the Gambling Commission has the tools and resources it needs to take firmer action against the black market, where unregulated operators pose serious dangers to consumers.
These proposals are not about demonising gambling or those who enjoy it responsibly. Many people do so every day without experiencing harm. Rather, the proposals are about ensuring that our regulatory system reflects the realities of today’s gambling landscape, particularly the rapid growth of online gambling and the emerging risks faced by young people and vulnerable adults. We must ensure that policy is consistent and fair, so that we can protect those who are most at risk. By taking those steps, we can strike a better balance, and support a sustainable industry while ensuring that people are adequately protected from harm.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. For transparency, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Regulation of gambling must be a careful balance to avoid unintended consequences. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to take a gamble on this regulated industry, and on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people, who are at risk of gambling harms. She took an ideological position instead of a practical one. Despite clear warnings, she chose to fuel the black market, where there are no protections for problem gamblers, and to jeopardise thousands of jobs and livelihoods in the regulated sector as a result, as we have heard today.
Labour’s tax raid was not just anti-gambling industry; it was anti-consumer and, we believe, anti-common sense. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this debate, so that we can properly interrogate the facts and the impact that the Chancellor’s actions will have on the more than 22 million people across the country who safely enjoy a flutter each month. To put that number into context, it is more than 34,500 people per constituency represented in this House—enough to enjoy a majority anywhere in the country.
Whether or not Members like gambling, the facts are clear. The highly regulated gambling sector in the United Kingdom supports tens of thousands of jobs, contributes billions of pounds in tax each year, and sustains industries and sports, from horseracing to the high street betting shops that sit firmly in the fabric of the communities that we all represent.
The choices the Chancellor has made will, according to modelling by EY, result in an estimated 16,000 job losses throughout the UK. Those will be particularly concentrated in areas where large operators are based, such as Stoke, Warrington, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle-under-Lyme, before filtering through to betting shop closures on high streets throughout our constituencies. The Labour party has so far failed to explain how those missing jobs and business rates will be paid for—perhaps by even higher welfare spending and taxes.
We are all aware that, particularly in recent years, the debate about gambling and its regulation has been dominated by those who see gambling exclusively through the lens of harm. It is, of course, right to support those who struggle with addiction, and I am proud to support a range of specialist charities in that space that do fantastic work on the frontline, helping people across the country. However, the vast majority of punters enjoy a bet safely each week. We cannot and should not build a regulatory system that assumes that every person who gambles is high risk. That is simply untrue. It is the nanny state on steroids from the left of British politics. From buying a weekly National Lottery ticket to a casual acca with your mates on the 3 o’clock kick-offs and beyond, there is a spectrum of risk and reward, as well as exposures, the complexities of which we must appreciate and understand.
The oversimplification of the issue does far more harm than good. We can learn how that happens from neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands. At the start of this year, the Dutch Government raised their gambling tax on gross gaming revenue from 30.5% to 34.2%—a much smaller rise than that which this Government have announced, with another rise planned. The Dutch Government combined it with much tighter restrictions, strict spending caps, deposit limits and sweeping advertising bans. Within months, the Netherlands has seen regulated gambling revenue collapse by around 25% and tax receipts fall significantly, despite the higher rate, which has left a €200 million shortfall. The percentage of gamblers using regulated sites dropped below 50%, and the Dutch regulator itself reported that illegal gambling sites now receive more visits than regulated ones, with searches for the “100 best illegal gambling sites” surging.
That is the reality of the situation in a comparable European country. Over-regulation and excessive taxation have driven gamblers to the black market. We can see the same pattern developing here in the UK, with even the OBR highlighting that the black market will gain from those tax choices. That is before we even consider debating outstanding issues such as affordability checks. In the black market, there are no affordability checks, no safer gambling tools, no self-exclusion and no protection at all for punters.
We can see that moralistic and heavy-handed regulations simply displace gambling into the unregulated sector, rather than reducing gambling rates and risks of harm. The sector could not be clearer: once punters have entered the black market, they are unlikely to come back. That would be a lose-lose situation for the Government that could result in lower tax revenue and fewer jobs, a loss of revenue for bookies and sports that rely on their sponsorship, and a loss of consumer protections for the public. Sadly, however, that is where the Government are now heading fast.
There is another area where the Government’s policy is simply not functioning: the new statutory levy. The industry has spent the past three years implementing more than 60 measures from the gambling White Paper. The statutory levy, introduced in April this year, is one of the most significant and most costly. Operators have now made their first payments under the mandatory system, totalling more than £100 million, but there is still no clarity about how charities such as Gordon Moody, GamCare, Betknowmore UK and others that do fantastic work in the treatment and prevention space can actually access any of that.
We have warned the Government about that, privately and publicly, for many months. That is why we did not feel that we could support the gambling levy legislation as drafted. To date, only UK Research and Innovation has published basic guidance. Organisations that were promised long-term certainty have no idea how, when or even if they will be able to bid for levy funds to continue their vital work. Frontline charities supporting people suffering from gambling harms tell us that they cannot plan ahead, cannot recruit or even retain staff, and in some cases cannot continue services at all because the system remains so opaque.
Before the Government bring down another wave of major reforms, impose the most aggressive tax rises in Europe, and throw operators and charities into further uncertainty, should they not first ensure that the levy is actually up and running properly? Should they not ensure that charities with experts who have decades of experience are not forced to close because of the ongoing ideological madness in Westminster, which has stacked the deck against those with more pragmatic views about gambling and how we prevent harms? It makes no sense—literally none—to introduce new burdens when the existing regulatory framework is still incomplete and not functioning as the Government promised. Perhaps if the Minister could get his ministerial colleagues to properly engage with anybody in the sector, the Government might have a clue about what is happening: they are gambling with lives.
Protecting consumers means keeping them in the regulated domestic market if they choose to gamble: that is a very simple truth. I am all in favour of bashing the bookies—it is a long-established British tradition—but I want it to be done by the punter, not by this anti-fun Labour Government. Hon. Members should already know that British operators, although not perfect, prevent the use of credit cards, enforce 18-plus age verification, operate GamStop self-exclusion, display prominent safer gambling messages, use data to identify markers of harm, adhere to the strict advertising rules that are in place, and provide stable funding for research, education and treatment. The unregulated market that the Government are fuelling to the tune of £6 billion in extra stakes does none of that. Once someone has moved into that unregulated environment, there is no longer any meaningful ability to protect them from gambling harms.
Will the Minister personally review the commissioning of prevention and treatment to ensure that it is being managed fairly and that charities are not being deliberately excluded? Will he commit to a formal review, across the House, of affordability checks and of the pilot that has been extended by the Gambling Commission? Does he believe that the £26 million of funding given to the Gambling Commission is sufficient to stop the growth of the black market? Lastly, what message does he have for the thousands of employees at risk of losing their jobs this Christmas because of Labour’s tax raid?
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
It is great to have you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, for this important debate. I am pleased to respond to it. I congratulate—as all other hon. Members have—the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing this debate, and on the balanced way in which he presented his case, with the gambling industry on one side and the harms that it causes on the other.
The Government care deeply about gambling regulation. The number of debates that we have had on the issue, and the constructive contributions that we have had from hon. Members from both sides of the House, show that Parliament is very interested in the issue as well. Since the election last year, we have tried hard to strike the right balance between taking action to reduce gambling-related harm in areas where it has the greatest impact and supporting the gambling sector to modernise. I wish to set out how we have approached that task and what might come next, not least in the context of last week’s Budget. I hope to address as many points from hon. Members as I possibly can.
Gambling is enjoyed responsibly by many tens of millions of people, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), laid out. It is an industry that is part of our national life. Having a little flutter on the grand national and betting on the world cup semi-final or the grand prix are the kinds of big events that bring people together. My mother was a bookmaker. What she could do on that chalkboard on grand national day to work out the odds and the winnings—and often the losses—for the punters was something to behold. Many hon. Members have mentioned family members, and I remember my grandfather looking to win that million pounds with 25p a bet on a Saturday afternoon—he died a pauper, never quite making it that far. Gambling also brings people together, so that flutter is something that we should cherish. The industry has worked very hard to protect it and, in last week’s Budget, we tried very hard to protect it too.
For many people, including many Members who have spoken, the regulation of the online sector is of the greatest concern. We recognise that the risk of harm is greater for many online products and we have taken targeted action on that. In May, we introduced a £2 online slots stake limit for 18 to 24-year-olds and a £5 limit for those 25 and over. Those limits are a targeted intervention to protect those most at risk of gambling harm and unaffordable losses. It took a long time to get that through—it was a debate that went on right through the last Parliament if I recall—and many hon. Members, including the former Member for Hyndburn, took that forward to get some limits in place.
Several hon. Members have mentioned advertising. We recognise the impact that harmful gambling can have on children and vulnerable people, and we are committed to strengthening protections for those at risk. There are already rules to ensure that adverts are not targeted at, and do not strongly appeal to, children and those at risk of harm. The hon. Member for Witney majored on the way that advertising can affect children, and I am grateful for his contribution on that, so I want to address it particularly.
We want to protect young people from gambling-related harm, and my noble Friend the gambling Minister, Baroness Twycross, cares a great deal about this issue as well. As part of the prevention stream of the statutory gambling levy, gambling education funding will improve access to and support for gambling education. We also welcome the Department for Education’s expanded guidance on gambling as part of the statutory relationships, sex and health education curriculum. I am sure that my noble Friend would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Witney to discuss those harms for young people.
I will run through some of the prevention measures that have been introduced that the shadow Minister mentioned, such as financial vulnerability checks, safer online casino game design, improving consumer choice on direct marketing, Think 25, extending test purchasing to small operators, financial risk assessments, better access to safer gambling tools such as deposit limits that restrict people’s gambling, and socially responsible incentives. I do hear, however, that there are issues with trying to pull people into gambling—to get them on to the platforms and betting—through free spins, free bets and free cash. That is something we should be looking at.
The industry has voluntarily done a number of things. It has introduced GamProtect, as we have heard already, and the front-of-shirt sponsorship ban for next season, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I wish Stoke all the very best in being promoted from the championship; my own club, Heart of Midlothian, have burst my coupon on many a Saturday afternoon by not getting the results that they surely deserved. The industry has also voluntarily introduced improved gambling transaction and bank blocking, which is ongoing, and worked on creating the gambling ombudsman. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is no longer in his place, but we are very much looking at that ombudsman issue. It will take primary legislation to bring in something like that, but I assure hon. Members that it has not left the agenda.
We need to work closely with the gambling industry, where we can, on those big advertising issues to ensure that advertising does not exacerbate harm. We intend to redouble our efforts to work cross-Government and with tech platforms to address illegal gambling advertising, which poses the most risk for children and vulnerable people, as hon. Members have mentioned. We will continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission to develop a new, evidence-based model for independently developed safer gambling messages.
I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen in today’s written ministerial statement, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, that the statutory levy has raised just under £120 million so far. That will be ringfenced, ensuring that it is used solely to address gambling-related harm across the UK. That will support our priority of making sure that there is sufficient independent and sustainable funding in the system for projects and services to tackle and treat gambling-related harm. It will also help to fill the gaps that we know exist in the evidence base and in the provision of treatment and support.
To answer the shadow Minister’s challenge on the timescale, we have appointed a number of commissioners to oversee the delivery of levy funding. Some 20% of levy funding has been allocated to UK Research and Innovation for the establishment of a bespoke research programme on gambling, and to the Gambling Commission to direct further research in line with its licensing objectives. Some 30% will go to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Scottish and Welsh Governments—they will get their share of that—to develop a comprehensive approach to the prevention of gambling-related harms across all three nations of Great Britain: Wales, Scotland and England. In England, the OHID will prioritise the development of an industry-independent public health approach that recognises the importance of the voluntary sector and local authorities in delivering effective prevention. I think that answers some of the issues that we heard from the shadow Minister about how expertise needs to be involved in this process and to be funded to deliver on some of those issues.
This is really important: the remaining 50% of the levy will go to NHS England and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents to commission the full treatment pathway, working collaboratively with the third sector to increase access to treatment and support for those experiencing gambling-related harm. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said that this should be a public health issue, and I think that the breakdown of that £120 million from the levy—the amount going directly into health issues—shows that the levy is dealing with this as a public health issue, rather than it being a gambling or DCMS issue.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Northern Ireland, of course, but this is just a Great Britain initiative. Gambling, as he mentioned, is substantially devolved in Northern Ireland, where a separate regulatory system is in place. We are open to working with the Government in Northern Ireland on issues relating to gambling regulation. I understand that DCMS officials—many of them are sitting behind me—are having a meeting with counterparts in Northern Ireland on this very issue next week, so hopefully there will be progress on that. If there any issues that the hon. Member wants to bring forward, he should please get in touch with the ministerial team and we will certainly take those forward, on behalf of Northern Ireland, to help where we can.
Let me say a little about the modernising measures that we have put in place. Our work to tackle gambling-related harm has not prevented us from introducing modernisation measures, where appropriate, in a balanced way. For example, in June we introduced modernising reforms to the casino licensing regime to support growth in the land-based casino sector. Those were enacted following consideration of all the available evidence and are proportionate modernisations that reflect the changes in gambling behaviour since former restrictions were set many years ago. In October, we launched a consultation on changes to stakes and prizes for low-risk category D machines to support the family entertainment sector that runs seaside amusement arcades and piers. We all remember, as kids, being on the pier and putting 1p and 2p pieces into those kinds of low-stake machines.
Only last week, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the abolition of bingo duty in recognition of the benefits that bingo halls bring to our local communities and in support of a sector loved by many. I am sure that the shadow Minister will have the odd bingo game at one of his fundraisers to entertain the masses—or not. We are also consulting on the issue of venues that are operating under bingo licences but may be difficult to distinguish from adult gaming centres to see whether there is an appetite for change to ensure that any premises with a bingo licence has bingo at the heart of its offering.
I know that there have been concerns about consumer protection in adult gaming centres. Baroness Twycross, the gambling Minister, has been clear that she will not consider any deregulatory changes to adult gaming centres without improved protections. The industry has announced new measures on self-exclusion, and the Government will continue to work with it and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the protections are fit for purpose.
Many Members have also raised concerns about the concentration of gambling premises, particularly in deprived areas. To strengthen the powers available to local authorities, the Government will introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing as soon as parliamentary time allows, and that will empower local authorities to take data-driven decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling-related harms. I hope that answers the question that the hon. Member for Witney raised.
Let me also mention the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central about the way in which the gambling industry supports local communities as well as sports through that kind of advertising. Sports support is obviously an issue for governing bodies, and the governing bodies for the premiership have determined that such advertising on the front of shirts will not be allowed next season. We would encourage every sporting body, or any body, that is taking advertising from the industry to look very clearly at what the impact of that is.
Gareth Snell
I welcome the Minister to his new role. He is right that a number of sporting sectors derive a lot of sponsorship from the gambling sector, such as darts, the English Football League and horseracing. If, as a result of the tax changes announced last week, those companies withdraw their sponsorship, do the Government have a contingency plan? Have they had conversations with those sectors about how to make up that shortfall? In particular, I think £350 million goes into horseracing every year from gambling companies through sponsorship. If it loses that, the horseracing sector in this country will die.
Ian Murray
We talk to the gambling industry about that constantly. My noble Friend Baroness Twycross, the gambling Minister, is taking some of those discussions forward. We will continue to monitor it because a huge amount of sponsorship comes from the gambling industry. That is not a judgment on whether it is right or wrong, as we have heard today how damaging it may be; the hon. Member for Witney mentioned that the industry spends £2 billion a year on advertising. We should monitor it, and individual governing bodies will be looking at it. Premier league football is a good example of where a governing body has made a decision on shirt sponsorship, although I do not think it will have any difficulty in attracting sponsors, but other sports will find it more difficult to attract new money. We have seen this before with tobacco and alcohol advertising being banned, and we will continue to monitor it.
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for telling the personal story of his friend M. I am sure that story is reflected all over the country. We have heard from other Members this afternoon about suicides and the impact that gambling has had on families and the wider community. We should always reflect on those stories when talking about the positives and negatives of gambling.
I want to address the gambling taxation changes, which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, mentioned in some detail. The changes to gambling duties were outlined by the Chancellor last week at the Budget, which we will vote on this evening. Everyone will be aware that, in addition to the abolishing of bingo duty, we have announced an increase in the remote gambling duty from 21% to 40%. We have also announced a new remote betting duty set at 25%, with a carve-out to protect horseracing.
We have introduced those increases in gambling duties to reflect the way in which the sector has gone and to support our public finances. I take issue with how the shadow Minister presented that issue, because it is all about making balanced judgments. Of the money that will be raised for the Treasury, £26 million will be used to tackle the black and illegal market, which is a concern for us all. The money will also ensure that we can pull 450,000 children out of poverty, addressing any correlation between gambling addiction and poverty. The Chancellor and I believe that pulling 450,000 children out of poverty would be the best societal way of using that money.
With the Budget changes, it is clear that the Government are not anti-gambling. I have set out some of the measures that we have introduced in support of the sector. Through the Budget, we have also sought to limit the impact on the high street and protect activities that are lower risk and have greater levels of employment. We recognise the dangers posed by the illegal market, and for those in the regulated sector and those at risk of gambling-related harm. That is why we have allocated that £26 million to the Gambling Commission over three years to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. That will be kept under constant review. We also hope to work closely with the industry and others to see how we can go further in this space.
The issue of consumer awareness was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), and by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I hope that we can work on customer awareness to demonstrate that the regulated sector is where people should be, and to spot the unregulated sector. If someone were to land on a website from an advert on social media, is it obvious to the vast majority whether it is a regulated or unregulated website? How would they know? I suspect that the unregulated sector has rather less regulated ways of pulling customers in. Education on customer and consumer awareness through the Gambling Commission would certainly be something that we should look at as well. There is no doubt that the social harms in the illegal industry are more amplified than those in the regulated industry.
I will talk a little about the national lottery, because it is a part of gambling that we do not tend to talk about in this country. I know that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned national lottery scratchcards, but most people do not see playing the national lottery as gambling. It would be interesting for some analysis to be done about what the public thinks gambling actually is—whether it is the 25p accumulator on the Grand National or playing the national lottery. There is no doubt that the national lottery is a national institution and it has had a huge impact on good causes in our communities. I suspect that a lot of people in this country play the national lottery, yes, to win the big prize, drift off on a yacht somewhere in the Mediterranean and hand in their resignation—I suppose it would be to the Prime Minister in my case if I were to win—and retire. But people also play the national lottery knowing that a lot of that money goes into good causes and they see transformation, whether through heritage or charitable cases and those kinds of things.
To conclude, it is important that as a Government we now take stock of where we are. I know that there are further regulatory reforms that many Members want to see, and we will continue to act when evidence shows us that we need to intervene. Nevertheless, it is important that we implement and evaluate our recent reforms properly and give them time to bed in before moving on to the next thing. For example, we need to ensure that the three strands of the statutory levy are running smoothly. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the shadow Minister. We need to fully engage with stakeholders to understand the impact of the tax changes on their businesses and provide as much certainty as we can while that happens. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central in particular. This all requires a bit of time to bed in.
Ultimately, the Government want a gambling sector that is modern, sustainable and protects the most vulnerable from harm but that is also thriving. Our manifesto committed us to working with the industry to ensure responsible gambling, and that remains important to us. In parallel, we will continue to regulate gambling in a balanced and modernising way and support the regulatory sector where we can.
Gareth Snell
I welcome some of the submissions that the Minister has made. Could I press him on what monitoring there will be of movement towards the unregulated market? The OBR report is quite clear that the Government expect to see a proportion of people from the regulated sector move to the unregulated sector. The increased money for the Gambling Commission to tackle that is welcome. However, can the Minister say whether there will be a concerted and specific effort to monitor the direction of travel? The Netherlands saw a five times increase when it made some changes, and is struggling to recoup that. I want to make sure that we learn from those lessons and do not end up repeating the same drive towards the more damaging part of the sector.
Ian Murray
I think that the Government have acknowledged the issue around the black and illegal market, given the £26 million that has gone into the Gambling Commission. Since April 2024, the Gambling Commission has significantly increased its disruption activity and has focused on finding innovative ways to tackle the illegal market. The Crime and Policing Bill, introduced to Parliament in February, has passed through the House of Commons and is now in Committee in the other place. It will give the Gambling Commission greater powers to act quicker to take down illegal websites, so there are legislative moves on this issue as well.
As part of the Budget there is £26 million specifically for the Gambling Commission to increase its investment resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. The message from Government is that if someone is operating in the illegal market, we are coming after them—legislatively, regulatorily and with money. We will continue to monitor the outcomes from that.
This has been a very balanced debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Witney for securing it. No doubt we will return to this for regular updates on where we are. I hope that the levy, the new tax changes and the money for the Gambling Commission for the illegal market can now bed in and that we can try and get some of that £120 million levy into the organisations that deal with gambling harms. I hope, also, that we can celebrate that gambling is harmless for the vast majority of the public who participate in it—and something that this Government are very keen to support.
Charlie Maynard
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), as well as all the Members who attended the debate; and you, Sir Desmond, for chairing it. I appreciate the sensible, fair and respectful way that we have handled the debate and the shared recognition that gambling can be fun but can also do a whole lot of damage. We have to try to balance that as best we can. I think we have all tried to do that in our own way.
I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for doing his best to make the other case. He did a fair job of that. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did excellent jobs in detailing the damage done, particularly so with regard to M, who my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned. After the debate, I will be asking about where he is now.
I also thank the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for bringing a great range of thought with regard to the public health aspects of this issue. They made very valuable contributions on that. The shadow Minister did a great job of making the case for the other side of the argument.
I thank the Minister for all his input. It was very helpful that he explained where the Government are on the gambling levy, local authorities and the cumulative impact assessments. I will admit to being less clear about the Government’s position on online advertising and what they are planning to do with that £2 billion—when, where and how. I look forward to staying in touch on that. Similarly, the issue of the ombudsman was not covered in detail. I would welcome an intervention from the Minister to provide some clarity on that.
Ian Murray
I am surprised and grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. The gambling ombudsman is the most effective way to deliver independent alternative dispute resolution. We know that that will require primary legislation, and we are conscious of the need to put in place an appropriate mechanism as soon as possible. It has not been ruled out. Work on this is ongoing, but it will require primary legislation. As I said at the end of my speech, with all the other things that we want to do to try to bed this in, we are very conscious that the industry is having to deal with an awful lot of change at the moment, but it is still on the agenda.
Charlie Maynard
I thank the Minister for that. I believe we have covered everything. I appreciate everybody’s being here.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered reform of gambling regulation.
Women and Girls: Isle of Wight
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for women and girls on the Isle of Wight.
It is a fantastic pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and it is of course a great pleasure to be here to advocate on behalf of the backbone of my constituency: the women and girls of the Isle of Wight.
I am well aware of the fact that currently two men represent the Isle of Wight in Parliament, with the only diversity being that of our political parties, rather than our genders. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) is present, but the fact we are both men makes it even more important that we strongly advocate on behalf of women and girls on the island, who face added disadvantage not just because of their gender but because of where they were born and raised.
Neither I nor the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East is a woman, which should be obvious, and the local council, on which we both serve, is only 30% female. That is nearly 10% below the national average for local authorities. Unfortunately, the picture is no brighter in business leadership: some estimates suggest that just 32% of the island’s business directors are women.
I recognise that symbolic representation is not everything, but my central point is that I want girls growing up on the island to know that opportunities, whether in politics or business, are not reserved for men. Girls are equally capable and equally deserving, and should feel just as able to pursue such roles as their male classmates.
I will touch briefly on transport, not to stray from the Minister’s remit but to highlight how poor ferry services have compounded existing inequality for women and girls on the island. The current ferry service makes it harder to access healthcare, secure job opportunities or escape domestic abuse. The challenges that exist for women and girls on the mainland are infinitely magnified for those who are effectively penned in by the Solent.
The Minister will be well aware of the devastating impact of sexual violence. The trauma is profound in itself, but imagine, after experiencing rape or sexual assault, having to travel to the mainland for the dignity of having a medical examination in private. This is not a hypothetical scenario: for some sexual assault victims on the Isle of Wight, it is their lived reality. St Mary’s hospital lacks a dedicated sexual assault referral centre, forcing survivors to travel to Portsmouth to obtain the physical evidence needed to secure justice.
Surviving an assault is already unbearable. Imagine then being forced to travel for well over an hour, still wearing the clothes you were attacked in, just so you can access the medical care and emotional support you need. This is far from an isolated problem: as of 2025, violent and sexual offences remain the most commonly recorded crimes on the island, and the lack of local provision to address the escalation represents a clear failure to meet the needs of those who require help the most.
Crimes related to domestic abuse on the Isle of Wight rose by 25% between 2018 and 2023. Yet the island’s only refuge, which has a capacity of just six rooms, operates with severely limited space. The organisation that provides much of the vital support, Paragon, told me that many women have been forced to leave the island entirely, uprooting their homes and leaving their communities and support networks to reach safety.
Estimates suggest that women on the Isle of Wight who attempt to escape domestic abuse face an additional “cost of escape” of around £10,000, compared with victims on the mainland. As I highlighted in the recent debate I led on protecting children from domestic abuse, the lack of local provision forces the most vulnerable into an impossible choice: take on crippling debt, or remain with an abusive partner because financial barriers make safety unattainable.
Sadly, that is not the only area in which women on the island face inequality. Those who make the profoundly difficult decision to seek an abortion after 13 weeks are required to leave the island and cross the Solent to access care. The financial strain, the challenge of arranging travel and the absence of family or community support during such an invasive and emotionally draining procedure only compounds the distress. No woman makes this choice lightly, least of all in the later stages of pregnancy. Yet it is those with the fewest resources who shoulder the greatest burden, forced to undergo the ordeal far from home, without the reassurance of familiar surroundings, and often at overwhelming personal and financial cost.
Medical inequality for women on the island does not end there. For those who continue their pregnancy, specialist services are not always available locally. St Mary’s has a special care baby unit, but it cannot manage the births of extremely premature babies, severe labour complications, or newborns who require intensive care or surgery.
Although the maternity care provided at St Mary’s is among the best in the region, if not the country, the lack of advanced facilities means that women facing traumatic labours often endure the added stress of travelling off-island for critical treatment. Although it is true that many women across the country travel far when faced with complex pregnancies and deliveries, for women on the island the journey involves ferry crossings, adding another layer of discomfort and delay. For young women who are already navigating a frightening and uncertain time, it becomes yet another barrier to safe, equitable care.
The healthcare inequalities alone make a compelling case for Government intervention, whether to improve maternal care or abortion services, but the challenges do not stop there. The educational outcomes and job opportunities for women and girls remain severely limited.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing the debate. The stats in a recent UK-wide report were really interesting, showing that every abuse victim may experience around 50 incidents of abuse before they first report it to the authorities. By that stage, much damage has been done. For all of us, no matter where we are, that undermines the reality of the domestic abuse figures. Does the hon. Member agree that the very thing he is asking for—better facilities, better protection, and better access to those who can help—must be in place wherever we are in the United Kingdom, including the Isle of Wight?
Mr Quigley
I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point. The numbers he mentioned should certainly terrify us all. Someone going through 50 incidents of abuse before reporting it is the hidden story. I thank him for his intervention and agree entirely with his point.
The barriers are exacerbated by our poor cross-Solent connectivity, which restricts access to training, higher education and employment beyond the island. One of the Government’s key ambitions is to ensure that every child gets the best possible start in life, but if we are serious about making that a reality for children on the Isle of Wight, additional support is essential. For some girls—and boys—born there, the cost of cross-Solent travel means they have never left the island. That is a missed opportunity to experience the wider world and broaden their horizons.
I am pleased to have worked with the ferry companies to introduce an initiative offering free ferry travel for West Wight residents on their 18th birthday, but two return tickets alone cannot tackle the deeper challenges they face. Unless we address the barriers head on, we risk limiting not only their access to education, but their aspirations and future opportunities.
This year’s GCSE and A-level results paint a stark picture. As the Isle of Wight Observer put it, students on the island face an “uphill battle”. Our local performance has fallen significantly below national outcomes across key benchmarks, placing it at the very bottom of the national rankings. Just 62.5% of students achieved a standard pass of grade 4 or above, compared with the national average of 70.5%. Every one of the statistics puts the island at the bottom among English counties.
Although I am speaking about education broadly, this is fundamentally an issue of equality, not only between island and mainland students, but in ensuring that girls have the tools, confidence and opportunities to pursue any education or career path they aspire to.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour on securing this debate and highlighting the issues, and thank him for his ongoing work to help to make the island a better place to live for women and girls. I associate myself with all his remarks and arguments. Policymakers and commissioners have often overlooked the unique challenges that we face as an island. I urge the current Government, although it would be true of any Government, to remember the challenges we face and to be prepared to make special provision for us, because we are a populated island in England, which is a unique thing.
Mr Quigley
It will come as no great surprise to hear that the hon. Member and I agree on many things. Despite our opposition politically, as family MPs on the Isle of Wight we share many frustrations with the limitations of being on an island. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
All too often, the opportunities feel harder for girls to access, which is something we must change. Educational outcomes are not an abstract issue for women and girls on the island: they shape their entire future. Although jobs in hospitality and retail exist on the island, I worry about the young women for whom those sectors hold little appeal. Too often they feel that meaningful opportunities and long-term careers are out of reach. I am aware that that is not an unusual feeling for young people but, as I have set out, due to a variety of factors, young girls on the island may feel that the opportunities are still further from them. That is why targeted support for girls leaving education on the Isle of Wight, helping them to access a wider range of career paths, would make a real and lasting difference.
The picture I have painted today may seem like a story of lost opportunities for the island’s women and girls, but I want to end on a different note. I want to celebrate the resilience and ambition of the women and girls I have had the privilege to meet as an MP. As I am sure my colleague from the other side of the island would agree, the bright and confident students, the determined businesswomen, and the mothers, sisters and daughters on the island all demonstrate that women and girls on the Isle of Wight do not lack drive or aspiration. What they lack is the support to turn their ambition into opportunity, whether through access to medical care when they need it or through meaningful job prospects when they leave school. With the right backing from the Government, I truly believe they can not only reach those opportunities but thrive in them.
Women on the Isle of Wight are among the bravest, smartest and funniest people I know—and that is not just because my wife, who is one of them, is watching. They understand the added challenges that come with living on an island. Some extra burdens are to be expected, but the burden we are placing on them now is a burden too far. Whether it is in respect of healthcare inequalities, domestic abuse, limited job opportunities, or the combination of all those factors, the women and girls of the island deserve better, and I will keep fighting to make sure that they get it.
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing the debate, which has given us the opportunity to hear about the work he is doing and the issues his constituents, particularly the women and girls he has spoken about so powerfully, are facing. I am also grateful for the recognition that it is incredibly important to have a gender lens for our work. We should look at where there are inequalities, whether in education, health or services, and at why it is important for local health services and the Government to focus on how we tackle them.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the case he made on making work pay and making sure that equality for women and girls is a reality in terms of the challenges that are being faced. I also pay tribute to his work across a range of vital equalities issues. He has a reputation in Parliament, having championed domestic abuse services and been a steadfast voice on health inequalities, and through his commitment to social progress and tackling barriers to opportunity for his constituents.
My hon. Friend will recognise that there is so much more to be done. Along with the contributions from other Members, he outlined the issues while recognising that where we are is the consequence of how services have worked to date. Together, we must do more to confront the challenges faced by women and girls across the whole of the United Kingdom, including the Isle of Wight, and encourage more opportunities.
It comes down to this: when we get it right for women, we get it right for everyone. Others might say that when women and girls do well, it benefits everyone. Whichever way we phrase it, it is clearly incredibly important to make sure that we tackle the specific issues of inequalities. Girls should know that they are very much the building blocks of our society. They shape our workplaces, our families and all our futures. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issues he has mentioned.
My hon. Friend made the point really powerfully that women’s equality and economic growth go hand in hand. The work to ensure access to opportunity for all young people must continue across the whole of our country, including on the Isle of Wight. On his point about statistical underachievement compared with national averages, it is important to understand the reasons for that, be they environmental or anything else, so that all our young people everywhere can access to the same opportunity. I am sure this will not be our last conversation on this range of issues, given the work he is doing in his constituency.
I will briefly discuss violence against women and girls, which my hon. Friend also raised. Work is under way to protect women and girls across the United Kingdom from violence, including in the Isle of Wight. My hon. Friend will be aware of our target to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade. We have committed £53 million of funding over four years to roll out the Drive project across England and Wales, which focuses on perpetrators, working directly with those causing harm in their relationships, to prevent abusive behaviour and protect victims. That also relates to a point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the number of calls a woman may make to the police about domestic abuse. Earlier intervention, before abuse escalates, will be an important part of prevention and ensuring that women are protected from abuse.
Last year, we launched the new domestic abuse protection orders in selected police forces and courts. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice recently announced that more than 1,000 victims have been protected through those protection orders since their roll-out just a year ago. We have also set out new measures to tackle stalking and spiking, to improve the support and response that victims receive. This month the Government will fund intensified police activity across the country to target spiking, reaffirming our commitment to tackling that abhorrent crime.
Victims deserve better support at every stage, which is why we will introduce domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms, and specialist rape and sexual offences teams in every police force. We are also looking to ensure that victims get the justice they deserve. That includes fast-tracking rape cases with specialist courts in England and Wales, and providing free legal advice to support victims and ensure that their rights are upheld. It is the case that survivors on the Isle of Wight will face significantly higher financial barriers when fleeing abuse, in part due to the cost of crossing the Solent. It is useful to mention that, since 2021, local authorities in England have a duty, under part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to ensure that victims and their children can access support in safe accommodation when they need it.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government allocated £160 million in 2025-26, this financial year, to support delivery, £30 million more than the previous year, of which the Isle of Wight received just under £400,000 through the safe accommodation grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West might already have explored that option. It would be for the Isle of Wight to allocate that funding based on local need. He may want to explore how that has been used and the extent to which it has been needed. Future funding will be determined through future business planning.
We are also making important progress in other areas. I will make a few more remarks about women in the workplace and access to opportunity. I am sure it is an issue for us all that the gender pay gap still exists. Importantly, it decreased to 12.8% in April 2025, down from 13.1% in April 2024. We are pleased to see that progress, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we can and must go further. That is why, as part of the Employment Rights Bill, we are taking the first steps towards requiring employers to publish action plans alongside their gender pay gap figures. Those action plans will detail how employers are narrowing their gaps and supporting employees, particularly through the menopause.
Prevention and education are fundamental to the approach that we take to protecting women and girls from violence, which we know is happening increasingly early. We also know that it is an issue with teenagers. It is extremely important to tackle the root causes of these crimes, which are often driven by social media. That includes supporting our education system to teach children about respectful and healthy relationships and consent. We are committed to providing the right support for victims of VAWG, including domestic abuse. In May 2025, we announced £19.9 million of investment to provide vital support to victims of VAWG. That includes £6 million for helplines and £1.96 million for the flexible fund to support victims to flee abuse.
I will now make some remarks about our women’s health strategy. Supporting women’s health is also part of supporting women to be able to achieve their ambitions, to be able to work, and to be with their families and friends. We have been making progress with our 10-year NHS plan, which sets out the inequities that lead to poor health, including for women. We have also made significant progress on ensuring extra appointments to tackle the huge backlog of NHS appointments and waiting lists, which we inherited from the previous Government. We have delivered 5.2 million extra appointments in our first year of government and we have also made emergency hormonal contraception free in pharmacies across England.
Indeed, we are also adding menopause questions to the NHS health check. We are also renewing the women’s health strategy to build on these achievements—this includes substantial investment in cutting-edge research, funding of a world-leading trial in which almost 700,000 women will take part, and testing how cutting-edge Al tools can be used to catch breast cancer cases earlier. It is also important that we continue to look at ways that we can introduce new drugs, and support earlier detection and treatment of conditions such as endometriosis.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West for putting the issues facing women and girls in the Isle of Wight firmly on the agenda and for the work he does in representing his constituents. I am sure that he will continue discussions with Ministers across the range of Departments that he has spoken about, in relation to health, education, local government, policing and crime, and that he will continue to make a huge impact in the Isle of Wight.
Question put and agreed to.
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of catapults and anti-social behaviour.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am going to give this speech backwards, inasmuch as I am going to start with the end and the ask. I ask the Government to introduce an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is in Committee in the House of Lords. I would like the Bill amended to reduce the minimum age at which community protection notices can be issued, from 16 years old to 10 years old—the age of criminal responsibility in England. That was proposed under the last Government’s version of the Bill, which died when the general election was called.
Having started with the end of my speech, now let me begin at the beginning. I represent Spelthorne—I feel compelled to remind the House that Spelthorne is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is everything immediately south of Heathrow airport down to the River Thames. As well as having a decent stretch of one bank of the River Thames, from Staines to Sunbury, we are also blessed with extensive and much-prized green spaces such as Staines Moor, Sunbury Park and Leyland Park. Water is a major feature of Spelthorne, because the land has been quarried over the years—much of it for the building of the M25—and we are home to half of London’s drinking water, stored in four enormous reservoirs.
All that means that Spelthorne, for a largely suburban area inside the M25, is a good home for wildlife, particularly bird life. Indeed, every year visitors flock from miles around to witness the start of that most quintessentially English and iconic event, swan upping, which starts at Sunbury lock. We are also home to the Swan Sanctuary in Felix Lane; started in the 1980s, it now cares for injured and damaged mute swans from across the south of England.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime Northern Ireland has helpfully drawn attention to the growing misuse of catapults. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be robust enforcement of existing law, particularly article 12 of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 in respect of wild animals and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in respect of domestic animals?
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for his faith in my knowledge of Northern Ireland-specific wildlife legislation—funnily enough, I am going to mention Northern Ireland in a moment. I certainly believe in robust enforcement of existing legislation, and I will come on to some practical additional measures that could be taken to rid us of this scourge.
When I visited Steve and his amazing team of volunteers at the Swan Sanctuary, I saw at first hand the horrible injuries to swans—and to all the other types of birds that the sanctuary cares for—caused by people firing at them with catapults. I said that I would look into the matter further, and have secured this debate in order to share what I have learned with the House.
In many people’s minds catapults have a sort of cheeky-chappie, comic-book image. As a boy growing up on Barnes common, I remember finding a good Y-shaped stick, making a catapult for myself and shooting at discarded Coke cans as target practice—but catapult technology has moved on from its Dennis the Menace days. The ones that can be bought now will fire a ball-bearing at 73 mps.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I recognise what the hon. and gallant Member says about the strength and power of catapults. As a police officer, probably my easiest investigation was in relation to thousands of pounds-worth of damage being caused to the plate glass windows of the Edinburgh International Conference Centre. The open window took me to the culprit, but I saw the power of that catapult to cause that level of damage. Does he agree that we need to look at how that technology has developed?
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the hon. Member for bringing her personal experience as a police officer to this debate. I thank her for her service.
These new catapults have awesome power, and could easily take out your eye, Sir Desmond, or indeed other hon. Members’ eyes, and cause life-changing injuries. In fact, in my time in the army, in riots in Northern Ireland, I had them used against me; they were a gateway weapon for kids who would later graduate to the coffee jar bomb and the nail bomb.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for introducing this debate. Every one of us can remember the stick that we cut off a tree and the inner tube of a bike that we used to make the stretch, which helped us to have the best catapult in Ballywalter—there were many people in competition. However, it seems fair to say that this specific crime goes mainly unreported; there are few records of it in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that people will ignore or walk past antisocial behaviour—not just in relation to catapults, but any ASB—because of the fear of intimidation, and that more needs to be done to encourage the official reporting of all sorts of ASB, to improve conditions on our streets and to ensure that people feel safe?
Lincoln Jopp
The hon. Gentleman echoes my cry. Since being elected as the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, in all my dealings with the community, too often it becomes a conversation of the deaf, inasmuch as people think that there is no point in reporting crime because the police will not do anything about it, and the police say, “Well, no one has reported any crime, so there’s nothing for me to do.” We must unlock that conversation of the deaf by encouraging everyone to report every crime; in cases where they are worried about intimidation, they have the opportunity to use Crimestoppers, and I commend that outlet as well.
In Spelthorne, we have a serious problem with young kids using catapults on animals. I am obliged to Inspector Matthew Walton of Spelthorne police, who has helped me a great deal in preparing this campaign. The police tell me that in Spelthorne over the past year and a half crimes involving catapults have been reported to them more than once a week. The crimes happen predominantly after schools have ended, and in 90% of cases no suspect or even person of interest is identified. Spelthorne police, to their credit, tell me that they are going back to reviewing a number of these cases to make sure that they did not miss anything the first time round and to see whether any particular patterns emerge. My constituents notice the crimes happening; sadly, they too often see the wounded and killed wildlife when they are out enjoying our green spaces and river walks.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for securing this important debate. As in his constituency, significant amounts of wildlife crime are being reported by residents of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I recently met with the Save our Swans group and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The horrific events that he describes in Spelthorne are also common on the canals and rivers in Hillingdon. Does he agree that prevention is better than cure, and that taking these catapults off people before crime has happened is vital? Does he also agree that there is a role for public space protection orders, which councils can introduce, to ban the possession of catapults and other items in public spaces? Does he support me in encouraging councils to adopt those public space protection orders to prevent this crime and to make it easier for councils to pass those measures?
Lincoln Jopp
I believe that the Green party is led by a hypnotist; it seems that the Government Benches have a mind reader, too, because the hon. Gentleman must have seen into the future and what I was about to say.
My constituents write to me in numbers to express their distress at this scourge. Spelthorne borough council has responded and has in place a public space protection order for catapults across the whole borough. Unfortunately, though, the council will not enforce a PSPO breach if the individual is under 16. That is the council’s choice, but I would prefer it to reduce that minimum age considerably.
I went out for a ride-along with the response team of the Spelthorne police two weeks ago. We had an intelligence briefing beforehand, and what was striking was the ages of the young people we were keeping an eye out for—they were all 16 and under, and had records for some very serious offences. Catapults are predominantly kids’ stuff, by which I mean children of 10 years old and up. Currently in Spelthorne, anyone committing an offence will have their catapult seized and be issued a fine by the council, while those under 16 will have their parents informed and the catapult returned to the parent. The trouble with the current powers is that they rely on someone’s being caught offending and, as I said earlier, these crimes are rarely witnessed.
When I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, we faced a lethal threat from improvised explosive devices. There was, of course, a whole raft of things that we did and drills that we learned in order to react and save life when those things when went off, but the majority of effort and ingenuity was applied to try to stop it happening in the first place—we had to do everything to the left of the bang, as the saying went. It is similar with catapults. The police would like to pre-empt this problem before it happens, and believe that reducing the minimum age of a community protection notice to 10 years would allow early intervention before bad behaviour escalates. It would also provide a proportionate civil response without criminalising children and reduce reliance on lengthy court processes.
To be clear, the process at the moment is that the police can combine the public space protection order and the community protection notice to intervene early. It is a civil offence. A community protection warning is the first step; if people do not adhere to that warning, they get a notice, and the breach of a notice itself becomes a criminal offence currently punishable by a £100 fine, although in the consideration of the Crime and Policing Bill in the other place, on the back of the former Government’s draft legislation, that is going up to £500.
I know that there is public support for an outright ban on catapults. Others want them regulated in the same way we regulate guns, or possession of them treated as we treat possession of knives. A volunteer at the Swan Sanctuary launched a public petition to make catapults illegal, which received 24,521 signatures. There is currently a live petition asking to make it an offence to carry a catapult in public without a lawful defence, which currently has more than 33,000 signatures and is live until next year.
The Government know they have a problem; I am obliged to the Minister for animal welfare, Baroness Hayman, for replying to me recently. She said that the Government feel that there is sufficient legislation on the statute book to handle the problem, but nevertheless stated:
“Having said this, I recognise the concern that the misuse of catapults is causing to communities in certain parts of the country. I attended a meeting earlier this month with the Home Office’s Minister of State and two members of parliament to discuss solutions to combatting this very issue. I am determined that with key partners, we can agree a way forward to protect our wildlife, the public and property from these appalling acts.”
I hope that what the Minister hears today can inform those considerations, and I will gladly take an intervention from either of the two mystery Back Benchers the Minister referred to in her letter, if indeed they are here today.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Kevin McKenna
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I commend the hon. and gallant Member for securing this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and I were the two who went along to that meeting—it is disappointing that our names were not added to that letter. I would like to contribute to the debate, because this is a serious issue in my constituency, but I will save that for later; I will just say that it was us, and we are very glad to have this debate.
Lincoln Jopp
Another mystery cleared up by Inspector Jopp; I wish I had been as successful on my drive-around with the Spelthorne police the other day.
As well as my ask on reducing the minimum age at which protection notices can be served, I also want to put in a word for parental responsibility and alternative outlets for young people’s energy, competitiveness and desire to shoot and hit things.
I hear weekly in the Chamber how my party is responsible for running down youth services to the point of annihilation, so I want to raise the roof in relation to what happens in my constituency. On Friday night, I went to the extraordinary, world-leading Spelthorne Gymnastics. It has 1,600 students. At the European championships at Easter, Team GB took away five gold medals, and all five were won by people who came from Spelthorne Gymnastics.
In Shepperton, I also have a kids’ darts thing—if anyone is looking for a side-hustle business idea, this is the one. It is above what was probably a Conservative club before. It is a sports and social club, and on the top floor, there are five dartboards and they run two one-hour sessions. The first is for nine to 14-year-olds and the second is for 15 to 18-year-olds. There are five boards and five people per board. I was there for two hours, and I did not see a single one of those young people get a phone out once. They learn brilliant mental maths, sportsmanship, discipline, competition, mutual respect and understanding. I was absolutely blown away. When I went to my local barber the other day, the guy who runs the darts, and is one of the coaches, was coming out. He said, “Lincoln, you will not believe it. We’ve got 36 on the waiting list now.” On the night that I was there, I asked a parent who had driven their child there how far they had come, and they said from Notting Hill. For Members who do not get the geography, I am out near Heathrow airport. They said that it was the only place that does this. So all points in between—take a note of this Westminster Hall debate.
For those who want to point and shoot, we also have the Laleham archery club, which has a very good youth programme. They compete, and I had a go myself at Laleham fair. It is a lot of fun and, again, it teaches discipline—there is shooting and all of that. Of course, we then have the cadets. I am blessed with sea cadets, air cadets and Army cadets, all of which are a brilliant way of channelling young people’s energy and giving them a sense of purpose and discipline. Lastly, I will highlight my boxing club, which is predominantly staffed by volunteers. I think it has 20 boxers and another 20 on the waiting list. Its site is very cramped and they would dearly love to expand.
The combination of parental responsibility and parents just giving enough of a whatever about their young people’s wellbeing to invest in them and get them to go and do these activities—or, indeed, parents investing their time to make these things happen—is all to the good. It means that the attraction of sitting in a hedge, firing ball bearings at swans recedes into the distance.
I will end in a couple of minutes, but first I will read out some correspondence that I received earlier. The gentleman concerned is not a constituent, so I will not name where he is from, but Members will get the general picture:
“My name is Chris, and I volunteer with the”—
here he mentions the location—
“Wildlife Network. I’ve spent years on the front line—picking up bodies, comforting dying animals, and witnessing a level of cruelty that is rapidly escalating. I appreciate that my concerns have been acknowledged, but I am devastated that no action is being taken to regulate catapults.
The situation is stark. At one of my local lakes alone there were 13 catapult attacks in May, 19 in September and 7 in November. This year I have reported 54 attacks, yet only two are being investigated—even with clear video evidence”—
again, I stress that this is not in Spelthorne. He continues:
“A recent FOI request showed only 13 wildlife-crime convictions across England and Wales between 2023 and 2024. We are told the laws ‘already exist’, but these outcomes say otherwise.
Government departments continue to insist catapults are not weapons and are not used against wildlife. On the ground, we know this is simply untrue.
This is no longer just a wildlife issue. Two cats have been shot dead. A dog has lost an eye. I myself have been threatened, chased, and ignored. I have provided body-cam footage to police only to watch nothing happen. In another incident, after being repeatedly targeted with eggs, officers arrived two hours later and refused to speak to the boys responsible. The message this sends is dangerous: you can commit these acts and face no consequences.
Experts agree on the seriousness. In a BBC documentary, a ballistics specialist confirmed catapults can fire at 134 mph, and surgeons have treated people with shattered bones and life-changing injuries. These are not toys—they are weapons.
We are not asking for a ban. We are asking for basic regulation, no more extreme than requiring a fishing licence. Catapults should be classed as offensive weapons, and it should be illegal to carry them in public without lawful reason. What is extreme is the violence and impunity we are currently facing.”
While that correspondent has a different solution from the one that I am proposing, I hope that the Minister can understand the strength of feeling, both in this House and out in our constituencies. Although the Government’s position is that they consider sufficient legislation to be in place, I ask that the Minister consider our proposed amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which would reduce the minimum age from 16 to 10 years old for community protection notices.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I am imposing a formal six-minute time limit.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
It remains a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Again, I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on bringing forward the debate. Further down the Thames from the idyllic picture that he has portrayed of his constituency of Spelthorne, my constituency sits at the mouth of the Thames, and we have all the same problems.
This is very much an issue of rural crime and animals being brutally injured and maimed. It is causing a large amount of fear, aggravation and disgust for a lot of people living in the villages around Sittingbourne and Sheerness. It is also a problem in the towns. The issue actually first came to my attention in Sittingbourne, where our local church hall was smashed up with catapults. We have had shops smashed with catapults, as well as other churches. Indeed, when we were mustering for the Remembrance parade on Remembrance Sunday this year, on the night before, we could see that a whole load of empty flats above the high street had been smashed with catapults. So it is an urban issue as well.
Some of what is driving the problem is shops that are recklessly selling catapults on the high street in town as an easy inducement for local kids to take them up, with no checks or controls over them. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, catapults can be fun. They are seen as a child’s toy, but they are not a child’s toy when what is being shot out of them are enormous, weighty ball bearings. I have held some of the ones that our local farmers have handed to me; they are bigger than the end of my thumb. Such a shot going at high velocity through an animal, or God forbid, a human skull could easily be fatal. We have to be very aware that this is not just an issue of maiming animals and property damage; at some point, this could easily become a human fatality. It is something that we really have to attend to.
From speaking to the police, I know that they have come up with similar solutions. Some police are more assertive at being able to seize catapults from children they think are offending. Where this has hit the blocks is if the person is carrying a catapult in one pocket and a shot in another. The shot can be ball bearings or even pebbles. Once they have dropped them on the ground, there is no indication that they were carrying the catapult with any form of ammunition. Also, there is a real feeling that the police do not quite have the powers needed.
I have spoken to the National Farmers Union and to ASB Help to work out some options and ways forward. I strongly congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne on bringing another option to the table. One option that I have been looking at with the NFU is simply scheduling catapults as an offensive weapon. Other options include some sort of licensing scheme, which seems rather complicated, although it might be something we need to move towards if we cannot make this work in any other way. I have talked to police on the ground, particularly those in the fantastic neighbourhood policing team that has just started in Sittingbourne, and they think that catapults being an offensive weapon will help enormously.
We really need to get to grips with this issue, so the mysterious meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and I apparently had with Ministers was really an attempt to bring the issue to the Government’s table and to make sure that its seriousness was properly assessed. Some may have seen that in the south-east of England, the BBC has done some really good investigative journalism on this issue. There have been fantastic if quite harrowing reports, with some really disturbing pictures. A lot of that had not really come to the Government’s table up to that point, so I commend the BBC team for that investigation. I am really glad that, during that discussion, Ministers told my hon. Friend and I that they would like to convene some experts around the table to look at what the best options are.
I recognise—this is important to remember—that there are legitimate uses of a catapult beyond the pages of The Beano. Anglers use catapults to fire bait into the water. Also, I had not been aware of this before, but I now know that there is competitive catapult shooting, which is absolutely fine. It is a good and laudable activity that fits very much with what was being discussed earlier in relation to the need for good options for young children to improve their motor skills and camaraderie. These are all good things. Catapults being an offensive weapon would not stop that happening, but we need to have discussions, with anglers and professional and amateur catapultists around the table, to make sure that there are no unintended consequences from any changes in the law.
This is a real problem in our towns and rural areas. It needs to be stopped before there are human fatalities. Also, the destruction of wildlife by catapults needs to be stopped immediately. I ask Ministers to update us on the plans to review this issue and to bring experts together. Like all the hon. Members attending this debate, I would very much like to be part of that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and my constituency neighbour, for securing this important debate. Without it, I doubt that I would have the chance to raise in Parliament an issue that is extremely important to my constituents in Windsor, Eton, Datchet, Horton, Old Windsor and Wraysbury, where his constituency and mine border each another. In particular, I will focus on a recent series of heinous offences that has touched many of my constituents—that is, I am afraid to say, the callous murder of swans with high-velocity catapults.
Swans are an iconic symbol of Windsor and of this country. They are the king’s birds. The yearly tradition of swan upping is a great community event, with all the mute swans along the Thames being counted and given a health check. As such, swans are treated with reverence—like royalty—in my community and across this country. I have visited local swan charities and seen the work that they do to nurse swans back to full health and get these beautiful animals back in the water, where they should be. That is what creates such affection between these animals and our community.
Having met the brilliant Wendy Hermon at Swan Support, an outstanding local charity, I have seen at first hand just how much she cares for swans and other precious Thames wildlife. Unfortunately, during my recent visit, Wendy had to detail to me the most recent horrific slaughter in Old Windsor of a proud male swan affectionately named Pete, who had a mate and multiple cygnets, which, sadly, have now been left behind. Having seen these birds up close, we all know that swans are truly magnificent animals, and to see images of them floating dead on the water provokes a feeling of real sadness and, frankly, outrage. Why anybody would do such a thing is beyond me. It is completely unnecessary, and it is barbarous.
I also have fears about the individuals who carry out such acts, presumably in a group setting, egging one another on, and presumably for the benefit of social media. Where does that antisocial urge end, and what could it possibly escalate to? Recently, a cat was killed in Datchet. We need to nip this in the bud before it becomes people next.
Back in April, we had a really productive meeting. It was called by Swan Support and hosted by Eton town council. We were joined by the police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, the King’s swan upper, Eton town councillors and a local royal borough councillor. We concluded at the time that the royal borough should introduce a public space protection order, which would give the police the power to challenge people, issue a fine and seize catapults, in the right instances. We thought that that was the best way forward.
However, I am sorry to say that in the following five months it seems like little progress has been made. That is typical in the royal borough for something not involving Maidenhead. Runnymede borough council has been receptive and is cracking on, and I know that Spelthorne borough council, in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne, has already been successful.
I am, however, glad to say that after the excellent work of Wendy at Swan Support, and others pushing the royal borough, the consultation on a PSPO banning the carrying of catapults in Windsor, Eton, Old Windsor, Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury has finally opened. I urge as many of my constituents as possible to respond to it on the RBWM Together website. I hope to see the ban introduced after the consultation ends on 8 January.
As it stands, a police officer could see a group of youths—I am afraid to say that in my constituency it is often youths from the Traveller community—walking around the town with catapults, clearly not using them for fishing bait, and yet be pretty powerless to confiscate them. That must change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what more can be done to cut down on antisocial behaviour and the misuse of catapults, so that my constituents can have peace of mind and our swans can be protected. I hope she will join me in urging the royal borough to do the right thing and introduce the PSPO.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this very important debate, on his eloquent speech setting out the dimensions of the problem, and on his incredible detective work to out the mystery participants in the Home Office meeting of a month ago—well done on that. However, to be serious, shocking incidents involving catapults, of the sort that he outlined and we have all seen, have been on the rise in my constituency.
Just over a year ago, I began to receive reports of catapults being used at Darenth Village Park, with both wildlife and property targeted, which I passed on to the police. Early this year, I received worried emails and Facebook posts from people living around St Clements Lakes in Greenhithe reporting numerous incidents of catapult use to hurt or kill birds at the lake. In March, I undertook a walkabout around the area with local police, who told me that they knew where this was taking place but felt they lacked the necessary powers to tackle it properly. The situation escalated further, with a disturbing incident in which a woman and her young children were threatened with catapults after challenging a group of teenagers targeting wildlife at the lakes—there was widespread local media coverage of the incident.
I have also seen—I would not recommend that anyone looks them up—videos taken from TikTok showing predominantly young men, sometimes being encouraged by older men, using catapults to kill wildlife, birds, rabbits and squirrels. The videos are then posted on social media. There is clearly a disturbing trend of growing cruelty towards defenceless wildlife, and sometimes there is a link to social media.
As other Members have said, make no mistake that people are at risk too. King’s College hospital maxillofacial surgeon, Jonas Osher, said that he has recently treated serious injuries to patients inflicted by catapults. He sees catapult victims who have lost their vision as a result of a projectile lodging in their eye socket, and says that
“if you’re unlucky, it could hit you in the thinnest part of your skull…and cause a brain haemorrhage.”
Recognising the problem, I applaud the initiative taken by Kent police over the summer to send a letter to schools across Kent asking them to work with parents to stop their children leaving home with a catapult, but that is not enough. Through my work on this issue, I have had a chance to meet Carly Ahlen, a local wildlife expert, and her fellow campaigners Christopher and Joelle, who shared evidence they have collated on how widespread the issue is. I am grateful to them for their tenacious work cataloguing incidents and patrolling parks to try to deter them.
I recently organised a local residents’ meeting to discuss policing in Darenth—a general meeting to discuss anything that residents were concerned about. They reported their increasing fear of catapult crime specifically, including damage to cars and other property, and worry that they personally would be hit by a projectile.
I hope that on the strength of the mounting evidence that catapult use is a serious risk in Dartford and many other communities in different parts of the country, the Home Office will look carefully at opportunities to strengthen the ability of police to confiscate catapults, in particular from under-18s. The suggestion that catapults should be added to the list of offensive weapons is sensible, because it would enable police to do that while ensuring that the small number of legitimate uses—such as in the sport of angling and recreational use—are protected.
I thank the Minister for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) earlier in the autumn to discuss the issue. I am sure that she will have noted the concern expressed in this debate from across the country—from Northern Ireland, Scotland, London and the south-east, including Kent, Surrey and Hampshire—and the reports of similar problems in Warwickshire. Let us take forward the action we need to address this rising source of cruelty and fear in our communities.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this important debate. As many Members present will attest, there appears to be a rising use of catapults, as well as an increase in antisocial behaviour more broadly, especially in areas with large bodies of water but also in towns and cities.
Since the election last year, I too have heard sickening reports of catapults being used to fire metal ball bearings in attempts to kill or injure wildfowl and other birds in our local communities. Videos of such acts tend to end up on social media and spread quickly. The footage is deeply disturbing to anyone decent and respectful of our natural environment and wildlife. The consequences are felt acutely by organisations such as Brent Lodge wildlife hospital in my constituency. During a visit earlier this year, the people there told me that they are treating an increasing number of birds injured by solid projectiles.
Those acts fundamentally represent wider societal failings. We must do more to educate children and their caregivers so that they understand that this behaviour is completely unacceptable. It is especially pertinent—this was alluded to by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) —given the known link between those who injure animals and those who go on to think it is acceptable to injure humans. Societal investment in addressing such behaviours as early as possible would prevent further harm in the future.
With social media a prevalent way of young people engaging with society, it does not take long for a trend to catch on, and injuring wildlife is one of the more appalling recent trends to have spread quickly. Brent Lodge hired an outreach officer who has been spending time going to schools and talking about wildlife crime to educate and inform, and I applaud those efforts. An X-ray of the brain of a swan that has been hit repeatedly by an air gun is not an image that a young person who is shown it will be quick to forget.
A concern expressed repeatedly by those who write to me is the feeling that, despite reporting such acts to the police, nothing will happen—certainly no form of punishment or intervention by the schools, even when the local community could identify the people who carried out the crime. Their experiences reflect a troubling national picture: just 6% of crimes reported to the police lead to a suspect being charged, and 6,000 cases per day are closed without a suspect being identified.
Responsibility for those statistics lies firmly with the previous Government, who in the decade prior to this Parliament hollowed out our local police forces. Since 2015, the number of police community support officers has fallen by more than 4,500, leaving our local police forces with a near impossible task. In particular in rural communities, where officers must cover huge areas, the police are overstretched, under-resourced and unable to focus on the crimes that affect our communities the most. The lack of visibility is clear, because individuals engaging in criminal and antisocial behaviour feel emboldened to continue when no one is following it up, even when they are caught in the act.
Beyond the barbaric use of catapults, I have received further complaints from constituents about individuals climbing public buildings, threatening and abusive behaviour in our high streets, and the dangerous riding of high-speed e-bikes. There is also a persistent issue in constituencies such as mine with specific rural crimes such as hare coursing and theft of farm equipment. Those who contact me about those crimes say, again, that their faith in the police to address them is low, but they understand that the pressures on the police are such that they are going to the most serious cases, and often a farmer reporting people in their field chasing hares fundamentally is not understood at a police call centre.
Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home and walking down their own streets, and that applies to the wildlife that we live with as well. Everyone deserves to feel that their property is protected and that if someone tries to take it, a real effort will be made to recover it. However, for too many people in the UK today, that is simply not the reality. The Government must take urgent action to address that—first, by reversing the trend of decreasing numbers of PCSOs and special constables, and ensuring that forces have the resources to deal with the issues that society is facing.
The Liberal Democrats are also calling for the creation of a national online crime agency to tackle online fraud and abuse, which would free up local police officers to spend more time doing the thing that they want to do and is why they joined the police in the first place: community policing. They would be able to spend more time dealing with burglaries, neighbourhood crime and antisocial behaviour such as that we have discussed today.
We also need a renewed commitment to tackling the declining number of police desks, which dropped by 25% between 2015 and 2025. That has contributed significantly to the sense of police disappearing from our streets. We would ensure that police desks were placed in community hubs, including libraries and shopping centres. What steps are the Government taking to provide specific support for police forces such as mine to deal with rising antisocial behaviour and the use of catapults against wildlife, and what are they doing to reverse the trend of declining numbers of PCSOs and police desks in communities, which would ensure that a visible police presence returned to our rural constituencies?
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on arranging this debate. He is a tireless champion for his constituents. I can testify to his enthusiasm for Spelthorne Gymnastics, as he shared with us all some videos of his visit, of which my only criticism was that he was not in formation in them, which is something I expect to be corrected at the earliest opportunity.
Law and order is the bedrock of a strong society, but the laws we make in this House are meaningful only when they are enforced. In too many areas, there is a troubling gap between the rules on paper and the reality of people’s lives. When it comes to catapults, we have the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, all of which authorise meaningful powers for police officers to stop this sort of behaviour, but many people feel that those powers are not being used effectively, and too often they are right.
We have heard this afternoon too many examples from my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Windsor (Jack Rankin), and from my county neighbours, the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson). If they would like us, as a cross-party group, to discuss this issue with Kent police, I would be very keen to join them.
I know the issue too well from reports of catapult-related crimes in my own constituency. In Marden, criminals have killed wildlife. In Staplehurst, bus windows have been smashed and passengers injured by flying glass. In Tenterden, a kitchen window was shattered by a catapulted marble. In Cranbrook, Woodpeckers Preschool suffered three smashed windows overnight. This sort of behaviour is horrible for those subjected to it, and it must not go unchallenged. It erodes trust in the state and contributes to a sense that our country is becoming more lawless and disorderly.
Early responses to my ongoing constituency crime survey show that of those who say they have been a victim of crime, roughly two in three did not report it, because they felt that would not lead to any action. Our constituents do not want to live in a society in which someone can smash a pre-school window or kill a theoretically protected animal with a catapult and simply get away with it. Catapults themselves are not new, but as we have heard this afternoon, the scale and brazenness of their misuse are. In Kent, for example, police believe that slingshot usage has risen by more than 40% in just two years. For too many people, antisocial behaviour is becoming the background noise of everyday life, creating a creeping sense that our public spaces are not safe or respected.
We must be honest about what this behaviour means in practice. It is criminal damage, intimidation and harassment, and, far too often, cruelty to wildlife. As several hon. Members have said, it could easily also become assault or bodily harm. On paper, these offences carry serious penalties, but our legislation is only as strong as our willingness and ability to enforce it. At the very least, the Government must ensure that our current laws are being properly enforced before looking to make new ones.
Sadly, under this Government, police numbers have been falling. There has been a decline of more than 1,300 officers in a single year. Recruitment is down by 17%. Rising costs from recent Budgets, particularly changes to employer’s national insurance contributions, have created millions in unplanned pressure for policing. What is the Minister’s plan to increase recruitment and retention of police officers? Will she set out the assessment the Home Office has made of the impact of the national insurance changes on policing capacity?
This October, the Opposition put forward a plan to tackle those sorts of crimes. We would recruit 10,000 additional police officers, backed by £800 million of funding, and would triple the use of stop and search, returning it to 2008 levels and giving officers the backing they need to take weapons and dangerous items off our streets. Will the Minister adopt our plan for 10,000 new officers and 2,000 in hotspot patrol areas? Will she confirm that the Government will give the police the powers and political backing they need to enforce the laws Parliament has passed, including through greater use of stop and search? Our public safety depends not only on the passing of Bills in this House, but on our ability to enforce our laws consistently and effectively.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing the debate.
There is clearly a problem. It is not my job to defend the status quo; it is my job to consider what we can do about the problem. This debate has brought forward that problem in a good-natured way, setting out a number of ideas, which we can talk through today but need more thought. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), referred to existing laws, and the need to look at how they are implemented. Other suggestions, from this place and beyond, may also help. The starting point is that there is clearly a problem. Although the national data is not great on this subject, it appears to be a rising problem, as borne out by the Kent statistics.
I will say a couple of things about the broad approach to governing. Most of the public want police in their neighbourhoods, with the time and space to tackle physical crimes. The Government are working on a White Paper on police reform, which we hope will do exactly that. We are not only putting in more money—already bearing fruit in funding neighbourhood police in local communities—but looking at the time police spend on bureaucracy. Artificial intelligence can help to free up time, with new technology such as live facial recognition or drones playing a role, to enable the police to do what we want them to do.
We are also spending a lot of time on outlining plans for a national centre for policing, which could do what the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) suggested: bring together national aspects of policing, so that local police can deal with the problems that face them. The hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne also talked at some length about the good youth engagement activities in his constituency, and pointed out the cuts to youth work. I think we would all agree that policing is one thing, but activities are very much another. We have a brilliant ambition for a 30% increase in the number of cadets by 2030, which would ensure that people are gaining skills, learning about being a good citizen and occupying their free time. Hon. Members will have examples of great youth clubs and sports groups, which we want to support where we can. Those are the two principles that I would start with.
The hon. and gallant Member described very vividly some of the injuries to wildlife, which are very upsetting. Concerns were also expressed about where that violence would escalate to over time. Something that is increasingly taking up Government time is thinking about people who are obsessed with violence. Where does it come from? How do we stem it? I suspect that people who are attacking wildlife are on some path that we would want to stop. Interventions at that point are necessary, too.
The hon. and gallant Member set out his arguments and made a very compelling case that we need to take this issue seriously. I was in a meeting just before the debate, and I said to those I was meeting that I was coming to this debate, and they said, “Oh, Dennis the Menace!” The hon. and gallant Member made exactly the same point. This is how people perceive catapults; that is not the nature of what is happening here. The letter he read out paints that picture very clearly.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who I was pleased to meet recently, made very good points about the challenges in their communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey talked about the urban nature of this problem, and the churches and high streets that have been damaged. This is clearly a problem that is affecting a number of areas. We heard that from Northern Ireland as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford talked about TikTok and the role of social media, and this strange new habit that seems to be to commit these violent offences and put them on social media, which is obviously also very worrying.
In terms of what the Government want to do in response, as I set out, reforming our police so that our police can do what we want them to do and they can implement the legislation that is already there because they have more time is a major priority. That is, in part, about funding neighbourhood police and making sure that we tilt resources in that direction. It is also about freeing up people’s time, so they can get on and do what they need to do.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, made the sensible point that there is no point in having legislation just for the sake of it, but there are some changes that we do want to see. As we heard, Spelthorne borough council has a PSPO that includes catapults. That is a really good thing. The Crime and Policing Bill will increase the upper limit on fixed penalty notices for breaches of PSPOs to £500, which gives some more power to that function. People have mixed views about PSPOs—some work; some do not—but making sure that they have teeth is important.
Tackling antisocial behaviour generally is a big priority for this Government, and we are doing that in a number of ways, one of which is being much more savvy when it comes to data—looking at hotspot policing and targeting policing in the areas where crime occurs the most. For that to work, we have to have people reporting crime. So please can the message to all our constituents be: “Do report any crime you see; report it online if that is easier.” We are being increasingly sophisticated in the way that we are responding to crime, and data drives that. If we do not have the data, it makes it harder.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The Minister raises a really important point about data. I say the same whenever I am out in my constituency doing Q&As—report, report, report—but there is always a reticence from my constituents, who say that they feel like they are reporting all the time, then they never hear back from the police and they are not sure where the information goes. Also, when they are talking about antisocial behaviour, there is always a concern that it is going to come back on them and they will be identified as the people who are actively reporting these crimes. Can the Minister provide any advice for those constituents who feel anxious about consistently reporting and feel like they are being a burden or a nuisance?
Sarah Jones
They are very much not a burden or a nuisance; they are doing their civic duty, for which we are very grateful, and we encourage them to continue to do so. Reporting is absolutely key. I have had similar conversations to the ones that she and, I suspect, all of us have had, particularly when things have gone on for a very long time and people feel there is no point in reporting any more. We now have in each neighbourhood a named officer, who is your person, and you can contact that person. That will hopefully make it a bit easier for people to get in touch.
Crime can be reported online. We would not always want people to ring 999; there are lots of different ways to report crime. As we go on, there need to be better ways to do it. We need to have apps and technology that help people to do things simply when they are reporting, for example, repeat behaviour. Even though it is difficult, and I understand the case made by the hon. Lady in terms of people feeling nervous, the best result is for the people who are committing the crime to be stopped, and they will not be stopped unless the police are there to intervene.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the Minister and conscious of time. Does she agree that, when people are concerned about intimidation and identification, they can ring Crimestoppers anonymously and report in that way?
Sarah Jones
The hon. and gallant Member is absolutely right; people can, and I would encourage them to do that.
Respect orders are part of the legislation that we are bringing in. We do not have time to get into this because I want to let the hon. and gallant Member wind up at the end, but respect orders will have a place in terms of repeat antisocial behaviour offenders. We will introduce them in the Bill, pilot them and roll them out. It will be a tougher measure in terms of tackling antisocial behaviour more widely.
On the hon. and gallant Member’s point about whether we should expand the age group eligible for community protection notices, he said that it was a way of intervening without criminalising children, but he also said that, if they breach it, they are then criminalised. The question is: what is the most effective way to get people out of that kind of behaviour? Is it to criminalise them at that point, or is it to intervene in ways that might be more effective, as he said in other parts of his speech?
Of course there need to be consequences, and there is the issue of whether we should list this as a banned weapon. We looked in our meeting at the list of weapons that are banned, and there is a strange mix of slightly peculiar weapons that clearly have been an issue at some points in time. It is an interesting list for people to look at. That is one aspect, but as a Minister who has been in post for less than 100 days, I want to look at this issue more. There is clearly a problem, and we need to consider how we tackle it.
Thames Valley police were mentioned by name. I was with Thames Valley police recently, and they have massively reduced hare coursing through the use of really effective policing. They are using gators—these vehicles that zoom around the country—and drones to see where the hare coursing happens and get there, so I can reassure people that, when the police put their mind to it, they can do incredible things, despite the challenges. I am therefore optimistic that we can tackle this problem together.
Lincoln Jopp
I am very grateful to all the hon. Members who have attended this debate and the public officials who have recorded our deliberations. I heard from the Minister that there is broad consensus on the fact that there is a problem, and that early intervention is better than picking up the pieces. I have made my point about extending the age group eligible for community protection notices, and hope that, in the Minister’s wider considerations, she can give a second thought to that before the Crime and Policing Bill continues its progress through the House of Lords.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of catapults and anti-social behaviour.
Package Travel Regulations
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The current Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 set out a series of requirements for organisers of package holidays and linked travel arrangements. They also provide bespoke protections for travellers.
The Government recently consulted on targeted changes to the regulations. The aim was to optimise the regulations to support growth in the UK’s vibrant package holiday sector, while retaining the vital consumer protections they provide.
We were pleased to receive strong engagement across a rich variety of stakeholders. These included approved bodies, consumer groups, airlines, members of the leisure and hospitality sector, accommodation providers, lawyers and many more. Thank you to all those who took the time to respond and engage with us throughout the call for evidence, the consultation, and the many stakeholder engagement sessions.
Providers of package holidays are rightly proud of their industry and what they offer. From our own assessment and extensive industry and stakeholder engagement, it is clear that the confidence currently felt in the package travel sector is underpinned by the protections offered by the regulations. Knowing that, if things go wrong, they will be properly looked after by their tour operator is a strong driving factor as to why consumers continue to choose to book package holidays.
Having carefully considered responses, and following extensive engagement with stakeholders, the Government intend to bring forward legislation to make the following key changes to the regulations.
Linked travel arrangements
There are two key changes to LTAs:
absorbing LTA type A into the definition of a “package”: this would provide full package protections when consumers make a booking in circumstances similar to current type As, effectively extending consumer rights while simplifying business compliance; and
removing LTA type B entirely: the Government plan to eliminate type B arrangements (where a trader facilitates booking of a second service from another trader within 24 hours). These arrangements provide minimal consumer protection and are easily circumvented. Eliminating this category would support domestic sector growth, allowing small businesses like B&Bs to refer customers to local activity providers without triggering the regulations.
Regulation 29
The Government are also proposing to modify regulation 29, which deals with redress for third parties. The key changes include:
establishing a 14-day period for refund of cancelled services
clarifying that the regulations confer a statutory right to redress in specified circumstances , and not merely a right to seek redress.
These changes aim to help package travel organisers recover costs from suppliers more effectively, enhancing business resilience and ensuring the costs of consumer protection are distributed more equitably.
We will also consider how best to treat other issues that were highlighted in the consultation responses and that were not able to be addressed through legislation.
The Government will legislate to implement these reforms by June 2026 under the provisions of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023.
The consultation response is now live and can be accessed at: www.gov.uk.
[HCWS1120]
US Trade and Pharmaceuticals
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
Our trading relationship with the United States is one of the world’s most important. Trade with the US was worth £322 billion in 2024, representing 18% of total UK trade.
In May, we announced the general terms for the UK-US economic prosperity deal. Since then, we have secured the removal of tariffs on civil aerospace exports, and the lowest tariffs of 10% on cars and lumber, and we remain the only country in the world to benefit from a preferential 25% rate on steel, aluminium and derivative exports.
Today we are seeing that relationship strengthened further.
Through productive negotiations with the US, we have secured a zero per cent tariff on all pharmaceuticals exported to the US for three years. This will protect UK-based manufacturing and cement our place as a world leader for life sciences investment.
The agreement has also secured mitigations under the US’s “most favoured nation” drug pricing initiative, which will encourage pharmaceutical companies from around the world to continue to prioritise the UK for early launches of their new medicines, meaning British patients could be among the first globally to access breakthrough treatments. These changes will ensure that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is able to continue its world-leading approach to assessing drugs and treatments, and can keep pace with the commercial and economic environment in which pharmaceutical companies are operating today.
The deal will also secure preferential terms for the UK’s medical technology exports for three years, meaning no additional new tariffs on medical technologies in order to unlock further investments in the UK and a further boost to growth.
The UK is the only country with wide-reaching zero tariff commitments on pharmaceuticals. It is clear evidence of the value of the special relationship, and demonstrates that this Government are delivering on our promises in the industrial strategy and life sciences sector plan.
The UK’s life sciences sector is one of our most productive sectors. It not only saves lives but creates jobs, drives investment, and powers innovation across our economy. In 2024, UK exports of pharmaceutical products to the US were worth over £5 billion. The manufacture of pharmaceutical products contributed £25 billion to the UK economy in 2024. This deal will offer security and stability to this extremely valuable sector and will dramatically improve our standings on the global stage as a destination for life sciences investment.
This agreement was supported by the Government’s commitment to investing 25% more in new innovative medicines—the first major increase in over two decades—which will support improved access to new medicines for NHS patients. This deal will be funded by allocations made at the spending review, where frontline services will remain protected through the record funding secured.
This will be achieved through changes to the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold and to the NICE value set—meaning NICE will now be able to approve medicines that deliver significant health improvements but might previously not have been recommended on the basis of current cost-effectiveness thresholds. This could include breakthrough cancer treatments, therapies for rare diseases, and innovative approaches to conditions that have long been difficult to treat. Investing in medicines helps to keep people healthier for longer, reducing pressure on the health service over the longer term and ensuring we have an NHS that is fit for the future. Over time we will increase the spend on medicines in the NHS from around 10% of total spend to around 12%. This will ensure faster and more equitable access of innovative medicines across the country.
We have worked tirelessly alongside the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to secure an outcome in our negotiations with the US that reflects the strength of our relationship and delivers real benefits for UK industry and UK patients.
This deal is a huge boost for the UK as a top destination for pharmaceutical investment and growth. Furthermore, it will support our ambition—set out in the life sciences sector plan—for the UK to become Europe’s leading life sciences economy by 2030.
We are continuing intensive discussions on other sectors under section 232 investigation, and on the range of issues outlined in the general terms.
The economic prosperity deal will continue to deliver: saving thousands of jobs, protecting key British industries, and helping to drive economic growth for the UK.
[HCWS1121]
Gambling Levy
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling and DCMS Lords Minister, Baroness Twycross:
The statutory levy on gambling operators, which commenced in April 2025, represents a major transformation. The levy will provide, for the first time, independent and sustainable funding for gambling-related harms research, prevention and treatment.
Subject to final checks, this year the statutory levy has raised just under £120 million, which will be ringfenced solely for the use of tackling gambling-related harm. This will support our priority of making sure there is sufficient and sustainable funding in the system for projects and services and to fill the gaps that we know exist in the evidence base and provision of treatment and support. The funding will improve and expand services to new areas, to ensure more people can access the right help when they need it.
In line with the objectives of the statutory levy, funding will be directed in specific proportions for the purposes of research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm:
20% will go to UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) for the establishment of a bespoke research programme on gambling. The levy will provide a dedicated and sustainable injection of funding for independently-commissioned research to inform policy and practice. We expect the formal launch of the UKRI Gambling Harms Research Co-ordination Centre to take place in April 2026. A small portion of funding will also be allocated to the Gambling Commission to direct further research in line with its licensing objectives.
30% of funding will go to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Scottish and Welsh Governments to develop a comprehensive approach to the prevention of gambling-related harm across all three nations of Great Britain. In England, OHID will prioritise the development of an independent, public health approach that recognises the importance of the voluntary sector and local authorities in delivering effective prevention activity.
The remaining 50% of funding will go to NHS England and the Scottish and Welsh Governments to work with providers, including the third sector, to increase access to treatment and support for those experiencing gambling-related harm. This will ensure services are joined up and consistent so that no one is falling through the cracks.
All commissioners are working to establish their respective gambling harms programmes and structures. In England, it is expected that applications for voluntary sector organisations to access levy funding for prevention programmes will open in the new year, with grant funds being accessible from April 2026 in line with the conclusion of GambleAware commissioning. The approach for voluntary sector provision of treatment programmes will be confirmed shortly. It is a priority for all commissioners that those affected by gambling-related harm continue to have access to the help and support they need.
Governance arrangements have been put in place, which will look objectively at how the levy is working and hold commissioners to account. The Gambling Levy Programme Board has been established as the central mechanism for establishment and oversight of the levy to ensure that funding is being spent appropriately and efficiently, and that the system is delivering on its objectives.
The Gambling Levy Advisory Group, has now been renamed the Gambling Levy Delivery Group to reflect its focus on implementation and delivery. This brings together the research, prevention and treatment commissioners at a working level, alongside DCMS and Gambling Commission officials, to facilitate appropriate integration and collaboration between commissioning leads.
Funding decisions will be taken by the appropriate bodies, with scrutiny provided by relevant governance structures. We will also ensure that lived experience voices are informing levy programmes, with further details to be confirmed in due course. Through these governance arrangements, we will continue to review how much the levy is collecting and the distribution of the levy as the evidence base for this grows.
[HCWS1118]
Capacity Market: Prequalification 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I am tabling this statement to inform members of the publication of a consultation relating to the capacity market titled “Consultation on proposals to integrate low carbon technologies and enhance delivery assurance ahead of Prequalification 2026”.
The consultation supports our objectives of delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating progress towards net zero, while ensuring security of supply.
Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has acted to secure sufficient capacity to ensure consistent and reliable electricity generation in Great Britain. The funding provided through the capacity market scheme incentivises investment in new and existing generation, interconnectors, batteries, and consumer-led flexibility mechanisms to ensure sufficient capacity is available to meet future demand when required. This capacity is acquired through competitive annual auctions held at intervals four years ahead and one year ahead of their respective delivery years. The Government regularly amend the framework underpinning the capacity market before auction cycles to ensure it is cost-effective and meets broader strategic objectives such as clean power by 2030.
The consultation we are publishing today includes several proposals intended to maintain electricity security, keep the capacity market’s impact on bills as low as possible for consumers, strengthen delivery assurance of low-carbon technologies, and improve the overall functioning of the scheme.
We are seeking views on changes to the capacity market which would achieve the following aims:
Managing the transition for existing generating capacity market units from the CM to a contract for difference following a Secretary of State direction, without allowing support from both schemes to be received at the same time. This would ensure value for money for consumers and would allow existing capacity to continue participating in the scheme. The change recognises the strategic importance of these assets for the UK’s energy transition and to security of supply.
Capturing interactions between the long duration electricity storage cap and floor scheme and the CM by introducing appropriate eligibility criteria for these projects to support low-carbon technologies while avoiding market distortions. The LDES cap and floor provides revenue certainty to accelerate the deployment of storage critical for a secure, low-carbon grid in line with its expansion in the 2030s. By mirroring the successful interconnector model, the cap and floor scheme guarantees developers a minimum revenue while capping excessive returns to ensure value for consumers.
Strengthening the CM delivery assurance framework by proposing two approaches to making the termination framework in the CM more stringent: either raising all fees by 30% in line with inflation from 2016 to today, or by simplifying the regime to have one fee, set at £45,500/MW, to reflect inflationary changes to the current highest fee since 2016. Both approaches improve the regime by disincentivising capacity providers from seeking to end their agreements via termination. The second option has the additional benefit of reducing the ability of capacity providers to seek alternate termination events that carry a lower fee by artificially creating the circumstances for a termination, for example by using shell companies to trigger issues regarding ownership of assets of grid connections. We are also proposing to hold credit cover until a new build CMU has completed commissioning their CMU in order to further incentivise capacity providers to build their CMUs and fulfil their obligations. Credit cover will be increased to align with the new uprated termination fee levels.
Amending CM rules on the secondary trading market to increase clarity in the CM rules.
Introducing additional measures for multiple price capacity market eligibility to ensure eligible capacity provides genuinely new capacity and offers value for money. This includes a new requirement to meet a higher capital expenditure threshold in order to qualify for the second, higher price cap. In addition, eligible capacity will be required to provide evidence of a certificate of disconnection where new builds are located on a previously commissioned site. The delivery body will also have the ability to request additional evidence to ensure all projects, whether eligible for the MPCM or not, are meeting the necessary total project spend requirements.
The proposals put forward in the consultation seek to ensure the capacity market continues to meet its primary objective of ensuring security of supply, remains fit for purpose and continues to play a crucial role in achieving the clean power mission.
[HCWS1117]
Angiolini Inquiry: First Report, Part 2
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I will be updating the House about this report via an oral statement later today.
[HCWS1122]
Local Audit Build-back: Progress
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Since this Government came to power last year, we have worked tirelessly to fix the broken local audit system in England, so people can trust that their council tax is being spent well. To ensure continued progress and that the Government’s wider programme of systemic reform is set up for success, we must speed up the process of rebuilding assurance at local bodies.
Clearing the backlog
The local audit backstop programme, comprising a series of six statutory publication deadlines for audited accounts, has continued to deliver against its statutory milestones. While the reset has meant many disclaimed audit opinions, as the Government made clear that we would last July, it has cleared the local audit backlog and made significant progress on restoring the discipline needed for timely publication of both unaudited and audited accounts.
After two backstops, there has been a significant improvement in the publication of audit opinions. As of 31 August 2025, 99% of local bodies had received and published audit opinions for all years up to 2022-23, and 94% had published audit opinions for 2023-24. Updated non-compliance lists for the latest backstop has been published today.
There has also been an improvement in the prerequisite publication of draft unaudited accounts. By 16 January 2025, just under 95% of bodies had published unaudited accounts ahead of the second backstop on 28 February 2025. Ahead of the 27 February 2026 backstop, 98% of bodies had already published their 2024-25 draft accounts as of 5 November 2025.
The advances that local bodies and audit firms alike have made in complying with the backstop programme have put the system in a much more secure and stable position. In turn, this will better enable the rebuilding of assurance and the implementation of wider reforms.
Progress on rebuilding assurance
Given the large number of disclaimed opinions, the backstops were announced alongside a five-year programme for building back assurance, with an aspiration that local audit recovers as soon as possible within that period.
Due to the scale of the local audit backlog and the limited capacity of audit firms and local bodies, the process of rebuilding assurance at local bodies was always going to be highly challenging. The process is technically difficult, resource-intensive and time-consuming, and the fundamental challenges facing the local audit system set out in the Government’s 2024 strategy remain a significant barrier to progress for some bodies. Both auditors and local bodies continue to navigate disproportionately complex financial reporting and audit requirements.
Our ambition is for local audit to recover assurance as early as possible, and we will continue to work with local bodies and audit firms to achieve this aim. However, despite significant efforts by all parties involved, progress has been slower than anticipated. It is now clear that the more immediate aspiration for the majority of disclaimed opinions driven by backstop dates to be limited to the first two years of this period—up to and including the 2024-25 backstop date of 27 February 2026—will not be realised. This will mean many local bodies continuing to receive disclaimed opinions for 2025-26 and 2026-27.
Evidently, it remains in the public interest that disclaimed opinions are cleared as quickly as possible. Effective local audit ensures transparency and accountability for public money spent on vital services. I am committed to working with all those in the system to do everything in our power to get back on track and ensure that assurance is rebuilt within the five-year period.
Measures to help
Today, the Government have written to all audit firms and to all local bodies in the process of rebuilding assurance, underlining the need for everyone to work together to do everything possible to accelerate progress and encouraging them to prioritise resources accordingly. I have asked them to work together to provide information to my Department on progress at individual bodies, including where there seem to be systemic issues with capacity, governance or financial management preventing assurance from being rebuilt. I have also requested that audit firms escalate serious issues to local bodies promptly, ensuring that my Department is also aware, and to issue statutory recommendations or public interest reports where appropriate. This will enable the Department to undertake its responsibilities in relation to overall accountability and stewardship and provide additional support and guidance most effectively.
In order to ensure that recovery can be completed within the overall five-year timeline, my Department will continue to assist affected local bodies, with additional training and support events led by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy planned for next year. Rapid work is also under way to develop a new approach to audit quality oversight tailored specifically to audits focused on the rebuilding of assurance.
The Government are also considering what further measures may be necessary to support both auditors and local bodies in accelerating progress, in line with the Government’s ambition of the system clearing all backstop-related disclaimed opinions by the end of 2027-28.
Ongoing reforms
The challenges encountered serve to further underscore the vital importance of the Government’s wider reforms, for which there remains strong and widespread support. The private sector has committed to working with us to rebuild the system, and its confidence in the reforms is demonstrable. All audit firms with existing local audit contracts have agreed with Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd to extend their current contracts for a further two years, until the end of 2029-30.
Recognising the urgency of change, new secondary legislation is now in force to raise local audit regime thresholds. This will help to free up auditor capacity by enabling audit firms to work in a more proportionate way.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which contains key elements of our reform programme, is progressing through Parliament. The Bill includes measures to create the local audit office, which will provide vital oversight and streamline the system. The Government’s intention is for the local audit office to be established in autumn 2026. It will take responsibility for statutory functions in relation to regulatory oversight and standards from day one, subsequently increasing to its full range of duties as it builds capacity and staff transfer from existing organisations. The local audit office will take responsibility for the backstop programme and oversight of the process of rebuilding assurance at local bodies from April 2027. My Department has today published a transition plan, setting out detail on the timeline for implementing the new local audit system and how the transition will be managed.
Timeliness of assurance through audit is underpinned by the need for high-quality accounts and financial reports. As such, we are also working with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the devolved Governments to address underlying issues and prioritise solutions to simplify financial reporting.
We will restore the local audit system back to health and rebuild confidence in local finances.
[HCWS1119]
Criminal Court Reform
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
On 9 July 2025, part 1 of the independent review of criminal courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, was published. I am grateful to Sir Brian and the panel of expert advisers for their work.
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis—with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court. Some victims are waiting years for justice, which is why the Government asked Sir Brian to make recommendations for how to restore confidence in the system.
The first part of Sir Brian’s review sets down a blueprint for bold, structural reform in our criminal courts. In accepting that blueprint, the Government intend to rebuild the system through investment, structural reform and modernisation.
In addition to the significant investment this Government have announced already in our court estate and criminal solicitors, I am committed to investing up to £34 million more a year for criminal defence advocate legal aid fees to recognise the crucial work that our legal professionals do in delivering for our justice system. This is subject to consultation. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation that the Government match-fund a number of criminal barrister pupillages, with a particular focus on opening a career at the criminal Bar to even more young people from across society.
I will agree sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. This year, I allocated a record 111,250 days to the Crown court, and I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise, and that our ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.
Today, I am confirming that the Government agree with Sir Brian’s blueprint for structural reform and intend to legislate for the following measures:
Magistrates’ courts sentencing powers will increase to 18 months, with provision to extend to 24 months if necessary to relieve pressure in the Crown court.
The right of defendants to elect for a jury trial will be removed, meaning that it will be for the court to determine where a case will be heard, based on the severity of offences.
The appeals process from magistrates’ courts will be reformed so that automatic appeals to the Crown court in criminal cases are replaced with a permission stage, limited to points of law.
A new bench division will be established in the Crown court for triable-either-way cases with likely sentences of three years or less, heard by a judge alone.
Jury trials will remain for indictable-only offences and cases with likely sentences over three years.
A small number of serious but particularly technical and lengthy fraud and financial cases may be heard by judge alone in the Crown court, subject to certain requirements and at the discretion of the court.
The threshold for criminal damage to be tried summarily will be updated from £5,000 to £10,000, in line with inflation.
These reforms are grounded in the rule of law, equality before the law, and the right to a fair trial.
Sir Brian’s second report will set out a further blueprint for modernisation in the criminal courts, focused on efficiency improvements and the better use of technology, and I am grateful to the judiciary for their ongoing support for this work.
In addition to structural court reform, the Government will continue to consider the review’s broader recommendations, including those focused on efficiency, in the second part of the review, once published. We continue to explore options to stop cases coming to court in the first place, through smarter and wider use of diversion. We will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.
The Government recognise that the structural reforms will take time to implement and are committed to supporting victims during this period. We have committed multi-year funding for victim support services, and commit to investing £550 million over the next three years.
The Ministry of Justice will continue to work with the judiciary and stakeholders and will bring forward legislation for Parliament’s consideration in due course.
[HCWS1123]
Retirement of a Member: Baroness Stern
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 2 December, of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her much-valued service to the House.
Subscription Contracts: Right to Cancel
Lord Moynihan
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in making regulations under section 267 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, what plans they have to account for concerns raised by cultural and heritage organisations regarding the right of consumers to cancel subscription contracts.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have consulted on how the new subscription rules will work under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act—this includes what happens when a consumer uses their cooling-off right to cancel—and are carefully reviewing responses from cultural and heritage organisations. My officials have engaged directly with sector representatives and will continue to do so to ensure that the final regulations reflect their concerns and support both consumer protection and organisational sustainability.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I have had a number of exchanges with the Minister, for which I am very grateful. In considering next steps, will he take into account the worries expressed by charities, and arts and heritage organisations, about the inevitable decimation of their fundraising efforts? Would he agree that introducing the cooling-off period set out in the recently enacted DMCCA immediately on signing up would allow thousands of people to join, say, art galleries, take advantage of the membership benefits of reduced admission fees to exhibitions over, say, a weekend’s holiday in London, and then legally cancel their memberships under the cooling-off period set out in the new Act, which will cripple membership schemes as a fundraising model that are currently worth hundreds of millions of pounds to charities across the UK every year? Will the Government accelerate their consideration to exempt our charities, museums, galleries and national heritage homes, just as they have exempted gambling contracts and society lotteries under Schedule 22 in order to protect their fundraising efforts?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that, under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, consumers already have a cooling-off period for distance contracts, so this is not new for the sector. The digital content waiver is long established, and most charitable memberships are service contracts, not digital content. We consulted on extending the waiver, as that would reduce consumer rights. Having said that, gambling is excluded due to the existing specialist regulations. We recognise the concerns raised by charities and heritage organisations about potential misuse and will continue to work closely with charities as we finalise the secondary legislation.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Section 267 gives the Government the clear ability to use the regulation-making powers to recognise the specific circumstances of particular services, such as streaming, charitable memberships and, of course, the news media. Do the Government intend to make distinctions between those sectors? If so, will the Government make sure that streaming services, the charitable sector and, indeed, the news media are protected from early termination?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. Let us look at the policy. We are talking about unwanted subscriptions, which account for some £1.6 billion a year. This Act will save consumers some £14 a month, which is about £147 million a year. As it stands, charities have to comply with consumer law irrespective of charitable status. Companies, especially digital service organisations, have the legislation that is currently in place, so that will stay as it is. The cooling-off period under the new Act is just an extension from distance contracts to in person.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, how do the Government account for the concerns of privately owned heritage? The majority of members of Historic Houses, for example, are neither charities nor large heritage organisations, yet they are wholly dependent on subscriptions and membership for the preservation of our nationally significant heritage. I note my interest as a member of Historic Houses.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for that. As far as heritage organisations are concerned, it is up to the individual organisation how its business model is structured. If it is a subscription model for contracts or services then it falls in scope of this legislation and the cooling-off period will apply.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend in his Question and welcome the tone of the Minister’s thoughtful reply. As a proud member of the British Museum scheme, I think there is a loophole and an unintended consequence of the good intention of the Act, which needs support. I assure the Minister that he will have widespread support in this House if he can find a way through this problem.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. This is precisely why the Government are taking their time. We have consulted widely—the consultation finished at the end of February—and we are analysing the responses. There are various complexities. It also impacts on HMRC, as far as gift aid is concerned. We must ensure that we get this absolutely right, and we will make a decision in due course.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, while we are on this subject, is it not the case that our regulators and our consumer rights are letting Britain down, and that we are in what we call rip-off Britain? Do we not need to look at regulation and consumer rights as a whole and come forward with a package to address the problems?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. As it stands, all consumers are protected under the consumer contracts regulations, which basically allow consumers to have that cooling-off period if they subscribe to a service online. The Act extends that to subscription in person so that consumers will be protected under this legislation.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery. This issue is particularly important as last week’s Red Book shows that the DCMS’s budget is going to fall in the latter part of this decade. This means that public institutions will be under greater financial pressure. The last thing they need, therefore, is an issue of this kind. I offer my support to my noble friend and urge the Minister to do everything he can to get rid of this anomaly.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. It is precisely what we are doing. We are taking our time to consider the consultation and we are analysing the responses. We must get this right. As I said, charities have to comply with current consumer protection regulations. As it stands, most charities, perhaps because they do not understand the implications of the Act, have been claiming gift aid, even though their membership may be for a provision of services. We need to ensure that HMRC and the DCMS work through the technicalities so that we are not caught in the loophole that the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is the Minister actually asking for reluctant subscribers to stay with a service just because it is a charity? I find that really difficult to understand. We have to think of that person who goes in, looks at something, says, “I don’t really want to be a part of this”, and chooses to leave. They should have a right to do that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
Every consumer has a right to do that under current consumer protections. They have a cooling-off period of 14 days to cancel that subscription if it is a distance subscription. Under the new Act, if the subscription is taken up or renewed in person, the cooling-off period is extended to 14 days, so consumers will have the right to cancel or stay within the subscription.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the problem has been well set out by my noble friend Lord Moynihan and repeated admirably by the Minister. It is a problem that was identified when this Act was going through your Lordships’ House. At the time, my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel committed to closing this loophole through secondary legislation. Of course, the election interceded, but that is now a year and a half ago. As we have heard, this is a pressing issue for organisations that are beset by cuts to the DCMS budget, the rising impact of national insurance contributions and much more. Will the Minister commit to working urgently to make sure that this loophole is not open in a way that will affect so many arts, cultural and heritage organisations that are loved across the country?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. I assure him that my officials and I are working to ensure that we get this right. The new subscription regime will ensure that in particular situations, including after the contract automatically renews on to a 12-month term, consumers have a 14-day window in which to cancel. Should any changes be needed in secondary legislation that we publish, they will not commence until autumn 2026, so there is plenty of time for charities and heritage organisations to put their houses in order before this regime kicks in.
Lord Lansley (Con)
May I offer the Minister an opportunity to be popular by moving the regulations on online subscriptions further, so that all those who are subject to automatic renewals do not have to click more than twice in order to end a subscription that they do not want to retain?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that kind suggestion. I am sure my officials, who are sitting in the Box, have heard it.
Public Services: Online Communications
Lord Cashman
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that adults with learning and communication difficulties are not left isolated or disconnected because of increasing reliance on online communications for access to public services, particularly within the NHS.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, digital inclusion is a priority for this Government, which is why we launched the Digital Inclusion Action Plan. It sets out immediate steps to boost inclusion for everyone, including people with disabilities. In the NHS, we recognise that some patients may struggle or prefer not to use digital routes. That is why GP practices are required to maintain traditional methods of access, while digital health services are being designed to be inclusive, accessible and easy to navigate.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply, but the reality, I am afraid, is very different. The negative effects on vulnerable people and people with learning difficulties accessing services online is deeply problematic. Many do not have access to the internet. Some cannot read or write. Others simply do not have capacity to deal with online programmes and apps. Many are isolated, in poor health and desperately in need of support, yet cannot get it because of these online obstacles. Will the Government improve online access for these people and others, and make it easily and widely available? Will they adopt more voice messaging and voice prompts, as well as simple-to-use spoken menu options and, indeed, dare I say, the option to speak to a human being? These issues of online access must be addressed if we are to tackle the hopelessness that is growing around access to public services, and particularly access to services within the NHS.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. We recognise that not everyone can manage complex digital systems—we acknowledge that—and that some vulnerable people risk becoming cut off as services change. Departments across government are reviewing digital pathways to make them simpler, clearer and supported by voice prompts, as the noble Lord mentioned, and voice-activated tools. We are also expanding easy-to-navigate menus and keeping the option to speak to trained staff. We aim to give people the support they need and to keep every route open, not closed.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, as chair of the Digital Inclusion Action Committee, I wonder whether I can intervene. I have just spent the last hour talking with two sub-committee chairs, the Minister may want to know, precisely about easier accessibility but also about a recent report about people with learning difficulties. We want to make sure that we start with where the person is and what their service needs are. My goodness, I wish that was how public services had been organised before digital ever came in. We are determined to give the Government options, first on accessibility, to make that much more straightforward, but also to make sure that departments support carers as well as individuals in particular groups so that they are able to get the best from whatever service they need in whatever service is going to suit them as individuals most effectively.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for all her work on the Digital Inclusion Action Committee. She is absolutely right. She is bringing all the leaders from government, industry and the voluntary sector to shape our national response to digital inclusion. Her committee is currently setting out its priorities and gathering insights from across the UK to inform recommendations to the Government. The Government have set up the inclusion action plan with a focus on practical actions—I emphasise practical actions—that make a difference to people’s lives.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, of the 11 million people who do not have the essential digital skills for life, more than half are disabled people, and the barriers created by digital approaches everywhere increase the barriers that disabled people face. What steps do the Government take specifically to ensure that the NHS app is accessible to people who have learning and communication difficulties and to ensure that NHS services are still available to those who cannot use digital means of communication?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. As I mentioned earlier, we are not closing off any of the options available, whether that is the voice-activated system or speaking to a human being. The option is still there. We know that millions of people in the UK are still unable to take part in this increasingly digital society and we recognise that digital exclusion falls hardest on disabled people. That is why this Government are committed to improving digital inclusion for everybody. In August, we launched a £9.5 million digital inclusion innovation fund, which supports community projects across the country and helps people build the skills and confidence they need to get online.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, can I pick up on the comment at the end of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, in relation to speaking to people voice to voice? Blind spots exist in the web and the web crashes on many occasions, so it is not just those unfortunate people who are disabled or do not have links who lose contact with vital services; on many occasions, it can be far broader, and every service should have access to a human talking to a human.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, absolutely: digital progress must never mean less choice. The NHS continues to provide face-to-face routes, telephone access and supported appointments for those who need them. We are investing in accessible contact centres, clearer phone menus and trained staff who can guide patients through the next steps. At the same time, we are improving simpler digital options for those who want them. In line with the action plan, we are keeping non-digital routes open and strengthening assisted support.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Minister needs a reality check. For many people, moving to digital is not acceptable. The NHS 10-year plan moves from analogue to digital, with more services moving to the NHS app. For people with a learning disability, issues regarding poor communication come to light at present only at inquests, not through central government monitoring. What new central monitoring will the Government introduce to make sure that existing communication meets vulnerable people’s needs, rather than moving to digital, which will cause further problems?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. That is why I mentioned earlier that my noble friend Lady Armstrong is working right across government departments to bring everybody together, look at what is available and ensure that nobody is excluded from digital services. As I said, the current situation where someone can speak to a human being is still there, and it will be there. Voice-activated menus will also still exist.
Lord Markham (Con)
I am a big believer in the use of AI and digital communications to improve public services for everyone, in the NHS and elsewhere. At the same time, I am aware that groups with learning difficulties are in danger of being left behind. But the way to square the circle is to make sure that they are involved every step of the way in the design of services, whether analogue or digital, and to use things such as AI to have voice-activated conversations. The Netherlands ministry of health is probably the number one player in involving people with learning difficulties every step of the way. Can we make sure that we do the same with our services?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. It is not only in the Netherlands but in other countries in Europe—for example, Estonia as well. Let us not forget that the UK Government are committed to ensuring that our adoption of AI across the public sector is ethical, safe and responsible. The Government Digital Service suite of responsible data and AI tools, such as the data and AI ethics framework, helps teams across government to build and display AI in the right way. Our ambition is really for AI to benefit working people directly by improving their health, care and education, as well as how citizens interact with the Government, while opening up new opportunities, as the noble Lord mentioned, rather than just threatening our traditional patterns of work.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, the passion displayed in this House for digital inclusion is extraordinarily commendable, but these difficulties are compounded in rural areas by very poor connectivity. Many areas endure significant restrictions in broadband and mobile connectivity, which compounds the problems. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that good connectivity is rolled out across the whole country?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. Poor connectivity must not limit access to healthcare. The Government’s rollout of improved broadband and mobile coverage is continuing, with priority given to rural communities. In parallel, the NHS provides telephone access, face-to-face appointments and paper-based communications for those who need them. We are increasing support through community venues such as libraries and outreach centres. No patient should miss care because the digital signal is unreliable or not there.
British Embassy in Damascus
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to re-open the British Embassy in Damascus.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we are regular visitors to Damascus through the special representative for Syria and recent visits from the Minister for the Middle East and the former Foreign Secretary. We continue to engage with the new Syrian Government and have committed to supporting them in delivering a more stable, free and prosperous future for the Syrian people. We are exploring options for a more permanent presence in Damascus and how we can engage further.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that response, and I note the positive tone. She will be aware the President Trump has already met twice with President al-Sharaa, most recently at the White House last month. She will also know that Germany, Italy and Spain are among 12 European countries that have already re-established diplomatic relations, but that none of the permanent members of the UN Security Council has done so. May I suggest it would be a way of further enhancing the Prime Minister’s reputation on the international stage if he were to do so on behalf of his Government, and to encourage the other permanent members to do so also?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I take my noble friend’s question as a note of encouragement to the Government to accelerate progress towards establishing a presence in Damascus and to go further than we already have in the relationship we are building with the new Government in Syria. I also thank him for his kind comments about the Prime Minister’s standing on the world stage; I think he is right.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
While thanking the Minister for her helpful reply, may I ask her to consider maintaining the very strong embassy we have in Lebanon? At the moment, you go to Damascus, as I have done recently, through Lebanon. We have a magnificent Foreign Office team there, many of whom also served in Baghdad. This embassy is a very strong hub for all our Middle East work. Would the Minister consider continuing to strengthen that, despite the supposed weakness of FCDO funding, which we would all regret?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Baroness said, we have an incredibly strong team in Lebanon, and it is important that that continues. The points she makes about the need for a regional approach, the instability we want to avoid and the importance of our presence across the region are well made; I take those and agree with her.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister explain how UK spending in Syria is helping to build stability and tackle humanitarian crises? What steps are required to reopen the embassy, given that Syria has reopened its embassy in London? Can she also explain how the Government can maintain support for Syria, Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, and still maintain significant engagement with sub-Saharan Africa?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There was a lot in that question. On the humanitarian question, we do not work directly on humanitarian issues through the Government in Syria, for reasons I think noble Lords will understand, but through NGOs and the United Nations. At the moment, that is the right approach to take. We look forward to a time when we can have a more normalised presence in Damascus and all the things you would normally associate with the government-to-government and diplomatic relations we seek.
On how we can spend the same in Syria while protecting Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza—and of course the Overseas Territories—the truth is that we cannot. But in a modern development partnership, the test of your effectiveness and impact is not the pound sign next to your ODA budget; it is the quality of your relationships, your diplomatic presence, your defence and security relationships, and your political links. All these things matter hugely. The volume of spend we are able to mobilise through the multilateral system, not least the World Bank and other multilateral development banks, far exceeds anything we could ever have put forward as a bilateral ODA programme.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the US reopened the ambassador’s residence in Damascus some seven months ago. The UK Government, as the noble Baroness has said, are taking a somewhat more circumspect approach. Can she outline the reasons for that? Is it based on legal advice? For what reasons are Ministers hesitant to proceed?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is not based on legal advice as far as I am aware; I think it is just about making sure we do things in successful and sustainable way. It shows the reason why we are so reluctant to withdraw from a city or a country; once you have withdrawn and no longer have an embassy, it is very difficult and always takes time to re-establish that presence.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
UNHCR maintains that there are 16 million Syrians in Syria in need of humanitarian assistance. UK charities are seeking to help. Does the Minister agree that it would help them if we reopened the embassy in Damascus?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think everybody agrees that it would be a positive step, but we do have a special representative in Syria, Ann Snow. As I say, we continue because, as the noble Lord says, there is still huge humanitarian need in Syria. I was in Jordan recently, speaking to Syrian refugees who would like to return home, but they want to feel that they would be safe and secure, that education would be available for their children and that healthcare would be available. In too many parts of Syria, that is still not the situation, so there is a huge amount of work to do and we continue to play our full part in rebuilding Syria.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Mr Lords, are the Government concerned about the seeming resurgence of ISIL, and what is actually being done about that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are, of course, and we take our counterterrorism work in Syria and elsewhere incredibly seriously. One of the best things we can do for Syria and the wider region is to do everything we can to make sure that Syria has a stable Government with inclusive politics, and that the improvements we are seeing continue. This is the best chance we have had for Syria in a very long time, and we need to work collaboratively with our partners and allies on the threats the noble Lord refers to, as he would expect. But vital to this is maintaining a secure and stable Government in Syria.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in the context of the rise of ISIS again in Somalia and jihadism throughout the region, will the noble Baroness say something about the position of minorities in Syria, who have suffered genocide in the past? Recent attacks on Alawites and Druze in particular should give cause for concern. Will she make it a priority of our diplomatic presence in Damascus that we champion the position of the minorities, guaranteeing the real long-term stability of that country?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a very important point. We were deeply concerned, as I know Members were across this House, about some of the events we saw last summer, particularly the targeting of the Alawite and Druze communities, as the noble Lord says. We are very clear with the Government in Syria about our commitment to freedom of religion or belief, and that we expect the new Government to be inclusive and representative and to take actions we would all expect them to take when we see breaches and when things occur that need to be responded to. The Government need to take a leading role in making sure that this sort of violence and victimisation is not allowed to persist in Syria.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the millions of Syrians who are refugees in other countries, and we know that a significant number of them have attempted to get to this country by one means or another. Given His Majesty’s Government’s current policy on immigrants, legal and irregular, does that not give them a real incentive to invest in making Syria not only a more stable country but one with greater respect for human rights—particularly rights for women—and social stability?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very proud of the role this country played in hosting many Syrians at a time of desperate need during the Assad regime. Many Syrians came here, set up businesses and made lives for themselves. It is true that many wish to return now because they want to be part of the rebuilding of their country, and they are proud of what they hope will be its future. That is not the sole reason; there are many reasons why we want to play our part in supporting security, stability and prosperity for Syria, which is why we lifted sanctions very early on after the fall of Assad. But, as the noble Lord says, it is good if people who wish to return home are able to do so safely and in a way that enables them to rebuild their lives properly.
Carer’s Allowance: Overpayments
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what the timeframe is for reassessing overpayments of Carer’s Allowance in line with the recommendations of the Independent Review of Carer’s Allowance Overpayments.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I acknowledge the Government’s positive response to the recommendations in the independent review.
The Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government accept that between 2015 and summer 2025, the guidance on whether and how to average earnings in carer’s allowance did not accurately reflect the statutory position. We will therefore be reassessing earnings-related overpayment cases that occurred between 2015 and September 2025. Where it is found that overpayments were lower than originally calculated, carers will have their debts reduced or cancelled entirely, with the Government refunding any money already paid. We will set out plans for doing this in early 2026.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that response and for her patience at my persistence. After the problems for carers were ignored for so long by the previous Administration, and after systems did not respond to the clear evidence about the distress caused, carers naturally have a high level of mistrust about how their benefits are administered. Does my noble friend agree that rebuilding that trust must be a priority and that any changes must be completely transparent, with carers consulted and informed at every step of the way?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question and for her work. I pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across this country; the Government greatly value them and the work they do. Carers are also fortunate to have some excellent advocates, including many Members of this House—and I think we would probably all acknowledge that supreme among them is my noble friend, whose work in this area has for so very long been recognised by us all.
Carer’s allowance provides support to around 1 million people and, for most of those who receive it, the experience is positive and the rules are clear. But my noble friend is right that, when we came into government, it became clear that there were far too many cases where working carers had been left with large overpayments to be repaid. That is why we commissioned an independent review of earnings-related overpayments. We are very grateful to Liz Sayce for her recommendations, but also to her advisory panel and especially to the unpaid carers who shared their experiences to make that right. We have accepted or partially accepted 38 of the 40 recommendations in the report, we have begun working on many of them already, and we will set out the details in the new year. We will be very clear and transparent: many of the recommendations regard reviewing how we write to people, how we make things clear and how transparent we are. Above all, when the Government make mistakes, they should acknowledge them and put them right, and that is what we are doing.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
When we discussed this matter a few days ago, I raised with the Minister the issue of the so-called cliff edge, whereby if you earn 1p over the earnings limit you lose the whole allowance. The Minister replied with characteristic sympathy, but she said that modernising the system would take “some years”. The independent review referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, takes a totally different view. It says that addressing the impact of a cliff edge is urgent, and asks the department to be
“creative in its thinking about options for short term changes to remove or reduce this impact more quickly”.
Does the Minister accept that recommendation?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, what I said last time we discussed this is absolutely the Government’s position. For the reasons I explained then—I will not go back into them again—carer’s allowance is traditionally not a classic means-tested benefit, so we want to find ways to tackle this. It will take time, because everything about the system has been built in ways that were designed around a simple, non-means-tested benefit. However, we have already done significant things to make a difference; one of the most important of those was to raise the level at which people could earn by the largest cash amount since the benefit was created. This means that if you earn less than 16 hours a week at the national living wage, there is no problem at all. We have also gone through to make sure that most of the ways in which people have fallen foul of the system can be corrected. For example, we have taken action on guidance and communications, and we are now checking automatically all the data that comes in directly from HMRC. We are doing all the things that can be done in the short term.
Much as I do not want to say this, the noble Lord will have to be patient. To be able to remove a cliff edge, the first requirement is to automate earnings coming from HMRC, which cannot be done overnight. We have already begun the work and we are looking for all possible workarounds in the short term. This problem has been around for a long time and no one paid any attention. We spotted it, we are taking action and we will sort it.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. The Sayce review identified the problem. I am reminded, sadly, of Lewis Carroll’s “jam tomorrow”, a promised reward that is often postponed. I am not really encouraged by the point that it will be dealt with in 2026. I ask the Minister to be more definite and give us a date in 2026 when this will happen, so that it is not, in Lewis Carroll’s words, “jam tomorrow”.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, if I could give the noble Lord a precise date on which all the computer systems and all the systems will have changed, I would be glad to do it. Let me put this in context: we estimate that about 15% of people who get a carer’s allowance payment are also in paid work and 90% of people who reported earnings did so without difficulty, so we are talking about a very important but specific subset of people, most of whom had fluctuating earnings, which this is designed to address. The biggest challenge in the short term is to make sure that we have clear guidance, we communicate with people, they know what to tell us and we are able to manage that. There is a big prize at the end as we modernise all DWP systems to get this right. A lot of the improvements will be made by really old-fashioned analogue systems—by making sure that we have the right information, communicate well with carers and make it as easy as possible to get the information. Those recommendations may not be exciting, but they actually make a lot of difference.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, given that some 185,000 unpaid carers will now have their carer’s allowance overpayments reviewed following the independent report, will the Minister set out how these carers will be notified of the reassessment process and what steps the Government will take to ensure that communications are clear, timely and accessible?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her important question. Our data suggests that there are around 212,000 overpayment cases in the relevant period, between 2015 and September 2025. We will set out the details in the new year, but we plan to review every case to understand where mistakes were made. Cases that were affected specifically by our unclear guidance will have their overpayment reassessed. If the review confirms that the money was not due, we will make an appropriate refund or reduction. I should say that if it were to result in a higher overpayment, we will not ask anyone for additional money—I just want to reassure anyone who is listening. If the review confirms that the person still owes money, we will give the usual support to make sure that it can be repaid appropriately, because it is not to do with this question.
I want to reassure those who are listening that nobody needs to get in touch with DWP at the moment. Our intention is to work through the cases. We have data for most of these cases and we will contact people proactively. We will set out in the new year how that process will work and what we will do in any remaining cases, but no one needs to get in touch. Please do not phone us at the moment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the independent review and the Government’s response, but what will happen to those carers who have already been convicted of benefit fraud as a result of the mistakes that have been made? Why did the Government decide not to offer compensation to those who have already been so badly affected and whose lives have, frankly, been made a nightmare by the mistakes?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I said that we will set out in the new year the details of how the reassessment is going to work. We will be working our way through all the cases. I do not know how many, if any, of the cases resulted in prosecution. We will work through what will happen in cases where people, for example, either had overpayments or may have had a civil penalty or even possibly another form of administrative penalty. On compensation, it is not unusual for there to be reassessment exercises when guidance or other systems are found to be wrong, and DWP does not routinely make special payments under those circumstances. The noble Baroness may not welcome it, but I am very grateful that carers’ organisations have really welcomed the fact that we have taken the trouble to work out through an independent review precisely what went wrong and are putting it right. I am delighted that we are able to do it, and I look forward to our being able to right those wrongs.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I hope I am right in thinking that the whole House is in support of what the Minister is trying to achieve, so well done. Can she extend this just a little further and help carers feel that they are recognised and listened to? Some of the points that I receive are of course about the financial arrangements, but more than that, many carers continue to feel aggrieved that their work and their worth are not recognised and valued.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who makes a really important point. One of the good things about the Sayce review is that it involved carers directly and listened to them, and by listening to them was able to get to the bottom of what had gone wrong. My colleague Minister Timms, who is the Minister in charge of this, has carefully gone out to meet carers and is going to do so again. I know that he will want to hear not just what went wrong here but how people’s lives are impacted by the care that they give. How do the Government make their lives easier or harder, and how can we learn from that?
Finally, since the noble Lord prompts me to do the right thing always, I say once again that the whole House will want to join me in thanking carers for the service they give to those they love. Many in this House will have experience of either giving or receiving care, possibly both. It is an act of love and it is the Government’s job to support it and not get in the way, and we pledge to try to do that.
NHS Industrial Action
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effects of upcoming industrial action in the NHS.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, strikes are disruptive and costly. The strikes in July cost around £240 million. Thanks to the heroic efforts of other NHS staff during the recent November strikes, the NHS was able to maintain 95% of planned care, while still maintaining critical services. I urge the BMA to reconsider its plans for more damaging strikes before Christmas, and to work with the Government to improve the working lives of resident doctors and to rebuild the NHS in partnership.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and also pay tribute to those hard-working doctors who kept going, despite the feeling for industrial action by many in the BMA. The timing of the BMA’s announcement is surely no coincidence. Is it not the case that last week’s Budget, which displayed the Chancellor’s readiness to increase the burden on taxpayers in order to fund public spending, will have sent a clear signal to the BMA that there is scope for it to squeeze even more money out of the Treasury than it did last year, with the 29% pay rise that was awarded? Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm the Government’s position? Do they agree that a further massive pay rise for resident doctors at this time is completely unaffordable?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Quite frankly, I do not think any Secretary of State could have been clearer in his repeated words that he cannot increase the pay of resident doctors. They have received an average pay rise of 28.9% compared with three years ago: the highest settlement in the public sector. His door is open to discuss conditions, deal with the bureaucracy that they face and improve the conditions for resident doctors. The Secretary of State could not have been any stronger than he has been about his intentions on this.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, in light of that, have the Government learned the lesson that giving resident doctors a nearly 30% increase in future, when pay increases come, should be linked to reform, not just a blank cheque?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The reform plan for change has been very clear from the outset of this Government. There has been a clear recognition that things need to change, which has driven the efforts to do everything possible to improve conditions both for the workforce and for those in receipt of care. It has not been good enough; we have a huge job to do to improve the NHS, to make it fit for purpose and to continue to deliver excellent care for people up and down the country.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, the fundamental issue here is that many previously professional organisations now seem intent on acting not as trade unions but as parodies of the trade unions of the 1950s. Underlying that are the appallingly low turnouts in the election for executives; they are normally in single figures. What are the Ministers in this department, and others, doing to try to win the battle for hearts and minds, to increase turnout to get more representative leadership?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I agree that it is essential that we move forward to modernise industrial relations, which is exactly what this Government are doing. We know that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay, but we have to move to a situation where there is more communication, negotiation and space for collaboration in order to deliver our objectives and take people with us.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, during the doctors’ strike in 2023, I was left to die, with untreated gallstones and sepsis, in an NHS hospital. The only thing they offered me during that time was, “Do not resuscitate”. I am here today only because my friends and family managed to get me transferred to a private hospital for emergency surgery, just in time. I thank all of them for everything they did. But I know that, sadly, many others would not be able to do that, so when will enough be enough and what will the Government do to ensure that doctors fulfil their duty to patients? They exist only to do that and to serve.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am very sorry to hear of the noble Baroness’s unfortunate experience and pleased to see her back on the Benches, fighting her corner. This is absolutely the backbone of what this Government intend to do. We knew when we came into government that standards had slipped. The pressures on medical staff have been enormous and it is our job to transform the service. That is what we have put in place.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the excellent question from the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, but I was astounded by the Minister’s answer. I think I heard correctly that she talked about modernising the trade union regime. In the Employment Rights Bill, the Government are going to make it easier—less difficult—for trade unions to call strikes on a lower turnout. That is going to make the situation worse, not better.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
We beg to differ completely with the noble Lord. We believe our Employment Rights Bill is the way forward. It will improve industrial relations and make sure that we have workplaces that are fit for purpose as we move forward through this century.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend tell us what proportion of resident doctors are taking action and what are the consequences for individuals when they do? You hear stories of individuals deciding to take a long weekend and in practice it is leave rather than anything else.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I have the figures in front of me. The data we have received reported an average of 17,200 resident doctors absent from work in each of the November rounds, which is slightly higher than the 16,200 average during the last set of strikes in July. Resident doctors make up about 50% of the workforce of around 150,000 NHS doctors in England. I think that gives a pretty clear sense. Of course, our sympathies go to all the other doctors, medical staff and other staff in hospitals who performed so admirably during those strikes. We will continue to support them and make sure that they can deliver for the patients in their care.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave an interesting report, repeated here, and we had a 40-minute debate. The Chancellor had four objectives, one of which was to reduce waiting lists, not to increase anybody’s pay. Doctors going on strike will increase waiting lists. What will the Government do, knowing that the Chancellor cannot, under her fiscal rules, spend unbudgeted expenditure? Who will persuade the doctors that theirs is a lost cause?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble and right reverend Lord is right that communication and talking are critical. That is why the Secretary of State has repeatedly made it clear that the door is open to have those conversations, recognising the challenges that doctors have faced, whether that is bottlenecks in training or money being taken out by compulsory payments for joining the Royal College of Physicians, and all those things. As we have heard, our absolute priority is to reduce waiting lists, putting the patient at the centre of the NHS. That is the mission we are on, and we are determined to deliver it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
As the Minister will be aware, pay is only one part of what I understand the resident doctors are looking for. As I understand it, they are actually quite senior doctors—registrars, one step below consultants—often in their late 20s or early 30s, looking to form relationships, start families and put down roots. Yet they are given security of tenure of only something like six to 10 months in each posting. That is not acceptable to give them a sense of permanency and value. The Government need to look at this as a matter of urgency. Will they?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness and I have discussed this in another forum in this House. It is critical that we work with those doctors to find out what their priorities are and how we can work with them to give them more security and to make sure that the training posts are available. I am pleased to say that consultation is on offer around all these points. We have to move forward; the door is open, and we want to discuss how we can make improvements to the contracts.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, obviously, it goes without saying that the industrial action just before Christmas is completely unacceptable, but I would be remiss not to observe that at the time that the 28.9% pay award was made, the Health Secretary attributed problems of industrial relations with resident doctors to the former Government, rather than recognising that it is an ongoing problem. That is a matter of record. I ask the Minister: what estimate is the department making of the impact on other aspects of the NHS, particularly elective operations and primary care, of this completely unreasonable and uncalled-for industrial action?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
As I said earlier, we have done some analysis of the strikes that took place in July, and we are working on the data for November. Obviously, we will take the learning from that through to how we deal with the strikes. I repeat that everyone in the health service has stepped up to the plate to make sure that the impact on patients is as low as possible. We will not shy away from the fact that we think strikes in the week running up to Christmas are completely unacceptable, and I am pleased to say that we have the leadership in the Department of Health from the Secretary of State, who has made his views on this exceptionally plain.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that under the last Government, the health service was wrecked, and doctors’ salaries were controlled to such a level that they fell behind previous years? We have made a substantial increase in pay; should that not mean that doctors think we are committed to the NHS and that they should help us to deliver our aims and objectives?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My noble friend puts his finger right on it. The facts speak for themselves, and I make no apology for repeating that resident doctors have had the highest pay award of the entire public sector this year: an average of 28.9% compared with three years ago. That is an enormous commitment. It is a recognition of the work they have done and of the fact that their situation had slipped behind. We call upon them now to get round the table and work it out, recognising that there is not more pay on the table at the moment but that there are other ways we can work together to improve their conditions and to make sure that we can all start delivering at full strength.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, in response to the previous question from the Benches opposite, I refer the noble Lord, Lord Watts, to a programme on Radio 4 this morning, which made it clear that, since 2015, junior doctors have had sufficient pay rises compared with other parts of the public sector—whether or not that is fair is another matter. Can the Minister tell the House how much the Government have saved on pension contributions that we will not be making to pensions forgone by the strike, as well as on employers’ contributions in relation to holiday pay? If she does not have those figures to hand, I would be grateful if she could write to me and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord has pre-empted my answer: I am very happy to write to him to give him the details he requested.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Like everyone else, I think that this strike is unacceptable. Nevertheless, instead of consultation, would it not be possible for the Government to organise extra jobs with the NHS? That is one of the problems that I gather the resident doctors are so concerned about.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The initial offer would have increased the number of training places by 1,000 over three years. The offer has since gone up to 2,000. We recognise that there are shortfalls—it is very patchy and there are differences between departments—which is why we need to have detailed consultations to make sure that the vacancies are in the places that need them. I absolutely agree that we need to increase the number of places available for those doctors.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Bill be read a second time.
Scottish and Northern Ireland legislative consent sought.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to address your Lordships’ House for the first time, and particularly on a subject that has been close to my heart for as long as I can remember; namely, the health and welfare of our planet and how we can protect and repair our oceans—which will be greatly enhanced by the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill that I am introducing today.
I would like to commence my remarks, however, by thanking all those who have welcomed me to your Lordships’ House so warmly and have assisted with my introduction to it. My thanks go to the Garter King of Arms, to the clerks of the House, to Black Rod and, of course, to the esteemed doorkeepers of our House. Indeed, my thanks go also to the marvellous supporters at my introduction—my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Blake of Leeds—both former council leaders in their cities, as I was for a number of years in Southampton, the city I have lived in all my adult life, and which I had the honour to represent as one of its Members of Parliament for some 27 years. I have spent much of that time in Parliament promoting, advocating for and supporting action to fight climate change, particularly through the establishment of low-carbon energy, and I hope to be able to continue that advocacy in my time in this place.
I have taken the title of Baron Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s in the City of Southampton, as my thanks to the place that has nurtured me and given me all my life chances, and to which I am hopelessly devoted. St Mary’s is the parish in the centre of Southampton and, remarkably, contains two institutions of national and international repute: the St Mary’s Stadium of Southampton Football Club and the National Oceanography Centre. The former is probably of national repute mainly in the minds of its supporters—one of which, alas, I am—but the latter really is a centre of international repute. It has already played a huge role in monitoring and promoting the health and welfare of our oceans and will continue to play a key role in the UK’s approach to the matter following, I hope, the adoption of the Bill.
This is a Bill of ambition and global significance. It will, alongside associated secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to implement its obligations in the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction—the BBNJ agreement—and allow us to take the essential steps required for the UK’s ratification. This is a landmark agreement. It represents the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiation and determined scientific advocacy. It concerns nothing less than the future of the two-thirds of the world’s oceans that lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation.
These vast areas of ocean—remote, largely unexplored but fundamental to life on earth—regulate our climate, sustain fisheries, support communities and host ecosystems of staggering complexity and beauty, yet they are increasingly vulnerable to overexploitation, pollution and the cumulative pressures of climate change. The BBNJ agreement is the world’s collective answer to this challenge. The Bill gives the United Kingdom the means to play its full part in that shared endeavour.
The United Kingdom was among the first countries to sign the BBNJ agreement when it opened for signature at the UN in 2023. We did so because we recognised that the two-thirds of the oceans beyond national jurisdiction must be governed responsibly, transparently and with a shared sense of stewardship. The Bill provides the domestic legislative framework to implement the three core pillars of the BBNJ agreement, relating to marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, and environmental impact assessments. It provides for regulation-making powers, allowing us to implement future decisions taken by the BBNJ Conference of the Parties, ensuring that the United Kingdom can remain at the forefront of global ocean governance in the years ahead.
The Bill is divided into five parts, with Parts 2 to 4 aligning directly with the three substantive sections of the BBNJ agreement. Part 2 introduces obligations around the collection, storage, use and reporting of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and of digital sequence information on those resources. UK researchers operating from UK craft—for example, our royal research ships—will be required to notify a national focal point within the FCDO before and after collecting marine genetic resources, including digital sequence information on those resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Repositories and institutions holding marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdictions will be required to provide access to samples under reasonable conditions. This will apply to bodies such as the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre and UK universities. Similarly, UK databases containing digital sequence information on such resources will need to ensure public access.
Those who make use of such material, whether for academic research or commercial innovation, will be required to notify the national focal point once the results of such research are available, including when those results take the form of published papers or granted patents. The FCDO will send these notifications to the BBNJ clearing house mechanism, an open-access platform enabling parties to the agreement to understand what is being collected and where, and how it is being utilised. This transparency is the foundation of the BBNJ agreement’s benefit-sharing regime. It ensures that researchers in developing states have access to the same scientific information as their counterparts in developed economies.
Marine genetic resources may be the source of tomorrow’s medicines, new sustainable materials, novel enzymes and breakthroughs that we cannot yet imagine. The UK is proud to be home to world-leading institutions such as the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre—there it is again—and our many outstanding universities. The Bill ensures that they can continue to operate at the cutting edge of marine science while contributing to a fair and inclusive global framework.
Part 3 gives the UK the necessary powers to implement internationally agreed measures relating to marine protected areas and other area-based management tools established under the BBNJ agreement. These measures will be agreed at future meetings of the BBNJ Conference of the Parties and may include restrictions or management measures that apply to activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This part enables the UK to implement emergency measures—for example, in response to a sudden environmental disaster requiring urgent international action. In essence, Part 3 ensures that when the international community collectively agrees to take measures to protect a vulnerable ecosystem in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has the means to act accordingly.
Part 4 updates the UK’s domestic marine licensing regime to incorporate the environmental impact assessment requirements of the agreement as they apply to licensable marine activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The Bill grants powers to update domestic legislation as new standards and guidelines are developed by the Conference of the Parties. The ocean economy is evolving rapidly—new technologies, new industries and new pressures. This part ensures that the UK’s regulatory framework remains modern, agile and aligned with international best practice. Put simply, these measures future-proof our environmental assessment process for activities on the high seas.
In addition to this primary legislation, a small number of statutory instruments will be required before the United Kingdom can complete its ratification. These relate in particular to environmental impact assessments and the definition of digital sequence information, and will be laid after Royal Assent. Once that secondary legislation is in place, the UK will be in a position to deposit its instrument of ratification with the United Nations.
As noble Lords may know, the BBNJ agreement will enter into force on 17 January 2026, having now reached the crucial threshold of 60 ratifications. The inaugural Conference of the Parties is expected later that year. Importantly, the UK can attend that conference as a state party only if we have ratified at least 30 days beforehand. That is why timely passage of this Bill is of genuine importance.
The Bill may appear narrowly scoped and targeted, but its implications are profound. It supports the United Kingdom’s commitment to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. It reinforces our belief in multilateralism and the rules-based international system at a time when both face increasing strain. It allows us to address global challenges—climate change, biodiversity loss and food security—not in isolation but in partnership with allies and developing states alike.
The UK’s leadership in the early BBNJ negotiations was informed by the extraordinary expertise of our marine scientists, legal scholars and environmental advocates. Many of them have waited a long time for this moment. Their passion and persistence have been instrumental in bringing this agreement to fruition.
Allow me to recognise the considerable contributions made by noble Lords from across the Chamber, by civil society organisations and by our research community, all of whom have shaped the UK’s approach to the BBNJ agreement. In the spirit of cross-party relations, I pay tribute to the Ministers in the previous Government, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who were part of the team that signed the treaty on behalf of the UK Government in 2023. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for International Development for the opportunity to open this debate.
The health of our ocean is inseparable from the health of our planet. Although we may not often see these ecosystems with our own eyes, the responsibility to protect them falls on all of us. The BBNJ Bill is our opportunity to rise to that responsibility to safeguard fragile ecosystems, to support sustainable development and to ensure that the benefits of ocean science are shared fairly and responsibly. The United Kingdom has always played a leading role in advancing global ocean governance. With this Bill, we have the chance to continue that leadership. The ocean cannot wait, and nor should we. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, as the first to speak after the Minister from the Government Benches, it is my honour to welcome my noble friend Lord Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s, to the Dispatch Box and to congratulate him on his brilliant maiden speech. I pay tribute to his joining the esteemed ranks of those who have made their maiden speech from the Dispatch Box.
My noble friend has had a distinguished career. As leader of Southampton City Council, he championed innovative energy projects and was the first MP to have solar panels and even, I believe, a wind turbine installed on his constituency home roof. His Private Member’s Bill on climate change may have been talked out in his early days, but much of it was incorporated into Labour’s world-leading Climate Change Act 2008. Climate change affects so much of the planet’s precious biodiversity, especially in the marine environment, which is the subject of today’s Bill.
My noble friend’s former constituency has within it St Mary’s Stadium, home of Southampton FC, and he is a prominent member of the Saints Foundation. Southampton’s is one of the three furthest stadiums to visit from Everton FC, but I well remember happy visits —especially when Dave Jones, a dependable right-back who used to play for us, was Southampton’s manager. Southampton was the last team to visit Goodison Park last season. I look forward to welcoming that team and his support at Everton’s new stadium, as soon as they resume their rightful place in the Premier League.
While in the Commons, my noble friend was No. 1 in the parliamentary football team—the position of goalkeeper—and was part of the famous team to play in the Portuguese Parliament in 2006 as part of the 2006 FIFA World Cup curtain-raiser. I met my noble friend not on the football pitch but on the Front Bench in statutory instrument committees, he from the Commons and me from the Lords, on many energy orders. To change sporting analogies, I like to call us the tag team partners on energy matters.
I am very glad to welcome my noble friend to your Lordships’ House and look forward to his many innovative approaches on energy, not least on fuel poverty matters, where there is now an opportunity to utilise DCC’s smart meter network to improve identification and tailor timely, accurate and cost-effective interventions for fuel-poor households, such as direct to the meter credit and the development of a social tariff. I look forward to his many further contributions to our debates and his leadership on energy policy developments.
There could be no better debate for my noble friend to make his maiden speech in than today’s Second Reading of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions Bill—a Bill that, like the Climate Change Act, will be universally acclaimed and world-leading in supporting one of the greatest challenges in protecting the high seas outside national jurisdictions. These areas of no recognised national authority cover half the surface of the planet and are already threatened, not least from claims in the Arctic for valuable minerals and in other areas from overfishing, pollution from abandoned fishing nets, plastics and the impacts of warming sea temperatures. Some 90% of the heat from greenhouse gas emissions is absorbed by the oceans, 30% of CO2 emissions are absorbed by them and 90% of global trade is transported through them, yet only 1.2% of the oceans are currently protected. Species such as whales have constantly been under attack, and the threat of ever-deeper sea mining and excavations only increases.
It is imperative that the UN, through its Convention on the Law of the Sea, has provided this framework for international maritime law, and defines the high seas as international waters where all nations may fish, navigate and conduct research under shared principles. Since the UK’s accession to the convention in 1997, the UN General Assembly has focused on the sustainable use of marine biodiversity in those areas, including the oceans and the seabed. The COP 15 Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework of 2022 established targets and culminated, in 2023, in the formal adoption of binding agreements established and developed by consensus. This framework established the 30 by 30 biodiversity target—conservation and protection of 30% of sites by 2030—to which the UK is committed. The BBNJ Bill is drawn up to align UK law with this international agreement and consensus on biodiversity.
I welcome the Bill. It sets out the requirements for UK-based activity and affiliated projects, vessels and equipment processes, and collecting and researching marine resources, in international waters. It includes advanced notification, post-activity reporting and public access to reports and information. Aside from two clauses relating specifically to Scottish law and Ministers, the Bill will apply to the whole of the UK and can be extended to British Overseas Territories by Orders in Council. This is very promising.
The Bill establishes a system of support to undertake co-operative arrangements among projects, teams, countries and alliances through capacity building and technology sharing. It also establishes an ability to create emergency protected areas in any disaster scenario. It has as an example the workings of the Antarctic Treaty system, which already operates as a framework for international management of the Antarctic for conservation.
The other place has welcomed the Bill. The Government have already adopted a 30 by 30 approach as it refers to domestic national jurisdictions on land and sea up to 200 nautical miles offshore, and established a network of 297 marine protected areas covering some 210,000 square kilometres, representing 23% of the UK’s domestic waters.
Here I declare my interest as serving on your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee, which reported on 30 by 30 in July 2023. This report found that, even on the domestic front, there is a long way to go beyond declarations and drawing areas on a map. On land, what sites will count towards 30 by 30 when perhaps less than 10% of England is covered by designations such as SSSIs, special areas of conservation, special protected areas and Ramsar sites?
The report found a widespread lack of clarity about the level of nature conservation and protection. There is a poor level of monitoring data, which limits understanding of current conditions. On land, only 22% of SSSIs have been monitored in the last six years. In UK waters, the position is even more precarious and unknown; MPAs are still at the rudimentary stage.
From this domestic background, the challenge of the high seas seems daunting. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm in her reply that at least the signatories to the BBNJ agreement are approaching the situation with the precautionary principle in mind? Can she give any indication of how conversations about the treaty and how it will work in practice are developing?
The practicalities of taking forward the work from this Bill seem extremely daunting given the approaches towards the latest COP in Brazil and from the Trump Administration and others towards climate change in general and deep-sea mining in particular. Will the Government develop a strategy behind the Bill regarding how they will undertake their approach, how they will develop a baseline of data from the UK’s MPAs into consistency with data on international waters, how they will develop monitoring plans around the world, and how they will encourage co-operation and support from the overseas territories? All this presents a costly challenge when budgets may find it difficult to maintain the required level of expenditure.
While welcoming the aspirations and imperatives of the Bill, I encourage my noble friend to define the practicalities of how the UK can set priorities and develop expertise of approach to achieve best outcomes. In this, I would welcome confirmation of extensive public engagement, which could be undertaken to encourage the proper accountabilities, and reports that the Bill is being taken seriously alongside climate change. The UK Government can be encouraged to take up the challenge from this endorsement of the shared stewardship of the planet into the future with the world-leading oceanography site in Southampton.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open for the Official Opposition on this important Bill. Before I speak to the Bill, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to his place on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. He served for many years in the other place and I know that he will bring that wealth of experience to his new role in your Lordships’ House.
Our oceans are home to more than 260,000 species, and their health is essential to the health of our planet. Unlike biodiversity within our borders, every nation has a responsibility to protect the high seas. Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation. They are wonderfully biodiverse, but we know that they are threatened by a whole host of harms, the most challenging of which include overfishing, manmade pollution and the impact of climate change. It is the duty of us all to take the responsible action needed to safeguard marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions.
For many years, Britain has led the way on protecting our oceans. In our domestic waters we have established a network of 296 marine protection areas, protecting over 200,000 square kilometres of sea. Even more significantly, we established the Blue Belt programme, supporting our UK overseas territories to assist them in creating and maintaining healthy and productive marine ecosystems. That programme shows how committed we are to tackling the serious global problems of overfishing, species extinction and climate change. As noble Lords will be aware, the UK overseas territories are estimated to be home to up to 90% of known endemic UK biodiversity, hosting a huge range of unique and endangered species.
Consequently, we have a unique responsibility to protect that biodiversity. Through the Blue Belt programme, the UK and our overseas territories have created over 4.4 million square kilometres of marine protected areas, from the south Atlantic and the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. Can the Minister provide an update on work the United Kingdom Government are doing with our overseas territories to continue that excellent programme as part of the Government’s manifesto commitment to our overseas territories?
During the debates in the other place, serious concerns were raised about the impact of the UK-Mauritius agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, on the protection of marine biodiversity around the Chagos Archipelago. I know the Minister may feel that this issue is not directly concerned with the Bill, but we will be seeking to explore the impact of that agreement on marine biodiversity during the debates on the Bill. It is only right that noble Lords on this side of the House should be given the opportunity in Committee to probe the issue of marine biodiversity in the area around the archipelago.
Turning back to the Bill itself, we are firmly supportive of the Government’s ambition to boost protections for our global marine diversity. As the Minister mentioned, we signed the treaty in 2023 under the previous Government, and we are unwavering in our commitment to biodiversity. That said, as a reasonable Opposition we will scrutinise the Bill in detail to ensure that Parliament has had the opportunity to hear how Ministers intend to use the wide-ranging regulation-making powers contained in the Bill. We will also seek to understand more fully how the Government expect our involvement in the BBNJ’s Conference of the Parties to be managed. We are interested to know where the first marine protected areas under the agreement will be located. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an update on that matter.
On the Conference of the Parties, the agreement has now been ratified by 60 signatories, which means it will come into force in 2026. Once the Bill is passed, do the Government have a target date for ratification so we can play a full role from the moment the treaty comes into effect?
As many noble Lords will know, our UK fishing industry is struggling. The Government have already capitulated on EU access to our fishing waters. What impact do the Government expect the new marine protected areas to have on our domestic fishing fleet, and what steps will be taken to monitor this over time?
We are clear that the United Kingdom must uphold its obligations under this landmark treaty, but we must also keep our own domestic interests in mind at all times. Where MPAs include prohibitions on fishing, what representations will the fishing industry in both the UK and other affected nations be able to make to the Conference of the Parties so that the full impact of those prohibitions can be considered before an MPA is implemented?
We will also seek to probe the UK’s rights should we wish to leave the treaty. We do not expect to find ourselves in that position, but it is only right that we consider how we could practically manage an exit from the treaty should a future Government decide that it is expedient for us to do so. What thoughts have Ministers given to that, and can the Minister outline her expectations of how that process might be managed should the situation arise?
In conclusion, we are firmly supportive of the Bill’s intentions. The Government are right to press ahead with legislation that will allow the treaty to be ratified, and we are proud to have made the UK a signatory of this landmark treaty when we were in government. Marine biodiversity matters, and it is right that we should play our part in protecting it. But that does not mean that we should step back from our duty to do the work of a revising Chamber, to scrutinise the Bill in detail and propose improvements where necessary. We will do that work thoroughly and carefully to ensure that this is the best Bill it can be when it goes on to become law. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to the Front Bench and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. I was particularly glad that he gave several marketing plugs for the National Oceanography Centre, which I was responsible for setting up when I was the chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for her helpful briefing session on the Bill last week.
I fully support the Government’s intention to ratify the high seas treaty by mid-January 2026 and can see no good reason for preventing this. As the legal adviser to the Alliance of Small Island States said, before the treaty, the high seas were known as the “wild, wild wet”. They are the classic example of the tragedy of the commons. Against this background, I would like to ask the Minister three questions. First, what are we talking about when we refer to marine biodiversity? Secondly, what are the main threats to marine biodiversity? Thirdly, how will the treaty be enforced?
The treaty aims to protect marine biodiversity in the high seas outside exclusive economic zones, but no one knows how many species there are in the oceans. According to the world register of marine species, there are about a quarter of a million known marine species and new species are being discovered at a rate of nearly 2,500 per year. Most of these new species are microscopic benthic crustaceans, molluscs and annelids. It is estimated that there are probably between 1 million and 2 million species still to be discovered. In other words, about 90% of marine biodiversity is unknown, and if we include bacteria and other micro-organisms, the number remaining to be discovered is much greater. In short, we do not know what it is that this treaty aims to protect. Therefore, can the Minister assure us that the Government will support research efforts in our universities, museums and research institutes to fully document marine biodiversity so that we have a better idea of what we are aiming to protect?
My second question concerns the threats to marine biodiversity. There is widespread agreement that human activity is causing the extinction of many species both in the oceans and on land. The Marine Conservation Society lists overfishing, by-catch, climate change, pollution and other human activities such as deep-sea mining among the major causes of loss of marine species. Nearly 38% of the world’s stocks are overfished and an estimated 9 million tonnes a year of fish and other marine organisms are thrown away dead as by-catch. According to the latest figures from Defra, 54% of fish stocks in UK waters are currently overfished. Can the Minister therefore assure us that the Government will press for sustainable management of fisheries in the high seas and reductions in by-catch and, at the same time, set a leadership example by managing our own fish stocks sustainably?
Can the Minister also tell us whether deep-sea marine mining will be included in the treaty? Flora and Fauna International points out that the hotspots for marine biodiversity are often associated with deposits of rare minerals such as cobalt and manganese. These hotspots include the hydrothermal vents where tectonic plates meet and are home to extraordinary creatures able to survive in near-boiling water full of highly toxic chemicals.
I now turn to my third question, on enforcement. The Marine Biological Association says:
“If we have learned anything about marine protected areas within national jurisdiction, designating marine protected areas does not mean effective protection”.
As I understand it, the current regime for enforcement of the law of the sea is based on flag state responsibility. Countries are expected to create offences under national laws and prosecute if there is a violation. The difficulty is that under this regime, vessels can opt for flags with countries that have poor regulation and poor records of prosecution. Can the Minister therefore tell us how the Government envisage the treaty will be effectively enforced?
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I plan to speak in favour of the Bill before your Lordships’ House at Second Reading, but first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his maiden speech. My first recollection of Southampton was visiting the Royal Research Ship “Bransfield” before it departed for the Antarctic. As a 10 year-old, it was so exciting to explore that ship before it travelled to some of the harshest high seas on the planet.
The world’s oceans support biodiversity, regulate climate, store carbon, sustain global food webs, and provide critical genetic and biological resources. Protecting them is vital not only for ocean health but for the stability and well-being of the entire planet. I thus thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for bringing this Bill and for seeking its speedy but well-scrutinised passage so that the UK can have a seat at the first Conference of the Parties to the UN BBNJ.
I start my observations with some medieval manuscripts. Many of the cathedral libraries of this nation contain wonderful collections and, over the years, I have been struck by the amount of graffiti in the margins of such documents—doodles by monks and scholars down through the centuries, which quite frequently are little drawings of scary sea-monsters. The leviathans jump out at you as you turn the vellum. These sea monsters and the mysteries of the recesses of the deep captured the imagination of our forebears.
The flood and Noah; the parting of the Red Sea; the exploits of Jonah in the belly of the whale; the trials of Job when he is asked:
“Have you entered into the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?”;
the sea journeys of St Paul, with his dramatic shipwreck; and the Book of Revelation’s glassy sea—all have been analysed and interpreted, and, yes, doodled. Long has been the respect for the sea and the oceans: this place of chaos beyond our taming, of mystery with depths beyond human reach, and with glimpses of its wonders reported back by adventurous travellers. Indeed, 32 of the 150 psalms refer to the sea. For example, the psalmist speaks of how:
“Some went down to the sea in ships, doing business on the mighty waters. They saw the deeds of the Lord, his wondrous works in the deep”.
Those wondrous works in the deep are under threat. We have lost respect for the high seas in favour of an exploitative attitude. Deep-sea mining, overfishing, pollution, ocean acidification, oil and gas extraction are all threats being faced. Our oceans provide diverse ecosystems, including hydrothermal vents and cold seeps, with many endemic species within a small area. Our oceans act as the largest carbon sinks on the planet, storing it in deep-sea sediments, reducing atmospheric CO2 and slowing global warming. Our oceans are nursery grounds for commercially important species and play an important role in the lifecycle of many others, including creatures great and small—known and yet unknown, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, outlined. Our oceans recycle nutrients that eventually resurface and support marine food webs. Our oceans are reserves of genetic and biological resources, including species with such unique adaptations that they can live in extreme pressure—in darkness and toxic chemical environments—all of which are potentially valuable in biotechnology, medicine and industry. The list goes on.
In ratifying the BBNJ agreement, though, we need to ensure that our own waters are conserved and well managed, particularly the biodiversity of our marine protected areas. That is why I urge His Majesty’s Government to publish their response to the consultation on bottom-trawling in marine protected areas. Can the Minister also update your Lordships on progress towards a complete ban on that seabed-damaging activity in these areas, as advised by the Environmental Audit Committee? Protecting our oceans is vital not only for ocean health, but for the stability of the entire planet and the flourishing of humanity. That is why the Government are right to bring forward the ratification of the high seas treaty, and I fully support them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, the adoption of the high seas treaty in 2023 marked one of the most significant achievements in international environmental governance in decades. The treaty fills a crucial gap in ocean regulation by establishing a comprehensive framework to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. That area makes up nearly two-thirds of the world’s ocean. I am proud that the United Kingdom played a decisive role in securing this agreement, with the UK Government helping to push the negotiations towards a successful conclusion. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me and my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon some credit. I think it is also worth crediting my noble friends Lord Goldsmith and Lord Benyon on their role in the negotiations, even if I did modestly play a part in it myself. Also, Boris Johnson drove a lot of this environmental work in the previous Government.
I regret the five-minute advisory speaking time; it seems to be a habit of the Government to try and curtail speeches, though so few people have put in to speak on this very important Bill. Nevertheless, what I do not regret is seeing the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, in his place. He was a Member of Parliament for over 25 years and a shadow Energy Minister for over nine years. It is great to see him finally—it is not the first time he is a Minister—be an Energy Minister in this Administration. I know from the work I enjoyed with him when I was in the Commons how thoughtful, considerate and competent this new Minister truly is. I look forward to working with him on many other issues affecting our planet.
While I am conscious the Minister mentioned a timely passage being important, I will not be churlish by saying that it has taken over a year to get the Bill to this stage. However, I want to ask the Minister why in this Bill we need further regulations to bring this into effect. While I had hoped that we would not need any amendments, I suppose I am giving due warning that I will be tabling an amendment to try and remove that. From my perspective, it seems entirely redundant, especially when we know that the treaty in effect will come into force not just next year but next month, as more than 60 countries have already ratified it. It is important that, having been at the leading edge of making sure that we have got this treaty with many negotiations that were, frankly, pretty tough at times, we continue to make sure we have a seat at the table when the COP first resumes.
One of the things that has been important in getting to this point has been demonstrating by our domestic leadership what we were able to do without threatening our economy, being fully mindful that, while the ocean has given so much to us, we have not recognised that until recently. It is absolutely vital to recognise that we have taken advantage of the ocean more or less for free. We now need to repay that and actually give the ocean a rest. The importance of biodiversity is critical in our oceans. That is going to be taking quite a lot of the relationships that we have developed over many years.
I also want to ask the Minister—my noble friend Lord Courtown referred to this—about the Blue Belt, which has been one of the most important elements of UK government policy in working with overseas territories in trying to enhance the biodiversity in our oceans. But I have noticed in this Bill no specific overseas territory is currently included. While an Order in Council can make that happen, in the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, which was published within the last week, only one overseas territory made any reference to the BBNJ, and that was Bermuda, in thinking about and particularly referencing the Sargasso Sea. I am very keen to understand what discussions the Minister has had with overseas territories regarding this because, candidly, we need to get the overseas territories fully engaged. By the way, that may mean us coughing up some cash. We certainly did plenty of that, never mind through the Blue Belt fund but also through a variety of other mechanisms, as my noble friend also referred to earlier regarding the Commonwealth charter. It is vital that we have them fully engaged in something which is so precious to our planet going forward.
Thinking through some of the other aspects of the Bill, I will not digress into other issues that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to, such as a deep-sea mining. I appreciate that this is not the role of this specific treaty, and certainly in this Bill we are referring to elements of the legislation that need to be adapted. But I wanted to clarify, in Clause 8, why this does not apply to the Antarctic. I am conscious that there is already an Antarctic Act and a treaty, but I appreciate that CCAMLR is precarious—no, that is not the right word, but I am conscious that it can be quite challenging considering the role of the Antarctic. However, I would have thought that this area of the world would lend itself massively to having a BBNJ MPA designation.
On other aspects of BBNJ—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I note the noble Baroness’s comment about the advisory speaking time, but I would be grateful if she could bring things to a close.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am grateful for the advice, but I will carry on with a few things. We get criticised in Committee for doing Second Reading speeches when we are trying to understand the passage of the Bill at this key point.
Another aspect that has been mentioned is: where could it be? It had widely been expected that the first BBNJ MPA would be waters between the Galápagos Islands and Ecuador, but there is a golden opportunity to consider those between Tristan da Cunha and a Commonwealth country: Namibia.
I am conscious of what the Whip has just said, but we need to explore why some of the other clauses are in here. Looking at other parts of Clause 25, can the Minister explain subsection (3)? Clause 25(5) seems to be the classic, “In case we’ve forgotten something, we’ll shove this in here” part of the Bill. I would not like to think that that is what we need to do with this treaty, but I am sure that we will explore that in Committee, sadly —because I had hoped we would not need amendments. I want the Bill to go through as quickly as possible, but we need to remove some of the barriers currently in the way, making sure that we can be part of the first COP in 2026.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s, to his seat in your Lordships’ House and to the Dispatch Box. It was wonderful to hear such a green-minded speech; over the past few years, they have become more common here, but they are still very welcome. I particularly liked his commenting on protecting and repairing our ocean and high seas. It is absolutely crucial that we understand how much damage we have done already and that we try our best to recover it if we can.
The UK was one of the first countries to sign up to the UN agreement on the law of the sea, and we have been active in shaping the treaty, so it makes sense to pass this Bill as soon as possible. I want to flag up some reasons why this agreement is a good idea but also what protections Ministers should seek next. The good things are as follows. It is good for UK science: our very own National Oceanography Centre is one of the world leaders in ocean scientific research, and this Bill will ensure that marine science and technology can develop to further understand and meet the demands of a changing climate. It is good for marine life and ecosystems: our oceans are full of beautiful things, and protecting our oceans ensures that that beauty survives. We are far too careless about such a precious complex of ecosystems that we barely know anything about. It is also good for UK food security: a thriving sea is full of life, and some of that life can help to sustain our lives and our economy. We must regulate and manage the competition for marine genetic resources that can be used to support the development of new drugs, cosmetics, food and industrial processes.
But, currently, our oceans are collapsing under the strains of plastic pollution, bottom trawling, massive mining projects, toxic dumping and climate change. It is this combined assault on ecosystems that will collapse life in the seas. These problems make international treaties crucial and urgent. The scale of this agreement is huge. It will help to protect two-thirds of the world’s oceans. It has the kind of vision that will help us to deal with the rapidly developing impacts of climate change. However, as is usual with this Government and the last, Ministers are trying to grab additional powers via secondary legislation. It would make sense to increase parliamentary scrutiny of secondary powers. Good policy requires accountability.
We need to ensure that our Government listen to a range of experts, not just to those people with loads of cash who can use money and personal contacts to gain access to the detailed discussions. My biggest concerns are monitoring and enforcement: I simply do not understand how those two things will happen in any sort of efficient way. I would like us to become a world leader in pushing for the establishment of marine protected areas in places beyond national jurisdiction. We should be aiming to protect 30% of the world’s marine areas by 2030—and I do mean “protect”. For example, Greenpeace has found that 90% of our marine protected areas are not really protected at all. There is no meaningful site-wide regulation of the most destructive fishing activity. Greenpeace says of our MPA protection that it is rhetoric over reality, and I think this treaty could be the same. Being a world leader means enforcing the strictest regulation of the existing marine protected areas in UK territorial waters, with an end to bottom trawling and devastating mining operations. I hope that the Minister will help us to do that in a very fast way.
So far, the Trump Administration have not ratified the treaty and have pursued issuing deep-ocean mining licences unilaterally, ignoring the UN-backed International Seabed Authority. The demand for mining minerals is rising, when we barely know anything about our deep seabed. We must also end the public subsidy of pollution within freeports, as we saw up in Teesside, when the dredging of industrial chemicals that had been buried for decades allegedly led to the mass deaths of crabs and lobsters along the north-east coast of England. More deregulation of freeports will mean more environmental problems and more taxpayer money spent cleaning up the mess at a future date.
While I am sure that most here would like this Bill to pass so that we can sign up to international law, 30 days before the ratification, I would say that it does not go far enough to protect our ocean. Can the Minister tell me how strongly this Government will live up to the rhetoric?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests in the register and join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to our House—an environmentalist to the FCDO, which is wonderful. I also welcome this Bill which, as many noble Lords have said, will help to protect two-thirds of the world’s oceans, but will also be a big UK contribution to supporting the 30 by 30 commitment made as part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. I hope it will also be a positive statement about the UK’s leadership contribution on climate and biodiversity, although it would have been more convincing, perhaps, if we had shown similar leadership on future forests at the recent climate COP at Belém. But, while thanking the Government—I think I have just thanked the Government—can I do an Oliver Twist act and ask for more? I have got five minutes and I have got five asks.
As the Minister and other noble Lords have already stressed, can we keep the pressure up to get this Bill and the secondary legislation through, so that we can ensure a place at the first conference of the parties next year?
Secondly, can my noble friend the Minister ensure that UK actions at home and abroad reflect the values of the treaty? I will give two examples of where we should be demonstrating our commitment to these values. One has already been mentioned: progress so far in ending bottom trawling in all our marine protected areas here in the UK. What has been proposed at the moment is inadequate, and we need to do better than that. Under the Chagos deal, which is a cause close to my heart, because it involves one of the largest, most wonderful and most important marine protected areas, can the Minister tell the House what further progress has been made to make sure that the MPA around the Chagos Archipelago is properly safeguarded with the transfer to Mauritius?
My third ask is for the Minister to reaffirm the UK’s position on the moratorium on deep-sea mining and licensing that has already been referenced now that President Trump is going ahead and ignoring the International Seabed Authority. My fourth is for the Minister to urge her Defra colleagues to produce a strategy for overfishing beyond 2026, at the end of the current commitments for the UK.
The Fisheries Act simply is not working. Quotas are not based on evidence. I was convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is not in his place, was going to make a sturdy, evidence-based statement about that, but he did not, damn him, and I had not done the research in order to back that up—but he would have if he had thought about it. Some 27% of commercial fish stocks are critically low and a further 25% are suffering from overexploitation. More than half of UK fishing opportunities are being allocated in excess of scientific advice, which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, would have spoken about, and that is not only leading to heavy declines in key stocks but undermining the sustainability of fishing livelihoods. It is impossible to deliver economic growth within fishing if we continue to deplete the asset on which the sector depends.
The combination of declining stocks and increasing concentration of quota in the hands of a very few, mostly foreign-owned vessels means that the inshore fleet is now on its knees. This is causing job losses and hardship in coastal towns that are very important electorally, I say to my party. So will the Government commit to a full review of the Fisheries Act? My last call is, of course, one that has already been referred to. Last but not least, 145 countries have signed the Global Ocean Treaty, of which 73 have now formally ratified. Will my noble friend the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to persuade those nations that have not yet formally ratified to do so?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his opening speech, his maiden speech, opening his scoring in this House. May his subsequent contributions be as good as this one: it will be a fine record.
The Bill to which we are giving a Second Reading today, the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions Bill, has a complex and difficult to understand title, and an equally complex content. Nevertheless, I argue that it is a necessary and desirable major step towards implementing some of the obligations the UK assumed when it signed two other important international treaties, the Law of the Sea Convention, known as UNCLOS, and the Biodiversity Convention, both of which we signed more than 30 years ago and subsequently ratified. I should perhaps admit that I was Britain’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations when the negotiations of those two founding treaties were concluded. Both were concluded under a Conservative Government whose Prime Minister was John Major, who picked up the baton first held by the late Baroness Thatcher, who came to realise that collective global action was a necessity if the challenges of global warming and loss of biodiversity were to be reversed, or at least mitigated. So I suggest at the outset that this implementing measure deserves to be treated on a non-party basis. Whether it will be is for others to decide.
The urgency of the legislation we are discussing has been spoken to by several noble Lords. It will enable the UK to participate from the outset in the governance procedures of this convention, protecting the biodiversity of those sea areas that fall outside national jurisdictions—what is often known as the “open seas”. Those seas are open too to abuse amounting to plunder, and thus require protection, and Britain’s record justifies and requires its presence on these governance procedures, which, whatever we decide, will enter into force at the beginning of 2026. The historical record of those who fish in and otherwise exploit the resources of these waters is not, let us face it, a good one. Modern technology has facilitated overfishing of stocks, some of them to extinction, and the enlargement of the areas where exploitation can take place is an inevitable result of global warming, particularly in the Arctic, making the problem more extensive and the need for protective regulation, such as this convention provides the basis for, more urgent. That regulation cannot be successfully achieved on a national rather than an international basis, as the provisions of this Bill eloquently demonstrate.
We often hear in this House about the need to defend the rules-based international order. That catch-all phrase probably confuses as much as it persuades, but there can be little doubt that that order is under serious threat on issues relating to international peace and security, world trading rules and the environment. Here is an opportunity not just to circle the wagons around existing rules but to extend their scope, which is, in general terms, the Government’s policy and that of the Official Opposition. We need to take it up.
This debate would not be complete without a reference to one notable and substantial absentee: the United States of America. The US Congress has declined to ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, despite its provisions being so valuable to its strategic interests—for example, in the South China Sea—that the US recognises UNCLOS as customary international law. It declined to sign the biodiversity convention in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and has sustained that refusal ever since on the erroneous grounds that it would damage the US’s biotechnology industries, even though the main failing of the biodiversity convention is that it is too weak, not too strong. America will decide for itself what is in its interest, but I hope the Minister will confirm, when winding up the debate, that we will continue to urge the US to join these conventions and to hold the door open for it, should it have a change of heart.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Whitehead on joining this House. He and I worked together in the 1997 Labour Government, when he was an enormous support to me. I know he will make a huge contribution to the House.
I was a member of the International Relations and Defence Committee when it wrote a report in 2022 called UNCLOS: The Law of the Sea in the 21st Century. Underlying its recommendations was the committee’s view that:
“As a major maritime power, the UK has a strong role to play in the development and maintenance of the law of the sea”.
As such, the UK must meet 21st century challenges to ensure the usefulness and relevance of UNCLOS. Many of the report’s recommendations related to issues that are not the direct subject of the Bill, but will the Government make a progress report on their more recent work covering these matters, including human rights and labour protections at sea? There are shocking examples of human rights law being broken, with forced labour and appalling working conditions. These include breaches of maritime security, including piracy and armed robbery at sea. Many such crimes take place partly because of the failure of regulation resulting from the system of flags of convenience, which cries out for reform. There is a need for an oceans strategy, as requested by Sarah Champion MP in another place. Can the Minister respond on that?
I turn to the central purpose of the Bill. The Select Committee also identified the importance of protecting biodiversity in the context of climate change and dangerous increases in the temperature of the ocean. In doing so, it pointed out the huge role the oceans play in absorbing carbon dioxide released since industrialisation. It also took evidence on the damage that land-based pollution causes to the marine environment, such as ocean acidification and changes to ocean circulations, which in turn can destroy marine species and the vital environments, such as coral reefs and mangrove forests, that support them.
I therefore welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on introducing it. I ask that it completes its enactment in time for the ratification of the treaty. The Minister has explained the urgent need to put into domestic law protections that apply to international rather than domestic waters.
The Bill is largely technical, but the section on marine genetic resources strikes me as particularly important. Valuable scientific projects on the high seas are being carried out by British teams, often in international collaborations. I support new regulatory requirements extending reporting to the Secretary of State and do not believe that responsible scientists should see this as overly intensive regulation. I also support the area-based management tools set out in Part 3.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, with their new powers to act in international waters, will UK regulatory bodies such as the Marine Management Organisation need to abide by principles set out in the Environment Act 2021, such as the “polluter pays” and precautionary principles? Secondly, how do the Government intend to work with non-signatories, in particular—following up on what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said—with the US, which signed up originally but will not ratify the treaty? It is surely vital that we try to persuade it to take into account the issues that the treaty raises.
I end by welcoming what the Minister in another place said about UK support for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. I also welcome her statement that the UK will lead the world in the vital protection of our shared oceans, which was endorsed by my noble friend the new Minister in opening this debate. I am sure the Minister who winds up will want to say the same.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his place and express my admiration that he has made his maiden speech in proposing such an important debate.
We know that the areas outside territorial limits, which we know as the high seas, belong to us all. Nobody would sensibly talk against the sensible proposals to protect the deep blue lungs of the world and the natural fauna and flora that live there. I have sailed across the Atlantic on a tall ship. I have sailed a Topper dinghy in the Sargasso Sea, which my noble friend Lady Coffey mentioned. Probably few noble Lords have been as close to the briny as I have. Last week, I was highlighting deep-sea shipping in Trinidad, bringing 50,000-tonne deadweight tankers via ocean trade to the United Kingdom. Those are my bona fides.
I will focus on two themes. First, the deep ocean supports shipping, fibre-optics, pipelines and the connectors that sustain a global economy. This cannot be just about the turtles, important as they are. Secondly, among all the mutual back-slapping and self-congratulation in this Room, there is a proverbial elephant—or blue whale. I refer to the risks of the uninsured dark fleet, the Wild West which operates outside the conventions and rules of the sea. By omitting to mention these two items, the Bill is deficient. This Second Reading provides an opportunity for the Government to repair that defect.
The natural environment must be shared with the commercial environment, which is the medium across which ships pass between countries in pursuit of the global trade which brings 90% of goods to our nation. I am disappointed that the Bill does not realise the reality that London is the place where global shipping meets, trades and agrees rules and contracts. That is a missed opportunity and ignores the global expertise on our doorstep. I depart from my noble friend Lady Coffey in saying that the Bill should be amended; it should. I am concerned that Part 3 and Clause 11 in particular allow the Secretary of State to make proposals for the inclusion of certain areas and Clause 12 provides for enforcement, but neither in this part nor in the Bill more widely are the economy or London stakeholders mentioned or referred to.
I have read the treaty. It makes passing reference to the IMO, but I would have expected the Bill documentation to have made reference not just to the IMO, which is based in London, but also to Lloyd’s—marine insurers, the publishers of Lloyd’s List—based in London; the global P&I clubs, the regulatory syndicates, which are hosted in Leadenhall Street, in London; Clarksons and Braemar, the world’s leading shipbrokers, just around the corner in Trafalgar Square, in London; and the Baltic Exchange, in London. I have not even mentioned the whole panoply of other professionals, including specialist shipping lawyers such as Clyde & Co. In essence, we do not own ships any more, but the ships play by London’s rules. But you would never guess it from the Bill. We should rectify that deficiency.
Where are the statutory tests that will require the Secretary of State, in pursuance of the powers, to consider the important balance between the economy, shipping, our interests and our regulatory interest based in London? Failure to reach the appropriate balance could end up with the equivalent of another £100 million bat bridge or another useless £700 million fish disco. That is the jeopardy we face.
I said that the shipping world plays by London’s rules. For the most part, it does, but we are missing the reference to the “dark fleet”: a network of ships, often poorly maintained, transporting illicit cargoes, with obscured ownership, a lack of insurance, deceptive tactics, going dark, flag hopping, and bilge cleaning at sea—and full of hostile actors. We had a debate last week on that narrow point. I am mentioning it because the dark fleet poses significant risks of damaging not only maritime safety but the environment that the Bill seeks to remedy. Silence on our approach to the dark fleet and other hostile actors diminishes the effectiveness of the Bill.
I know it is the Minister’s maiden outing, but he has a huge amount of experience, having been a Member of Parliament in the other place for Southampton. I therefore respectfully ask him: how can we spend precious parliamentary time on only half the benefit, without considering those modern pirates of the high seas? If we are sincere about protecting our fragile ecosystems, we need to ensure that all ships, not just ships of compliant nations, recognise the objectives of the Bill. Once we slap each other on the back, we need to recognise that London—and, in its wider sense, the economy—is balanced between these well-meaning and important biodiversity objectives. But, without a strong economy, we will not be able to protect the environment in the way we want to, in a world that is full of bad actors.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, as the new Minister. I particularly agree with his comment on the excellence of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton. There is another important maritime organisation based in Southampton, namely the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the regulator of the maritime sector and shipping. I declare my interest as its chair, and also as an honorary officer in the Royal Navy.
I am therefore prompted immediately to respond to some of the important points just made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I totally agree with his paean of praise for the importance of the maritime sector in the UK, although, in fairness, we have to accept that the scope of the Bill is restricted specifically to the implementation of the BBNJ treaty. I therefore interpret his speech as a call for a broader piece of maritime legislation in a future King’s Speech, which would enable us to tackle many of the vital points he has just raised.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It is important, because I have read the treaty, which says:
“Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent a Party”—
us—
“from adopting more stringent measures with respect to its nationals and vessels … with regard to activities under its jurisdiction or control in addition to those adopted under this Part, in accordance with international law and in support of the objectives of the Agreement”.
I therefore hear what the noble Lord says about scope, but we have the power in front of us to extend that scope—and I think we should, because London is the heart of global shipping. People look to London to set the lead, and we have an opportunity to do so, but the Bill does not.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I will come on to discuss that very point. I think the noble Lord is referring to Article 25 of the treaty, on which it would be worth testing the Government more.
Before getting to that, I start by saying, like other noble Lords, that we must recognise that the BBNJ treaty is an important evolutionary moment in international maritime law, going back to the debate that kicked off in the early 1600s between Grotius and Selden about open seas and closed seas. Here we have the common heritage of the oceans and a practical mechanism for making at least incremental progress. However, we should not get too carried away with optimism because, frankly, the scale and urgency of the challenge around what is happening in our oceans—our life-support system—demands, at the very least, the measures set out in this Bill, and probably more.
Therefore, the question that we will want to test is: as the Bill, and the treaty more generally, are implemented, what will be the practical impact? There are several areas that I will raise with the Minister. First, there is the question of the exemptions for intellectual property around marine genetic resources. There is a reasonable balance to be struck here. I believe that the Minister in the Commons, Seema Malhotra, has said that the Government will not notify for data that is protectable under IP provisions, but it would be useful to hear more from Ministers on how they think the IP regime will work in juxtaposition to the broader public goals of the treaty itself.
Secondly, a number of noble Lords have cited the links between the Bill and other maritime legal regimes, in particular the International Seabed Authority. The area does not correspond to the high seas, as we know. I totally endorse the point from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that mining, even if it is under the ISA’s exploratory category, will clearly have consequences for marine biology and diversity. Therefore, it would be of great importance to understand from the Government what influence and forcefield can continue to be placed around the ISA to ensure that, for example, it adopts the more rigorous environmental assessment standards implied by the BBNJ agreement, and to hear more about how that will work in practice.
Finally, on enforcement, the reality is that, under UNCLOS, as we have heard from other noble Lords, IUU fishing and overexploitation in coastal MPAs—and certainly in the high seas—are continuing. Flag hopping, flags of convenience and fake flags all stand in the way of the goals set out in the treaty. Coming back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, my question relates to Article 25.4, which states that parties can adopt measures over and above the flagging measure set out in our domestic Bill,
“to support the implementation of the decisions and recommendations made by the Conference of the Parties”.
Does that mean, for example, an enhanced role for constabulary or fisheries protection-type interventions in the high seas, where they are designated as area-based management zones or MPAs? An early test case for this might be the opportunity to develop an MPA covering the so-called “blue hole” north of the Falklands on the EEZ border with Argentina, where this is precisely the sort of mechanism that could correspond to a long-standing problem. If we saw action there, we would begin to believe that the Bill—the Act—has teeth.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as a Member replacing the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the Environment and Climate Change Committee and as a resident of the North Shields Fish Quay on the mouth of the Tyne—you will find it if you go to Newcastle and turn right—which is currently celebrating 800 years since its foundation. It is well worth a visit for anyone who has a day or two to spare.
I have never considered the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to have been an eco-warrior—but fair play to him. He was one of the early signatories, of the 145 representing different nations, to the agreement that gives rise to this piece of legislation. So credit where credit is due: without that signatory, we would not be where we are today. I also give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her role in that.
I welcome the return to Parliament of Labour’s own green-energy warrior, Alan Whitehead—my noble friend the Minister—who spoke with great authority, experience and expertise when making his impassioned maiden speech, for which he is to be truly congratulated.
Among others celebrating the regulation of the deep blue seas, which we are about to pass, will be the sharks, whales, turtles and other marine life that can be assured that nations recognise the need to exercise control over their own activities and craft sailing in the high seas. This is excellent news and the Government are to be congratulated on committing to this legislation. It is unfortunate, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, that some countries have not yet signed, but the door remains open for that to happen.
Our failure to pass this legislation—and I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has some objections to it—would have a seriously detrimental effect on the UK’s ability to influence a wider community and would present a risk of reputational damage to our position as one of the leaders in achieving global biodiversity targets.
The Bill will achieve a number of important things. MPAs will be established on the high seas, meaning that they should benefit from protections, just as national waters do, and there will be fair and shared access to the benefits of research and discovery, which will benefit the health and well-being of all signatory nations, meaning that smaller nations and less economically powerful nations will not be disadvantaged as breakthroughs are made in medicine and agricultural fields. It will strengthen our environmental impact assessments in determining whether potential gains outweigh the risks of marine exploration. It will increase and improve capacity in building, and technology transfer is making for a sustainable and inclusive ocean economy and overcoming the unlicensed approach.
I have just one question for the Minister. How big a deal is the absence of nations such as the United States from the early signatories of this agreement?
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for allowing me to speak in the gap and congratulate the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his excellent maiden speech. As he said, the Bill is about ambition.
This important piece of legislation will protect two-thirds of the world’s oceans with the jurisdiction of a single nation—the home of precious inhabitants and the ecosystems that provide the delicate health needed. It provides marine protected areas for generations to come. As we all know, our world’s oceans are under significant threat. The Bill incorporates protecting and improving the marine environment in the UK, as well as internationally, to meet the global commitment of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.
Oceans need action now from international communities helping to forge international relationships to ensure that exploitation is curtailed. Bottom-trawl fishing is highly destructive, damages the seabed and is still permitted. I vehemently hope that this practice can and will be halted.
The UK’s attention is drawn to hidden overfishing. Illegal discards and by-catch are unaccounted for in our fishing quotas as we continue to overfish and pollute our oceans, so action is very much needed. In the equation, too, is plastic production and waste, which have doubled in the last 15 to 20 years, to the extent that we now see plastic floating in our oceans. That has to be taken to task in order to breathe life back to protect our vital marine corridors for endangered marine mammals and birds. Oceans matter. They are host to almost 80% of all forms of biodiversity, which transcend our national borders.
It is pleasing that the figure of 60 countries having ratified the treaty was reached in September 2025, when Morocco and Sierra Leone deposited the 60th and 61st instruments of ratification. It will come into force next month, in January 2026, and is a huge step forward.
The Chagos Islands have vast marine protected areas around them and provide a safe corridor for migratory species. If we are to hand over the islands, what assurances have been given by Mauritius for marine protection, with ensured future funding?
The Bill will play a significant part in enabling and protecting our shared blue belt from further irreversible harm to enable healthy oceans for a healthy planet. I support the UK in meeting its international commitments, reinforcing its leadership in global ocean governance and supporting sustainable marine resource use. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to the Government; I used to work closely with him in opposition. I guarantee to him that if we can continue the co-operation that we had in trying to achieve the areas in climate change and energy that we often discussed, these Benches will be absolutely behind him. When he said he was going to resign from his seat at the next general election, I said to him that I was sure he would rebound back into this House, and here we are, so our congratulations from these Benches.
The Liberal Democrats and these Benches really welcome the Bill, and indeed the treaty, and it is always great to speak in the House when all sides of the House are pretty well at one. I just have a slight trepidation in that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is following me, has a reputation in this House for being quite combative. I will be interested to see what he has to say. I am still in some trepidation as to the unanimity of the House, but we will see. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, sounded positive, so that is something.
The way in which we judge this from these Benches—I have said this to Ministers before—is by looking at how ambitious the United Kingdom is, not just in ratifying this treaty but in making it work, do something and add to global biodiversity and the health of our planet. I am pleased that the Minister was very positive in that way. But like the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I read the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, which was released last week, and there is just that one mention of the BBNJ in there. As she pointed out very well, it was mentioned only once in some 120 pages, on Bermuda and the Sargasso Sea. I will be very interested to hear from the Minister, when she responds to this debate, about other specific areas, such as the Falklands, particularly as regards the Argentinian connection. That is an excellent suggestion. Let us have an agenda there that works.
One area in particular is not really covered by this biodiversity treaty—and we have to remember the major frustration that we cannot amend the treaty, only the legislation. I am sure we would all have liked it to be stronger, but we cannot change it. Ironically, one of the areas it really leaves out is fisheries, which are the biggest threat to biodiversity and have been over time, maybe apart from climate change and acidification, which others have mentioned. We are a member of five so-called regional fisheries management organisations, which span those high seas: two tuna ones, one in the Indian Ocean, a salmon Atlantic one, and the north-east Atlantic and north-west Atlantic fishing organisations. Because of the enforcement problems that we know we have, those organisations have great intentions and are important but are not as strong as they need to be. My question to the Minister is: do we have an agenda, a wish and a determination, apart from just ratifying this treaty, to make those regional fisheries management organisations work better and to be more effective to, if you like, surf the wave further towards helping biodiversity?
I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned the UNCLOS treaty, because like her I was on the International Relations and Defence Committee when we looked at it. In a way it is the Achilles heel of this treaty, because its fundamental status is to say, from way back in history, that outside territorial waters and certainly outside EEZs on the high seas, you cannot intervene on other flagged vessels without going through a very long process. That is a particular problem because of the way in which flag states operate.
Noble Lords will know that the major nations with the biggest fleets and tonnage are Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands. The UK is 27th on that list. We have 1,000 vessels of over 100 tonnes. Panama has eight times that number. However, when it comes to tonnage, we have only 1/25th of the tonnage that Panama has because operators and state companies choose their own flag of convenience and are often not able to respond in the way that they do. Fundamentally, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out, to make the enforceability and effectiveness of this treaty much better we have to try to tighten up on that situation. The report that we referred to asked the Government to look again at the 1986 UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships. That was some time ago. There have been only 17 ratifications; it needs 40 to come into force. I would love the United Kingdom to re-energise that treaty and try to get it implemented. It would make a huge difference in terms of enforceability for the Bill.
Moving on to the genetic and digital sequence side, we have mentioned the United States of America, which, under the Biden Administration, did sign this treaty but will never sign it during the Trump Administration. We might talk strongly to the United States, but there is no way that it will sign this treaty. The International Maritime Organization that we have talked about, working on the other side of the Thames, is really important. Two months ago, through intimidation, America stopped an international agreement on carbon emissions of vessels on the high seas that was about to be signed. That treaty was sunk by the United States through very aggressive activity. There is no chance whatever of the United States signing this one.
My question to the Minister is: what stops the excellent data sharing and sharing of scientific information for genetic material and digital sequence information? If British companies or British people wish to do that, what is to stop them offshoring that activity to the United States and carrying it out there without having to comply with this treaty? That is a difficult one. I would be interested to understand whether the Government have thought about that and what they might do.
Internationally, we need to look in the mirror. A number of noble Lords have said this. We are not perfect at looking after our biodiversity within our own waters and our own EEZ. Defra’s recent draft strategic look at fisheries and biodiversity has pointed out that the north-east Atlantic is one of the worst for depletion of fisheries and biodiversity. We have that in our own backyard. We need to get this right. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I have often called for remote electronic monitoring—of not just our own fleet but anybody that comes within our EEZ. The Government have a consultation out on that. It is one of two trials that have had very little reaction from the fisheries industry, but this would be good for it as well as for us. Let us do that.
These Benches welcome this treaty. We want to get it through quickly. We want it ratified. We want the United Kingdom to be positive, an implementer and one of the nations that ensures that this treaty, difficult though it is, is a real success for the high seas.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to his place on the Government Front Bench. When I was a Minister in DESNZ and he was shadow Energy Minister in the other place, we often appeared on panels and at seminars together and very rarely disagreed on most of the issues. He understands the energy brief extremely well and I am sure he will be a great success in his ministerial position. I look forward to seeing how he progresses.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but we support this important Bill implementing a landmark agreement that we signed when we were in government, as my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Courtown reminded us. Biodiversity is important both here and abroad, and the Government are right to continue our work to protect marine diversity both at home and on the high seas.
As my noble friend Lord Courtown said, in government we had a strong record on biodiversity. Beyond signing the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction—quite a mouthful —we implemented our world-leading Blue Belt programmes supporting our overseas territories in delivering protection for endemic marine biodiversity. Meanwhile, we ensured that around 40% of the UK’s domestic waters are protected by appropriate marine protected areas. These efforts, which are a continuation of the policy started by the previous Government, put the UK at the forefront of the global effort to protect 30% of global seas by 2030.
Ministers will have our support as they work to protect the world’s oceans from the harms of overfishing, pollution and climate change, but we need to get the details right, and we will be monitoring the Government’s approach to ensure that they really are doing the best that they can to protect marine biodiversity in our home waters as well as playing a full role in our worldwide effort to protect our oceans.
As we have already heard from a number of speakers, the UK is doing a great deal already to protect marine biodiversity, but protecting our oceans, as a number of noble Lords have reminded us, cannot be achieved unilaterally. When she replies, will the Minister provide the House with an update on the work that her department and others in government are doing to ensure that our partners across the world are doing their part in also protecting our oceans? What processes, for example, exist under this treaty to ensure that signatories fulfil their obligations and what consequences would there be for a nation that is a signatory to the treaty which fails to fulfil those obligations? Without firm commitment from all signatories, we will struggle to achieve the benefits for marine biodiversity, so it is essential that the UK continues to play a full role in encouraging other global partners to step up to the demands of this treaty. Can the Minister also confirm whether the UK will support other signatories where they lack the necessary administrative or scientific expertise, for example, to fulfil their obligations under the treaty? If so, what form would that support take and how would it be funded?
The location of the new marine protected areas, as my noble friend said, is important. Any clarity that Ministers can provide on that would be helpful to the House as we consider this treaty. It has also been noted that it will come into effect in early 2026. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that. Any other timelines which go along with the secondary legislation would also be helpful to the House.
How many of those MPAs will include prohibitions on fishing when they are introduced? We on these Benches are proud to back the UK fishing industry, so of course we need to get the balance right between MPAs that rightly prohibit overfishing and continuing to protect the sustainability of our fishing industry. I will not repeat the point on EU fishing rights in UK waters, but we are disappointed with the Government’s approach on this. We will continue to hold the Government to account. It is essential to get the balance right for our fishing communities, which have been, in our view, badly treated by the agreements that this Government have made.
My noble friend Lord Courtown summed up our approach to this Bill very well at the beginning of this debate. We will not seek to delay or undermine this important piece of legislation, and we want to support the Government in getting the Bill, which is necessary for ratification, on to the statute books in good time, not least to allow ratification to happen before the treaty comes into effect early next year.
That said, we will of course look at the Bill in detail as it progresses through its stages. In the other place, we sought to amend the regulation-making powers to improve parliamentary accountability, and a number of Members have referred to that. We sought to require Ministers to report to Parliament on the use of those powers under this Bill and the enforcement of the treaty. We will return to the issues of accountability and reporting in Committee, as well as looking at the impact of the treaty on UK-based businesses, particularly, as I mentioned, the sustainability of our fishing fleet.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Redfern, mentioned the important issue of the UK’s approach to the Chagos Archipelago. We debated this extensively during the recent treaty legislation and the Minister knows well that we are extremely concerned about the Government’s political decision to hand over the islands to Mauritius. This means that the UK will no longer be able to play a full role, as we would have played previously, in protecting the rich marine biodiversity around those islands.
Mauritius is also a signatory to the UN agreement on marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and the UK’s treaty with Mauritius establishes a marine protected area around the islands—although we are extremely concerned with its ability to enforce it. Will the Minister please take the opportunity to set out what levers and mechanisms the UK will retain and be able to use under the UN agreement to ensure that Mauritius fulfils its obligations on marine biodiversity?
We will not waver in our support for global collaboration on marine biodiversity. Healthy oceans are essential, and this treaty is, in our view, a real step forward in the fight against the harms of overfishing, pollution and climate change. Ministers are right to continue the excellent work that we started in this area, but we reserve the right to scrutinise the Bill in detail—and perhaps disagree with some of the details—when it progresses to its next legislative stage.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin, as others have done, by congratulating my noble friend Lord Whitehead on his excellent maiden speech. He brings to this House a wealth of experience from his distinguished career in energy and environmental policy. I know that both the House, and the Government in particular, will benefit greatly from his insight in the months and years ahead. I speak personally in saying that he brings great insight and experience and an incredibly dry sense of humour. Behind his very serious demeanour, he has an incredible wit, and has had me in stitches on many occasions. I will leave everybody else to look forward to those moments ahead.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. It has been thoughtful, constructive and rigorous. Many of the views that we have heard this afternoon reflect the House at its best. It has been particularly encouraging to hear broad support across all Benches for this important legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a very important point, which I expect I shall be making on repeat as we move forward with the Bill: yes, there are many things that we might wish to see done around fishing, bottom trawling, protection and marine protected areas—all of these things—but this Bill is about implementing a treaty. The trouble with international treaties is that they have to be negotiated. The process is long, it can be fraught, and there are trade-offs. A treaty is never only what we would wish to see; there are inevitably compromises. This is about implementing the outcome of that process. It is good but it is not perfect, and there is a long way to go. Not everything that we may wish to do is in this implementing legislation, but it is still the right thing.
It is important that the UK is a signatory to this and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, says, that we get on with it and are able to take our place at the Conference of the Parties early next year. She wants assurances that we will do that. Without wanting to ratchet the pressure on noble Lords, that is kind of down to us. The UK cannot ratify any treaty until we have our own legislative house in order. That is what this Bill is designed to do.
Many noble Lords encouraged us to try to persuade others who have not yet decided to sign up to take part, including the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Lennie, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others. I think we should do that, and we intend to do that. Our ability to persuade others to become signatories will be greatly enhanced once we have done our implementing legislation and we are signatories to the treaty.
Allow me to return to first principles and remind the House why the Bill and the BBNJ agreement are vital. The agreement represents a landmark step forward in the stewardship of our shared ocean. It provides the international framework needed to protect the two-thirds of the global ocean that lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single state—areas that contain some of the most biodiverse, fragile and least understood ecosystems on the planet. The agreement will help deliver the ambitions of the coming Montreal global biodiversity framework, including the global target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030. These ambitions are not merely environmental aspirations; they are economic necessities. The agreement also advances the UK’s wider climate and nature agenda. It reinforces our commitment to multilateral co-operation and strengthens the rule of international law. In doing so, it reaffirms the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as the cornerstone of global ocean governance.
The Bill positions the United Kingdom to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by this new international regime, something that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and my noble friend Lord Whitehead got at in their contributions. We are home to one of the world’s leading marine science communities: the National Oceanography Centre, the Marine Biological Association and our world-class university departments are at the cutting edge of global marine science. Provisions in the agreement promoting transparency, open data, capacity building and the equitable sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources will help ensure that this scientific excellence continues to flourish. These reforms will foster collaboration, support innovation and deepen global understanding of the high seas, while keeping the UK at the forefront of ocean research and discovery.
If the House indulges me, I will answer a couple of questions that noble Lords raised about matters that are not in the Bill, because I know they are of profound interest to many noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other noble Lords asked about deep-sea mining. To make it clear, the UK supports a moratorium on deep-sea mining until robust environmental safeguards and appropriate regulations are in place. This means that the UK will not sponsor or support the issuing of exploitation contracts by the International Seabed Authority unless there is sufficient scientific evidence to assess the potential impact of deep-sea mining activities on marine ecosystems and strong, enforceable, environmental regulation standards and guidelines that have been developed and adopted by the International Seabed Authority. Noble Lords can take their own view on how likely that is to happen any time soon.
The issue of bottom trawling, which is not included in the Bill because it is not part of the agreement, is nevertheless important to many noble Lords and was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern. The Marine Management Organisation has consulted on restricting bottom-towed fishing gear in 41 offshore marine protected areas, covering around 30,000 square kilometres of English waters. The consultation closed on 29 September and responses are now being analysed. This forms part of the Government’s ambitious programme to protect, where needed, all English marine protected areas from harmful activity to meet national and international commitments. The noble Lords’ points were well made and the Government take them on board, even though the issue is not, strictly speaking, part of the Bill.
Many noble Lords are understandably interested in enforcement, not least the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Stevens and Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The BBNJ agreement establishes an implementation and compliance committee to facilitate and consider the implementation of and promote compliance with the provisions of the agreement. Part IX of the BBNJ agreement contains provisions on the settlement of disputes.
As far as domestic plans go, enforcement plans here differ within each specific measure in the Bill. For marine genetic resource measures, Clause 9 of the Bill includes a power to make provision about the enforcement of requirements in respect of marine genetic resource obligations. This allows for the imposition of civil sanctions, including monetary penalties, stop notices and compliance notices. For area-based management tools, regulations made under Clause 11 may include provision about enforcement. The nature of enforcement provisions may differ depending on the regulations made—I will say something about regulations in a minute—and the activities they are regulating. However, enforcement could include civil or criminal sanctions or powers to detain craft.
On ratification, we are making the necessary domestic legislative changes in this Bill, as I have said, and the relevant secondary legislation to ensure that we are able fully to implement our obligations under the agreement before ratifying very soon. Once this Bill and associated legislation is passed, the UK can proceed to ratify the agreement by depositing the instrument of ratification at the United Nations.
On delegated powers, it really would be the end of days to get through a Bill such as this without having a long discussion about powers and I am very sure that we will return to this in Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Jones, and several other noble Lords referred to this. I am going to read out what I have here, and then we will return to this next time we meet.
Delegated powers have been taken to ensure that the UK can continue to comply with its international obligations under the BBNJ agreement. The powers will, in many cases, be exercised following future decisions or determinations taken by the Conference of the Parties to the BBNJ agreement. Following the passage of the Bill and relevant secondary legislation and subsequent ratification of the agreement, the UK will be a party to the agreement and will have the opportunity to shape future decisions taken at meetings of the Conference of the Parties. What I think this means is that we need the flexibility in order to implement future decisions, but we can discuss the appropriate process that should be taken and the need for parliamentary involvement and oversight of those things. I am sure that we will do that thoroughly.
My noble friend Lady Blackstone referred to scientists and researchers. Our impact assessments for the BBNJ Bill have not identified any significant costs for scientists and researchers. For example, the pre and post-cruise notification requirements mirror, to a large extent, the information that researchers are already required to provide as part of an application for consent to conduct research within the territorial sea or EEZ of a state. The BBNJ is not expected to have a significant or disproportionate impact on small or micro businesses. The number of UK-linked small or medium-sized businesses operating in the affected sectors is not expected to be high. The agreement offers important opportunities for the UK, which is one of the world’s leading marine scientific research communities.
On the cost of implementation, which my noble friend Lord Grantchester asked about, I suppose at this stage it is difficult to say what the final institutional size and structure of the BBNJ will look like. It is realistic to look at something such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is based in Montreal. Using that as a model, the UK thinks that its contribution, including the standard assessed contribution, the institutional budget and the 50% top-up, could total around £1 million annually.
On the issue of the overseas territories, which I recall the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord Teverson, mentioning, it is important that we are clear about the extent of this. There are no immediate plans for the UK to extend the BBNJ agreement to the overseas territories or Crown dependencies, but if any of them were to decide that in future they wish for the BBNJ agreement to be extended to them, then they would need to have appropriate domestic legislation in place before doing so. That is why a permissive extent clause is included in the Bill which would enable part or all of this Bill to be extended to any of the British overseas territories or the Isle of Man in future, if they wished, as part of their domestic implementation of the BBNJ agreement. This clause has been included following relevant engagement with the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
Nobody asked about devolution, but I feel I should say anyway that we are working closely with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, to ensure legislative consent for the Bill. These discussions are ongoing, and we hope to have legislative consent Motions secured from each legislature by the time of the Lords Report stage of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about Antarctica. As she knows, the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica is governed by the Antarctic Treaty system, which has placed the question of territorial sovereignty over the continent in abeyance. Article 5.2 of the BBNJ agreement states that it shall be applied in a manner that does not undermine other legal frameworks. The UK made a declaration on signature of the agreement stating that the Antarctic Treaty system comprehensively addresses the legal, political and environmental considerations unique to that region and provides a comprehensive framework for the international management of the Antarctic. As such, the measures in this Bill with respect to marine genetic resource will not apply to marine genetic resource activities carried out in Antarctica, as defined in the Antarctic Act 1994, or to marine genetic resources and digital sequence information on these resources from Antarctica. It is for the Antarctic Treaty system to regulate these activities.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about the impact on UK fishing. The BBNJ does not contain any provision in respect of UK fishers conducting commercial fishing activities. I appreciate that noble Lords have many views on this—and this is a great opportunity to express them—but this Bill does not have those provisions within it because these activities are governed under the Fisheries Act 2020. Fishing and fishing-related activities are exempt from the requirements of the BBNJ agreement relating to marine genetic resources. As such, the BBNJ Bill excludes UK fishers conducting commercial fishing activities from the application of its provisions on marine genetic resources. Requirements to conduct environmental impact assessments in relation to fishing are managed through existing legal frameworks and global and regional fisheries bodies. As a party to the agreement, the UK will be involved in the decision-making process for area-based management tools and will carefully consider any proposals to understand any potential impacts on UK fishing. That is why it is important that we are able to ratify so we can take our seat at the first Conference of the Parties and make sure that we have a say in these sorts of issues.
The noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Teverson, asked specific questions on marine genetic resource. Article 10.2 of the BBNJ agreement is clear that the marine genetic resource collection provisions do not apply to fishing and fishing-related activities. Clauses 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of the Bill implement this exception. I am sure we can come back in more detail to these issues when we get to Committee.
I thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to this debate. I have tried to address as many of the points raised as I can, but I am sure that we can come back to anything I have missed when we meet very shortly. This is a landmark piece of legislation. It ensures that the UK can ratify and take full part in the international BBNJ work at the United Nations. The measures it contains will not only safeguard marine ecosystems and strengthen our environmental security but will also deliver real benefits for the UK’s research and innovation community. The Bill represents the UK taking decisive action, protecting the ocean that sustains us all while empowering the scientists, innovators and institutions that are shaping its future. I commend this Bill to the House.
Draft Statutory Guidance on the Meaning of “Significant Influence or Control”
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan
That this House resolves not to approve the draft Statutory Guidance on the Meaning of “Significant Influence or Control” in the Context of the Football Governance Act 2025, as it creates uncertainty regarding the eligibility criteria; increases the likelihood of legal and ownership challenges; creates a conflicting regulatory regime for the licensed football clubs; and has the potential to damage the financial success and growth of the regulated leagues.
Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I have initiated this debate because the question of who is captured as a person of “significant influence or control” under the Football Governance Act inextricably links to the regulatory regime they will have to follow, and that will determine the success or failure of the Act. We need to get it right; clarity is the key word here. We need clarity to have effective regulation, and good regulation is essential for the success of EFL clubs and Premier League clubs alike. Unlike in debates during the passage of the Bill, we are all at one on this. We need to get this right, because that is the best way of ensuring the financial success of professional football.
Just one reason was given by the Minister for Sport in introducing the statutory guidance in another place on 27 October. She stated that the purpose of the statutory guidance on the meaning of “significant influence or control” under Section 1 of the Act was to
“ensure that fans can identify the real persons exercising control of their clubs, notwithstanding any opaque or complex ownership structures. This will give fans the much-needed transparency they deserve”.
She added just one further observation:
“This delivers the Government’s election promises to combat poor governance and financial mismanagement of football clubs in this country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/25; col. 1WS.]
Unfortunately, as drafted, it does no such thing.
As the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, helpfully contributed during the passage of the Bill, the concrete benefits to fans are a few statutory protections, mainly of heritage items, typically club names, crests— courtesy of my noble friend Lord Parkinson—home colours and home ground; and consultation, which already exists in most of the professional clubs in this country. There are no fan veto powers. What it does is create far tougher owners’ and directors’ tests than exist anywhere in the world, and it overlaps with UEFA and the Premier League and EFL’s requisite regulation.
There is no clear definition in the guidance of the meaning of “integrity” or “competence”, or indeed “source of funds”. In fact, the stated objective of the regulator is to go further than the Premier League does at the moment, requiring each and every club to list in the personnel statement those of “significant influence and control”. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the final rules on guidance and regulation will come before the personnel statements that are requested from clubs.
Most Premier League clubs sit inside a multi-club organisation and most of their owners live in jurisdictions abroad, where identifying those with “significant influence or control” is exceptionally difficult to determine. To say that the ownership of professional football in this country is complex is an understatement. In the Premier League, only two clubs have a solitary shareholder. The staggering complexity of the challenge for clubs is clear when you realise that the ownership of Premier League football clubs is primarily international. As of this summer, American ownership is 40%; Chinese, 5%; Saudi Arabian, 4%; Swiss, 4%; Egyptian, 2%; international institutions and others, 2%; Greek, 5%; the UAE, 4%; Uruguayan, 2%; and Czech, 1%. UK ownership stands at 22%. Yet clarity is everything, so let me ask the Minister about just one club. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and I are both avid supporters of Leeds United, I have chosen that club.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am in football paradise, but not for the reason the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. It is because my team, Arsenal—I declare my interest—are top of the Premier League and top of the Champions League group, as all noble Lords will know. I also declare my interest as counsel to Manchester City Football Club in long ongoing disciplinary proceedings brought by the Premier League.
I will make three points on the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. First, the Football Governance Act imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance on the meaning of the phrase “significant influence or control”. That is in Schedule 1(15)(1), read with paragraph 2.1. The Secretary of State has no choice; she has to produce guidance.
The second point is that this is, in football terms, a hospital pass. Significant influence or control is one of many legal concepts which are amorphous; they depend, essentially, on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. I can give many examples, such as reasonable care, driving without due care and attention, indecency or obscenity. None of these concepts can be defined with the precision the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeks. There was a famous obscenity case in the US Supreme Court in the 1960s, during which Mr Justice Potter Stewart said that he could not define obscenity, but he certainly knew it when he saw it.
Parliament uses a phrase such as “significant influence or control” and fails to define it here and in other contexts where it is used, such as the Companies Act, precisely because Parliament wants to ensure sufficient flexibility to cover such cases and circumstances as may arise from time to time that fall within the general mischief at which the Act is aimed. That is the whole point of having a phrase such as this, and Parliament—us—not defining it in the legislation.
I very much hope that, when the Minister responds to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, she will not rise to the challenge of attempting to pronounce on the Floor of the House how “significant influence or control” applies to the people the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. If I may respectfully say so, it would not be appropriate for a Minister to attempt to prejudge how this concept applies to particular persons.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am also in football paradise because my club, Birmingham City, after 30 years actually has very decent owners. Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminds me that Birmingham beat Arsenal in the League Cup in 2011, as he may well recall.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has raised an important issue, essentially about definitions, but I just want to ask him: why a fatal Motion? Only a handful of fatal Motions have ever been passed by your Lordships’ House. I listened very carefully and I do not think he gave one justification for a fatal Motion. I do not know whether he is allowed to come in again, but it would be helpful to this debate to know what on earth this is about.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. My interest in this matter is in the Football Governance Act itself, and less in football. I have no football club interest whatever to declare. I just want to ask: what is the noble Lord trying to achieve here? There are all sorts of people in both Houses who seem terribly keen on stopping the football regulator getting on with what they are supposed to be getting on with. This Bill originated in the Tory party prior to the general election, and it was picked up willingly by the Labour Party while we were in opposition. I was the leader of that team at the time: I pushed for it to be in our manifesto and I am absolutely delighted that it is there. There is an excellent chair of the regulator in David Kogan, who has the respect of all sides of football and is uniquely well qualified in his knowledge of both broadcasting and football. All we need here is for the regulator to be allowed to get on with the job. It is my understanding that it is doing so at great speed, in the interests of football clubs.
The noble Lord refers to specifics. Surely, he wants those football clubs to survive and thrive. That is what this regulator is about and what this party wants to see: is the game of football surviving and thriving up and down all quarters and parts of the country? That is what the football regulator was set up to ensure and I really hope that the noble Lord is not trying to stand in the way of progress.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Debbonaire said that the Bill originated as a Tory proposal when she was a shadow Minister. I do not think she had joined your Lordships’ House a year ago when we were going through this Bill and had the marvellous sight of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who had moved the Bill for the Tory party prior to the election, turning handstands to say why it was not suitable, why we really did not need it and why all sorts of changes had to be introduced before it could make any progress—the text for, “We don’t really want it to make any progress at all”. I understand that that was not always personal on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and that there were forces behind him, shall we say. In many cases, they were influenced by connections with Premier League football clubs.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whom I hugely respect, particularly in sporting matters—I am loath even to question his motives—that I wonder why he is doing this. Is it not rerunning some of our debates a year ago, when there was opposition to the Bill per se? I am not suggesting that he is acting on behalf of anyone else—he is well capable of speaking for himself—but it seems to me that, when he gave the Leeds United example, that was personal. He unpicked the layers, almost like an onion, of who controls the club, and I understand why there were questions there: but that seems to be more about Leeds United than about the Bill and this guidance.
I cannot understand why the noble Lord thinks the guidance is unclear. Paragraph 2.7 talks about
“significant influence or control … For example, absolute decision or veto rights”
relating to eight examples. It is quite clear. We can look too closely at what “significant influence or control” actually means: it is usually quite clear, and those involved know whether they have that. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about effectively turning people away from football because of the test they will have to meet. I suggest that, if people are not prepared to be open and transparent about what they are doing and perhaps why they are doing it, they will not be any loss to football, because there is more to that than just the financial terms.
I will make one last point. The noble Lord cited his own football club, which I think I am right in saying was not a Premier League club at this time last year, when the Bill was going through. But it seemed that the main thrust was about Premier League clubs, rather than EFL clubs. If we are declaring our interests, I declare that I am a proud part-owner and season ticket holder at AFC Wimbledon, further down the pyramid. The noble Lord said, “We didn’t think the guidance was about existing owners; it was about new owners hoping to come into the game”. Well, I did not get that impression when we had the discussions a year ago. Look at the clubs at level 2—Reading, Cardiff City and Sheffield Wednesday, which he mentioned—which could not get rid of owners who were really dragging those clubs down. It is not just about the Premier League; it is about clubs at a lower level that may have aspirations to get to the Premier League. There are more mundane examples than the high-fliers that hope to be the Arsenals of this world. So, again, like my noble friend Lord Hunt, I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is seeking to achieve, other than to undermine the force of the Act.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when I saw that we were going to pray against the Bill, I thought, “Oh, this is interesting”, because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is good at this. He casts the fly across the water and drags it out to see what will rise and bite. Well, this trout is biting—not at the fly but at the line. The Bill is going through and we will have precedent and case law very quickly on how this is operating. We will have to let the regulator get on with it.
I agree with the noble Lord on one point: the ownership of these national bodies is incredibly complicated. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has just mentioned it. If you think this is complicated, look down the chain. The origins of many of these institutions go back to the Victorian period, and they have been through many evolutions, changes and traumatic experiences along the way, wrapped around them. There is a great mess about these institutions, which is why they get into so much trouble and why we need the regulator.
You will have to have a series of general terms, which will be defined by experience, case law and the attitude of the regulators. I hope the current regulator is a success. Let us face it, the regulator has not exactly arrived to universal fanfare, but I hope it is a success and we set a precedent for how this should be done, because we need that. It is too complicated to get the definitions and clarity the noble Lord seeks here. I know he opposed the regulation of this sport and is worried about other bits. I happen to disagree with him on this; I may agree with him on something else tomorrow, but on this I disagree with him. We should let the regulator get on with it and observe. We have other things coming in the “state of the game” report, and the Government cannot look away from this. We have to make sure that it happens independently. I hope that we just let the regulator get on with it because, let us face it, we have talked about this enough.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for speaking when the Front Benches have started speaking—I was going to stand up, but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, jumped up far too quickly.
When it comes to football, I want to use a phrase that the late Bishop of Southwark, Roy Williamson, applied to me. We had been working hard to get the Holy Trinity Church restored; it was a very poor congregation and fundraising was really very difficult, but we managed to do it. He came to open this amazing refurbished place, with the organ returned to its great glory. The church was full, and he said, “Your vicar, John Sentamu, can almost be compared to a Yorkshire terrier—never letting go, or only doing so in order to get a firmer grip”. That is how I see the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan: when it comes to football, he is like a Yorkshire terrier. He does it not wanting to control or anything but just because he loves football, and he knows a lot about football. He is doing this with an honest attitude. I do not think he is doing it to prevent regulations and all that is happening. But because he is like a terrier, I think this is the moment he needs to let go.
This stands on a three-legged stool. The first is what we passed here in your Lordships’ House—an Act of Parliament, the primary legislation. If you go there, you discover that the Secretary of State has power to do what he has just done. He is not doing it out of any reason other than that the Act that we passed gave him that power. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said exactly the same thing.
Secondly, there is the regulator, with powers given, again, by an Act of Parliament. The third leg is guidance—but I always look at guidance not as the key driver of things, which is why it cannot be clearly defined on every occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, guidance always has to be understood in context. You cannot simply talk about what happens to my little club, which is not in paradise. York City Football Club is climbing up slowly, but it fell out of League Two a long time ago. You cannot say to the people of York City that paragraph 1.6 should not apply to them, when it says that
“regulated football clubs will be required to submit and publish a personnel statement identifying all owners. The definition of ownership, including the concept of significant influence or control, will ensure this statement publicly identifies the correct persons as owners, providing transparency to fans and the wider public”.
That will also apply to my little York City Football Club. Therefore, I do not see those phrases needing to be more precise.
This three-legged stool of the Act, the regulator and the guidance provided by the Secretary of State will, I am sure, make even my little club of York City feel emboldened that it actually knows who really owns it and who those people are. I think this is a good thing. I beseech the highly admired noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that this is the time to drop the Motion. He can continue to be keen on football, but this is not the time—otherwise, you are going to play a game that is not going to take you anywhere.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I for one am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for giving us the opportunity to consider this guidance in full and for acting, if I follow the metaphors correctly, like a trout-fishing terrier who loves football too much but did not read the Tory manifesto with enough diligence. Of course, had my noble friend not brought this Motion, I doubt we would have had quite as many people here, or quite as many speeches, or spent such a long time looking at the guidance that is before your Lordships’ House—and I am glad that we have, because much has changed even since the debates we had on the Bill before it left your Lordships’ House and went to another place.
For instance, we saw just yesterday the sanctions that the EFL has handed to Sheffield Wednesday, following multiple breaches of its regulations relating to payment obligations. The EFL has given that club a six-point deduction and banned its former owner from owning any club in the English Football League for three years. Had we known that example at the time of the Bill’s passage, we might have taken it into consideration when discussing the amendments allowing some of the regulation to be delegated to the leagues themselves—but that debate has passed.
We are also meeting this evening after the Commissioner for Public Appointments appeared before a Select Committee in another place, where the appointment of the chairman of the Independent Football Regulator was likened to a
“mafia appointment in Sicily sometime in the 1950s”.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Well, those were the comments of the chairman of the Select Committee in another place. But rather more pertinent are the comments not by a politician but by the commissioner, Sir William Shawcross himself, who spent the morning giving evidence to a Select Committee of Parliament and who said that he had never seen an appointment with as many breaches of the Governance Code on Public Appointments as this one. He said that it was
“not easy to set those breaches aside”
and called that very disappointing. I am sure we all agree that it has been a very disappointing process.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but are we not somewhat straying from the subject of this Motion? We appear to be now discussing the football regulator and some very flowery language used by the chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee this morning, which was wholly unfair and wholly unreasonable, when we are actually supposed to be discussing the guidance. Are we not just using a political opportunity to have a go?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
This is guidance and this is a Bill that is to be enforced by a new independent regulator. We did not know the name of the Government’s preferred candidate for the regulator when the Bill went through, regrettably. We know now who is entrusted with applying this new regime, and we know that the Commissioner for Public Appointments has criticised not just the Government but this morning Mr Kogan himself for a lack of transparency. It is straying from the guidance, but I wonder whether the Minister, when she rises, will have anything to say about the comments made by the Commissioner for Public Appointments today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, is right: the focus of this debate is the guidance before us. On this too, my noble friend Lord Moynihan has raised a number of pertinent questions, some of which we touched on during our scrutiny of the Bill and some of which are raised by the guidance that has now been published. Under particular consideration today is an issue that we spent considerable time on. When we were looking at the Bill, we were provided with rather scant information about what significant influence or control would mean in practice. We now have draft guidance—but, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan says, that appears to raise rather more questions than it answers.
As my noble friend pointed out during our scrutiny of the Bill, there is no requirement in the legislation to consult before publishing the guidance, which has now been published. I think that is regrettable. I see from some of the comments that there has been informal consultation with some in football, but maybe the Minister can set out in a bit more detail the consultation and discussions that were had, which led to the drawing up and publication of this draft guidance.
A second and rather more serious point of contention regarding the new owners’ test, again raised by my noble friend in his speech and his Motion today, is the significant departure from the current concepts of ownership employed by the Premier League, the EFL, UEFA and others in football. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made some remarks about obscenity—not obscene remarks, I note carefully—drawing attention to other areas of law, both in this country and in the United States, where different tests are made. But in a football context alone, the Premier League’s handbook uses the notion of control and control only, whereas here in the guidance we see the new concept of significant influence or control. So this is introducing some new thoughts into this particular sphere of football regulation. The draft guidance states:
“The right to exercise significant influence or control over a club may result in that person being considered an owner for the purpose of the Act, regardless of whether or not they actually exercise that right”.
Surely the combination of this broader interpretation of the meaning of owner and the fact that one does not actually have to do anything to be considered as such, under the Act, means that this guidance would capture a far greater number of people than one might initially anticipate.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Of course the guidance goes further than addressing ownership. That is because the legislation which Parliament enacted requires attention to “significant influence or control”. That is the whole point.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My question to the Minister is: will that capture more people than one might imagine? I think the lay person looking at this imagines a single owner of a club, but as in the legislation that Parliament has passed, a number of people can be considered an owner and to have “significant influence or control”, and I will come on to a few more examples of that. For instance, on page 7 of the guidance, paragraph 2.11 states:
“A person might exercise significant influence or control if their recommendations or instructions are always or almost always followed by other owners and/or officers, due to the financial relationship of the person to the club”.
What does that mean, for instance, for a club sponsor? They have a clear financial relationship with the club, and they might make recommendations to the club which are often followed by the officers of the club. Does that mean, under these regulations and the Act that we have passed, that they could be considered to have “significant influence or control”? Would a sponsor in any circumstance count as an owner under these regulations?
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I do not like interrupting the noble Lord, because he always puts the facts as he wants to put them, but the question that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked was: would it catch everybody? Yes, if they are regulated football clubs. Paragraph 1.6 states that
“regulated football clubs will be required”,
so it will catch everybody. Everybody must do what paragraph 1.6 says.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My point was a broader one about whether, under the definitions in paragraph 2.11, a club sponsor could be considered to have “significant influence or control”. It seems to me, on a reading of the guidance, that they might, but I look forward to the Minister’s response. It certainly seems that there is quite an expansive list of people that the regulations might apply to. Paragraph 2.12 states that a former owner who sold his or her shares to a close friend could still be considered an owner if he or she makes recommendations on how to vote to the person to whom he or she sold those shares. So, under the guidance, a person with no current financial stake in the club at all could actually count as an owner. I would be grateful for confirmation of that from the Minister. I see her nodding, but I look forward to her confirmation.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out, through the history of Leeds United, the complicated arrangements by which football clubs are owned. Another example might be Bournemouth. In 2022, Turquoise Bidco Ltd obtained 100% of shares in Bournemouth Football Club. Turquoise was then renamed Black Knight Football Club UK Ltd, which is a UK-based holding company wholly owned by Black Knight Football Club US based in Nevada. That American entity is in turn owned by Cannae Holdings, Inc. According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Cannae owned 44.3% of Black Knight, but Cannae is in turn owned by institutional investors, including BlackRock and the Vanguard Group. An American businessman, Bill Foley, owns 7.7% of Cannae, meaning that his beneficial ownership of Bournemouth is 3.4%, but a filing in April this year disclosed that his economic interest in Black Knight is 28%. That adds to the example of Leeds given by my noble friend Lord Moynihan of the complexity of even the most straightforward football clubs and the difficulty that will be involved in setting out all the people that might need to be regulated, investigated and brought before the regulator.
I conclude by echoing the question that my noble friend asked, as the Minister would expect, given my roots in Tyneside. The question that my noble friend posed will be of great interest to my friends and family there: would she advise the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to continue to invest in Newcastle United, through the Saudi Public Investment Fund, given what this might mean for him and for the club? That is just one of many questions of great interest to football fans, which is not made clear through this guidance. I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to probe those in a rather fuller House than I think we would have had in Grand Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, my life would be truly boring without the chance to talk about football in your Lordships’ House, so I am very pleased to have the opportunity to provide clarity on the draft statutory guidance on the meaning of “significant influence or control” in the context of the Football Governance Act 2025, guidance that was laid before both Houses of Parliament on 27 October 2025. I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny provided on this draft statutory guidance. The committee did not draw the guidance to the special attention of the House and no objections were raised in the other place.
It is always a pleasure to debate issues relating to football regulation with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. However, I cannot help but share my surprise and regret that he felt the need to do this by tabling a fatal Motion against the guidance. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt that this feels like a disproportionate approach. I am also tempted to agree with my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is attempting to rerun the debates we held over the past year. I regret this not least because I sent the draft guidance to the noble Lord myself and offered to meet to discuss the guidance in a letter sent to him, and a number of other Peers with a known interest, over a month ago, an opportunity I also offered to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Notwithstanding this, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised no concerns directly to me or my team before this evening’s debate—not when he received my letter, nor even when the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported on this guidance on 13 November. I am a little confused about the noble Lord’s quoting of the Minister for Sport, as beyond her Written Ministerial Statement, this has not been discussed or had concerns raised about it in the other place. I am grateful, however, for the opportunity to stress how vital this legislation is in delivering for fans.
The implementation of this regime, which prioritises the protection of clubs from unsuitable owners and financial distress, and the interests of fans nationally, is a priority for this Government. That is why, during our lengthy discussions on and scrutiny of the primary legislation, the Government committed to producing this guidance before clubs are required to identify their owners in the personnel statement. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that this guidance does not add clarity. The Government are pleased to have delivered on this commitment and to provide clarity regarding the concept of “significant influence or control”. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did not find it clear. I read it twice and I thought it was clear. If I understand it, as somebody who is not a regulator, I believe that it is relatively clear.
This guidance plays a key role in the regulator’s regime, with this unexpected Motion disrupting progress and preventing David Kogan and his team from getting on with their important job. As my noble friend Lady Debbonaire made clear, the regulator now has an excellent, experienced and well-respected chair in post. He has wasted no time in meeting clubs and stakeholders from across football, including the top five English leagues, consulting industry on new rules and building up an executive team of regulatory experts. I hope that noble Lords across the House agree that the regulator needs to be able to make progress on these priorities without delay. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, we need to let him get on with his job.
As someone who has a terrier, I might not agree with the phrasing of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, but I agree with the sentiment of his interventions. We just need to look at the plight of Sheffield Wednesday to understand the urgency of giving the regulator the tools to get to work. With regard to concerns raised by noble Lords today, it is important to note that this guidance was drafted collaboratively. I make it absolutely clear that officials have worked with both industry and non-industry experts to ensure that it is clear, useful and user-friendly.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked about consultation. I give him an assurance that this has been extensive. Officials have spoken to UEFA, to all the competition organisers, to a wide range of clubs throughout the different leagues and to DBT officials about their comparable Companies Act guidance. In developing the draft, we have drawn on the approach used in the Companies Act “persons with significant control” regime to ensure that we are aligned with current precedent. Building on the Companies Act guidance, it introduces industry-specific examples that have been tested with the football industry, makes these concepts more tangible for those who will have to interpret the guidance, especially clubs, and ensures that this guidance is suited to the regulated industry.
In relation to the point on consultation from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I say that, crucially, the guidance has also been tested with the regulator itself to ensure that the concepts are clear and that the non-exhaustive examples are helpful. David Kogan and his team have confirmed that this guidance provides them with the product they need to undertake their important work.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering the questions that were posed. I apologise if I missed this, but does she accept that, under paragraph 2.11, it might be possible for a sponsor of a club to be considered as part of the new owners and directors test, if the sponsor’s recommendations are usually followed by the club? That is the test that paragraph 2.11 shows.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will have to defer to the Box on that point, but I will be happy to pick that up with the noble Lord afterwards.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. I will pick up on some of the points she has made and try to answer the other interventions that came from the packed Benches on the Government side, which I am delighted to see for this debate. I have rarely been called a trout-fishing terrier. I love trout fishing and I also love terriers, so I take those both as compliments. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, that I am passionately committed to football, both amateur and professional; I always have been in 40 years involved in sport. There is no one who would regard my intervention on this subject as coming from any other position than being passionate about sport and football.
The Act is detrimental to the future of professional football; it is a view I spoke about a great deal in Committee. This evening, I did not address any of those points but focused exclusively on the guidance. I say to the Minister and to others that the debate this evening does not stop the regulator for one day. The statutory guidance is laid before both Houses until 5 December, and there is the opportunity to debate it in either House until that point. It is not a delaying tactic; it does not delay the regulator getting on with its job. To say that and to imply that is fundamentally wrong. We cannot do anything about this until 5 December, when both Houses will have had the opportunity to consider it. We have had the opportunity in advance of that to have a debate.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Watson, who are passionate about sport and highly knowledgeable about football—they may not take this as the greatest compliment coming from me, although it is meant to be a compliment at the highest level—that I tabled this Motion because, if we have secondary legislation, we have the opportunity to review it in the normal way, but if we have draft statutory guidance the only way we can debate it is by tabling a fatal Motion. I have no intention of pressing it to a vote, but I absolutely intended to make sure that what we looked at during the passage of the Bill—the decision to bring forward statutory guidance on this so that the whole of Parliament could consider it—was given due consideration.
Having read the guidance, I made it clear to the House this evening that I was concerned it went too closely along the lines—which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said was inevitable and important in the drafting—of being kept purposefully and precisely vague, to use his phrase. I was a little nervous that, in responding, the Minister might do exactly what the noble Lord encouraged her not to do and provide clarity and precision. Understandably, she could not, because it is vague, and intentionally so.
I say to the Minister that this could be far better written. I genuinely believe that it is important to take it away and write it with greater clarity, because the guidance needs to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the need for the regulator to look into significant interest or control and, on the other, having to think about investors and the best interests of every club. It is my firm belief that, if you go too closely down the road of being so precisely vague and wide ranging, it could deter investors in professional football. That is why I felt it important to have this debate.
This Motion does not delay the regulator at all and gives this House the opportunity to consider something it requested in Committee on the Bill and which the Government granted. This debate has been very well attended. I am exceptionally grateful to those who have contributed. I avoided completely going down the line that the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, thought I might by focusing exclusively on and going into detail on this guidance. Having placed this on the record, I hope that the regulator and the world of football will be able to go away and consider whether there are ways to improve the statutory guidance and that, when we sit down with the football clubs, we avoid overlapping with the regulatory frameworks of UEFA, the EFL and the Premier League, which is also vital and to be avoided here.
I am grateful to the Minister for sitting through another debate on football and for the very helpful contributions from, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Watson, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, feared that we will see this in case law; I fear that he is absolutely right.
It may help the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, if I repeat one point. I was absolutely opposed to this legislation all the way through and thought that it would be bad law. I believe it is bad law. I thought Boris Johnson’s knee-jerk reaction to go to legislation on the Monday after the Saturday announcement of the super league was wrong. That is not the right way for professional sport in this country. But I did not go down that road this evening. I focused on this because I want to make it as good as possible and passionately want this Act to succeed now that it is in statute, in the interests of football and investors as well as of regulation. I wish the regulator every success with this. I hope it gets it right and has the opportunity to reflect on what has been said on both sides of this House. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Criminal Court Reform
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on criminal court reform.
As the House is aware, the first part of the independent review of criminal courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson—one of the foremost judges of his generation—and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Shaun McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once-in-a-generation court reform. That is desperately needed, because the Government inherited an emergency in our courts: a record and rising backlog currently standing at 78,000 cases, and victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case.
Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six-year wait for justice. During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated; it is systemic.
We are all proud of our justice system, rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to
‘deny or delay right or justice’.
When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves. Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This Government have already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose, a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown Courts—5,000 more than those funded last year by the previous Government.
Today, I can announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates, to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown Courts and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.
However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The case load is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse. To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian’s bold blueprint for change.
First, I will create new ‘swift courts’ within the Crown Court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges will provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hard-wire transparency into our new approach.
Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials—a practice not found widely in other common-law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up. I will limit appeals from the magistrates’ courts so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further.
Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates’ court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown Court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.
These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences. Among others, that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, causing grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.
I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill’s time, and today magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown Court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.
Conservative Members talk about the Crown Court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971—the year before I was born—to replace a patchwork of part-time courts unable to cope with a rising case load. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. We now face an emergency in the courts, and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve.
I am also clear that we must future-proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a second report, focused on efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.
We will also continue to support victims, to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announced this week that I will provide multi-year funding for victim support services, including specialist emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increase budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million—more than half a billion. I want those victims to stay the course.
Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation, which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for repeating the Statement from the other place. I thank the Secretary of State for Justice for his Statement on jury trial, although I wonder whether he understood many of its implications before delivering it to the press and then to Parliament. The Government’s troubling habit of engaging in legislation by leakage, of which their recent Budget is another precedent, should, however, not distract us from the content of this Statement.
In 2017, while leading the review of racial bias in the criminal justice system, the now Secretary of State for Justice declared that juries were the only stage of the criminal justice system without racial bias. In 2020, he declared:
“Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement”.
Now, the Secretary of State for Justice declares that, in order to preserve jury trials, he must abolish most jury trials. This has echoes of the logic of the lunatic asylum. Herod declares that to preserve the family unit, he must strike down the firstborn. Or, more recently, there was Gordon Brown’s decision to preserve Britain’s wealth by selling off half of our gold reserves at near the bottom of the market. That decision left the country poorer; this decision will leave the justice system weaker.
This is the Government dismantling the institutions they claim to defend, then insisting that destruction is somehow salvation. A judge sitting alone in a Crown Court trial will have to provide not just a verdict but reasons for the verdict. Does the Minister agree? Such reasoning is bound to be the subject of scrutiny and then potential appeal. If so, are the Government planning to abolish such a right of appeal on the merits of the decision? In that event, parties with no right of appeal may have recourse to judicial review. Or do the Government also plan to abolish the right to judicial review in such circumstances?
Just how deep do the Government plan to cut into the body of the justice system, and do they actually believe that our system of criminal justice can survive such radical surgery? The Secretary of State for Justice tells us that this radical surgery is required to deal with the enormous backlog of cases in the Crown Court, estimated at almost 80,000 cases. So will the Minister tell us whether this proposed legislation is going to be retrospective? That would be an unprecedented and unconscionable attack on an accused’s rights. If in an each-way case, for example, an accused has already decided upon trial by jury and is now preparing for and awaiting that jury trial, are the Government going to retrospectively remove that fundamental right? If so, can the Minister cite a precedent for such retrospective changes to our system of criminal law?
However, if these changes are not to be retrospective, then the tens of thousands of cases that the Secretary of State for Justice refers to as justification for this exceptional measure remain untouched. The backlog will not be cut. Victims and accused will be no closer to justice. In stripping away a centuries-old right, the Government will sacrifice principle but fail to fix the problem. To significantly dismantle the right to trial by jury and gain virtually no benefit is not just an exercise in incompetence but an act of constitutional vandalism. We are being reminded of a problem, but we are not being presented with a solution.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, at the heart of this Statement is a wholesale attack on the jury system. The Government intend first doing away with jury trials in all but indictable-only offences or offences where the likely sentence is three years or less and, secondly, doing away with the defendant’s right to elect for jury trial altogether.
On the first, a radical restriction of jury trials, do the Government accept that they propose going far further than the Leveson report suggested, both on which cases would be tried by a jury and on the make-up of the new courts? Two fundamental questions arise. Importantly, since, apart from robbery and some other offences generally involving violence, offences under the Theft Act are not indictable only, would not all but the most serious cases of dishonesty be triable by judge alone?
Do the Government really think that the likely length of a prison sentence is the only true measure of severity? Is that not a fundamental mistake? Let us take the Horizon scandal. Almost no postmasters received a sentence of more than three years. Harjinder Butoy received the longest sentence—three and a quarter years—only to be released after 18 months when his conviction was overturned, leaving his life in ruins. Most sentences were between six and 18 months, yet those cases destroyed hundreds of lives, driving many to a breakdown or suicide. Those defendants would have no right to a jury trial.
What about the public servant or the professional who stands to lose career, income, reputation and family when charged with minor shoplifting, and who wants the defence of honest mistake or absent-mindedness determined by a jury? What about the teacher or health worker charged with indecent exposure, who will never work with children again if convicted but who is denied the right to a jury trial to decide on a defence of false identity?
The proposal is for judges or magistrates to decide on the likely length of the sentence and the mode of trial, apparently to prevent the defendants gaming the system. In the Statement, the word “gaming” is in bold. Does that give a clue to the Lord Chancellor’s thinking? That is an absurd preconception. Do not many defendants elect jury trial precisely because they want a trial by their peers, with no preconceptions or predetermination of their guilt? The public believe that jury trials are fairer. They recognise that 12 heads are better than one. They know instinctively, as advocates know from experience, that judges vary, one from another, in their prejudices and judgment. Does the Minister not agree? The public trust juries, and public trust in the fairness of our justice system is severely threatened by these proposals.
How are judges or magistrates to assess the likely sentence before a case has even started or any evidence been heard? Does the Minister believe that that would be either possible or fair? At the very least, should defendants not be entitled to a proper hearing to put their arguments for having a jury trial before the court? Should not these measures be temporary or provisional until waiting lists are reduced? In the Commons, Kim Johnson, a Labour MP, suggested a sunset clause, but the Lord Chancellor rejected that.
Jury trial has been a fundamental right of citizens in this country for more than 800 years. Lord Devlin described it as
“the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.
The Statement mentions Magna Carta and it prioritises ending delays over jury trials. But Magna Carta does not do that. King John was not asked to take his pick between Article 39 on jury trials and Article 40 on justice delayed or denied—the Barons insisted on the right to receive both jury trial and timely justice, and we should do that now.
Will the Government not take further steps to reduce delays? Steps should and could be taken, including having many more court sitting days, repairing the courts, having more efficient listing, and using more and smarter technology. Do the Government really insist that the delays could not be cut over time with greater investment? Possibly in some long, technical fraud trials—where the points taken are genuinely not jury points, such as dishonest intent or who knew what and when—the mode of trial might be changed. More generally, do the Government really want to sacrifice the right to jury trial because they admit defeat on cutting delays?
I have a final but entirely unrelated question on the Statement. The Lord Chancellor said that £550 million extra was to be spent on victim support services over three years, but said not a word on how it was to be spent. Can the Minister give us more detail, either now or in writing later?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for the points they made on these reforms. I have a great deal of respect for the insight that both bring and their observations about the Statement.
I begin with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord. Many people may think that it a bit rich of the party opposite to complain about this, when everybody knows that this is a situation created by them due to the consistent cuts in the criminal justice system over many years. Victims are now reaping what the party opposite sowed. We on these Benches have to try to put this right.
Many matters were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks; I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond to them all in my short response now. However, there are answers to almost all of them. For example, he asked how we estimate the likely sentence. That it is done using the sentencing guidelines. It is done all the time at the moment; magistrates do it day in, day out in the magistrates’ courts, when they decide where someone should be tried. It is a task that can be undertaken.
One of the things I want to say from the Dispatch Box is that I have changed my mind. I have been a criminal barrister for many decades. When I practised as a criminal barrister, I too felt that any attempt to touch what happens with jury trials was fundamentally wrong. However, I then became a judge in the Crown Court and saw what was actually happening. Every judge in the Crown Court up and down this country will have experienced sitting with other judges at lunchtime and saying, “I cannot believe that this case I am trying here and now is actually in the Crown Court. It shouldn’t be here”.
We are not sacrificing jury trials—of course we are not. It has never been that every criminal case was tried by a jury; 90% are currently tried in the magistrates’ courts. The question is, where do we draw the line? That is why this Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an independent review, and we will accept his conclusions. It would be frankly irresponsible not to do so; we cannot ignore what he is saying. We are not going far further, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, implied; we are doing exactly what Sir Brian suggested: having a Crown Court Bench Division to deal with cases where the likely sentence is three years or less.
This is a package to deal with the problems we face with the criminal justice system; it is not about cutting jury trials. There are three limbs to it. The first is about investment: record investment is being made in the criminal justice system in sitting days and legal aid payments to the criminal Bar and criminal solicitors, whose fees went down for ages. The second is about structural reform, which is what we are discussing now; that includes the removal of the right to elect, the reform of appeals in the magistrates’ courts, the Crown Court Bench Division and some reforms to fraud trials. The third is about efficiency, and that is what Sir Brian is considering in the second part of his report.
Gaming the system is a real problem. I am afraid that there are rumours out there that some people are less than scrupulous once they get arrested by the police. Some of those people know that the delays are such in the Crown Court that, if they elect trial by jury and decide to sit around and wait, particularly if they are on bail, they will have not just one Christmas at home, but at least two or maybe three. They will probably be tagged, and when they come back to the Crown Court when their trial date finally arrives, many of them plead guilty there and then. That means that the time they spent on the tag then has to be taken into account and offset against any available sentence, so they walk away with time served. I have seen that, and that is gaming the system. We cannot have it. It cannot be right that victims of serious offences wait for years for their cases to be heard—possibly dropping out—meaning that unscrupulous defendants can do that. These are real people’s real lives. If tradition is going to survive, it has to adapt.
Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness. Sir Brian estimates that juryless trials would be at least 20% faster than those conducted with a jury. It makes sense—of course it does—because you do not have to swear in a jury; such things take time.
Governments must make sure that public services are able to meet the demands of the day and to deliver for the public and the most vulnerable. This means that every generation may well face the prospect of significant reform in order to make things better.
One of the things that the Crown Court is having to contend with is that trials have become more complicated. There is good news: the police are arresting more people, and more of them are coming through the courts. That is what we want to see. But things such as advances in science, such as DNA, advances in techniques, such as the prevalence of CCTV evidence, and social media make proving a case, and, indeed, defending a case, much more complicated than it was. That is why we simply have to move the line to a slightly different place.
For the courts, there is no single thing government can do to resolve this crisis that would not require the system to deal with some change. The delays to justice faced by thousands of victims across the country are unacceptable. They cannot be allowed to grow unchecked. There is no quick fix. The changes we are proposing to make will require legislation. We are intending to fix the system so that it is good for the next generation. That is why we are not intending to impose a sunset clause here. These are meant to be lasting reforms, not an unstable system where nobody is quite sure what is happening. These are lasting reforms to make the system fit for purpose.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, would she kindly answer the question: is it intended that these proposals will be retrospective? If not, how on earth are they going to impact upon the present backlog?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
At present, there are no plans to make them retrospective, but that is why it is going to take time. That is why it will take time to work its way through. But if we do not do this, not only would we not be tackling the current backlog, we would be letting it grow. That is why it cannot continue.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, was the Minister as surprised as I was by the terms of the attack made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on these proposals. He suggested that these proposals involve the “destruction” and “dismantling” of jury trials and an “act of constitutional vandalism”? Does she agree that these proposals are nothing of the sort? There has never been an absolute right to jury trial. Pragmatism has always determined which prosecutions are to be heard by a jury and which are to be heard by judges or magistrates.
Does the Minister agree that these proposals shift the dial but that they shift the dial for very sensible, pragmatic and practical reasons? She emphasised the impact of delay on victims, and she mentioned defendants who game the system. Would she agree that the scandalous delays that occur at the moment in the Crown Courts also have an appalling impact on a defendant who is innocent? The man who is accused of rape and has that charge hanging over him for years cannot get on with his life. That is also outrageous. It is outrageous for the victim and for the defendant. I support these proposals.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he made. It will not surprise him to hear that I will not respond to most of them other than by saying yes. But in relation to the defendants, it is a point very well made. I was a defender for much of my career, and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said. There will be people within the system waiting for their trials who are unable to get on with their lives because they are on bail for an offence. We need to think about them as well.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. I congratulate the Government on having the courage to confront a really difficult issue. The status quo is quite unacceptable. I would rather hope that this House and Parliament in general could treat this on a non-party-political basis. There are a lot of reasons why there were delays; some of them were due to Covid, which is a non-party-political issue. But I have long thought that fraud trials, for example, are very often wholly unsuitable for juries. I am glad that the Government acknowledge that.
As to the question of judges and reasons, I have just two questions I would like to ask the Minister. I would have thought that judges, when they do determine these things, might well give reasons. That would be consistent with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There would be a considerable advantage to potential appellants, because they would know the reasons why they had been convicted; whereas at the moment, with jury verdicts, you have the board verdict of guilty or not guilty. You do not know whether they have taken into consideration relevant consideration or irrelevant considerations.
My other question is this. The Statement reads:
“Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases”.
Standing back, does it occur to the House and, indeed, to the Minister that it is slightly odd that the 90% or so of the trivial offences are tried by those with professional experience, and yet we give the most serious cases to 12 conscientious but random people taken off the street?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his observations. As far as reasons are concerned, yes, absolutely: judges sitting alone will give reasons. Not only is it useful for appellants to know why but it can be useful for witnesses as well.
One often hears victims who have been through the system say that if the case results in an acquittal, that is bad enough, but not knowing why the defendant was acquitted is really hard for them. Transparency is important in the criminal justice system, as it is in all systems. That is one of the reasons why we are now going to make the magistrates’ court a court of record. All proceedings in the magistrates’ court will be tape-recorded, and we are going to use artificial intelligence to provide transcripts so that people can get transcripts of what has happened much more often and can follow and read at their leisure.
As far as the point about serious cases is concerned, I have been very careful not to talk about seriousness but to talk about length of sentence. Every case is serious to those involved in it, particularly to the victims, and it would be wrong to downplay that. It is also important to note that the magistrates’ court consists of not just lay justices—justice by your peers—but professional magistrates, known as district judges these days. It is a combination who deal with these matters.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, at the end of the day, are not random and conscientious people taken off the street the best safeguards of our civil liberties against an overmighty and oppressive state? If any one of us here were to be charged with a criminal offence, would we not rather put our trust and confidence in a jury rather than in a state appointee? Are not juries the best way of linking ordinary people to our criminal justice system?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My noble friend might have a point if it were not for the fact that 90% of cases are currently being dealt with in the magistrates’ court. They are not dealt with by juries.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
They are not all dealt with by lay people at all; they are dealt with by district judges as well. They are state appointees. They used to be known as stipendiary magistrates—my noble friend knows this perfectly well; he has practised in those courts. Stipendiary magistrates have a part to play and so do lay people. The important thing is that they have to give reasoned rulings. We have to have a system that is proportionate and fair and deals with everybody’s interests, not just those of a few.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question follows on very clearly from that of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. I declare an interest, since a number of my friends and colleagues have been acquitted by juries of charges against them relating to actions of political protest. My question focuses on democracy. Does the Minister agree that juries are not just part of our legal system but important defenders of our right to protest, something our democracy is built around? Given the repressive anti-protest legislation passed in recent years under the previous Government, which it appears this Government have no intention of repealing, are these plans not a serious threat to our democracy as well as our legal rights?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I will repeat what I have already said. Over 90% of criminal trials are already heard in magistrates’ court, which does deal with some protest cases without a jury. It is likely that many protest-related offences are dealt with there. The important thing is that no one group of defendants is more important than any other. Everyone is equal before the law. We cannot have a carve-out for a particular group of offences or a particular group of people. We have confidence in a professional judiciary, highly trained in things such as diversity. They will do a good job.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the Justice Secretary repeatedly emphasised the lengthy waiting times in bringing cases to court. I am not a lawyer—I am one of the non-lawyers in the Chamber today—but I was disappointed that the Statement did not acknowledge the difficulties that had been brought about by the Covid lockdowns, across two or three years, which should be acknowledged. Notwithstanding that, the Minister pointed out that all the evidence, including from social media, that now has to be collected for any trial these days takes an inordinate amount of time to collate. Nevertheless, when it comes to unnecessarily lengthy waiting times, this is pure hypocrisy, given that the same Justice Secretary supports bringing to court former British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland 50 years ago. In addition, the Government have certainly managed to find time recently to bring to court, pretty quickly, people who had maybe put not very nice posts on social media. Neither the public nor, I think, many in the judiciary support the steps that the Government wish to take—certainly from what I have heard. I therefore urge the Minister to reconsider this ill-judged proposal and defer bringing it forward.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her observations, which echoed what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said. I did my best to try to keep this non-partisan as far as possible until provoked into it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. It is true that Covid had an effect on the backlog, but that is not the only element; a lot of it is due to the cuts in the criminal justice system. For example, one of the questions that I am sure somebody will ask me at some point is why we simply do not open up all the unused courtrooms. The reason is that a court is much more than just a room. It is staffed by a lot of people, which includes the barristers and the solicitors, and we do not have enough criminal barristers any more because of the cuts to legal aid—about which the party opposite was warned at the time they made them. That is why we are going to increase funding for legal aid and the match funding for pupillages to try to grow back up that venerable body of practitioners. I will not comment on individual cases or categories of cases; this is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and I welcome almost everything in it. I wanted to raise one point which I am less happy about. Brian Leveson recommended for the Crown Court Bench Division that it should be a judge and two magistrates but the Statement said it would be a judge sitting alone. Brian Leveson in his review was very clear why he thought magistrates should be involved in the Crown Court Bench Division. First, it retains an element of community involvement and the judgment of one’s peers, by the lay magistrates sitting with the judge, and one could argue that three heads are better than one. Secondly, there is greater diversity within the magistrate cohort than there is within the judge cohort, so that would go some way to creating diversity within the three people sitting making those judgments. The third point which Brian Leveson made was on the safety of the judge sitting alone. It is safer if there are three people making that decision, because there is not a single identified decision-maker. Since we are all concerned about the safety of judges, that was a factor in keeping the decision-making for three individuals in the new Crown Court Bench Division. Will my noble friend keep an open mind about adopting the recommendations of Sir Leveson?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank my noble friend very much for the question he raises. It is an important point and I am sure the rest of your Lordships’ House will want to pay tribute to my noble friend for the work that he did when standing where I am now, as well as for his long service as a magistrate. He speaks from great experience.
There are two reasons why the Crown Court Bench Division will not include lay justices. The first, as my noble friend will know, is that we do not have enough to staff that at the moment. We have enough justices to run the magistrates’ court and make sure that we do not then end up with a lot of backlogs there. We are running a recruitment programme and hope to recruit 2,000 more, but, at present, we do not have sufficient numbers. The second reason is about speeding up the process. Any judge who has sat on an appeal from the magistrates’ court always sits with two lay justices. It takes a lot longer because of the fact that consultation is required, whereas the point here is to make things faster and quicker. For those reasons, we are not going to adopt that recommendation of Sir Brian—and they are principled reasons.
As for the perfectly proper point about diversity, the judiciary is becoming more diverse. It is not where we want it to be but it is getting there. What it does have is extensive training in matters to do with issues of diversity, fairness and disproportionate impacts on particular sectors of the population. We do not really know what juries think about this because they do not have that kind of training, but we are satisfied that those issues can be dealt with within what is proposed.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, as a former criminal barrister, albeit nothing like as successful as the noble Baroness was, I put on record my support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and for the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. The Minister talked about the Government going ahead with “heavy investment” in courts and legal aid, and I certainly support both those initiatives. The Minister in the Commons said that to bring down court case backlogs:
“We need investment, structural reform and modernisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/25; col. 20.]
However, has the noble Baroness seen the OBR report which states that after last week’s Budget, the MoJ’s capital budget is going to be cut by 3% per annum in real terms? Was she aware of that, and, in spite of that cut, can she confirm that this investment will still go ahead?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The answer to the noble Lord is yes. These are the matters of expenditure to which my right honourable friend committed himself in the other place, and they will go ahead.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare that my daughter is a recorder. Very many people have put to me a lot of points, and there is just one that makes me want to ask my noble friend a question. I should say that all absolutely recognise the primacy of dealing with the backlog and that there is a clear case for complex, time-consuming fraud cases to go to the judge alone, and for low-level offences to go to magistrates alone. Indeed, I remember from my time as a magistrate that it was in that area where a certain amount—not a huge amount, but some—of gaming of the system went on. My noble friend has outlined a lot of measures which will improve courts, which is one of the problems; I would have hoped that that would solve the problem of the backlog, but clearly the Government think not. Because of the representations I have had, could my noble friend say what consultation there has been on these proposals with judges and with the criminal Bar?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I can reassure my noble friend that the consultation has been extensive. That does not necessarily mean that they agree with us or that all of them agree with us, although I observe—I say this as a practising criminal barrister myself—that it is a profession known for its caution; it is not always, shall we say, ready to adopt new ideas in particular ways. I am confident that once this system has had an opportunity to bed in, everyone will see the advantages.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. If the Government are serious about wanting to reduce delays and backlogs in the Crown Courts, they should stop creating so many new criminal offences. In the Crime and Policing Bill alone, there are 65 new criminal offences. At the Free Speech Union, we have analysed Ministry of Justice data from 2017 to 2025, comparing the acquittal rates for those charged with speech crimes in jury trials with those for non-jury trials. The results are quite startling. For all offences, Crown Courts have acquitted 21.6% of defendants in the last eight years, compared with just 11.4% in magistrates’ courts. However, for speech-related offences, the acquittal rate in jury trials rises to 27.6%, compared with 15.9% in the magistrates’ courts. In the last three years, juries have been even more likely to find defendants not guilty of speech crimes—32.1%, compared with 14.1%. To protect free speech, will the Minister urge the Justice Secretary to retain the right to trial by jury for those accused of speech offences?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and pay tribute to his work in relation to freedom of speech, which is important to all of us. However, as I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we are not having carve-outs for particular kinds of offences or defendants. It would create a raft of unfairness and make the system so complicated that it would not be possible to run it.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, a question was asked about three months ago, and my suggestion was that, to meet the delays, the Government might encourage recently retired judges to help out. The Church of England could not do its ministry, particularly in rural areas, if retired clergy were not doing the work. It is quite possible to persuade some judges; whether or not they could come back immediately, it would ease the work. I tried a lot of cases alone and found it a very lonesome experience. I came to this country and thought that trial by jury was one of its greatest gifts to fairness and justice. Reduce it with great sensitivity so that it does not look as though it does not work.
Topol in “Fiddler on the Roof” has been shouting in my ears: “Tradition! Tradition!” Do not change tradition too quickly, because we may live to regret it.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
That is why we are adapting it and have done so after great thought, and it is why it is not a wholesale attack on the jury system. I can see entirely why the noble and right reverend Lord makes the point about asking judges to come out of retirement, but the point that Sir Brian has made is that investing in things such as the number of sitting days, which we already have done—we are sitting a record number of days—is not going to solve the problem alone. Structural reform is needed to make the system fit for the 21st century.
Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 October be approved.
Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, the foreign state influence regime is designed to prevent foreign states controlling, influencing or owning our newspapers and news magazines. It is essential that we safeguard our free press and a pluralistic media landscape for the sake of our democracy. Newspapers remain a vital trusted news source. The Ofcom survey News Consumption in the UK: 2025 reported that 73% of regular news users consider newspapers trustworthy, which is more than any other media.
However, noble Lords are aware of the considerable challenges faced by the news media industry. Newspapers require investment to grow and thrive. Balancing this need for investment with protecting news from the influence of a foreign state is at the heart of the foreign state influence regime. This is what underpinned the three statutory instruments that we made in July. We made regulations to amend the foreign state influence regime to allow 15% of shares or voting rights in a newspaper or news magazine to be held by a state-owned investor provided that they are investors with no right or ability to control, direct or influence the newspaper’s policies. The 15% threshold is below the level where the Competition and Markets Authority typically considers that material influence may arise.
The foreign state influence regime, rightly, has a low bar for intervention. The Secretary of State is given no discretion. She must intervene if she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a foreign power may hold the ability to influence or control the policy of a UK newspaper enterprise as a result of a merger. This is regardless of whether there is an intention to influence. When we introduced the previous regulations earlier in the year, colleagues in your Lordships’ House and the other place challenged us on whether they had the unintended consequence of permitting multiple foreign powers, investing through state-owned investment vehicles, to each invest 15%. The argument was made that it would be possible for the majority of a newspaper enterprise to be owned by state-owned investors, albeit passively.
We were clear that this is a remote risk. However, we understood the concerns of your Lordships’ House. The Government committed to bring forward an additional statutory instrument to put the matter beyond doubt. That is why we are here today, following our consultation in the summer and the response published on 30 October. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, for her invaluable engagement on this matter. I recognise the excellent role that your Lordships’ House so regularly plays in scrutinising and improving legislation.
Noble Lords may find it helpful for me to set out the detailed effect of these regulations. First, the regulations ensure that a 15% cap applies to the percentage of shares or voting rights that may be held in a newspaper by state-owned investors acting on behalf of foreign powers. This means that we are now putting it in statute that multiple state-owned investors, acting on behalf of different states, will not be able each to hold up to 15% in one newspaper. The 15% cap will apply to the combined total of direct and indirect holdings of shares or voting rights. We are introducing a specific and narrow exception for stakes of 5% or below in quoted companies. The exception affects the calculation of whether the 15% cap has been reached in cases where multiple state-owned investors from different countries or territories all have investments in the same newspaper. The exception catches only small shareholdings, and its purpose is to avoid a chilling effect on investment.
Secondly, we are using this opportunity to impose new transparency requirements on state-owned investors that invest in UK newspapers and news magazines. If a state-owned investor acquires a direct holding of more than 5% in a newspaper, they must notify the Secretary of State within 14 days of the relevant transaction being made. State-owned investors which are required to notify the Secretary of State must also publish these details within the same timeframe. This will enable the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on a regular basis—we intend for this to be every six months—on the published details of these acquisitions. This will benefit public and parliamentary confidence by increasing transparency around state-owned investment in newspapers.
If a state-owned investor which acquires a direct holding of more than 5% of shares or voting rights fails to comply with the notification and publication requirements, the transaction will be a foreign state newspaper merger situation, and the Secretary of State will be under a duty to issue a foreign state intervention notice and refer the case to the Competition and Markets Authority.
I want to reassure noble Lords about the nature of the 5% quoted company exception. It applies only to a limited type of investment by state-owned investors, as defined in the legislation. Additionally, the intention behind it is to avoid state-owned investors having to take account of holdings by state-owned investors from other countries, which newspaper groups are unable to track. Holdings in companies with publicly traded shares are disclosable only if they cross certain thresholds. These thresholds differ in different markets, but 5% is a common benchmark. If crossed, the investor must declare the interest to the company and the wider market.
The provision prevents the regulations having a chilling effect on investment. It removes the need for state-owned investors to establish whether state-owned investors from other countries have existing undisclosed or small investments in the same newspaper, which would affect whether their intended investment would or could exceed the 15% cap. Ultimately, these regulations address what the Government believe is a remote risk that multiple state-owned investors from different states could each invest 15% in a single newspaper. This cements the measures that can be taken against foreign state influence in UK newspapers and news magazines. These regulations also further improve transparency around investment, thereby helping to protect a thriving plural press essential to our democracy. I hope your Lordships’ House will support these important steps.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, as this is the Minister’s second statutory instrument debate today, I commend her stamina, and indeed I commend my noble friend on my own Front Bench for his, too. I welcome this statutory instrument, which meets the commitment that the Minister gave in July to close what was a gaping regulatory loophole that would have allowed multiple foreign states each to own up to 15% of a British newspaper, with all the risks that flow from that. I am also grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its thorough examination and report on these No. 2 regulations. I am also pleased that the Government Chief Whip scheduled this debate on the Floor of the House and not in the Moses Room.
Of course, all of us could have been spared this additional work if the Government had done what I and others advised some months ago, once the so-called “multiples loophole” was spotted, and that was to withdraw, amend and lay a consolidated set of regulations, rather than us having to handle this piecemeal approach. I am not going to get sidetracked, but, as I have said before, the Government’s unwillingness to take the straightforward route raises questions about who or what has been prioritised when dealing with this matter. However, we are where we are, as they say, and I am pleased that these regulations now ensure that the 15% limit for investment from state-owned investment funds is a single aggregate cap.
Since it became apparent two years ago that our legal framework could not prevent foreign Governments owning, controlling or influencing British newspapers and news magazines, it has been clear that the future of our free press is not just about protecting editorial independence; it is also about ensuring financial sustainability. The pace of technological change and the economic challenges facing the news industry continue to worsen, making investment urgent and consolidation within the industry increasingly likely. So, while I respect those who maintain their position that, even as an aggregate at 15%, the cap has been set too high, my view, as I said in July, is that, restricted to passive investment only and with additional reporting safeguards, which I will come on to in a minute, an aggregate 15% cap for state-owned investors is acceptable and still supports the principle of press freedom.
That said, the Government’s decision to tackle this in a piecemeal way means that these regulations are not the easiest to follow, so I am grateful to the excellent senior DCMS officials for their patience in responding to my questions seeking clarification over the past few weeks, and I am also grateful for the Minister’s explanation of these regulations in her opening remarks. Other noble Lords may still have questions about how the cap works, with the carve-out for small holdings of 5% and below for listed media companies, but I am satisfied that what is proposed is a reasonable approach. Indeed, I am conscious that we must not make this regime even more complex and that doing so could deter legitimate investment or prevent our news industry accessing much-needed investment capital.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, where we are now is, I think, not where the Minister expected to be when the previous statutory instrument was introduced. So how did we get to this point? With great haste, and I would say possibly fuelled by intense pressure from beyond these shores, the Government tabled the secondary legislation that, as we have heard, allowed an unlimited number of 15% stakes to be taken by funds that, to all intents and purposes, have an element of control by foreign Governments—the FOCIs. Then, in late July, when I tabled a fatal Motion, the Minister agreed at least to deal with the multiple-stake issue, which is what we have here.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, who managed to explain to me the convoluted nature of this SI, having herself presumably had some coaching from the department. It is clear that this is not an easy piece of statutory legislation and her suggestion regarding future changes to the Enterprise Act is something that I do think the Government should consider.
Although the Minister agreed to deal with the multiple-stake issue, she did not agree with the strong yet minority view of the House that even one 15% stake was one too many. That is because, at the time, in my view, this regulation was designed to achieve just one thing: the sale of the Telegraph Media Group to RedBird IMI, which of course included the 15% stake from Abu Dhabi. This is moving into the realms of a dangerous dogs Bill approach to legislation, but actually it is bespoke regulation for a discerning billionaire.
Just as that flawed SI had been rushed through, the RedBird bid backed out, leaving us today with handmade regulation but no obvious client. Had the Conservative Party, with obvious honourable exceptions, not backed the Government and voted through the last SI, I would have suggested that we do not need this one at all. But this at least deals with the multiple-stake issue while, in my view, leaving the substantive elephant in the room.
The other pachyderm lurking behind this statutory instrument is, as the noble Baroness broached, the future of the Telegraph Media Group. As your Lordships will be well aware, and as was outlined, the Daily Mail and General Trust group has tabled an offer of £500 million to acquire it, and this has apparently been agreed by RedBird, with detailed negotiations proceeding.
I do not expect the Minister to offer judgment as to whether this should succeed, as she will correctly cite quasi-judicial qualms in this area. What I would welcome is an overview of process going forward and some element of timescales. As I am not a quasi-judge, I am happy to offer your Lordships some thoughts and point to some key issues that I hope the Minister will be able to elaborate on.
First—and here I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell—the continued involvement of Redbird IMI in the sale process is almost certainly counter to the long-term interests of the Telegraph and its readers. This situation means that the UAE, through the back door, is currently deciding who will own the Telegraph in the future. Will the Minister give assurances that there will be full transparency, if a deal is done, on the funding and structure of any deal?
Again as the noble Baroness has pointed out, the Secretary of State has given the Mail group a very short time to demonstrate that it can go through with this acquisition. Can the Minister outline what steps the Secretary of State will take to ensure the timely sale of the Telegraph in the public interest, should the deal not be ready by the deadline in the Secretary of State’s Statement of 24 November, or should the proposed deal fail the tests also contained in that Statement?
Secondly, there are not many modern precedents, but the Murdoch acquisition of the Times newspaper is perhaps a helpful example. Until the intervention of Nadine Dorries in 2022, the Times and the Sunday Times had been subject to legally required independent directors on their parent company’s board, following Rupert Murdoch’s News International acquiring them in 1981, specifically to safeguard editorial independence after the takeover. These arrangements created, and later updated, an independent board that approved key editorial appointments and was designed to prevent undue interference. I am sure this was far from a perfect solution, and I am also sure that Lord Rothermere is a different sort of owner from Mr Murdoch, but I ask the Minister to take this on board as an option going forward, should the Daily Mail group bid succeed.
Thirdly, the public interest on plurality grounds needs to be assessed, particularly given that both the Telegraph and the Daily Mail occupy similar political spaces. This almost certainly creates a concentration of ownership. Ofcom is the place to make this determination, and this bid should be referred accordingly. I would welcome the Minister’s general response on these three points.
This is secondary legislation that seeks to correct an earlier piece of misdrafted secondary legislation—regulation that we do not now need and that many of us did not want in the first place. It is a living example of how the folly of pandering to specific interests that are themselves mercurial and subject to summary change based on self-interest is the wrong way to legislate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who opened this, the second part of our foreign investment regulatory double bill, this evening. I thank her for the remarks she made in outlining these regulations.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I broadly welcome these regulations, to which the Government committed when we were discussing the No. 1 set of regulations before the Summer Recess. We are here today thanks to careful scrutiny, not least by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who should be congratulated on helping us get to this point. As she says, we could perhaps have got here through a different route and rather more elegantly, but I am glad that she welcomes the closing of the loophole that she and others identified when we looked at the previous set of regulations earlier this year.
Unlike the guidance on football governance, which we were discussing earlier, these regulations have been drawn to the special attention of the House by your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Like others, I thank the members of that committee for their careful consideration and for the report that draws our attention to the points that they have raised.
The most serious question the committee raises concerns the 5% carve-out, as we have heard. It quotes the correspondence it has had with the noble Baroness’s department, about that carve-out and the way it will be used. DCMS said:
“Our judgement is that the possibility of the carve out being misused is remote”.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Telegraph contributor and as the director of the Free Speech Union, which defends freedom of the press among other freedoms.
First, I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward these regulations. I was one of around 50 Peers to write to her pointing to the shortcomings of the first set of regulations, which we have already heard quite a bit about, whereby it was not clear whether the 15% ceiling on the percentage of shares in a British newspaper a foreign state could own applied to those states both individually and collectively or just individually, leaving open the possibility that a number of foreign states could each take a 15% stake and collectively end up with a controlling stake.
In our letter, we urged the Secretary of State to bring forward a second set of regulations making it clear that the ceiling applied to foreign states individually and collectively, so I am grateful that the Secretary of State has done so, although a good deal of the credit for the closure of this loophole should go to my noble friend Lady Stowell.
The Telegraph group has now been in a state of “protracted uncertainty”—those are the Secretary of State’s words—for nearly two years. In that period, senior executives and senior members of the editorial staff have been unable to make strategic decisions, which they need to do given the profound upheaval in the newspaper business caused by AI. It is vital that the group is sold to a reputable owner as quickly as possible so that it can adapt to the rapidly changing business environment and attract the investment it urgently needs to grow.
In order to end the prolonged period of uncertainty, I share my noble friend Lady Stowell’s hope that the bid by the Daily Mail and General Trust is successful. As I understand it, the Secretary of State has given DMGT until Monday week to submit a bid and she is then at liberty to approve the sale, provided no flags are raised by the Competition and Markets Authority or Ofcom. Alternatively, she can refer the bid to the CMA. Should that prove necessary, I urge her to impress upon the regulator how important it is to complete its scrutiny process as quickly as possible and make a decision about whether to approve or reject the bid.
Should DMGT’s bid be rejected and it becomes necessary to invite other bidders to submit offers, it would be highly improper if RedBird IMI is still the entity holding the gavel, as it were. The reason it is selling the Telegraph group is because the United Arab Emirates owns a controlling stake in the company. If it is a breach of the regulations for a company that is controlled by a foreign state to own a British newspaper, how can it be appropriate for a company controlled by a foreign state to decide who to sell a British newspaper to?
I am not alone in being prepared to overlook this anomaly in the current circumstances, given the need for an expedited sale. But should DMGT’s bid prove unsuccessful, or if it fails to materialise, the course of action the Secretary of State must take is clear. I share my noble friend Lady Stowell’s disappointment that the Secretary of State did not set out what she would do in the event of DMGT’s bid not materialising, or it being rejected, in her Written Ministerial Statement at the beginning of last week.
To my mind, the Secretary of State’s course of conduct is clear. She must immediately refer RedBird IMI’s ownership of the Telegraph group to the CMA. The CMA will, I imagine, quickly declare that the arrangements fall foul of the foreign state influence regulations, as it must, and it should then use its powers to order the independent directors of the Telegraph group to hold an auction with no floor price in which the bidders are transparent about the origin of the money they have raised for the acquisition.
Those last two points are crucial. Should RedBird IMI retain its grip on the gavel, not only would that be improper but it will be reluctant to accept bids of less than £500 million, given that is how much it paid. In the light of the tumult unleashed in the newspaper business by AI in the past two years, not to mention higher interest rates, economic tariffs and a soft ad market, few if any bidders, with the possible exception of DMGT, will be willing to meet that price. To insist on a reserve price of £500 million might very well condemn the Telegraph to remain in limbo for the foreseeable future, with disastrous consequences. Should the bidders not be transparent about the financing of the deal, there is a risk the new owners will also fall foul of the regulations and we will be back here again. Rinse, wash, repeat—meanwhile, a great British newspaper shrinks and shrinks until it becomes invisible.
In short, if the DMGT bid is viable, the Secretary of State must use her powers to ensure the deal is completed as quickly as possible. If it is not, she needs to move equally quickly to a transparent auction process overseen by the company’s independent directors. To govern is to decide, and the Secretary of State must start making some decisions.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
I do not want to detain your Lordships’ House, and the speeches already made by several noble Lords are very much to the point. I should declare an interest as a long-serving employee of the Daily Telegraph. In that capacity, I draw the attention of the Minister to what it is like for a newspaper not to know who is owning it for such a very long time.
It seems to me that the greatest power of bureaucracy is delay, which increases the power of bureaucracy with every moment; that is its appalling leverage on everything else. But business, and particularly journalism, has the opposite desire. It needs to get on, and the word “journalism”, of course, comes from the French word for day. It happens every day, and every day lost is a disaster for us. In certain respects, we have been losing day after day—we have lost roughly half the length of the Second World War not knowing who is really going to own us.
I make no distinction really here between Governments of either party because both, it seems to me, were guilty of a similar failure. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is a strong contrast between the quasi-judicial role that DCMS quite rightly operates, which is necessary in these cases, and all the manoeuvring and use of time and delay to try to satisfy—as the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Young, have pointed out—the needs of a foreign state that the British Government seem to be overzealously courting.
This is a very bad piece of politics—not party politics—and it puts us all in play. If we were to write the history of this, we would have to see that it fell to the journalists of the Daily Telegraph twice to start making a noise before anything could prevent very bad things happening. That seems to be nothing to do with the quasi-judicial process. I hope that the very sharp deadline of 15 December is tacit acknowledgement by the Government of the damage done by delay and that therefore something more drastic is being done now.
In another place, the Justice Secretary, when trying to do something about jury trials, has made the point that justice delayed is justice denied. We at the Telegraph have had justice delayed for a very long time and therefore denied. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and other noble Lords have been clear that it has to be acknowledged that a process of this sort should never go on again and that there is a big lesson here. If, for whatever reason, the Daily Mail bid fails or gets called into question, there has to be an open, swift and fair process.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important and useful debate, and I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, for her engagement over many months with DCMS. I think we have a better position as a result of her engagement and persistence on this matter, and I know that the Secretary of State is also grateful for the time she has taken to help us refine this, frustrating as it must have been for the noble Baroness at times.
This regime is about safeguarding a specific industry that has a unique, essential role in the health of our democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, made it really clear that this is important for democracy, and I think that is beyond doubt in your Lordships’ House. I need to put on the record that I do not recognise the scenario outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Moore of Etchingham, of the genesis of these SIs, but I hope all noble Lords feel that we have listened to and addressed concerns raised in your Lordships’ House and have got to a better place as a result.
I will address the points made by noble Lords during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised concerns about the 5% exception’s potential for misuse. I stress that this is a narrow exception, applying in limited circumstances. It intends to remove any potential chilling effect by providing that a state-owned investor, or SOI, from one country or territory may ignore smaller holdings that are in effect too small to confer influence in their own right in quoted companies by SOIs from other countries that are not visible to them.
A hypothetical example of the limited circumstances in which the carve-out is in our view necessary to avoid a chilling effect is that if a state-owned investor wanted to invest 15% in a publicly listed newspaper owner they would have to be sure that no other state-owned investors from any other states or territories already held shares in the same newspaper owner. Without the carve-out, they could potentially not be sure that their 15% investment would comply with the limit.