Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to questions, I am sure the whole House will join me in extending my deepest sympathy to all those affected by the appalling attack at Bondi Beach on the first day of Hanukkah. I have written to the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Australia to offer our condolences. My thoughts are with the Australian people, and with the Jewish community in Sydney and beyond, including here in the United Kingdom.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Mr Speaker, the House does indeed join in your sentiments towards all those who are suffering as a result of the attack at Bondi Beach. I know the whole House will also join me in offering condolences to the family and comrades of Lance Corporal George Hooley, who died in a tragic accident last week in Ukraine. He served our nation in distant and dangerous lands, and he did so with honour, courage and distinction. He was a natural, gifted leader who lost his life in the cause of freedom and peace.
Our historic defence investment comes with a fundamentally new approach. The defence dividend is already boosting British industry, British jobs and British communities. We have launched a £770 million defence industrial strategy to drive innovation, create British jobs and boost British skills. Today, we are announcing the defence technical excellence colleges competition, which has gone live, backed by £50 million. It will help us build the skills needed to tackle the threat posed by Russia and other adversaries.
Dame Nia Griffith
When Jodrell Bank celebrated its 80th anniversary, we heard lots about its contribution to science and its 150,000 visitors per year, so does the Secretary of State share my excitement about the job opportunities that may result from repurposing Cawdor barracks in Pembrokeshire as a deep space advanced radar capability? Will he meet me to discuss job opportunities for manufacturers in my constituency resulting from that project, from the project for a new development site for the Windracers drone, and from other defence projects?
John Healey
I do indeed recognise my hon. Friend’s excitement, as she puts it, about the opportunities created by the deep space advanced radar capability, the new drone developments and projects that we will bring to Wales. As we make defence an engine for growth, we are also putting the UK at the leading edge of innovation in NATO. I can announce today that in its first year, UK Defence Innovation will invest over £140 million in new drone and counter-drone systems to protect the UK homeland and allies in the face of increasing Russian drone incursions. That is backing British small and medium-sized enterprises, British micro-SMEs and British universities.
Andrew Ranger
As the Secretary of State outlined, the new defence growth deals announced earlier this year promise exciting opportunities, particularly for young people entering high-skill engineering and new apprenticeship roles. North Wales already hosts world-class defence firms, such as Teledyne Qioptiq; what benefits, especially for economic growth and opportunity, can my Wrexham constituency and north Wales more widely expect as those deals are rolled out?
John Healey
We are working with the Welsh Government, Welsh industry, companies like those that my hon. Friend mentioned, and Welsh academics and universities to work out the dimensions of a Wales defence growth deal. It will be one of five growth deals backed by £250 million in this Parliament. New drone technology autonomy will be the focus of this new defence growth deal.
Gareth Snell
When the previous Government slashed defence spending by £12 billion in their first five years, it left the defence of our nation hollowed out and underfunded. Now, Stoke-on-Trent and our world-leading ceramics sector, which makes vital components for aircraft, submarines and ships, stand ready to help rebuild the defence of our nation. Can the Minister set out how the Government’s largest sustained increase in defence spending will benefit companies and create jobs in my Stoke-on-Trent constituency?
John Healey
I can indeed. My hon. Friend is right: not only is this the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—spending committed by this Government—and not only are we delivering 2.5% of GDP for defence three years earlier than anyone expected, but this Government also said that we would direct more of our British defence investment directly to British-based businesses, and we are. In the last year, 86% of defence investment has gone to British-based businesses, which is 6% more in real terms than in the preceding year, under the last Government; in other words, it is an above-inflation increase.
Kevin Bonavia
As the Secretary of State knows from visiting my constituency, Stevenage hosts a thriving defence and space sector, with more than a quarter of satellites in space built in our town. Next month, Airbus Defence and Space will open Launchpad, a new facility in Stevenage giving small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups space to work and develop technologies. Can the Secretary of State confirm that our innovative primes and SMEs will receive proper attention when the defence industrial plan is implemented?
John Healey
I can indeed. My hon. Friend is right: his constituency hosts not only some important big UK defence primes, but many very small innovative firms. That is why, as a new Government, we said that we would set a new target for the proportion of defence investment going directly to British SMEs. We set up a new SME growth centre to help them deal with Government, which has previously been too difficult.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his efforts so far, but our efforts are still puny compared with those made when there was last a major threat, in the 1930s. In 1933, we spent just 2.2% of GDP on defence. Remember George Lansbury, the leader of the Labour party, who wanted to abolish the RAF altogether? By 1938, we were spending a massive 7%. Will the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to a whole new gearing-up of our efforts? He could start by recommissioning the RAF bases that were open in the 1930s, but have now been closed, such as RAF Scampton.
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the recent record—the 14 years of hollowing out and underfunding of Britain’s armed forces that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) mentioned. I am proud of this Government’s investment of an extra £5 billion in defence in the first year, and our commitment to reach 2.5% of GDP by 2027. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament, and alongside 31 NATO allies, we have signed up to spending 5% by 2035 on core defence and security, including national security.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Most of our allies and our industrial competitors have a system of offsetting to support their domestic defence capability, economy and jobs, and traditionally this country has had global by default. When will we see the detail in the defence industrial strategy that states that the Government intend to bring forward a programme of offsetting to match our competitors?
John Healey
I am interested to hear that observation from the right hon. Gentleman, who of course was a Defence Minister for several of the 14 years during which his Government never moved to introduce any sort of offsetting policy. We are consulting on that now. We think offsetting has an important role to play in Britain’s future and the future of British industry. The consultation closes in the new year, and we aim to make announcements soon thereafter.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
The world is rearming and rebuilding the defence industrial base at a rapid pace, and it is fair to say that the UK is starting to fall behind some of our NATO allies. Does the Secretary of State believe that the spending planned for 2027 to 2030 and onwards meets our needs and prepares us for war, should it arise?
John Healey
I do indeed. The hon. Gentleman knows as much about defence as anyone else in this House, and I pay tribute to him for his work on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation. The commitment this Government made in our first year to increasing defence spending by the largest sustained amounts since the end of the cold war is an historic move. Our commitment, alongside NATO allies, to increase to 5% of GDP what we put towards national security is part of strengthening the NATO deterrent and NATO defence; and our strategic defence review allows us to map out a way of making our forces more ready to fight and better able to deter.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
We were told that the defence investment plan would be available before the Christmas recess. What day this week will it be announced?
John Healey
We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the defence investment plan. Even though the hon. Gentleman is a new Member of this House, he will appreciate, from serving on the Defence Committee, the scale of the decisions that we need to make. He will also appreciate the scale of the problems that we face, including those to do with a programme of the last Government’s that over-committed, and was underfunded and unsuited to meeting the threats that we will face in the future.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On behalf of the Opposition, I join you in expressing our total condemnation of the horrific Bondi Beach terrorist attack, Mr Speaker. We must stand united in this House against antisemitism in all its forms. May I also offer our condolences to all affected both at Bondi and at Brown University, and to the family and friends of Lance Corporal George Hooley? We echo the Secretary of State’s sentiments about his service to our country.
I echo the question from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). It is a very simple and specific question. Will the defence investment plan be published before the rise of the House on Thursday: yes or no?
John Healey
The answer is simple, and it is the same one I gave to the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the defence investment plan. The shadow Secretary of State of all people—having been responsible for deep problems, and programmes beset by deep-running failures, such as Ajax—will appreciate the scale of the challenges we face.
James Cartlidge
Is the Secretary of State seriously saying that he does not know his diary for the rest of the week? He could ask one of the other Ministers on the Front Bench, or one of the special advisers or officials. Surely he knows whether later this week—on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday—he will be giving the most important defence statement of the year. It is extraordinary that he does not.
To remind the House, in June the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box that the defence investment plan would be
“completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 63.]
It is already late—just like the strategic defence review, the defence industrial strategy and the housing strategy. Does that not illustrate perfectly why the Defence Committee said that when it comes to war readiness, Labour is moving at a “glacial pace”?
John Healey
The House will know to take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman. When he was in government, his munitions strategy was often promised and never published. His drone strategy had more pictures than pages—and no funding. His Government’s defence funding plan was published as an election gimmick just weeks before the election and was never delivered in 14 years. We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the work on the defence investment plan.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that now, at a time of war, is precisely the moment for the UK to work with our European allies, even as Putin tries to divide us? If so, can he confirm that the UK rejected access to the €150 billion EU SAFE—Security Action for Europe—defence fund, at a proposed cost of about £2 billion, which is the same amount that the previous Government paid for access to the Horizon fund? Can he set out whether that is the correct figure, and explain whether his Department has estimated how much investment and industrial benefit could have flowed to the UK defence sector through our participation, boosting both our growth and our security, and that of our closest neighbours?
John Healey
We signed the European Union security and defence partnership in May. We committed ourselves to negotiating with the European Union for access to the SAFE funding arrangements. From the start, we recognised that there would need to be a financial contribution from the UK, but we also said from the start that SAFE needed to be good value for money for British taxpayers and British industry. It did not meet those tests. We were unable to reach a deal with the European Union, but we will continue to back Great British defence industrial firms as they sell into Europe, and we will strike bilateral deals that allow us to do a great deal more beyond the SAFE programme in the years to come.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
This summer, the UK joined all other 31 NATO nations in agreeing the new NATO benchmark of 5% spending on national security by 2035. That followed this Government’s announcement of the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but it is curious to see what is and is not in the Red Book from the Budget we just had. Page 88 shows in intricate detail just how big the welfare budget will get as a result of the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, but there is no such analysis anywhere in the Red Book of defence spending. Will he set out clearly at the Dispatch Box when the UK will hit the domestic 3% target, and when we will ultimately get to that 5% target? In which financial year will that be?
John Healey
We have committed to the target of 5% by 2035, like all 31 other allies. This Government have already put in an extra £5 billion in the first year and will hit 2.6% by 2027—three years earlier than anyone expected. We have an ambition for 3% in the next Parliament. The rising profile of defence investment over the next decade puts an end to 14 years of the British armed forces being hollowed out and underfunded under Tory Governments.
Peter Fortune
It was troubling to hear—unless I misheard the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith)—that the Secretary of State can talk with exactitude about the future of welfare spending, but not of defence spending. I remind him that the last time a Government spent 3% on defence was in 1996, and it was a Conservative Government. He is eloquent, but I would like him to be exact. When specifically—in which financial year—can we expect to hit 3% on defence spending?
John Healey
If the hon. Member wants to trade records, his Government had 14 years to raise defence spending; it falls to this Government to raise it back to 2.5%—the level it was at in 2010, when Labour was last in government—and we will hit 3% in the next Parliament.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I record my thanks and appreciation to the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for the work they are doing to improve our defence capabilities and leadership in NATO and Europe, as well as on the defence industrial base. We have heard from Conservative Members, who of course are responsible for the massive underspending on defence. However, we have to move on from that. Given the threats that we face, today and in the coming months, from Russia and other adversaries, it is clear that we need to accelerate our spending on defence as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State do all he can to ensure that we get more resources into defence, so that we can maintain our leadership position in Europe, and so that our armed forces are fit to deal with the threats that we face?
John Healey
We are doing exactly what my hon. Friend urges me to do. He, like me, will be proud of the fact that the Labour Government have produced a strategic defence review—a landmark shift in defence to make us more warfighting-ready—a defence industrial strategy that will make defence an engine for growth in this country, and a housing strategy that puts an end to the worst ever Tory privatisation and pumps £9 billion into a generational renewal of our forces’ military housing, which has already started. This Labour Government are delivering for defence, and delivering for Britain.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Allies rightly agreed that up to 1.5% of GDP would go towards civil preparedness and resilience measures, but public support for our current commitments—let alone for mobilisation in a crisis—does not meet Government assumptions. Will my right hon. Friend say how he plans to address that, so that we fully meet our article 3 obligations?
John Healey
I will. My hon. Friend, who serves on the Defence Committee and did in the previous Parliament, will remember that total spending on defence in the last year of the last Government was just under £54 billion. She will know that this year and next year, it is set to be over £65 billion. She will see the increase in defence spending, she will recognise the importance of making that commitment, and she will recognise the value of the strategic defence review in setting the vision for transforming our forces, so that they are more ready to warfight, and better able to deter.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
The Government are working exceptionally hard to ensure we speed up our procurement of uncrewed systems. In 2024 alone we are buying up to 5,400 drones, moving up to 8,000 in 2026. Really important is the development of our drone uncrewed centre of excellence, which will be launched later this year to provide better co-ordination and co-operation across defence, industries and academia in the delivery of uncrewed systems.
Fred Thomas
Britain’s future security depends on developing, testing and, crucially, adopting uncrewed systems quickly and safely, but the regulation is immensely complex. It spans many Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The regulators include the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Military Aviation Authority, Ofcom and the Environment Agency. The list goes on—it is endless—and for the military, the police, the agencies and our innovators, the barriers are stifling. My hon. Friend will know that I have worked with stakeholders to develop proposals for reform, which he has seen, and I know that the MOD, the Department for Transport and even the Treasury are considering them, but to make real progress, we need coherence in this area. Will he now help me to convene a meeting of all the key regulators across the Departments to drive this forward?
Al Carns
My hon. Friend’s passion and support for this subject are not lost on me. The reality is that the majority of casualties on the frontline in Ukraine are caused by uncrewed systems. We have a navy without any ships that has destroyed a navy, and we have an air force with a minimal amount of fighter jets delivering strikes deep within Russia. With the dedication of the UK uncrewed system centre, which will open later on this year, we are establishing a centralised body of expertise to cut across the regulation and align regulatory freedoms with defence, to ensure that we can reduce that friction and improve assurance. I would love to meet my hon. Friend and the collective organisations to move this forward at pace. Enough is enough when it comes to regulation; we need to get on with it and we are going to double down over the next 12 months.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Turnchapel Wharf and the Cattewater in my constituency host many marine autonomous defence innovators, but the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s workboat code edition 3 is hampering the testing, development and utilisation of autonomous vessels. They cannot even get the licences to be out on the water. What conversations has the Minister had with his counterparts in the Department for Transport to stress the urgency of sorting out this issue, so that the promised defence investment for Plymouth actually gets out to sea?
Al Carns
It is not lost on me that the testing and trialling of systems, in both the maritime and the air space, is full of regulatory issues and hurdles. We have had a couple of meetings with the Department for Transport, and we have a firm grasp of the problem. We now need to move this forward and unlock legislation to ensure that it is easier and far faster for those companies not only to develop cutting-edge technology and get it into the open market but to procure it for defence.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Engaging and supporting the women who have served in our armed forces is an important part of our new veterans strategy and a priority that is deeply personal to me as a veteran myself. As well as our commitments across the strategy, we will specifically be taking forward plans to establish a new women veterans forum and an oral history project to improve public understanding and recognition of the experiences and contributions of women veterans in keeping the nation safe.
Amanda Martin
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for her service and for her support in this area. In the last two years, changes have been made to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary maternity policy that prevent new parents from taking back-to-back shore assignments, which are crucial to balancing seafaring with young families. These changes are especially detrimental to families where both parents are in the RFA and raise serious concerns about compliance with employment law. Given the retention crisis in the RFA, does the Minister think that the maternity policy provides adequate flexibility for families, and will she meet me and those affected to discuss this important issue?
Louise Sandher-Jones
We are, of course, committed to supporting families across defence, and we recognise the extraordinary service that RFA sailors give to this country. As I have previously written to my hon. Friend, the maternity and parental support package provided by the RFA includes enhanced leave entitlements and tailored assistance through mechanisms such as occupational health. While consecutive shore postings have never been a Defence policy, the RFA does support employees to use flexibilities within that offer, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss this further.
Joe Morris
I first thank everyone at Albemarle barracks for hosting me recently and showing me the facility. The Royal British Legion women’s network offers valuable support for the armed forces community, and it is vital that all members and relatives of that community can access it. In rural areas like in my constituency where access to that support is often harder to reach, it is more important that the Government do all they can to support veterans who may be further from the centre. What is the Government doing to ensure that veterans, including female veterans, in rural areas can receive the support they need? May I invite the Minister to join me to visit Prudhoe veterans breakfast club at some point in 2026?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As he will be aware, we are rolling out the Valour programme, which includes a network of regional centres. There will also be an online presence to help ensure that we can expand the reach where possible. I would be delighted to come and visit.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Recent media reports highlight the full extent of abuse that women have suffered in the armed forces, highlighting why the recommendations from the Atherton report must be urgently implemented in full. What steps is the Minister taking to remove the barriers to create an environment within our armed forces where women feel protected, valued and given the opportunity to excel and flourish?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising an incredibly important point. As she will know, I am personally dedicated to improving the experiences of women in our armed forces. She rightly highlights the Atherton report. We are taking forward several things to deliver that programme, such as improving how we take care of victims and introducing more accountability. I also highlight our support for the cross-governmental work on violence against women and girls.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My constituent Katie has served in the RAF for 25 years. In preparation for her return to civilian life, she secured an MOD rentals tenancy to provide housing stability before she receives her pension next year and can buy a house of her own. At short notice, that tenancy was withdrawn, leaving her and her family facing potential homelessness, in clear violation of the armed forces covenant. Despite repeated appeals and over 28 days of silence from the Ministry of Defence, no resolution has yet been offered. Will the Minister please review this case urgently and the letter I sent to Ministers on 5 December to ensure that female veterans like Katie are properly supported during their transition back to civilian life?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this case. If he would provide me with the details afterwards, I will of course take a closer look.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
A new transformational veterans strategy, the first in seven years, recognises veterans as a national asset. It commits £50 million of Valour funding to make it easier for veterans to access the care and support they deserve, and £12 million for the reducing veterans homelessness programmes. Ops Fortitude, Courage, Restore, Ascend and Nova will continue their fantastic work as well. We will continue to deliver on what matters most for veterans.
Liz Jarvis
We are incredibly proud of our veterans in Eastleigh, and Veterans Dementia Support UK based in my constituency does fantastic work assisting veterans. It wants to expand its work by opening more support groups for ex-service personnel, who want to volunteer but are struggling to get their DBS checks in a timely fashion. Will the Minister work with colleagues to ensure that veterans charities can continue to do their vital work by reducing the wait times for DBS checks to be processed?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. Member makes a valid point, and I will look into it to see what I can do.
Jess Brown-Fuller
My constituent Liz was thrown out of the military for being gay and has since received redress for this injustice via the LGBT financial recognition scheme. Liz told me that she has never attended any veteran support group because her discharge from the military left her feeling unworthy of the title of veteran. What steps is the Department taking to encourage those veterans to engage with support schemes like the brilliant female veterans scheme running at Tuppenny Barn in Southbourne in my constituency to rebuild trust after the grave injustice that they experienced?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising the important point that those who were treated disgracefully by the former policy under the military may be struggling with being able to get back in touch. I can assure her that the armed forces family would welcome her constituent back with open arms. If the hon. Member is happy to pass details on to me, we can provide several ways of doing that—for example, via the regimental association, which I am sure will be only too happy to meet her constituent.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will agree that one homeless veteran is one too many. Will the Minister outline how the landmark new veterans strategy will boost support to prevent any veteran falling into homelessness?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that incredibly important point. As he says, one veteran on the streets is one too many. The new veterans strategy reiterated our commitment, and we were pleased to announce an additional £12 million for vital homelessness services, such as the reducing veteran homelessness programme. I remind Members that Op Fortitude is the pathway for veterans to access housing support when they need it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Last week, I met Paula, Dougie and Ash in my constituency at Tom Harrison House, the only facility in the country offering support to veterans who have addictions. Will the Minister meet me and workers from that organisation to discuss whether statutory funding could help us to offer such support to more veterans?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important work of Tom Harrison House. I have heard many times of the unique nature of the support that it provides. We must support veterans in using that particular service, and see what we can do to further such support. I would be more than happy to visit.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Regarding Northern Ireland veterans who served on Operation Banner, the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has now been powerfully described by eight retired four-star generals and an air chief marshal as:
“A direct threat to national security.”
Can the Minister confirm that not all the Government’s six protections for veterans are even in the Bill, and that, moreover, at least half of them also apply to alleged paramilitaries?
Louise Sandher-Jones
As the right hon. Member well knows, we have been clear about which protections will be in the Bill. I remind him that it was legislation introduced when he was in government that gave blanket immunity to terrorists, and he very proudly supported it.
Mr Francois
That is not true. We had hoped to hear from the wannabe future Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), but as we have not—[Interruption.] He is not denying it. If what the Minister claims is true, how does she explain the recent comment by General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said that the protections are
“a meaningless insult and only become relevant once re-investigation is under way”?
Respectfully, who knows more about defending our veterans: a brand new Minister or a former chief of the general staff who actually commanded them?
Louise Sandher-Jones
We will implement those new protections, and we have been in close dialogue with many different representatives. To turn the question back on to the shadow Minister, his legislation utterly failed and gave blanket immunity to terrorists. I will not hear lectures from the Conservatives, who could not provide a solution in 14 years.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
The Government are putting NATO first and stepping up on European security. In the past month alone, I have met US, German and Estonian counterparts to discuss deepening our co-operation and protecting NATO’s eastern flank. But it does not stop there; this is about joint exercising and joint industrial co-operation. In just the past 12 to 18 months, we have done an amazing frigate deal with our Norwegian partners, we have done a deal for Typhoons with Turkey, and we are building our industrial and exercising co-operation across the whole of the NATO flank.
Sarah Hall
Yesterday I visited the Ukrainian family hub in Warrington for its Christmas celebrations. Many families who fled Putin’s war of aggression have made Warrington their home, but they are deeply worried about what the future holds, what peace might look like and whether they will ever be able to return safely to Ukraine. Can the Minister reassure them that the UK and our NATO allies remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine both in defending its sovereignty and in shaping a just and lasting peace?
Al Carns
The pain of losing one’s home is not lost on me, and being apart from friends and family over the Christmas period has a huge impact. Nearly 7 million Ukrainians have been displaced since 2022, all because of Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion. I want to be absolutely clear: we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, and we are committed to working towards a just and lasting peace. That is why we are spending a record £4.5 billion on military support for Ukraine this year, and why our total committed military, humanitarian and economic spend now amounts to £21.8 billion.
Ben Goldsborough
Norfolk has a proud and enduring history in the defence of our islands and our allies, from Nelson’s legacy to the RAF bases that welcome NATO personnel to this very day. What assessment has the Minister made of how Norfolk’s defence assets can further support our shared security with our NATO partners?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to acknowledge the vital military history and work of Norfolk. Whether defending the UK from zeppelin raids in world war one or serving as a frontline bomber command in world war two, RAF Marham has long been a cornerstone of our UK’s airpower. We are investing in RAF Marham, procuring multiple F-35 jets that will fly from the base. Those will strengthen NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture and add huge paths over to my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Callum Anderson
Deterrence depends not only on military strength but on our economic resilience, from energy security to protecting our critical infrastructure and vital industries. Will the Minister provide more information on what conversations he has been having with our partners and NATO allies in Europe, to align our economic security measures with our broader defence strategy on our continent?
Al Carns
The reality is that armies, navies and air forces respond to crisis; economies, industries and societies win wars. We are stepping up in these key areas, but we are not alone. As a great general once said, there is only one thing worse than working with allies, and that is working without them. We are doing this together. We are working within NATO to integrate economic security such as supply chain resilience for critical sectors and collective defence planning, and as part of the G7 we are strengthening investment, screening, export controls and the protection of critical national infrastructure.
Chris Vince
As the Minister will be aware—I mention it quite often—Harlow is home to high-tech defence innovation and skilled jobs. Will he confirm that one consequence of the historic NATO summit in June is that there will be further investment in defence and resilience that constituencies such as mine can benefit from?
Al Carns
This Government are not hollowing out defence or taking a dig at defence procurement. This Government are increasing morale, increasing recruitment and, importantly, making defence an engine for growth by investing in SMEs all over the country, with new cutting-edge technology and technological capability that will be battle-winning in the long term.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Having sat through the debate on Ukraine on 4 December, has the Minister taken on board the important message for our NATO colleagues that if there is a forced division of Ukraine, just as there was of occupied Germany at the end of the war, it will be essential that unoccupied western Ukraine is fully manned with deterrent allied troops? Nothing could be more destabilising than a vacuum in western Ukraine, with a heavily militarised occupied eastern Ukraine under the control of the killer in the Kremlin.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for his insight and support for all things defence. We must ensure that Ukraine is at the very centre of any negotiation, and this Government have been leading not only on the coalition of the willing but also across the Ukraine defence contact group. Just recently we raised €50 billion in support of Ukraine. If the Ukrainians negotiate a peace, the UK will fully support that peace through multiple different vectors.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
There is a mismatch between the rhetoric that we are hearing and the funding for defence in this Parliament. The NATO Secretary-General talks about preparing for war on the scale that our grandparents endured, while the US national security strategy states that it is a “core interest” of the United States to “re-establish strategic stability” with Russia. In that context, will the Government urge a lowering of the temperature of statements by the likes of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the First Sea Lord, or will they increase defence spending closer to 3.5% of GDP in this Parliament?
Al Carns
Let us be really clear, for 14 years—[Interruption.] For 14 years, we have not seen defence spending going up. As shadow Ministers sit on the polished Opposition Front Bench criticising the individual Ministers speaking on behalf of the Government, I am the one who, collectively with others, had to put up with poor recruitment targets, terrible morale, and poor equipment and capability. For the first time in a generation, this Government are increasing defence spending for a long time, so that everybody in uniform will be able to look forward for the next 10 years and see that defence spending is going up. Well done.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last week, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told me:
“There are no other platforms within the Army’s armoured fleet which can fulfil the armoured reconnaissance role; Ajax has been specifically designed for this purpose.”
Our commitment to NATO includes two divisions. The first includes three manoeuvre brigades, with armoured and mechanised capabilities. With Ajax undeployable, we have no formation reconnaissance capability and therefore no deployable armoured brigade, thus we are not currently meeting our NATO obligation. Will the Minister clarify whether we still meet his NATO test without Ajax, whether we meet our NATO obligation more broadly, and, if he thinks we do, how?
Al Carns
As the hon. Member will recognise, a review of Ajax is under way. However, Ajax has been overspent and the key user requirements have changed and oscillated from left to right for the past 10 years. We have now taken this on and we recognise that we have to secure the capability to provide our armed forces with the very best. The reality is that Ukraine is teaching us that war is being fought very differently. It is not just about armour; as the hon. Member knows, it is about a mix of uncrewed systems and armoured systems, not one over the other.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
An individual recruited by the Russian Government recently carried out an arson attack on British soil. That followed the Yantar’s aggressive action against the RAF in the North sea. Does the Minister agree with me that to defend against the growing Russian threat, we need to co-ordinate with our European allies, not just on aiding Ukraine, but on domestic security measures, be they on land, at sea or in our digital spaces?
Al Carns
The hon. Member makes an exceptionally valid point. Just last Thursday, we launched the Military Intelligence Services that are primarily about co-ordinating all of our intelligence capabilities to ensure that we can identify, deter and defeat threats should they be posed towards the UK, our critical national infrastructure or any of our sensitive sites. It is worth noting that engagement between the Military Intelligence Services, our defence intelligence and all our other agencies goes hand in glove with our like-minded European allies fighting for democracy and freedom all over the world.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The forthcoming defence investment plan has been informed by a range of inputs and perspectives, including those of service chiefs. These contributions have been critical in delivering on the strategic defence review and in enabling the transformation within defence that is necessary as we move towards warfighting readiness.
John Glen
I am a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I have seen reports that service chiefs are drafting letters to the Secretary of State warning of their concerns about whether enough money is going into defence. When the delayed defence investment plan is produced, will it give clarity on when the Government will reach the critical 3% threshold? To be credible, the plan needs to distinguish between the start of the next Parliament, which will be in 2029, and the end of it, which will be in 2034. If the plan does not do that, no one will take the aspiration seriously.
Luke Pollard
I know that the right hon. Member has strong views on defence, as do I. As a Government, we are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget: it will be 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. The strategic defence review will be implemented by the defence investment plan. That will set out what capabilities we are buying and how we can improve our warfighting readiness. He will have to wait a wee bit longer as the work continues to deliver that plan very soon.
Gregory Stafford
When Labour published the strategic defence review, the independent authors wrote in The Telegraph that the commitment to spending 3% of GDP on defence was “vital” to establishing the affordability of that review. Now the Government’s own service chiefs are voicing their concern over funding. Is the Minister really telling us that he has no idea in what year they will reach 3% and no plan for how they are going to get there?
Luke Pollard
The strategic defence review was written on the basis of reaching 3%, and that is a key part of how we are increasing defence spending. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been given set lines by his party, but his Government cut defence spending. This Labour Government are increasing defence spending.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Government’s ambition to repair the damage that the previous Government did to our defence will be made clear in the defence investment plan. The roadblock to our safe entry will not change in reality, but to support our ambition we will need long-term financing vehicles that enable multilateral offers and help us to get the best value for public money so that we can protect this country against Russian aggression. Can the Minister provide us with any information about the work he is doing with other Departments to ensure that vehicles such as the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank are brought about?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of defence and security being a whole-of-Government endeavour. It is not just about the MOD, which is why we have a renewed and refreshed working relationship with the Treasury, working hand in hand to increase defence spending. The defence investors advisory group, which will publish its findings in the new year, will look at new financing methods to bring more investment into defence, just as we are working more closely with our colleagues across Government to increase our warfighting readiness, improve skills and make sure that defence can be an engine for growth in every nation and region of the country.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
In the Budget, defence received £25.9 billion for capital expenditure. In comparison, health and social care got £14 billion and housing got £9.6 billion. In the interests of democracy, I am going to put forward a different viewpoint from those we have heard so far. It is a fact that UK citizens are dying because of inequality and poverty, not the threat of another nation launching a nuclear attack against us; should that not be reflected in the prioritising of Government expenditure?
Luke Pollard
I disagree with my hon. Friend. If we look at the people dying in Ukraine—dying for Ukrainian freedom and for our freedom—because of a Russian war machine, we see that the threat is real. If we look at the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar loitering over our critical underwater infrastructure, we see that the threat is real. If we look at the cyber-attacks on our defence infrastructure, we see that the threat is real. Our entire economy is supported by our national security, which is why the Government are investing in it, and we make no apology for doing so.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The NATO Secretary-General, our service chiefs and intelligence leaders have warned repeatedly about the growing risk of conflict with Russia, yet the recent Budget did not reflect that reality. In fact, the MOD is cutting £2.6 billion in-year, and we have discovered this week that it is cutting overseas training just to try to balance the books. When the Minister speaks to service chiefs about the defence investment plan, does he ask them to plan for credible deterrents, or simply to accept that there is no cash behind the Government’s rhetoric?
Luke Pollard
What a load of nonsense. We are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget this year. We are moving to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence three years before anyone thought it was possible. The defence investment plan will set out what we are investing in and how we are moving towards warfighting readiness and implementing the strategic defence review. If the hon. Gentleman’s Government had put in that kind of investment, we would not be sorting out the mess we are in today. But they did not, so we are.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
During 2025, the Labour Government have been delivering for defence and for Britain, with the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, the largest level of military support for Ukraine, the largest pay increase for forces personnel in 20 years, the largest investment in forces housing for 50 years, the largest ever British warship deal, and the largest typhoon deal for a generation. We have the strategic defence review to move us to warfighting readiness; the defence industrial strategy to drive defence as an engine for growth across the UK; new defence agreements with the EU, Norway and France; new investment in technology, with Atlantic Bastion, cyber and electromagnetic command and drones; and over 1,000 major new contracts signed. In 2026, we will deliver further. Today, on the eve of Parliament’s Christmas recess, and on behalf of the House, I wish every member of our armed forces—especially those whose service will mean they are separate from their loved ones—a peaceful and safe Christmas.
Mr Speaker
I call Antonia Bance. [Interruption.] Sorry, I call Julian Smith. The answer was that long, I had forgotten about him.
Sir Julian Smith
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about our armed forces having a fantastic Christmas, wherever they are. The strategic defence review talked about the need for a “national conversation” on defence. What steps are the Government taking to support that national conversation, particularly so that our constituents and the population are faced with the trade-offs needed to increase spending on our armed forces?
John Healey
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the speech that the Chief of the Defence Staff will make tonight, in which he will argue that the price of peace is rising. He will set out exactly how this requires a response from the whole of society, not just a strengthening of our armed forces.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I have met Richard Parker and seen his passion and determination for driving more growth in small businesses located in the west midlands. There is a huge opportunity as we increase defence spending, and standing up the new office for small business growth in the new year will provide more opportunities for west midlands businesses to access defence contracts.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
In May, the Secretary of State said from the Government Dispatch Box that the UK-EU defence pact “opens the door” to the €150 billion EU defence fund. From this Dispatch Box in June, I warned that what the Secretary of State was actually doing was surrendering our precious sovereign fishing grounds without getting a penny in return. Who was right?
John Healey
We were talking about the strategic defence partnership agreement. We wanted to follow that up with an agreement on Security Action for Europe, but that proved impossible to negotiate in a way that was good value for the British defence industry and the British taxpayer. That will not stop us from promoting the cause of the British defence industry and doing the record defence export deals that we have done over the past year—an extra £10 billion through the biggest ever warship deal with Norway, and £8 billion through the biggest Typhoon deal in a generation. We will do more alongside the European Union, which is a valued partner; in particular, we will do more on Ukraine, as we stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
As the space nerd in the ministerial team, I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in space. Working with Baroness Lloyd, the Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we have a real opportunity to renew our space strategy, because the strategy we inherited was out of date and ineffective and was not supporting our industry. We are seeking to support our industry to go further, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues to discuss space further.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
In light of the United States’ new national security strategy, which fundamentally alters its global defence positioning, does the Secretary of State accept that relying on US-owned nuclear weapons for the recently announced new F-35A jets compromises British operational security, given that the UK will require explicit US authorisation to use them? Given that the Public Accounts Committee is concerned that the Ministry of Defence does not know the full cost of the F-35A programme—effectively, it is a blank cheque—how can this represent value for money if the United States could deny UK use of this capability in a crisis? Will the Government publish their assessment of that risk?
John Healey
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In June, the strategic defence review recommended that Britain consider becoming part of NATO’s dual-capable aircraft nuclear mission, and within weeks that is exactly what we committed to do. We will now go ahead and purchase the F-35As so that Britain can play a full part in NATO’s DCA nuclear mission, reinforcing European defence and our nuclear deterrence.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
As my hon. Friend rightly notes, the veterans strategy is a huge step forward in how we will support our veterans. The £50 million Valour commitment will rapidly improve how we meet our veterans’ needs, and I will of course visit her constituency, although probably not on the same day as I visit Liverpool.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the strategic defence review pointed out that we must do more to take seriously our homeland defence, and we are. It pointed out that we needed to do more on our integrated air and missile defence for the UK. We are, and we will.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in this issue. We are moving towards an always-on munitions strategy, and we have allocated £1.5 billion to create six new energetics munitions factories. The first will start construction next year. I am happy to meet her to further discuss the potential options in Scotland.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
John Healey
Because we have in place restrictions on export licences for any components where there is a risk that they could be used for the breaching of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on behalf of our armed forces. I am very proud to be part of a ministerial team that is ensuring that more than 35,000 junior personnel who do not currently qualify for travel support will get their trip home over the Christmas period paid for. That is part of the Government’s delivering on our commitment to our armed forces and renewing the contract with those who serve.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
That is exactly why, on Thursday, we launched the Military Intelligence Services, to map and track those threats, deter them and, if necessary, defeat them.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
The Government’s deal to build 20 new Typhoons for NATO member Turkey is welcome news for jobs in Lancashire, including for my Pendle and Clitheroe constituents who work at BAE’s Samlesbury site. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, in this geopolitical environment, we need sovereign capability more than ever, so can he give us some more good news, back British workers and put in a domestic order for Typhoons?
Luke Pollard
Having seen the workers in Salisbury and in Warton, and the expert work they do, I know they were a key part of why Turkey opted for the Typhoon contract, helping to secure more work not just in those two plants, but in the nationwide supply chain. All defence spending decisions are made in the defence investment plan, but we are continuing to promote the Typhoon as an export product, and I hope it will provide further work for our brilliant UK workforce.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
As we have come away empty-handed from the Security Action for Europe instrument, can we have the fish back?
Luke Pollard
Having been a shadow fisheries Minister when the botched Brexit deal went through, I know that much of the extra fish is paper fish that cannot be caught. The new restrictions that were put on our fishermen mean that it does not work. This Department is focusing on improving our defences and increasing defence spending—something the right hon. Gentleman never did when he was in government. [Interruption.]
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Many LGBT veterans, including those in my constituency, were seriously affected by the indignity they faced during the pre-2000 ban on LGBT personnel. What progress has the Department made in delivering the financial reparations to LGBT veterans affected by that ban?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am disgusted by the mistreatment of our brave LGBT veterans who served between 1967 and 2000, and I am pleased that the Government have now delivered 48 of the 49 recommendations made in Lord Etherton’s independent review. One of those was the unveiling of the LGBT+ armed forces community memorial, which I was deeply honoured to be able to attend alongside LGBT veterans and service personnel. The one outstanding recommendation recognises the unique experiences of female veterans, and work is ongoing on a number of initiatives towards that, including the launch of a new women veterans forum.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said that we would have the defence investment plan in the autumn. The Secretary of State has now told us that they are working flat-out to get it to us by the end of the year. When I was in the Army, we had a saying that two minutes early is three minutes late. Can we just make sure that this lackadaisical approach to punctuality has not spread to the military? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the King’s birthday parade will indeed take place at 11 am on 13 June?
John Healey
I can indeed. A wish a happy Christmas to the hon. Gentleman and the whole House.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The recent Typhoon deal is welcome news in my constituency of Blackpool South, an area in the country where we see high levels of deprivation, but also high demand for jobs and apprentices. Can the Minister outline what more can be done? Could there be a domestic order? What other deals are we looking at internationally to create more of the jobs and apprenticeships that we need on the Fylde coast?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his constant championing of the workforce at BAE Systems and in the supply chain. They are absolutely vital. I have seen the new apprentices’ energy and enthusiasm. We are working with colleagues across Government to look at what further export orders are available and can be secured so that we can expand the international sales of the Typhoon fighter aircraft, securing not only our security and jobs in the UK, but our NATO allies’ security.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Defence innovation is harmed by a default America-first posture. Ironically, that is especially apparent in the so-called independent nuclear deterrent, which relies on US tech for fusing, firing, arming, neutron initiators, the gas transfer system and the mark 4 aeroshell. We can add to that the purchase of further F-35s for US-manufactured gravity-delivered nuclear weapons. President Trump will put America first, but it is difficult to understand why this Labour Government seem keen to do the same, while spurning the innovation opportunity of the £130 billion SAFE programme in the EU.
Luke Pollard
We have rising defence spending in Scotland and more jobs in Scotland, and we just hear moans from the SNP about no new jobs when we are investing more in British defence firms and more in Scottish defence firms. There is a new Scotland defence growth deal and more opportunities on the Clyde, in Rosyth and elsewhere around Scotland. That should be welcomed, but I am afraid the Christmas spirit has yet to arrive on the SNP Benches.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this year I welcomed the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill receiving Royal Assent. Currently there is no such equivalent for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Will the Minister confirm the plan to introduce an Armed Forces Commissioner for the RFA in the Armed Forces Bill next year, as set out in my ten-minute rule Bill? Can he report on progress with the RFA pay negotiations and collective bargaining agreement?
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, and I would like to meet her to look at the issue seriously. She is quite right that this country has never had someone like the armed forces commissioner, who will be a new independent voice, enshrined in statute, reporting directly to Parliament and not to Ministers. This will be an important way of giving voice to those in our armed forces who serve, and the families who support them.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Army Training Regiment Winchester, which puts about 20% of new recruits through basic training, is due to be shut next July, but the replacement facility at Pirbright is not due to open until 2030 at the earliest, although apparently that might be delayed. We have corresponded on this briefly, but would the Minister be willing to meet me and perhaps facilitate a meeting with the commanding officers of Winchester and Pirbright, to ensure that they have the support they need to increase troop numbers and not lose the capacity to train 20% of them?
Al Carns
I would love to sit down and, in person, talk through this particular issue. It is worth noting that, for the first time in a long period, more people are joining than leaving, but it would be useful to talk through the specifics of the issue.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I welcomed the Minister’s response in relation to the LGBT redress scheme, but my constituents have reported difficulties in obtaining evidence of mistreatment from the Ministry of Defence. Are there any further actions that the MOD can take to ensure that it is easy for our veterans to access such evidence?
Louise Sandher-Jones
As my hon. Friend rightly notes, the historical mistreatment of LGBT veterans is a moral stain on our nation. We are taking a number of measures to redress that, and I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss the matter further.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
In view of the fact that Northern Ireland, alas, remains subject to much European Union law, including legislation on ozone-depleting substances, it seems that from 1 January the MOD’s fleet of Dakotas, Chinooks, Wildcats, Shadows and C-17 Globemasters, among others, may be unable to operate in Northern Ireland because their on-board fire extinguishers use halon, which will be banned in the EU from that date. What steps have been taken to deal with this ridiculous situation?
Luke Pollard
We have taken steps, and I am not worried about the fleet’s ability to carry on operating, but I am happy to speak to the hon. and learned Gentleman further in order to reassure him.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Given the recent further estimates putting the total cost of the war in Ukraine to the European economy at north of $1 billion a year, while the total allied commitment to Ukraine remains at about $100 billion a year, does the Secretary of State agree that we cannot but afford to go further in our support for our Ukrainian allies?
John Healey
I do indeed. That is why I am convening, and will co-chair tomorrow, the latest meeting of the 50-nation-strong Ukraine defence contact group. We will be looking to step up the support that we are able to give Ukraine now to keep it in the fight, alongside the work that we are doing in the coalition of the willing, so that we are ready to help secure the peace in the event of an agreement.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital in my constituency is home to a world-class veterans centre that provides not only excellent orthopaedic care but wraparound support to help veterans to continue their lives in civilian society. Will the Minister come to North Shropshire and meet the people who run the centre, so that she can see for herself how effective this model is?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting the important work that is being undertaken, and I will of course pay a visit in due course.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
One of the many challenges that Ukraine will face should a peace agreement be reached is the task of clearing land of mines and unexploded ordnance so that it can once again sustain Ukraine’s vital agricultural economy. How do the Government intend to invest in innovative de-mining technologies and work with Ukraine to ensure that its land is made safe and productive for the future?
Al Carns
The devastation caused by Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine is not lost on any of us. Millions of landmines—anti-tank mines—have been laid all across the frontline and will take decades to clear. We will work constructively with our Ukrainian and international allies to ensure that Ukraine is returned to normal as soon as peace is declared.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The maintenance of our nuclear deterrent, and the development of our wider defence capabilities in the United Kingdom, rests heavily on the town of Barrow, next to my own constituency, in my district of Westmorland and Furness. Does the Secretary of State recognise that investment into the town from the council is crucial to maintaining our peace and security, and will he have a word with his colleagues in the Cabinet? The local council is set to have a 13% cut to its budget, which will put at risk much of the investment in the town of Barrow that is meant to underpin the defence of our realm.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Since the general election, Barrow has seen more than 1,000 extra jobs in the shipyard alone. It will have seen the long-term commitment that this Government have made to Team Barrow, which is the result of national and local government, and other agencies, working together. We are determined to make that a success.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
On Armed Forces Day, it is crucial to mark the bravery of our armed forces personnel and bring our communities together. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can better support Armed Forces Day 2026 events in places such as Falkirk?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner for the armed forces, and I will of course meet him to discuss what we can do to support him.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thales and Spirit in Northern Ireland are leading the way in cyber-security and engineering. What steps are being taken to fund a potential Typhoon supply chain programme in which Northern Ireland can play its part in contributing to aircraft production across the United Kingdom?
Luke Pollard
We are working with the Northern Ireland Executive on the Northern Ireland growth deal—one of five growth deals that will share £250 million to look at skills and at how we can attract more inward investment. When that concludes, I would be very happy to give a briefing to the hon. Gentleman and other Northern Ireland colleagues on the progress that we are making.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment ultimately to spend 5% of GDP on defence—as we used to do in the cold war years of the 1980s—but not the target date of 2035. Do the Government really believe that there is no threat of attack from Russia on a NATO country for the next 10 years?
John Healey
Of course there are rising threats, which is why we have a rising defence budget over the next 10 years. The 2035 commitment that we have made is shared with all other 31 NATO nations.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The strategic defence review states that we need a 30% increase in cadet forces, from 140,000 to 180,000. However, I am informed that there is a severe shortage of adult instructors. What is the Minister going to do to address that problem?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. Member raises an important point. The cadets are a fantastic opportunity for our young people, who learn to build valuable skills, values and experience. Underpinning that is the work of our amazing adult volunteers. We are working very hard to see what we can do to improve how we support adult volunteers and, of course, to recruit more, so that we can continue to grow our cadets by 30% by 2030.
NHS: Winter Preparedness
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on winter preparedness in the NHS.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
The NHS’s national medical director says:
“This unprecedented wave of super flu is leaving the NHS facing a worst-case scenario”.
This is backed up by the data. On any given day last week, an average of 2,500 patients were in hospital beds—a 55% increase on the week before, and almost double the number from 2023. One hundred and six flu patients are in intensive care, compared with 69 the previous week. There are 1,300 more staff off than in the week before, and the number of calls received by NHS 111 last week was 446,000—8% higher than at this time last year.
It is clear from both the NHS and UK Health Security Agency data that there is a real risk for the NHS and for patients, and it is at this moment of maximum danger that the British Medical Association has chosen to go ahead with Christmas strikes, when they will inflict the greatest level of damage on the NHS.
The BMA said this dispute was about pay, but we gave doctors a 28.9% pay rise. Then it said it was also about jobs, so I offered a deal to halve the competition for jobs to less than two applicants per post. It is now clear what these strikes are really about—the BMA’s fantasy demand for another 26% pay rise on top of the 28.9% doctors have already received. I also offered to extend the BMA strike mandate, so it could postpone this action and go ahead once flu has subsided. The fact that it also rejected that offer shows a shocking disregard for patient safety. Since this strike represents a different magnitude of risk from previous industrial action, I am appealing to ordinary resident doctors to ignore the BMA strike and go to work this week. Abandoning patients in their hour of greatest need goes against everything that a career in medicine is meant to be about.
The entire focus of my Department and the NHS team is now on getting the health service through the double whammy of flu and strikes. We have already vaccinated 17 million people, which is 170,000 more than last year, and 60,000 more NHS staff. We have invested in 500 new ambulances, 40 new same-day emergency care and urgent treatment centres, and 15 mental health crisis assessment centres. The NHS will also be recalling resident doctors to work in emergency situations, and we will not tolerate the dangerous attempts to block such requests that we have seen from the BMA in the past.
I am proud of the way that the NHS team has pulled together through strike action in the past, and I know they will move heaven and earth to keep patients as safe as they can this winter. I am just appalled that they are having to do so without the support of their colleagues in the BMA.
Stuart Andrew
This winter, a serious flu wave and rising respiratory syncytial virus infections are pushing the NHS to its limits. Flu admissions, as we have heard, are up 55% in a week, and RSV cases are rising, especially in older people. However, the Government have failed to prepare, as we pointed out earlier in the year.
In July, the Health Secretary accepted Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advice to expand the RSV vaccine to over-80s, but that expansion seems to have been quietly dropped. Flu vaccine uptake remains dangerously low, with fewer than 30% of some key groups vaccinated. Most worryingly, that includes NHS staff, who are going off sick because of flu, adding to staffing pressures. Delayed discharges are worsening: 19,000 more bed days have been lost this year. Still there is no winter discharge plan, no new funding and no clarity—and today, yes, resident doctors confirmed further strike action this week, which will add pressure to a system already under significant strain. That is why we would ban strike action, but at the same time this Government are literally making it easier for unions through their Employment Rights Bill.
When the NHS is under this level of pressure, families deserve the reassurance that care will be there when they need it, so I ask the Secretary of State: will he now publish the Government’s plan for managing winter pressures, including on delayed discharges and emergency care? Given that he is worried about a double whammy of rising flu cases and a strike, what extra resources is he providing, and if he is not, where is the money coming from? What action will he take to ensure RSV vaccine access for older people, and what will he do to raise flu vaccine uptake in vulnerable groups, particularly in NHS staff? Families are frightened, and some are already grieving. This crisis was not inevitable, but the Government’s failure to prepare has made it much worse.
Wes Streeting
I will ignore the political nonsense about banning strikes and clamping down on trade unions. I will, however, take on directly the charge that we have not prepared for this winter.
We have delivered over 17 million flu vaccinations this season—hundreds of thousands more than this time last year—and 60,000 more NHS staff than last year are also getting their jab. We are on track to deliver the 5 percentage points increase in flu vaccine uptake in healthcare workers, as set out in our urgent and emergency care plan. On children and young people, half a million two to three-year-olds have been vaccinated, which is the same as last year, and 3.6 million school-age children have been vaccinated, which is up 100,000 on last year. We will be going back to schools to do repeat visits in areas where uptake in schools has not been as high as we would like. For care home residents, flu vaccination uptake is 71%. We are on track to meet the RSV vaccination uptake target for 2025-26 in the published urgent and emergency care plan, so we are doing a lot on the vaccination front to prepare.
In fact, on winter planning more generally, we started earlier and did more than ever to prepare for this winter. We had stress-tested winter plans trust by trust. Local NHS leaders ran scenario-based exercises, including managing surges in demand and responding to virus outbreaks to test and strengthen their winter readiness plans, which are now being put into action. We have strengthened access by boosting GP access to keep people well and out of hospital. Through advertising campaigns, new online access routes and more GP practices open for longer hours over the Christmas period, we are making sure more people can be seen closer to home. That matters, because when people can get help early from their GP, they are less likely to end up in A&E.
We are also going further to improve our urgent and emergency care performance this winter. That is set out in our urgent and emergency care plan. We are investing almost £450 million into UEC this winter, meaning: 500 new ambulances on the roads; expanding same-day and urgent treatment centres; providing targeted support to the most challenged trusts; creating capacity and keeping flow moving by sharing weekly data with trusts; encouraging the use of alternative community services; and streamlining in-hospital discharge processes to get patients discharged more quickly from hospital when it is safe to do so, including joining up the NHS and social care, where relationships between health and social care have been improving year on year. If I think about where we are this year compared to last year, there has been sustained improvement. A lot done; more to do.
Of course our job is made harder by strike action. That is why the Government are doing everything we possibly can to get the NHS through this winter. I just wish we were doing it with the BMA, rather than against the BMA.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I would like to pay tribute to all the incredible staff at St George’s hospital in Tooting. I did my A&E shift with them this week, together in the trenches.
The Labour Government inherited an NHS that was bursting at the seams. With flu cases on the rise, the NHS feels as though it is working with one arm tied behind its back. Over half a million people this year were treated in corridors in A&E. That is unsafe and undignified. The all-party parliamentary group on emergency care, which I have the privilege of chairing, working very closely with the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, published a report outlining our recommendations to end so-called corridor care. I know this is a matter about which the Secretary of State cares deeply, so will he meet us to discuss the report’s recommendations to provide safe and more dignified care for patients and staff?
Wes Streeting
I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to frontline NHS staff for what they are doing against a very challenging backdrop, which will be made all the more difficult this coming week. I also thank her personally for her ongoing frontline service, which she performs in addition to her duties in this House. I am always delighted to meet her and I would be very happy to discuss her report with her.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is obvious already that this year is going to be very difficult for the NHS, with many A&E departments already overwhelmed, hospital wards full and too many patients looking at spending their Christmas on a corridor. Indeed, corridor care has been common throughout this year and even trusts that have seen improvement in other areas, such as Shrewsbury and Telford in my constituency, are struggling to make real progress in urgent and emergency care. In July this year, one in five people who arrived at an A&E in Shropshire had to wait more than 12 hours, and that was before the double whammy of a record winter flu epidemic and an irresponsible doctors’ strike.
Will the Prime Minister chair regular Cobra meetings to address this emergency? Will the Minister agree to make flu vaccines available to far more people and roll out an emergency vaccination scheme in communities to reach people who have been missed? Finally, will the Government support Liberal Democrat calls for a dedicated winter crisis unit, providing the locum doctors and social care support needed to discharge patients and free up hospital beds?
Wes Streeting
We are doing much of what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson asks; the hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to focus on delayed discharge and demand management, and the system is doing all of those things. It is challenging in the NHS. The House will know of our determination to end corridor care. We have certainly ended the nomenclature of “temporary escalation spaces”, which makes corridor care sound like it is both normal and acceptable in the NHS, neither of which is true. I will stop short of asking the Prime Minister to chair Cobra meetings. That would not be the right mechanism or response, but of course he and I meet regularly to discuss winter pressures, and I will keep him apprised of the situation.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Gloucester residents are rightly worried about the rising flu levels. I was struck down a few weeks ago and can attest to how tough the current strain is. Does he agree that in this context it is reckless of the BMA to be taking its members out on strike, and will he call for resident doctors in Gloucester to go to work next week to keep their patients safe?
Wes Streeting
It is one thing for the BMA to have rejected the offer we made; it is quite something else to have done that following a 28.9% pay rise—but we are where we are. The thing that I find utterly inexplicable and indefensible about the BMA’s position is that we offered it the chance to extend its strike mandate to the beginning of February, in order that strikes could be delayed into January, to give the NHS a clear run at an extremely difficult and challenging winter and the most challenging time of the year for the NHS. The only reason the BMA is choosing this week to strike is that it knows it will inflict maximum damage on the NHS, but in doing so it risks avoidable harm to patients. That is unconscionable, indefensible and unnecessary, and I ask ordinary members of the BMA, whatever their views on the offer or this Government, to bear that in mind when deciding whether or not to leave their patients this week.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Given the pressures from flu and strikes, can the Secretary of State confirm that the evidence he gave to the pay review body remains correct—that any pay rises must be funded from within his Department? If so, given that the Office for Budget Responsibility says that inflation next year will be 3.5% and he has offered 2.5% across the NHS, and said that a 1% increase would cost £1.5 billion, does he intend to give NHS staff a real-terms pay cut, or to take £1.5 billion from headline Government commitments?
Wes Streeting
It is as if the ghost of Christmas past has come to visit: one of my predecessors is here to remind the BMA of what it used to have to deal with. Perhaps the BMA will be a bit more content with the ghost of Christmas present—and that is before we are threatened by the ghost of Christmas future—[Laughter.] I am being slightly tongue in check, but the right hon. Gentleman asks a serious question, and I will treat it seriously.
We put in evidence to the pay review body process. The pay review body will make its recommendation, which we will consider. We are in active discussions with Agenda for Change unions about whether we can reach an agreement on future years, including exploration of the prospect of a multi-year offer. I have made the same approach to all health unions, including the BMA and resident doctors. The challenge with resident doctors is that their expectations are some way from affordability. They are asking for a 24% pay rise on top of the 28.9% they have already had. That is not acceptable. As the right hon. Gentleman’s question implies, I have a responsibility to the entire NHS workforce, particularly the Agenda for Change staff, who have not done as well as doctors. Addressing that is not only a practical issue for me, but a moral one.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
First, I associate myself strongly with the Secretary of State’s comments about today’s regrettable decision by the BMA and its members.
In the light of the pressures of flu and RSV, does my right hon. Friend think it is time to ask the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to look again at its recommendations on the ages at which the two vaccines are made available? Specifically on RSV in infants, does he think it is time to ask NHS England to look again at the decision to switch from an infant-based delivery model to a maternal-based delivery model on the ground of cost, without taking into account the lower infant RSV vaccination uptake now?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and questions. We will indeed reflect on our performance after this winter, just as we did after last winter. He raised interesting points about the way in which we deliver vaccines. As for the questions about eligibility and timing, we rely on the expert advice of the JCVI, which will also look at the data on how this winter has panned out. We look forward to receiving its recommendations in due course.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State says that the strikes come at a time of maximum danger for the NHS and has called on the junior doctors to call off the strikes. I agree with him, but will he accept at least some responsibility for the second round of strikes on his watch? Last year he conceded a bumper pay deal to the same junior doctors with no strings attached. It is hardly surprising that they judge him a soft touch on pay and have come back for more this year.
Wes Streeting
Regardless of the result today, I think that the BMA is finding that I am not a soft touch and that we will not accede to a completely unreasonable and unaffordable demand. The reason we made that pay award within weeks of coming into government was that we did not think that the BMA’s treatment at the hands of our predecessors had been fair, and we recognised the issues that it was raising on pay. Indeed, the irony of this round of strikes, and previous rounds of strikes under this Government, is that I recognise that whether it is about pay, jobs or working conditions, resident doctors make a whole series of fair and reasonable points, and we are doing our best to address those.
I think that 28.9% is a meaningful step in the right direction on pay. Our offer of emergency legislation, which is unusual in this House, would make a real difference, reducing competition for jobs from 4:1 to less than 2:1—but the BMA has rejected that course of action. In the end, I think that people will judge the BMA’s actions to be unreasonable. Of course the issues that it raises are serious and substantial, but we see similar issues raised not just across the NHS but across the entire public sector.
We cannot fix everything for everyone everywhere all at once. Most reasonable people accept that; for reasons I cannot understand, the BMA does not.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is rightly proud of the work that has been done to vaccinate people, and he will be acutely aware that we are heading into the super-spreader festive season. There are parents across the country who want to protect their own parents by getting their children vaccinated, but right now there is a gap in the system: 16 and 17-year-olds are not covered. Even if people try to pay for a vaccine at a wholly private provider, they cannot get a vaccine for that cohort, and NHS pharmacists are turning away parents who want to pay for a vaccine. Can I press the Secretary of State to correct that gap, so that families who want to protect their loved ones can do so and 16 and 17-year-olds do not give their grandparents the worst Christmas present ever?
Wes Streeting
We will review eligibility, distribution and means of accessing the vaccine in the usual way. People should enjoy themselves over the Christmas period. It is a time for family and seeing loved ones and friends, but people should be mindful of the risks posed by this most virulent strain of flu. If people are symptomatic and likely to give someone they love something they would rather not have this Christmas, they may want to hold off for a week until they have recovered.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I strongly endorse the Secretary of State’s emphasis on the importance of vaccination, not least to protect the resilience of frontline NHS staff and face down the anti-vaxxers and vaccine-hesitant. Nevertheless, will he reflect carefully on his emphasis on the shift from hospital to community at this time, given that emergency departments are still in crisis and corridor care is still a norm across much of the country?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say, for the avoidance of doubt, that accident and emergency is for accidents and emergency situations. It is not an “anything and everything” walk-in service, and A&E departments are already stretched ahead of strikes. For patients who are in need of medical care or attention but are struggling to access their GP or wondering which NHS service local to them would be most suitable, NHS 111 provides a suitable service to triage and point them in the right direction. Of course if someone requires an ambulance, they should dial 999 in emergencies, and if it is an accident or emergency, people should attend emergency departments in the usual way.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Late on Friday, I received notification that the Eastham walk-in centre was to be temporarily closed for four weeks, which appears to be a move in response to the real pressures in the NHS, as I think most of the staff are to be redeployed to the local A&E. Given that previously I and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern) campaigned vigorously to keep the centre permanently open, I would be grateful for any assurances the Secretary of State can give that this step is temporary and indeed indicative of the real pressures that the NHS is currently facing.
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend can rest assured that he has my support as he keeps his eye on the temporary nature of this closure. I share his desire for it to be temporary.
I would make this point, too. There is a view among some in the BMA that somehow these strikes are consequence-free for patients and the NHS on the basis that we can just cancel some operations and it is okay because consultants will be covering. That is quite a cavalier attitude to take to fellow frontline staff who will be having their annual leave cancelled and finding themselves recalled right now. It also really minimises how patients feel when they cannot access a walk-in service, such as my hon. Friend’s, or indeed have waited, often for far too long, for a diagnostic test, scan or operation. They will have psyched themselves up and be ready for that appointment, but then find it cancelled because of strikes. The BMA might try to kid everyone else that the strikes are consequence-free for patients, but BMA members really ought not to kid themselves.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Health Secretary ensure we have clarity on advice regarding the use of face masks, particularly where they are mandated? He will be aware that conflicting advice is issued by various agencies, which confuses people and reduces confidence. Will he ensure that advice is rigorously evidence-based?
Wes Streeting
The right hon. Gentleman is right to call for an evidence-based approach. That is why the Government are not mandating mask use across the NHS or social care. We are supporting leaders in providers to make their own judgments based on the situations in their trusts as to whether wearing of masks by patients and visitors is necessary, given the pressures they are under. Even in those cases, there is an understanding that people may not wish to comply, but I hope that, if asked to do so, they would comply.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, in the run-up to Christmas, NHS staff will be having to change their Christmas plans to cover emergency shifts as a result of this ridiculous strike, and patients will have emergency operations, and indeed scheduled operations, cancelled?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of disruption. Although we have carefully laid plans to manage industrial action this week, the thing I am really worried about as we look towards the end of this week is the long tail that takes us into next week, the following week and the new year. That is for a few reasons. First, in our experience, there is always a need to recover the service following such disruption; ironically, sometimes the worst disruption is seen in the weeks that follow and not just during strike days. Secondly, this is normally the busiest time of the year, and we normally get through it because we have experienced consultants who are willing to put in extra shifts over the Christmas and new year period, recognising those pressures. Those same people are now going to be absolutely knackered because of the toil of covering for their resident doctor colleagues over the five-day period. I really think that, in choosing the timing of these strikes, the BMA has been highly inconsiderate of colleagues, and I do not think it has even thought about patients.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My constituent Fred is eligible for a flu vaccination, but has had his appointment cancelled three times due to a lack of vaccines in the local area. Pharmacies and GPs are asked to guess what their need will be, sometimes a year in advance and without sight of the JCVI’s eligibility criteria, and this naturally results in conservative estimates, so that they do not have waste. What emergency measures are the Government taking to get additional vaccines to rural and coastal areas like mine, in order to slow down the crisis in our A&E?
Wes Streeting
There is no shortage of the vaccine, which makes things even more frustrating for our constituents, and for the hon. Member; they know that there are flu vaccines available, but they are not in the right place at the right time. I am extremely sorry that her constituent has suffered that inconvenience and setback three times. She has placed her concerns on record, and we will look at what has happened in her constituency. We will look at the supplies, and I will make sure that my Department works with her to resolve that situation. More generally, where we have seen reports of shortages, or of suppliers being caught short, we have acted rapidly to remedy the situation.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a former leader on healthcare in a trade union, and also as a clinician in respiratory medicine. I am deeply concerned about patients right now. I recognise that the Health Secretary shared a lot of information with the House on Wednesday evening about how he wants to take things forward. Could he set out the process of engagement, not least with ACAS? Could ACAS sit down with the BMA, and work through the proposals to see if they could be enhanced or tweaked, so that we achieve the right resolution for patients and the NHS, and abate these forthcoming strikes?
Wes Streeting
I have lost count of the number of times I have met the BMA personally, or spoken on the telephone, including as recently as this afternoon, with the chair of the resident doctors committee and his predecessors. Of course, we are always willing to consider bringing in people who can help to close the gap between those on either side of the table. In the past, the BMA has not been too fond of ACAS. We will let this round of strikes pass. Our first priority now has to be managing our way through this period and recovering the NHS into the new year. There will then, by my reckoning, be at least six weeks without strikes, and of course we will do our best to resolve the situation with the BMA.
I would just say to my hon. Friend, to the House and to the BMA that there really is not much further for the Government to go. We have given a 28.9% pay rise already. The BMA wants to talk about future years’ pay, but we have not even had a recommendation from the Doctors and Dentists Review Body. I think it is extraordinary that BMA members are out on strike on pay after the 28.9% pay rise. On jobs, the BMA peddles to its members the idea that there were just 4,000 extra specialty training places up for grabs; it seems to completely sideline the point about emergency legislation to deal with UK graduate prioritisation, which is exactly what it asked from us, in all the meetings that I had with it. Since it has rejected that offer, it should not expect to see the legislation. If BMA members want to see the Government move forward constructively with them, they really need to stop striking, stop harming the NHS and maybe start thinking about patients while they are at it.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
These strikes, at a time of peak seasonal pressure on the NHS, are reprehensible, and the BMA should be thoroughly ashamed of itself. Does the Health Secretary agree that we should use this opportunity to reassert our collective societal trust in vaccines, and encourage anyone who is vulnerable or eligible to get a vaccine, to mitigate the effects on themselves and on wider society? Given his comment that there is not much more that the Government can offer, does he at least acknowledge that the Government’s unconditional inflation-busting offer last year, just weeks after they came into office, must surely have emboldened the BMA?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Member for being helpful in two ways. First, it is always good to hear voices from the right making the case for vaccine uptake. That contrasts the Conservative party starkly with Reform UK, which we hear peddle anti-science nonsense. Secondly, I thank him for reminding resident doctors and the BMA of what they used to have when the Conservative party was in government. Maybe I do not look so unreasonable after all.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I want to place on the record my immense thanks to staff at Derriford hospital in Plymouth, who are working tirelessly to keep people safe during the busiest winter yet. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to join me in giving those thanks. The south-west has seen a 93% increase on last year in the number of beds taken up by those with flu. Does the Secretary of State agree that the run-up to Christmas is a dangerous and reckless time for doctors to go on strike? What would he say to all the other staff at Derriford, who will have to take up that work on the frontline as we approach Christmas?
Wes Streeting
First, I thank the staff of Derriford hospital. I have visited it a number of times over the years, and have seen them coping with pressures at the height of summer, during peak tourist season, and in the depths of winter; I was there this time last year. They do a really good job in very difficult circumstances, and my hon. Friend champions them regularly and consistently, publicly and privately.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the challenges that we face in our urgent and emergency departments. Our urgent and emergency care plan addresses the underlying issues that he raises, but of course, we have more to do in the coming weeks to help manage the NHS through this winter, and we are already reflecting on how we will plan for next winter, too.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
This afternoon, I am hearing of resident doctors who are not BMA members, and who plan to go to work, as we would urge them to, being pressured and bullied by the BMA not to go to work. They are being told that locum doctors have been booked in their place, at huge extra cost to the NHS. Does the Secretary of State join me in absolutely condemning this pressure and bullying by the BMA?
Wes Streeting
No member of staff should be bullied for going to work this week and doing the right thing by patients. I am grateful to resident doctors who have been at work during previous strike actions, and I hope that we will see resident doctors do the same this week.
I ask resident doctors, regardless of their views on the offer that this Government have made, to think really carefully about the risks that the BMA is playing with, and I use that term advisedly, by choosing to schedule strikes this week. The most reasonable thing would have been for the BMA to accept the offer of an extension to its strike mandate, and to have simply postponed its strikes to January. It would have reflected well on the BMA. It would have shown that the BMA cared and had consideration for its colleagues who are under pressure this week. It would have shown that it cared and had consideration for patients who risk suffering this week because of its action. It is for the BMA to say why it rejected that perfectly reasonable offer, and why it has chosen the most dangerous time to be out on strike. I think this is probably the most shameful episode in the BMA’s history since it marched against the foundation of the NHS.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and his whole team for all that they are doing to fix the NHS, including boosting the number of appointments by more than was in our manifesto last year. In Southwark, there is particular NHS pressure on GP access. Southwark council is helping to expand and improve provision, but how do the Government ensure that GP practices’ self-reported access times—four in five people can see a GP within two weeks—are accurate and heading in the right direction?
Wes Streeting
That is part of GPs’ contractual obligations. Accurate reporting is absolutely central, both from an ethics and integrity perspective, and because it helps to inform us about the state of the service, and how we can improve care for patients. I am happy to look at the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency with the integrated care board, to ensure that data and information are being collected and provided accurately for him and for public consumption.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I hope that the Secretary of State will give a little more consideration to the rather important point raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) about 16 and 17-year-olds not being able to be vaccinated.
If any junior doctor—whether or not a member of the BMA, but particularly if a member of the BMA—decides on ethical grounds to go into work during the period of the strike, and then faces sanctions from the BMA, will the Government protect them?
Wes Streeting
Two things: first, we will certainly give serious consideration to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—the JCVI will do that in the usual way, and we follow its advice —and secondly, resident doctors have been to work in previous rounds of strikes, and I have not been made aware of bullying or intimidation of them. Of course, that should not be happening, and if it does, my priority will be protecting doctors who are doing the right thing. My expectation is that no one will be intimidated for making the moral and ethical judgment that going to work is the right thing to do by patients, by their colleagues and by the NHS this Christmas.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Government were elected to pick the NHS up off its knees, and that is exactly what we are doing by putting tens of billions extra into the NHS—that includes giving a 28.9% pay rise to doctors. That money is delivering a 20% reduction in NHS waiting lists in my area. However, despite that progress, families are worried by the spectre of these strikes and a surge in super flu. I know that the Secretary of State is working flat-out to support the NHS. Families in Sandwell can support the NHS at this time by taking up a vaccine, but what more can they do to support it?
Wes Streeting
People can check their eligibility for a vaccine online or via the NHS app. They can and should seek to protect themselves. If people need healthcare, they should seek to access it. I do not want people to be deterred unnecessarily by strike action. It is important that people get the right care in the right place. Unless it is an accident or an emergency, the best thing to do is to call 111; from there, patients will be directed to the most appropriate service.
My hon. Friend is right about the progress that we are making with the NHS since coming into office. That is one of the many reasons I am so disappointed by the BMA’s action. This is lose-lose: it is bad for the NHS, and therefore for patients, and it leaves doctors working in poorer conditions for longer than I, they and the country would want.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We are told that the NHS is adequately funded, but in Birmingham and my constituency, the ambulance service does not respond. People dialling 999 are informed that they ought to catch a taxi to the hospital, because there are no ambulances. There is not just corridor care; ambulances are also being used as facilities in which to care for vulnerable people. What can the Government do to ensure that ambulances are ready and available to pick up those who need that service?
Wes Streeting
This Labour Government are investing more in the NHS—£26 billion, rising to £29 billion over the spending review period. Urgent and emergency care is improving. Ambulance response times are improving year on year. I recognise that there are particular challenges with the West Midlands ambulance service. We are going as hard and fast as we can to repair the damage done by 14 years of Conservative Government. We are able to do that only because people chose to vote Labour at the last general election.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
At a Hanukkah event in Nottingham last night, I spoke to a medical undergraduate who welcomes the Government’s commitment to halving competition, and the offer that was put to the BMA. Lots of medical professionals, be they hospital doctors, GPs or allied health professionals, are struggling to find work. Will the Secretary of State outline how this offer, and the Government’s other work, would have helped those individuals?
Wes Streeting
This is the futility of the BMA’s position. The steps that we were proposing to take—both increasing the number of specialty places and bringing forward emergency legislation to deal with UK prioritisation—would have reduced the competition ratio from around 4:1 today to less than 2:1. That would have kicked in during the current round. We would have been able to bring forward emergency legislation and a new application round in the spring. The BMA has rejected that approach, and we will not proceed on that basis.
It is for the BMA to explain what its dispute is all about. We were told that it was all about jobs. What it seems to be about in substance is that the BMA wants a 26% pay rise, in addition to a 28.9% pay rise. I think the BMA is missing a degree of perspective about not just the state of the public finances but the pressures on other parts of the NHS and the public sector. The Government are committed to improving, consistently and year on year, the pay, terms and conditions of staff, and, crucially, the conditions in which patients are seen and treated. We cannot fix it all at once.
In fact, when this and previous Governments have floated the idea of raising extra money, BMA committees have sometimes been among the first to complain about the prospect of higher taxes, including on pensions, and other issues. It seems that their view is that everybody else should pay higher taxes for their higher salaries, and no one else matters. For me, those Agenda for Change staff who have been left behind are the first priority.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Everybody knows that South Shropshire is the most beautiful rural constituency, but that rurality brings remoteness, which brings challenges with an ageing population, and with additional strikes there is concern about whether adequate healthcare will be provided this winter. Will the Secretary of State set out how that will be done, so that residents of South Shropshire will not go without?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the interests not just of our cities and towns but of rural communities. I was proud of the emphasis that we placed on rural services and coastal communities in our 10-year plan for health, and we take that into account with our urgent and emergency care plan. I have been encouraged by the way that some of our ambulance services that are dealing with remote and rural constituencies are responding this year compared with last year, but there is still much more for us to do, particularly across the midlands. We want consistent year-on-year improvement so that whoever someone is and wherever they live, the NHS is always there when they need it.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his hard work in trying to bring an end to these unacceptable strikes. When such strikes happen, particularly at this time of year, it draws attention away from the hard work that staff across our national health service are constantly putting in during these difficult times. That is why later this week I will visit Milton Keynes hospital to thank staff for what they are doing over Christmas, particularly given the important work that they have put into supporting my family through what has been a difficult year. Will the Secretary of State please join me in thanking staff, particularly at Milton Keynes hospital, for working hard during a difficult time when we are tucking into our Christmas dinners next week?
Wes Streeting
Through my hon. Friend I thank staff at Milton Keynes hospital for all their hard work—I have had the privilege of visiting recently—and I thank all NHS staff for what they are doing throughout this week and throughout a very challenging winter. We know that staff are working under pressure and that their pay, terms and conditions need to improve. Most importantly, we know that conditions for patients need to improve, and we are far better able to do that if we work together, and if the BMA is more reasonable not just about the scale of the asks, but about the pace with which it is demanding change, recognising our responsibility to all staff, not just doctors, and crucially to patients.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
More than 34,000 residents of Dorset are over the age of 80 and therefore excluded from the RSV vaccine. They have been told that it is too dangerous for them to take, but they are now extremely worried because cases are going up. Will the Secretary of State sit back round with the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and review the decision to exclude them, so that residents such as Joan in Wimborne, who has to care for her even older and more disabled husband, can get reassurance this winter that she can protect herself and him?
Wes Streeting
I am not a clinician or a scientist, but the JCVI is full of them and we follow its expert advice. It will, in the normal way, review how this winter has gone and look ahead to future pressures, but it is important that we are guided by the evidence, whatever the political pressure.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am so angry. I am sorry to say this, but I feel that by its actions today, the BMA is killing our NHS, and quite possibly my constituents and patients over the Christmas period, and it has become almost the midwife for privatisation under Reform. The Secretary of State has been robust in his role as patient advocate in chief, and more power to him in that, but will he go a step further and join me in appealing to resident doctors in my constituency and elsewhere, and say, “Go back into work and look after my constituents.”?
Wes Streeting
I certainly hope that when making the decision about whether to go to work this week, resident doctors bear in mind the pressures that the NHS is under, the consequences of their actions on their colleagues not just this week but in the coming weeks, and—crucially —the impact that risks having on patients, which is the most important consideration. I ask resident doctors to bear in mind that we offered the BMA the chance to postpone the strike action into January. I think that is a reasonable offer, and the BMA’s rejection of it shows how thoroughly unreasonable it is. I follow what resident doctors say, and I worry that too many seem to think that these strikes are consequence free for everyone but the Government. If only that were true, and if only the strike was not placing intolerable pressure on other NHS staff, and an intolerable risk to patients, which I think is unconscionable.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Coroners have warned that without change, unsafe pressures and delayed care at Royal Blackburn hospital risk further deaths. Blackburn also has one of the worst GP-patient ratios in the country, with over 3,000 patients per GP, leaving many of my constituents unable to access early care and pushed into A&E out of desperation, not misuse, only to face fear and delay. With winter admissions rising, what targeted support for staffing, bed capacity and GP access will be provided to places such as Blackburn? Does the Secretary of State accept that winter resilience is impossible without fixing primary care in the hardest hit communities, such as Blackburn?
Wes Streeting
Thanks to the decisions taken by this Labour Government, we have increased funding for general practice by £1.1 billion, we deployed not just 1,000 more GPs to the frontline in our first year as promised but 2,500 and, through reforms to the Carr-Hill formula, we are restoring the deprivation link to health funding. As a result, the poorest communities with the greatest needs are receiving greater care, support and investment. All this is undoing the damage left by 14 years of Conservative government and it is only possible because people chose to elect Labour MPs.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Last week, I met leaders from Darent Valley hospital in my constituency. Apart from discussing progress made on the new intensive care unit that the Government are investing in at the hospital, which is a sure sign that the Government are starting to turn the NHS around, it was clear from the conversation that the rise in flu admissions is already having a big impact on A&E waiting times and that care is having to be administered in corridors. Does the Secretary of State agree with the message that the hospital leadership team wanted to amplify: anyone who wants to help the NHS should go to their GP or their local pharmacy and get a vaccination as soon as possible, if they have not already done so?
Wes Streeting
That is very good advice on vaccination. If people require health services and it not an accident or an emergency, they should call 111, visit the website or use the NHS app. There are plenty of services available to help people, but as people will have seen on their television screens and social media feeds, the current pressures mean that the emergency department is not a place to be, unless they have had an accident or it is a genuine emergency.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Across Cumbria and Morecambe Bay, the teams working in A&E, on hospital wards and in our ambulance crews are doing a stunning job dealing with the winter pressures in a community where, in my constituency, the average age is 10 years above the national average. Their jobs are made more difficult by the fact that 25% or more of the beds in our local hospitals are occupied by people who do not meet the criteria to reside. On top of that, the local trust in Morecambe Bay is planning to make bed cuts for financial reasons alone. We hear about additional investment in the NHS, but it does not feel like we are having that in Morecambe Bay and Cumbria. Will the Secretary of State personally investigate that, so that we are not cutting beds at a time when we need them more than ever?
Wes Streeting
We do flex beds depending on needs. For example, there were just over 101,000 beds open on average per day in the past week, which was up on the previous week and broadly the same as it was this time last year. We are investing in the NHS, and we have to ensure that people get the right care, in the right place at the right time. That means not just investing in secondary care; if anything, it means investing in the front and back doors of the hospital—primary care, community services and social care—to deal with the flow of patients through hospitals.
I do not pretend that these are easy issues or that everything is going swimmingly in the NHS—quite the opposite. I have seen conditions on our screens in the past week or two that I would not want to be treated in, someone I love to be treated in, or anyone to be treated in. It is a reflection of that fact that we inherited an NHS that was in enormous crisis. It will take time to recover. The key for me is achieving year-on-year improvements to get the NHS back on its feet and to ensure it is fit for the future.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I put on record my thanks to the staff at Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow for their work to support residents in my constituency not just at Christmas but all year round.
Clearly, the BMA’s decision to take strike action over Christmas is hugely disappointing. As a former teacher, I remember that if we took industrial action, we always tried to avoid taking it over exam season, for similar reasons. Will the Secretary of State reiterate his point about the deal he put forward to the BMA? In particular, reducing the number of applicants per job is hugely important and should be welcomed by resident doctors, or potential resident doctors.
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Responsible trade unions think about the wider workforce and the impact on service users, whether they are children or other users of public services. Crucially, for most trade unions in this country strike action is a last resort. It is astonishing that the BMA chose to go on strike after a 28.9% pay rise, well ahead of the Government making any decisions on future years’ pay and with the Government willing to discuss future years’ pay with the BMA.
It is extraordinary that the BMA has chosen to go on strike after we proposed to take action on jobs, including by bringing forward legislation at an expedited pace. By the way, that involved ensuring that the legal advice was watertight and that, operationally, we could deliver a new application round. It involved working trust by trust to secure the extra training places, and working with my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Even after all that effort was strained to bring forward something quickly for this application round, the BMA rejected it. It is unreasonable, and to have rejected the offer of postponing strikes until the new year on the grounds of patient safety and doing the decent thing by their colleagues was unconscionable.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Next week, families such as mine will be coming together across the generations to celebrate Christmas, and there will be a mix of people who have been vaccinated and those who have not, whether by choice or by default. Teenagers and young adults are struggling to access vaccinations, and they cannot walk into a pharmacy like an adult can. Is the Secretary of State content that everything is being done to ensure that if families want to get their young people vaccinated, they will be vaccinated in time for Christmas?
Wes Streeting
Yes. The JCVI makes evidence-based recommendations, and we follow its evidence. With the best will in the world, we of course give out practical, common-sense advice, but we should not infantilise our constituents. They are perfectly capable of working out who can get together this Christmas. They really do not need Government Ministers to start issuing directions about who can get round the table for Christmas dinner and who can get together in the days after. In the exchanges we have in this House there is sometimes a degree of patronising of the British people. They really, really do not need us. They really do not need our advice on the seating plan at Christmas dinner; what they need is for NHS services to be there when they need them, and that is what the Government are focused on.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I commend the Secretary of State for his action to try to prevent industrial action. Nye Bevan had his own challenges with the BMA.
The covid inquiry made a number of recommendations with regard to co-ordination and preparedness across all four nations. What interaction has the Secretary of State had with the devolved nations in respect of this wave of flu, RSV and access to vaccinations?
Wes Streeting
I speak regularly with my counterparts, and the Ministers who are either side of me this afternoon have been engaging with our counterparts in recent weeks on these issues. We have a good relationship with devolved Administrations, regardless of party or where they sit across the United Kingdom, and that is a good thing.
As for the history of Labour Governments’ interactions with the NHS, that is not lost on me. The BMA marched against the NHS. It may be the case that the BMA does not really feel it needs the NHS—the BMA will be all right regardless—but my constituents cannot afford private healthcare, let alone earn money working in it. We will do everything we can to save the NHS, get it back on its feet and ensure that it is fit for the future. It is the only NHS our country has ever had and, compared with all the alternatives, I would not give up on a publicly funded public service—owned by us and there for all of us—for anything.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Vaccination rates among the over-65s are not where we would like them to be, so will the Secretary of State adopt an emergency vaccination scheme in village halls, supermarkets and—if needed—jab vans to get to the people who have been missed?
Wes Streeting
There are many examples of great community-based vaccination initiatives. Many of those initiatives are supported by faith-based organisations, which is really important given the vaccine hesitancy in some of those groups. I do not believe that people are hard to reach; I believe that public services often do not try hard enough, and our approach is to do so. We will reflect on our success this year and seek to build on it for future years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his answers—the BMA is losing public support, and clearly the Secretary of State is gaining it. I wish him well in his role.
Official figures show that flu cases in Northern Ireland nearly doubled to 954 in recent weeks, and flu-related admissions also doubled, with hundreds being treated in hospitals. There are issues with the supply of the flu vaccine, to the extent that people are unable to get their jabs in pharmacies and GPs are only offering them to select groups. I know that the Secretary of State is in regular contact with the Minister in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt. What discussions have taken place to increase the supply of the flu vaccine and ensure it is accessible to those who need it?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Given that politicians are somewhere below traffic wardens and estate agents in terms of public popularity at the moment, it is quite an achievement for the BMA to have found itself even less popular with the public, but I think it has made very clear through its actions and rhetoric this week that it does not care about public opinion. In fact, the BMA does not seem to care much about the public at all.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that we need to make sure we have a good supply of vaccine available across the whole of the United Kingdom. We work closely with the devolved Administrations, and I speak regularly with my Northern Ireland counterpart. Should the Northern Ireland Executive ever need support or assistance, we are always willing to provide it wherever we can.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the urgent question, the Health Secretary suggested that Reform UK were vaccine sceptics—that is not the case. I have had all my vaccines since being born, and I will continue to have vaccinations, including the flu jab. Is there anything you can do to encourage the Health Secretary to be a little bit more accurate with the facts?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Unfortunately, I am not responsible for the content of speeches made by Front Benchers or by Back Benchers. That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has most definitely got his point on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Does the Secretary of State wish to respond? Hopefully, we are not going to prolong the debate.
Wes Streeting
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s endorsement of vaccination. It is by far the most sensible thing he has ever said—that is a low bar, but he has cleared it, and I am very grateful to him. He might want to have a closer look at who his party platforms at its conferences, but that is not a matter for this urgent question.
Violence against Women and Girls Strategy
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the violence against women and girls strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The scale of violence against women and girls in our country is intolerable, and this Government are treating it as a national emergency. Members are aware that we have made an unprecedented commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. This effort will be underpinned by our violence against women and girls strategy. As I said in my oral statement on the Angiolini inquiry earlier this month, I know that there is a great deal of interest in that strategy. Having lived and breathed this piece of work for many months, the eagerness with which colleagues across the House are awaiting its publication is something I welcome, not least because in order to succeed in our mission, we will need everyone to play their part, including Members of all political stripes. I can confirm that the strategy will be published this Thursday, 18 December, and I look forward to presenting it to the House on that day. I will be very happy to discuss every detail and every policy in our plan once it has been launched; until then, I hope that hon. Members will bear with me for just a few more days.
We have not been sitting idle, however. Since the general election, we have taken urgent steps to strengthen the response. We have introduced new protections for stalking victims, launched long-awaited domestic abuse protection orders, increased refuge funding and increased helpline funding. We have placed domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms in the first five areas, and we have begun the process of ending the presumption of contact—something begged for by victims for years. We are expanding support for child victims of trafficking across the country. Because I have a time limit, I will not list the many other things that have been done in this area not just by the Home Department, but by every Government Department. I really could go on.
Those steps are all having an impact, but to give every woman and girl the safety and security they deserve, a complete reset is needed. Through the strategy, we will go further than ever before in our efforts to deliver real and lasting change, and provide every woman and girl across the country with the safety and security that they deserve.
Marie Goldman
I stand here today disappointed—disappointed that women and girls continue to be unsafe in Britain in 2025, and disappointed that the strategy has been delayed three times this year, when urgent action is clearly needed. This Government should not have to be dragged before the House for an urgent question on a strategy that should have been published months ago. I am disappointed that, now that it is finally set to be published—on Parliament’s final sitting day of the year—stakeholders have said that the consultation process was inadequate and that the strategy “feels like an afterthought”. Meanwhile, the Home Secretary has been trailing it on the airwaves without parliamentary scrutiny.
One in four women have experienced domestic abuse. A woman is killed by a man every three days. Only 2.6% of rape offences result in a charge or summons. Those are shocking figures, and they are certainly not an afterthought to me or to the millions of women and girls in Britain. The police have called this a national emergency, and they are right, yet consecutive Governments have either sat on their hands or produced VAWG strategies that have failed time and again, as a National Audit Office report showed this year.
How will this strategy succeed where others have failed? How will progress towards halving violence against women and girls be measured? What interim targets will be set, and what consequences will follow if those targets are missed? Finally, as long as violent, misogynistic content continues to reach children online, the crisis will persist. Social media companies are failing to enforce their own terms of service, and the Online Safety Act 2023 has yet to deliver. What will the Home Secretary do to change that?
Jess Phillips
I feel every moment of disappointment that the hon. Lady feels about the failures over the years. I recall working in a service during the coalition Government, when we had to cut our child rape service and get the money from the Big Lottery Fund, because the state, in an era of austerity under that Government, took away the funding that we had used for a child rape counselling service. There are many, many years to reset. We have to change decades—not decades, actually, but millennia—of the expectation that women are just meant to expect this violence.
I could have made a document that, like all the documents that went before, did not do that reset. The delay—I am going to do something rare for a Government Minister—is my fault. It is entirely my fault because, with every iteration, the strategy was not ambitious enough. I could have done it more quickly, and then it would not have been as good. I apologise that the hon. Lady has to wait till Christmas, but there have been decades of failure. The metrics that we will be measured against and the plans for how they will be measured will all be released on Thursday. The hon. Lady will be able to hold me to account. I will not be dragged kicking and screaming; she is welcome to come into my office at any point and have a meeting with me.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is important to acknowledge that there have been delays, as the Minister has said, but it is also important that the next strategy is comprehensive and has multi-departmental and cross-departmental working embedded within it. Will the Minister, who was formerly an active member of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, of which I am the chair, meet jointly with us and the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse in the first week back from recess, so that we can discuss the strategy in detail and how it can be successfully implemented?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely will do that. I commit to that here and will make sure that is noted down, because the strategy is not the end and it does not have all the answers. It is something that will have to be changed and worked on, and it will take everybody to do it. It is a fundamental shift. I absolutely commit to doing that. Just to say, I have always worked alongside my hon. Friend, and Members of Parliament who reach out to me and want to work together on this issue are always welcome.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving the House the chance to discuss this important issue that affects the lives of millions of women and girls across the country. This issue is a stain on our society, and I am sure that Members across the House will support the ambition to halve violence against women and girls. For the same reason, I hope that the Minister can recognise the work undertaken by the previous Government through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the related plan, funded by hundreds of millions of pounds, alongside important changes to legislation in areas such as harassment. While it is clear that much more still needs to be done, those were critical steps in the right direction.
Worryingly, according to data from the crime survey for England and Wales, sexual offences, rape, stalking and harassment have all increased by between 5% and 9% under this Labour Government. That has occurred at the same time as the number of police officers has fallen under this Government. It demonstrates that despite the targets that have been set and the undoubted will of the Minister to reduce these life-altering crimes, there remains a significant gap between ambition and results.
We look forward to seeing the full scope of the strategy, which I am sure all Members would have wished to see sooner. I am sure that Members would have preferred to hear it in the House, rather than in the press. Is there a plan to identify and build on the measures in the strategy that are found to be most effective? Given the Government’s cuts to police numbers, what will be done to ensure that police forces have not only assigned individuals and titles, but the resources needed to tackle violence against women and girls head-on?
Jess Phillips
I will pick up on a couple of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. On the reduction in police numbers, I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition cited those figures, too. Just to be clear, 94% of the fall that has been cited was from March to June 2024, which was before this Government were elected. I just want to be clear on the numbers we are talking about.
Matt Vickers
Police numbers are produced in March and September. The last official records show—
Jess Phillips
Okay, I may have to stand corrected, but all I can say is that a huge amount of what is being cited on police numbers is being taken from the previous Government’s figures. In my area, we have not got up to the level of police funding that we had in 2010, so I will not take lectures from the Conservatives, given the hollowing out of the police over their era. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister may not like what he hears.
Brilliant work has been done under a number of people who have held the same position as me, and I can see one of them on the Opposition Front Bench. Throughout the progress of the Bill that became the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, when we were in opposition, I worked very closely with Ministers. I see that the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) is present. I worked incredibly closely with her in opposition to ensure that the Bill was good enough. Not once has any Member on the current Opposition Front Bench sought a meeting with me to discuss anything that they actually want to see in the strategy, but they would be very welcome to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. To prevent any further confusion, I should point out that this is not a debate but a response to an urgent question, and Members do not intervene on the Minister.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to respond to the urgent question. I know that this is an issue that she cares passionately about, and I can sense her frustration about the fact that such an important strategy is to be announced in the House on the last day before the recess, when many Members will not be here to respond and give their feedback. I hope that we will have another opportunity in the new year. I also hope that the strategy will confirm that there will be cross-departmental work, and that a big part of it will relate to where these vulnerable women and girls are to be housed. Did Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government attend the advisory board meetings, and will housing feature in the new strategy?
Jess Phillips
Ministers from MHCLG are key partners, and housing is a huge part of the issue of, specifically, domestic abuse-related crimes. Today the MHCLG announced refuge funding of £499 million over the next three years, which represents a huge increase on what was previously being offered, as well as an extra £19 million in support of part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act, which places a statutory duty on local authorities to house victims of domestic abuse.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Violence against women and girls is a stain on society. I know that the Minister shares the passion that we feel about the issue, and I know how much work she has done in this area. However, I want to follow up on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) that were perhaps not dealt with in as much detail as we might have hoped, given the level of the briefing to the press over the weekend.
To ensure that halving violence against women and girls does not become a broken manifesto promise, how will the Home Secretary and the Minister measure progress, and what consequences will be set if progress is not made quickly enough? With misogynistic content continuing to spread online, how will Ministers ensure that social media companies are upholding their duty to protect children, particularly when figures such as Andrew Tate—described by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in the Chamber, as an “important voice” for men—are so easily accessible?
The Minister seems to be somewhat frustrated about being here today to answer the urgent question, and indeed we all feel frustrated. The Home Secretary gave many of the details of her announcements to the press this weekend. Given the seriousness of the issue, and given that we have been told that the statement will be made on Thursday—the final day before the recess—does the Minister think that this is an appropriate way to conduct government?
Jess Phillips
I did not give all the details because, as I said in response to the question from the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, on Thursday I will announce the full details of all the metrics of action plans. They will be placed before the House on Thursday. As for the briefing, we cannot tackle violence against women and girls only “IRL”, as my kids would say, so there has to be an online element—it would be no strategy without it. What the Home Secretary spoke about to the press were Labour party manifesto commitments. It was not new news when we said that there would have rape-related services in every police force; that was written into the manifesto of the Labour party, which the country voted for.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not think that anyone in the Chamber can doubt the Minister’s passion and commitment on this topic, and she will recognise the shared sense of urgency across the House. We know that one in six teenage girls experience domestic abuse in a relationship, which means that an equivalent number of our teenage boys are perpetrators. I welcome the discussion about how we can help young men to make healthy choices, and I appreciate that the Minister will be saying more in the statement on Thursday. My colleagues and I all agree that we would love to be here, but we recognise that this discussion will continue. Can the Minister give us a bit more detail about how we can help both young men and young women not to feel judged, but to feel supported and helped to be healthy and to be respectful? That is how we can move forward together.
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend shares my passion for this subject, and has done over many years. She is absolutely right: the data shows that nearly half of all teenage relationships between those aged 13 to 17 experience issues of control. What does that mean for both the victim’s group and the perpetrator’s group? As the mother of teenage boys—although one of them is no longer a teenager, because I am getting old—I can say that the idea that we should not support boys in this circumstance has led us to the terrifying statistics that she and I have cited. The strategy will focus very heavily on prevention, because I am sick of just putting bigger, better plasters on scars, rather than trying to stop the scars coming in the first place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I can see how frustrated the Minister is, and I share her frustration. The Home Affairs Committee stands ready to work constructively with her. I gently say that I can imagine what she would say if she was standing here and I was at the Dispatch Box saying that I will announce the strategy on the last day of term—I do not think she would be terribly happy with me. From talking to organisations that work in the sector, we know that there have been real problems with getting services commissioned because of the uncertainty that the delay has caused. Can she set out what she has been doing as a Minister to reassure commissioners that they can commission services and that the strategy will not block them from doing so, so that these services can continue their great work?
Jess Phillips
The right hon. Lady makes a pertinent point about commissioning environments. Frankly, commissioning environments, running on an annual basis, have been the scourge of every sector for many years. That is why the comprehensive spending review, running over three years, is so very important in trying to create a system of stability in the long term. There is absolutely no reason why commissioners should not make their decisions, but there will be a huge amount in the strategy about how we need to commission better. In response to her offer of working together, much of what I have tried to put in the strategy, with regard to commissioning, came from the work of her Committee.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Like the whole Home Affairs Committee, I am looking forward to the strategy being published on Thursday. We did a lot of work looking at funding in the violence against women and girls sector. One of the key things we heard was that many frontline organisations struggle to apply for funding year on year, which really holds back their ability to deliver crucial services. Can the Minister tell us whether the strategy will look at the funding model for the sector and the impact it has on frontline services?
Jess Phillips
Although I will not give out the detail until Thursday—I feel like I am going to say that a lot today—there is absolutely a need to look at the funding model. That is why I say that the strategy has to be different from what has been delivered before. Even if I had the moon on a stick and all the money in the world, the way that things are commissioned under the current model would not be the right way to go. The strategy has to be truly cross-governmental, because for too long—I should not say this as a Home Office Minister—the criminal justice part of this, rather than the housing part, the health part or the other commissioning bodies that exist in our country, has had supremacy, so there will definitely be things about commissioning in the strategy.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I have unfortunately met constituents—women and girls—who have suffered extreme violence and sexual assault, and I have seen at first hand the devastating impact that it has on them. They have said to me that they want tougher sentences and that they want this issue dealt with, because it is destroying lives. Can the Minister confirm to women and girls across South Shropshire that the strategy will deliver for them?
Jess Phillips
I will absolutely promise this to the women across the hon. Member’s constituency, and all the constituencies represented in this Chamber—the idea that a piece of paper written by any Government will suddenly, overnight, make those women safe would be a lie, and I am not willing to do that. It is going to take a huge effort and a lot of work over a good many years to undo the culturally unacceptable situation that his constituents have been faced with. So what I will say is that the intention of the strategy is that, wherever a woman comes forward—whether to the police, health services or social services—and also wherever their perpetrator presents, it is dealt with by the state, because for too long victims have been left to just deal with it on their own.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Women and girls must have confidence both in the strategy and that the perpetrators of the violence against them will be brought to book. However, when I asked the Crown Prosecution Service to review a decision not to prosecute a case of violent assault against one of my constituents, it pushed back its own deadline for a decision. Can the Minister please reassure me and my constituent that the strategy has the full support of all Government Departments, including the Attorney General’s Office, so that we build a justice system that has the confidence of women and girls?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. I would say, as would anyone who has ever worked on the frontline, that there is a time-honoured tradition of the police blaming the CPS and the CPS blaming the police—it is a sort of roundabout. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General—a brilliant feminist, who wrote much of what went into the Labour manifesto on violence against women and girls, alongside me and others—have been absolute allies throughout this, and making sure that our every part of our justice system and every part of our system is better is vitally important.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Clare’s law gives people the right to ask about the criminal history of their partner to help keep them safe, but Clare’s law let down one of my constituents, whose abuser lied about his identity and therefore lied about his criminal past. Will the Minister confirm that the strategy to be released on Thursday will make provision to enable women and girls who request their right to ask to be better protected by Clare’s law, and patch up the loophole that allows abusers to lie about their identity to continue their abuse of women and girls?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman for, over the year and a bit that he has been here, genuinely bringing forward issues on which he wants to see change. Clare’s law is patchy across the entire country; it is brilliant in some areas. One of the issues we face is the fact that there are 43 police forces. If he is talking about a specific legislative change, I would be more than happy to hear about it. However, we are funding the national policing centre for violence against women and girls, and seeking for it to do specific work on Clare’s law—the domestic violence disclosure scheme system—in order to improve experiences. I have received ministerial letters from across the House about failures on Clare’s law, so this is definitely an area that vastly needs improving.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I look forward to seeing the strategy in full on Thursday. In advance, I hope the Minister is able to give some assurances that the often overlooked issue of child sexual abuse in the home and in the family will be included in the strategy and addressed. As she is well aware, for many women who are victims of rape and sexual violence, a criminal justice outcome is not always the desired outcome, so will cross-Government working be involved to ensure that, for example, the Department of Health and Social Care ensures that rape and sexual violence services are properly commissioned?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend hits on a point that anyone who has actually worked with victims on the frontline would make. It is very easy in this building to only want to see criminal justice outcomes—it is a political thing that we do—but in the vast majority of cases I have handled in my life, that is not actually what people are seeking. They are seeking safety usually for them, but more importantly, safety and access to support for their children. She is talking about supporting children who have been sexually abused as part of a pattern of sexual violence and domestic abuse, and the issue of children and childhood sexual abuse in whatever form will absolutely be part of the strategy.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is the strategy going to emphasise in any way the role of parents in trying to protect their sons from a torrent of online violent abuse of women, which inevitably is going to distort their attitude to relationships? Schools can do some things, but some things, surely, have to be done within the family?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. Schools need to play a vital part, as do the tech companies that have been identified, but absolutely there is a need for parents, who are often pulling their hair out trying to know the right thing to do. Parents who become abuse victims by children with some of those attitudes is a long under-served group within violence against women and girls. If we look at the femicide data, the number of matricides speaks to a broader problem. Ensuring that parents are part of the solution will be part of the strategy.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Tackling violence against women and girls demands that victims be at the heart of decisions, and robust action. I look forward to the publication of the strategy. Does the Minister agree that locally commissioned domestic abuse services should have statutory representation and multi-agency risk assessment conference boards, backed by dedicated funding to strengthen support, improve safeguarding and deliver better criminal justice outcomes?
Jess Phillips
As somebody who has sat on a number of multi-agency risk assessment conferences over the years, what I will not do is just do what lots of people have done before. It is very easy to stand up and say, “a multi-agency response is the response to that”, but it just becomes words. It actually has to mean something. The strategy is not just something for one partner to do; it is for all of them.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
What specific interventions does the strategy propose to reduce repeat offending and to stop abusers having unfettered access to their children, in particular those who are already known to the police and other agencies, when that puts the mother at risk?
Jess Phillips
The hon. Lady will have to wait to see what the strategy says. What I can say is that, because we were not waiting for the strategy, the Government announced a £53 million investment in schemes to deal with the most violent perpetrators—those most responsible for, as she says, repeat offending. We have already also said that it will end the presumption of contact and unfettered access. We did not need to wait for the piece of paper; we are cracking on.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I welcome that the strategy will have a focus on tackling the root causes of misogyny and radicalisation in young men. Those roots are often laid in early childhood, so what consideration has the Minister given to how social and emotional learning programmes in early years settings could be part of the prevention strategy? Would she be willing to meet Think Equal—an organisation that delivers such programmes? It started a trial in Greater Manchester and has funding to expand nationally. It just needs Government backing.
Jess Phillips
I am more than happy to speak to any agencies who have new good suggestions in this space. The strategy will include children, from birth—in fact, before, because of the dangers to women when they are pregnant.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Minister knows of the Plymouth Violence against Women and Girls Commission, which highlighted the role of pornography in VAWG. It is my view that schools should be a place where pupils can concentrate on learning and not have access to social media, including abusive forms of online pornography, which have been banned online. Australia has tackled this issue outside the classroom, as we know, by banning social media for teenagers under 16. Does the Minister agree with me that banning smartphones during the school day would not only improve pupils’ concentration, but be a practical way to stop boys in particular from accessing content that encourages them to perpetuate sexual abuse?
Jess Phillips
Regarding access to pornographic content, I was pleased this week to hear that access to the Pornhub site has gone down by 77% since age verification checks were introduced, so there have been steps in the right direction. Many of us worked on the Online Safety Act 2023, but it took 10 years to get to the point where we could say there is good data. There is no doubt that we need to look to see what is being done elsewhere in the world and make sure that the UK is the safest place to be a child.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Male violence against women and girls touches every corner of our country and every constituency. In my area, Broadland district council has done great work, including getting gold accreditation on housing and developing a women’s safety strategy. I welcome the funding already announced for local authorities, but can my hon. Friend assure us that local authorities on the frontline with grassroots organisations will get the support they need?
Jess Phillips
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has today announced the domestic violence funding envelope that will go to local authorities—£109 million more than in previous years under the last Government, when the funding was set up.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Last week, I met an amazing lady, Rachel Williams, who after 10 years of suffering domestic abuse decided to leave her partner. Just a short while after, he entered the salon where she worked and shot her from two feet away with a shotgun. Luckily the second shot missed, but she has been left with horrific scars, both mental and physical. Prevention is a key element of the plan. What can the Minister tell Rachel that will protect women from violent ex-partners?
Jess Phillips
I have known Rachel for over a decade. She was one of the key campaigners on the presumption of contact—I think that was the first issue I ever met her to discuss—because of the harm that was done to her children. It is not for me to talk about that without her permission, but we campaigned on that, and it is really good that we have been able to deliver on it as a Government.
The hon. Member talks about prevention. Preventing people from becoming perpetrators is as key as supporting victims.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer and look forward to the release of the violence against women and girls strategy. A women’s refuge for Scarborough was approved three years ago, but the project has stalled. Will the Minister say whether the extra £19 million investment announced today can be used finally to deliver a refuge for victims of domestic violence in Scarborough and Whitby?
Jess Phillips
Far be it from me to make policy and commissioning decisions for the council in my hon. Friend’s area—although I would quite like to just say yes to her. Absolutely, there is extra money coming from this Government that can be used to expand refuge provision, and I am sure she will take the recommendations to her local council and push for what sounds like a much-needed refuge in Scarborough.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to clear up concerns following the statements by the Home Secretary yesterday. The Met police are expected by March 2026 to have 2,508 fewer officers than they had at the time of the May 2024 election. Fewer officers means more space for men to commit crimes against women and girls and fewer police liaison officers in schools. We see the lack of confidence on our streets, where Sutton’s high street team has been cut from 11 to four officers. Part of the response for that is by Reclaim Sutton’s Streets—a group set up to stand up for women’s rights in the area.
My question is about funding. Will the Minister ensure that Thursday’s announcement will provide full details of the funding for the programmes in the plan, and ensure full funding in the police settlement next year, so that we do not see further erosion in police numbers, especially in the Met police?
Jess Phillips
Throughout the building of the strategy, we have worked very closely with the Metropolitan police and police forces across the country. It would be pointless for me to put something in writing that could not be delivered. I understand the angle the hon. Member is coming from and the commitments in the strategy will be costed, but it is not for me to say what police funding will be next year. The violence against women and girls strategy is not the place for that.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for her ongoing work on this issue. I was proud to work with her closely on ending the presumption of involvement for abusers in the family courts. As a long-term supporter of the White Ribbon campaign, which has the slogan “It starts with men”, can I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that we will focus on men, in particular young men, when it comes to education to help prevent violence against women and girls and children?
Jess Phillips
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that guarantee. For too long women have had to take all of the responsibility in this area, and frankly they have done most of the labour for free—whether they are victims or not. It is important to include men, because the labour needs to be shared. We also cannot arrest our way out of a volume crime like this, which is growing among younger people. We have to look at what interventions we are putting in place for men and boys to make sure that they do not suffer from this as well—not just as victims but as perpetrators, because it is a suffering life to be a perpetrator.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I welcome the advance notice of the publication of the strategy on Thursday, after months of delay, and I welcome the Minister’s candour, but this chronic uncertainty has undermined services already struggling with chronic underfunding. Some, such as Chwarae Teg, have already closed due to a perfect storm of financial challenges. Can the Minister commit to long-term funding for organisations such as Welsh Women’s Aid, so that the promise to halve violence against women and girls can be commissioned effectively in the devolved environment of Wales?
Jess Phillips
I cannot say which organisations will get the funding, but I can absolutely commit to there being long-term funding.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
There has been more than one week during my time in this place where every piece of casework that has come to my office has had a violence against women and girls component to it. The complexity of this issue cannot be underestimated. I do not want to pre-empt the launch of the strategy, which is eagerly awaited by all the agencies in my constituency that deal with this issue on a daily basis, but can the Minister confirm what engagement there has been with the Scottish Government so that we have a joined-up approach for the parts of the services that are devolved?
Jess Phillips
The strategy, like much of the work, applies to England and Wales, but I have met my counterparts in Scotland on a number of occasions to ensure that we are working together. Some areas of this issue are to do with immigration and parts of welfare, which are not devolved. I have also met lots of Scottish organisations, and we will continue to make sure that there is synthesis and learning from both sides.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
For many, Christmas is the season of joy and connection. But for victims of domestic abuse, it can be the most dangerous time of the year. Reports of domestic violence typically rise by around 20% over the festive period. How is the Department working with employers to ensure that staff are proactively informed about domestic abuse services and other support in the run-up to Christmas?
Jess Phillips
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. When I say that the strategy has to be for everybody, I truly mean that. It has to be for employers as well. It is for businesses, charities—everybody in society. The hon. Lady is right to raise the point about employers. Thinking back to Rachel Williams, whose case has been cited, she was at work when she was harmed. There is a huge job of work for employers to do, and I urge the hon. Lady to wait for the strategy.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has been refreshingly honest about how the delays in publishing the strategy have been about ensuring that it delivers where others have not. As the lead member of the Public Accounts Committee when we looked at the failures of the last Government’s 2021 strategy, I found that the Home Office failed to get commitment from other Government Departments. In delivering the ambitious target of halving violence against women and girls, will she ensure not only that every part of society responds but that every part of government delivers?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder of those failures; we absolutely have to change that this time. I can pay no greater credit than to say that the person who has done the vast majority of the work in ensuring other Government Departments come to the table—much as everybody gets to see my passion and I am quite bombastic—is the Prime Minister, who has been my greatest ally in that.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I welcome the Government’s commitment on violence against women and girls. Tragically, evidence shows that migrant women face hugely significant violence. Does the strategy, which will be out on Thursday, ensure that all survivors can access refuges and essential services regardless of their immigration status, including those with no recourse to public funds?
Jess Phillips
I will not be drawn on what the strategy says, but that is currently the case. This year, the Government have increased the funding to the migrant victims fund, which is exactly for people who do not have access to public funds, to ensure that they can get refuge accommodation. Migrant victims currently have access to support regardless of their status.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend. I would say that she is not bombastic but passionate about tackling this terrible societal wrong. Unfortunately, I will not be in the House for the statement on Thursday because I will be having a meeting with three domestic violence victims from my constituency. Does she agree that they are incredibly brave to come forward and talk about that, and that part of the strategy is about listening to victims and their families? May I also pay tribute to my caseworker Harriet Spoor who, while wearing a different hat, has been massively involved in ensuring that West Ham United are the first white ribbon-accredited premier league club?
Jess Phillips
I shall ring the football clubs of Birmingham later today to ensure that they are as well. I pay tribute to all our caseworkers, because they are on the frontline of the cases we see and the reasons why any of us stand up in the Chamber to look out for people. They go under-heard. Every single line in the strategy will have come directly from a victim, or a family of a victim, who came in to see somebody in this House and spoke up for that.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Last year, over 50,000 women and girls in Surrey were affected by violence against women and girls, yet 49% of respondents to a recent survey about the issue in Surrey said they had never reported the issue to the police or other authorities. Will the Minister confirm how the Government’s new strategy will ensure that women and girls in my constituency are empowered to report these appalling violent crimes?
Jess Phillips
I was in Woking looking at the multi-agency services offered there, and I have to say that I was incredibly impressed by what is on offer in Surrey, both for victims who wish to go through the criminal justice system and those who do not. While I would much prefer it if that figure was less adrift, we must ensure that we do not just focus on criminal justice outcomes as lots of women will want other outcomes.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Violence against women and girls is a current issue, but it is also an historical issue. On the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, sexual crime is not listed as one of those that can be looked at under the current commission, on which I have tabled an amendment. Will the Minister commit to working with me and the Northern Ireland Office to include sexual crime in the Bill?
Jess Phillips
I am more than happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s representations in that regard.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I share the Minister’s impatience and desire to see the publication of a comprehensive strategy that can command the confidence of all parties in this House. Too many cases in my constituency surgeries highlight how perpetrators skilfully exploit the family courts and the Child Maintenance Service to sustain coercion and control of their victims and to continue to harm them, so can the Minister assure my constituents that the strategy will go beyond ending the presumption of contact, in order to protect women and children through the family courts and the CMS?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. We cannot just end the presumption of contact on its own because perpetrators will often just find a new tactic. We have to ensure that our family courts are fit for purpose and will keep the children, and the non-abusive parents, in our country safe.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Just last night, a constituent of mine wrote to me as a deeply worried father about violence against women and girls. He cites recent rape statistics and fears that for families such as his with daughters, the risks feel intolerably high and too many offences still go unreported. Will the Minister reassure my constituent that her strategy in tackling violence against women and girls will improve reporting and charge rates, increase deterrence through more severe sentencing and ensure that violence against women and girls, particularly in high prevalence regions, are genuinely considered further?
Jess Phillips
I only wish there was a high prevalence area in the country that I could target with all the interventions, but this is something that exists in every single part of the country. There is no one place that is worse for it than others, but I absolutely guarantee that on Thursday the hon. Member will see that the violence against women and girls strategy seeks to improve the situation for his concerned constituent.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Further to the excellent campaigning and question by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and the brilliant question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), will the Minister say a bit more about preventing or at least reducing repeat offending? Specifically, will the strategy introduce a domestic violence register and make it as retrospective as possible?
Jess Phillips
The Home Secretary was on television talking about the Home Office’s plans with regard to the centre for violence against women and girls, the expansion of V100—a Metropolitan police data source targeting the most violent offenders—and the biggest-ever investment, £53 million, in perpetrator programmes to tackle high-risk-of-harm perpetrators.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Alarmingly, in Birmingham Perry Barr—and, I suspect, in Birmingham generally—some women who have been the subject of domestic violence are thinking about moving back in with the perpetrators not because they want to rekindle the relationship but because of the inadequacy of their temporary housing. Can the Minister confirm that accommodation will be included in the strategy?
Jess Phillips
As the hon. Member’s constituency borders mine, I am afraid that we see many of the same problems. The inadequacy of some of the temporary accommodation in Birmingham is not something I would ever defend. What he is seeing, therefore, does not surprise me. Safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse is part of the strategy, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has already said today that we will be increasing the funding to local councils so that those victims can have access to housing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her answers. I know that she is in regular contact with the Minister back home in Northern Ireland and that there is a deep relationship between them. The Simon Community in Northern Ireland has revealed that, between October 2024 and March 2025, 609 households presented as homeless because of domestic violence and that 83% of them were women-led households. What assurances can the Minister give the women and girls in Northern Ireland that the new strategy, and perhaps funding, can be taken advantage of, because the statistics on violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland are horrendous and they must be treated as a matter of great urgency?
Jess Phillips
While the strategy that will be announced on Thursday is for England and Wales and is devolved, I take a very personal interest in the safety and security of women in every one of the UK nations and, of course, in Northern Ireland, where the statistics on murder and femicide are there for everyone to see. I will continue to work to ensure—in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers)—that we do more of what works and get rid of what does not. But we will have to invent and do things that people have not tried before, because around the world, not enough have cared. I will ensure that any learning is shared with our counterparts.
Sudan: Humanitarian Situation
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on UK Government actions on the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this urgent question.
The thoughts of the whole House will be with those affected by the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack on Bondi beach yesterday. The Foreign Secretary will address this further at the start of her statement, which follows this UQ.
Sudan is experiencing the most severe humanitarian crisis of the 21st century: 30 million people need lifesaving aid, 12 million people have fled their homes, and women and children are bearing the brunt of the violence. The drone strike on the UN peacekeeping base in Kadugli on Saturday was deplorable and exemplifies how the war is being fought with little regard for civilian life and international law. The strike killed six Bangladeshi peacekeepers, and our thoughts are with their families. The British high commission Dhaka has released a statement offering the Government’s heartfelt condolences to the families of those who tragically lost their lives and wishing a swift recovery to all those who were injured. The perpetrators must be held to account.
On Friday, the UK announced a package of sanctions targeting four senior commanders from the Rapid Support Forces involved in the horrendous violence in El Fasher. The Government will do all they can to exert pressure on those responsible for these atrocities. The Foreign Secretary is working with her counterparts on three priorities: first, protecting civilians; secondly, strengthening humanitarian access; and thirdly, securing an immediate ceasefire and a political process to end the conflict.
The war in Sudan was a priority for the Foreign Secretary on her visit to Washington DC last week, where she discussed these issues with Secretary of State Rubio and senior adviser Boulos. Last week, we stepped up our response to the crisis with an additional £21 million, taking the UK contribution to £146 million this year. UK funding will reach more than 800,000 people with lifesaving aid. That is in addition to our efforts as penholder for Sudan at the United Nations Security Council to call out atrocities committed and press for unimpeded humanitarian access.
On 8 December, the UK led the UN Security Council consultations on the violence in Kordofan where members heard from senior UN officials on worsening conditions and access challenges. The UK will convene the Security Council again tomorrow to discuss mediation efforts. We are urgently pressing for a three-month humanitarian truce and will do all we can to support and help drive these peace efforts forward alongside the Quad. All those with influence over the warring parties must work to stop the suffering, and that must include ending external support for the conflict in line with the Quad statement on 12 September. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that the UK will use all diplomatic tools at our disposal to agree a cessation of hostilities and a sustainable end to this conflict that delivers peace for the Sudanese people.
Seamus Logan
I thank the Minister for his statement and thank the Speaker for granting this urgent question. In fewer than two months, since the RSF captured El Fasher on 26 October, the city has been consumed by a killing spree—a series of appalling international war crimes. We have seen reports of relentless assassinations of innocent civilians, with accounts of parents forced to watch the killing of their children; systematic sexual violence, including gang rape; and satellite imagery exposing bloodstained ground and piles of civilian bodies. Current estimates suggest that 60,000 innocent civilians have been killed, with as many as 150,000 people missing since the takeover. Those numbers are likely to be underestimates.
Recent sanctions on senior figures in the RSF are welcome, but there are areas where I would ask the Government to go further. There have been cuts to the UK’s overseas development assistance from 0.5% to 0.3%. In addition, recent reports suggest that the work of the atrocity prevention team at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is being reduced, and the team that previously monitored global atrocities is being cut. The UK Government refused to contribute to an atrocity prevention programme in Sudan, even after the risk of genocide and mass atrocities became clear. That is indefensible. I want to hear from the Minister why that decision was made.
Although the announcement of an additional £21 million in aid for Sudan is welcome, consistently funded development and prevention aid for relevant countries could prevent the UK from forking out millions when future atrocities occur. Today’s displaced people are tomorrow’s asylum seekers. Will the UK Government reinstate overseas development aid to Sudan and reconsider their contribution to international atrocity programmes?
British-manufactured weapons—allegedly supplied by the United Arab Emirates—are reportedly still being used by the RSF to conduct horrific massacres. Will the UK Government take action on that and pledge to prevent British weapons from falling into the hands of the RSF?
It feels as if the UK Government are not giving the genocide in Sudan the time in this Chamber that it deserves. They have chosen to update the House on Sudan alone on only one occasion. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to commit to updating the House on the Government’s actions in relation to Sudan through a ministerial statement early in the new year.
Chris Elmore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further questions. He is not correct about ODA cuts for Sudan. The Prime Minister has already committed to that funding continuing over the next three years, so it is not correct to say that there will be ODA cuts for Sudan.
We continue to support the International Criminal Court’s active investigation of the situation in Sudan. In relation to arms, I say to the House that we take very seriously allegations that UK-made equipment may have been transferred to Sudan, in breach of the UK’s arms embargo. There is no evidence in recent reporting of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan.
In terms of reporting to the House, the Foreign Secretary answered substantive questions on Sudan at the beginning of this month and made a statement at the end of last month. It is notable that the hon. Gentleman was not here for those questions.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Government’s sanctioning of senior commanders in the RSF, but the Minister will be aware of the genuine fears about further barbaric escalation in the run-up to Christmas. He rightly talked about the appalling killing of peacekeepers, but in the past couple of days a hospital has been shelled, and there are huge concerns about the insecure situation of refugees, particularly in Tawila. What is the Government’s timeline for further measures to try to force the belligerents to protect civilians, as a matter of extreme urgency?
Chris Elmore
I know how much my right hon. Friend cares about this issue, particularly as she was a development Minister last year. Tomorrow, the UK will co-host with Denmark a closed informal interactive dialogue at the United Nations Security Council. It will address the urgent need to harmonise regional international mediation efforts to bring about the much-needed humanitarian ceasefire.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Millions continue to suffer in Sudan. It is clear that red lines are constantly being crossed. The world is witnessing unspeakable horrors and barbaric atrocities. The situation in El Fasher is of grave concern. No one in this House or the country can comprehend the level of barbarity in the acts that have been taken.
We Conservatives have been calling for further sanctions on the warring parties, and we note the additional measures announced by the Government last week. That does represent progress, but it is important now that momentum builds and follows. I acknowledge what the Minister said about the closed session at the UN tomorrow. Can we expect to see more rounds of sanctions? It is vital that the sanctions directorate at the FCDO works around the clock to identify the culprits—be they individuals or organisations—and holds them to account.
What contribution is the UK making to the urgent UN inquiry into El Fasher, and what further steps will the Government take? What direct engagement has the Minister had with the Sudan Quad on finding a diplomatic solution, and to pressure those with influence over the warring parties to agree a ceasefire and allow humanitarian aid to flow in, and to stop committing atrocities? Is the UK involved in the international processes, like Cairo, to develop and build confidence with the Sudanese political civilian forces? That is crucial for facilitating a transition to a civilian-led Government.
As we have heard, the humanitarian situation is catastrophic, so will the Minister explain how the latest aid package will be delivered and by which organisations, and say how those who are in desperate need will receive it? How will the Government ensure that shifting frontlines and potential new challenges and blockages to aid delivery are addressed, and what is their assessment of the humanitarian assistance that we have already given? Has it been reaching those in need, and what is the timescale for the dispatch of new aid? Will the Minister update the House on whether there has been any progress since the Sudan summit in London earlier this year when it comes to the support and pledges made by other countries? What discussions are the Government holding with partners who could be deploying urgent relief and assistance in light of this ongoing and growing crisis?
Chris Elmore
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her opening remarks and questions. She is right to say that there should be no politics in this. We all want to see an end to the unimaginable suffering that is taking place in Sudan, and as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), the idea that we can see that from satellite imagery shows its unimaginable scale.
On sanctions, we will not rule anything out and we will keep the issue under constant review following the announcement on Friday—that was the second round of sanctions that the Government have issued in relation to Sudan. We are continuing to work with all members of the Quad, and we want to be as clear as we can be that all sides must come together in ensuring what will hopefully be a humanitarian pause, and more broadly a wider ceasefire.
On the specific points about support for refugees and people on the ground in Sudan, the funding so far has supported over 1 million people, including 98,000 children, in tackling severe malnutrition; in food assistance for 744,000 people; in vital protection for services for 350,000 people in relation to victims of international humanitarian law violations; and indeed in cash assistance. I am confident that the money is reaching the people it needs to reach. On more support, the additional £20 million—or the £146 million—is about aid directly on the ground and supporting 800,000 people. Some of that is supporting refugees in Chad and other countries that people are moving to, but fundamentally it is about support.
We are absolutely working on the wider points about work in the multilateral space with the United Nations. This is a personal priority for the Foreign Secretary, and she is in pretty much constant dialogue with Secretary Rubio, including last week. Baroness Chapman, the Minister for Africa in the other place, is in regular dialogue with African near neighbours, and she is having broader conversations to ensure that we find a humanitarian ceasefire and the broader ceasefire that is so desperately needed.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Minister has just mentioned doing all we can to exert pressure, but with all due respect to him, I think we need to be doing far more than exerting pressure. As UN penholder for Sudan, the UK has a moral responsibility to ensure that the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing is brought to an end as soon as possible. Most importantly, we must end all arms trade with the UAE, because it is evident that UK arms are ending up in Sudan.
Chris Elmore
On arms exports, the UK has one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world. All export licences are assessed for the risk of diversion, and we regularly prevent exports that might be diverted to an undesirable end user or end use. As I have said, in recent reviews that has not been deemed the case from any other nation. On our role on the Human Rights Council and the Security Council, I agree with my hon. Friend: we do have a moral imperative, and that is exactly our approach. This is a personal mission for the Foreign Secretary. She convened the emergency meeting of the Human Rights Council, and the meeting of the Security Council was brought forward. The UK, as penholder, has been at the very forefront of trying to end these most appalling atrocities against the Sudanese people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s sanctions on the RSF. Those are long overdue, given that the US imposed sanctions in January and the EU have gone wider. Why has the UK left out RSF leader Hemedti? Why has the UK left out the Sudanese armed forces who are bombing civilians and using starvation as a weapon of war? It is widely reported that the UAE is arming the RSF, yet the UK continues to supply arms to the UAE. The Minister will know that selling arms where there is a risk that those states are arming actors who commit atrocities is in contravention of the UK’s obligations under international humanitarian law and its own strategic export licensing criteria, whether or not UK arms are being diverted. Why is the UK still arming the UAE?
I am deeply worried about the advances by the RSF in Kordofan, and there are real fears of another El Fasher. What are the UK Government doing to prevent atrocities of that scale? Humanitarian access remains severely constrained. What are the Government doing to open up access? Finally, has the Prime Minister spoken this month to the US President about the Sudan crisis? The Sudan appeal is still just 27% funded, and although I welcome the Government’s additional £21 million of funding, will they pledge further to this crisis?
Chris Elmore
As I said in answer to the shadow Foreign Secretary, we do not rule out any further sanctions and we will take evidence-based decisions on what has meaningful impact. On the UK Government’s response, as I have already said, the UK is at the forefront of the process at both the Security Council and the Human Rights Council. I reiterate that we take very seriously any allegations of UK-made equipment being used in this regard in relation to Sudan, but there is no evidence of that in recent reporting. In fact, where any weapons have been found, they have been of no ammunition or military purpose. They have been non-lethal supplies, which I am afraid is the issue in front of us.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
People in Newcastle-under-Lyme are watching this crisis unfold with horror, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this urgent question. I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box—it is the first time I have seen him—but I must say that an oral ministerial statement would have been welcomed. What specific engagement has taken place with the African Union not just on securing a much-needed peace, but on the distribution of aid? What co-ordinating role is the United Kingdom playing with our European counterparts, because the world cannot sit by and watch this any longer?
Chris Elmore
We are working with the African Union as best we can on ensuring that aid is delivered. There was a statement on 18 November, and there were oral questions to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office at the beginning of the month. The fast pace of this work in Sudan, as a personal priority for the Foreign Secretary, means that it is under constant review and dialogue with various partners, including as recently as last week with US Secretary of State Rubio.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this urgent question. Although there have been two recent sanctions—[Interruption.] All right, four, if we add in the other two. In reality there are 21 other Sudanese, many of them RSF, operating here in the United Kingdom. They are well known to the authorities, they are involved in the financing of this, but they have not been sanctioned. Is it not the reality that this fighting is still going on, with the brutality of the RSF, because the UAE finances and supports what they are doing? Without UAE involvement, there would be no further war. When will the Government turn around, notwithstanding ideas of wanting to get business contacts in the UAE, and start placing Magnitsky sanctions on individuals in the UAE until it stops financing this brutal war?
Chris Elmore
The right hon. Gentleman will know from his time in government and opposition that we do not comment on individuals in relation to specific sanctions, but I confirm to the House that we will not rule out any additional sanctions. On the work of the Quad, the statement on 12 September is a significant development, and we remain completely focused on pushing for the humanitarian pause, the wider ceasefire, and supporting the Sudanese-led political transition. It is for all sides as part of that Quad to ensure that they can do that work—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman pushes me on sanctions for UAE. As he knows, we do not comment on individual sanctions decisions. He is an experienced Member of the House, and he knows that. We will keep this matter under constant review, and keep working with the Quad towards the cessation of violence.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We know that health workers have been targeted and killed, that 80% of health facilities are no longer functioning and that a generation have not received vaccines. We have seen this happen not only in Sudan, but in other conflicts. Rather than being reactionary or using the law retrospectively, what proactive measures are the Foreign Office taking to secure vital humanitarian structures such as healthcare and ensure that they are in place, and to ensure that countries are held to account in real time?
Chris Elmore
As I mentioned, we support the work of the International Criminal Court and its investigation is happening in real time. On healthcare, the humanitarian aid will help to support people through malnutrition and the wider healthcare challenges that they face because of the horrific situation in Sudan.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
When the House debated the conflict in Sudan on 4 November, we heard that some British arms and equipment had been found on battlefields in Sudan, and it was alleged that the RSF has been provided with arms by the UAE, which in turn is supplied by the UK. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), said:
“The UK has one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 888.]
We have heard exactly the same line repeated today. Rather than repeating these lines, will the Minister tell the House what discussions have taken place with the UAE since 4 November about UK arms exports to the UAE?
Chris Elmore
As I have set out to the House, there is no evidence in recent reporting of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for responding and I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this important urgent question. It is important for us to keep the focus on Sudan. Islamic Relief recently held an exhibition in my constituency entitled “Are your eyes on Sudan?” I am sure the organisation would be ready to welcome and host the Minister to show him the range of images and pictures. I attended a similar exhibition earlier this year, hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and organised by Waging Peace, which included images drawn by children of their parents, brothers and sisters being raped. Rape is being used as a weapon of war in this conflict. Will the Minister set out how we are working with our international partners to stamp that out, and how we are ensuring that vital humanitarian aid gets to the vulnerable women and children who are caught up in this horrific conflict?
Chris Elmore
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the most horrific element of this conflict. It appears that sexual violence against women and girls, and in some cases boys, is increasingly a part of all conflicts across the globe. We have utterly condemned the significant escalation of conflict-related sexual violence throughout Sudan at the United Nations Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council and via two joint statements of the International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. I would be glad to come and see the exhibition. I have seen some of the imagery and it is genuinely distressing, but it is important that we keep a focus on the Sudanese people, as they are the victims of this horrific conflict.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
As the Minister said, the UK is the penholder on Sudan at the UN. There clearly need to be comprehensive arms embargos and sanctions against those actors who are fuelling the violence in Sudan. Given that one of those is Russia, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, will the Minister ensure that the Government refer the matter to the General Assembly, where a veto cannot be used?
Chris Elmore
I am more than happy to look at any position at a multilateral level that supports the people of Sudan and brings a cessation of violence as quickly as possible, whether at the UN General Assembly, the Security Council or the Human Rights Council, as part of ongoing work across the multilateral space.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I welcome the additional aid and sanctions, and I praise my constituents who have done so much to keep Sudan in the public eye. What lessons have been learned from the fall of El Fasher to prevent the RSF repeating its tried and tested pattern in Tawila, where approximately 650,000 civilians and 300 aid workers, including British citizens, are at grave risk?
Chris Elmore
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. Prevention work is ongoing to try to avoid further horrendous scenes. This conflict is ongoing and we are doing our very best at the UN level, across the European Union and working with the African Union to ensure that these conflicts do not continue and that we learn lessons as soon as possible.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
For the UK Government to decline to take part in the atrocity prevention programme in Sudan is regrettable, and for the UK Government to fail in their due diligence on arms export diversions via the UAE to the RSF is disgraceful, but for the UK Government to have done both looks alarmingly like ambivalence or even complicity. The Minister wants to take us around the houses in saying that the evidential basis for UK arms being in Sudan is not there—let us not do that again—but can he tell us what discussions he has had with the UAE on the sound, robust basis for saying that without the UAE, these atrocities would not be happening?
Chris Elmore
I appreciate that colleagues from across the House care deeply about this particular point, but I cannot go beyond the clear evidence in front of us: there is no evidence in recent reporting of UK weapons and ammunitions being used in Sudan. Where anything has been found, it is in non-lethal supplies—that is the reality about what has been found. We take the allegations in the reviews seriously and we have one of the most robust and transparent systems. It is simply not the case that those weapons have been found to have been made in Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I urge colleagues to keep their questions short.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I welcome the additional funding and the sanctions that the Minister has updated us on. There is currently a rapid escalation of violence in the Kordofan region, with a repeat of the tactics seen in El Fasher, including siege and sexual violence. What will the Minister do to protect civilians and prevent future atrocities in the Kordofan region?
Chris Elmore
We are working at pace in the international multilateral space to do our very best to bring about a cessation of violence, even if it is over a short period, and we are working with the Quad to ensure that we bring about a permanent ceasefire.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Clearly, the No.1 priority is to achieve a ceasefire in Sudan, but peace needs to be secured. Will the UK Government, as the UN penholder, organise and host a Lancaster House-style peace conference for all the parties to the conflict, with civilians represented by the head of the previous civilian Government, Abdalla Hamdok?
Chris Elmore
As I have mentioned, tomorrow we will co-host, with Denmark, the closed United Nations Security Council informal interactive dialogue. As a Government, we will continue to do all we can to bring about the cessation of violence. If we can do any additional work on negotiating peace, of course we will play our part in that.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the urgent question. We know that over 10 million people have already been displaced, more than half of them children. We know that children are trapped in hard-to-reach places and that access to food is cut off. Just last week, 63 children were killed in an attack on a kindergarten in South Kordofan. What action can be taken to support these children and their families? They are malnourished and traumatised and have had no education for the duration of the conflict.
Chris Elmore
My hon. Friend raises such an important point. In a previous answer, I spoke about the 98,000 children who we are supporting to tackle malnutrition. I reassure her that we are working with organisations like UNICEF to ensure that we are getting support to children on the ground. Conflict is horrific in all its forms, but there is no worse conflict than that against children, and it must be called out and stopped.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will this country be more robust with the UAE on its financial support for the RSF, the clear supply of weapons to the RSF, which have come from somewhere around the world, and the interesting similarity between the areas occupied by the RSF and those where there is a massive supply of minerals and oil that will be available to it in the future? Is this not just a grab for the natural resources of Sudan being undertaken by the RSF on behalf of bigger actors around the world?
Chris Elmore
We continue to work with the US-led Quad effort, which includes the UAE, to ensure that we bring about a sustainable humanitarian pause and a broader ceasefire. We continue to work with all countries to bring about the cessation of violence as quickly as possible.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Taking into account the Minister’s previous answers about the source of weapons, and given that civilians are being deliberately targeted, with murder, rape and starvation being used as weapons of war, what steps can the UK Government realistically take to disrupt the flow of weapons, drones and military support to the violent actors who are committing such hideous crimes?
Chris Elmore
The best and most robust work we can do is to use our robust and transparent export control regime around the world. We are able to be nimble in ending exports where we find any undesirable end user, and that work will continue, not just in Sudan but in other conflicts around the world.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I do not want to labour the point, but whether or not UK arms are being used by the UAE in Sudan is not relevant. It would be horrendous if they were, but the Minister has repeatedly said that they are not being used. Nevertheless, everyone seems to accept that UAE arms are being used, so I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord): what meetings has the Minister had with the UAE, since the last debate, to discuss whether it is arming the people of Sudan?
Chris Elmore
External support to the SAF and the RSF only fuels the conflict. We continue to emphasise to all parties the importance of refraining from actions that prolong the conflict. We ask that all those with influence over the warring parties bring them to the negotiating table to seek a political resolution.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned recently of escalating drone strikes across Darfur and Kordofan and, as the Minister said, six peacekeepers lost their lives in a drone attack on Saturday. It is of course the humans controlling the weapons who must stop, but there is a live conversation about this issue and organisations have called for new legally binding rules to offer legal certainty and stability around the use of drones and autonomous weapons systems. What is the Minister’s assessment of those systems? What conversations are the UK Government leading at the UN?
Chris Elmore
We are alarmed by the use of drones to attack civilians. We are particularly concerned about the recent attack, which my hon. Friend mentioned and to which I referred in my opening remarks, that killed peacekeepers and may have involved drones. Our export controls on arms are strict and include military drones, and we are working as best we can to ensure that external actors refrain from fuelling the conflict and work together to secure peace, and particularly to try to introduce mitigations on the use of drones. We continue to work on all possible options in the multilateral space as the penholder at the UN.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am pleased to hear the Minister confirm that the Government are supporting the work of the International Criminal Court’s investigations of the commanders implicated in the atrocities. Will he reassure us that the Government will waste no time in bringing further sanctions against individuals when charges are brought, and encourage international partners to do likewise?
Chris Elmore
As I have mentioned, we do not provide a running commentary on individual sanctions, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we will keep this matter under constant review.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing the urgent question. Major aid cuts have happened, and a peacebuilding programme in Sudan was cancelled, which led to our failure to respond to the emerging civil war and the resulting genocide. Will the Minister confirm that any future aid cuts will come with a proper plan in advance? Will the conflict prevention unit be fully restored?
Chris Elmore
As I have mentioned, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we will continue to play a humanitarian role in Sudan, and he is committed to protecting our funding support for people affected by the crisis over the next three years. The fund is not linked to any official development assistance cuts and will, in fact, deliver £146 million of lifesaving aid over the next year.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I am sure I am not the only Member who feels that we are a bit through the looking glass, with the Minister today and the Minister who answered the urgent question last month insisting that no UK arms have been found in Sudan, while Amnesty International reports that small-arms targeting systems and engines for armoured vehicles from the UK have been found in Sudan. I think we can be confident that they are not being used for peaceful purposes, so will the Minister reconsider a ban on arms exports to the UAE, or at the very least set out how the Government—specifically how—are conducting due diligence when licensing arms transfers to the UAE?
Chris Elmore
As I have said, any arms found were non-lethal supplies, and they were not arms or ammunition. Although we are aware of reports of a small number of UK-made items being found in Sudan, none of the equipment reported on recently has been licensed for export to the UAE in recent years, and there is no evidence in recent reporting of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan. As the hon. Lady may know, we have previously refused licences to the UAE due to the risk of diversion.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It appears that, once again, children are paying the price of man’s folly. According to Save the Children, over 1,200 children were killed in 2024, rising to 1,700 last year, mainly by explosive devices. At a hospital in Khartoum, one in six casualties are children with shrapnel to the head, limbs or abdomen. As a United Nations penholder on Sudan, will the Minister draft a child-focused resolution on protecting the most innocent?
Chris Elmore
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point in relation to children, as have other Members. Conflict is unimaginable in any form, but the killing of children specifically and the use of children as weapons of war is an atrocity all of its own. We continue to work at the UN level, at both the Human Rights Council and the Security Council, to ensure that, as penholder, we bring about an end to the conflict as quickly as possible. Obviously, we will keep up that work, including on the specific impacts on children.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
As well as the atrocious mass murders, the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan only worsens. It is vital that we commit ourselves not only to giving aid, but to delivering it in a way that reaches as many people as possible. Recently, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact highlighted how our Sudan-related aid is being undermined by understaffing, short-term and unpredictable funding allocations, over-complex compliance procedures and insufficient support for frontline responders. When can we expect the Government’s response to those findings? Can the Minister assure the House that the necessary changes will be made to ensure that humanitarian assistance gets through?
Chris Elmore
Let me give the hon. Gentleman one example. Over the past two years we have provided the World Food Programme with £55 million, which has been explicitly targeted at populations at risk of or experiencing famine, including in Sudan, and £2 million of additional funding for Cash Consortium Sudan’s El Fasher response, supporting over 100,000 people with lifesaving aid in north Darfur. We also work regionally, including around eastern Chad. We do ensure that the funding through the aid programmes reaches the people who are most in need.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I echo the calls from colleagues across the House. Given that we are a signatory to the genocide convention, will the Minister plainly commit to using every lever available to the Government, including our position in the United Nations, to demand an immediate end to the horrific situation unfolding in Sudan?
Chris Elmore
I can confirm that, as I have done for all questions throughout the session.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his strong answers. The situation in Sudan is deteriorating every hour, yet the anguish that people are suffering is fresh and new. For Christians in particular, the murder, rape and systematic violence happens daily. Every day, another child loses their mother or father, their chance of education and their hope of a future. When will the Minister put his heartfelt words into action, and when can move into the region with other countries to restore peace? How we can get the help to those on the ground who need it most but whose voices cannot be heard?
Chris Elmore
I know how much these issues matter to the hon. Gentleman. We are working as quickly and as robustly as we can at the UN level, and we are working with European and American partners to ensure that we bring about the cessation of violence. We will continue to do that work. This is a personal commitment of the Foreign Secretary, given all her work in recent months to try to bring about a peaceful settlement for the people of Sudan.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Is the point of order really relevant?
Seamus Logan
It is. In his response to my urgent question, the Minister referred to my presence or otherwise in the Chamber during a previous debate. I want the Minister to be aware, and the record to show, that members of my extended family are Sudanese nationals. Is it in order for the Minister to undermine the validity of my question in that way? Will he apologise?
Madam Deputy Speaker
We cannot prolong the debate, but the hon. Member has most definitely got his point on the record.
Jimmy Lai Conviction
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will first address the horrific attack that took place yesterday at Bondi Beach in Sydney. Across the UK, and across the world, people have been shocked and appalled by this vile antisemitic terrorist attack, targeting Jewish families who were celebrating on the beach on the first day of Hanukkah. New South Wales authorities have confirmed that 15 people have been killed, in addition to one of the two gunmen, and 27 people remain in hospital. It is a devastating loss of life, including a Holocaust survivor and a little girl just 10 years old. It has also now been confirmed that one of the victims of the Bondi attack was a British national, bringing this tragedy even closer to home. We have offered support to the family following their tragic loss. I have offered my Australian counterpart, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the United Kingdom’s full support in Australia’s response, and the Prime Minister and His Majesty the King have both shared their condolences.
Hanukkah should be a time of celebration and joy, yet Jewish people are again confronted with vile acts of hatred simply for being Jews, with further distress for our British Jewish communities just a couple of months after the Manchester synagogue attack on Yom Kippur. We stand in solidarity with Australia’s Jewish communities and with Jewish communities here and across the world as they continue to mark Hanukkah, and we stand in solidarity with the Australian people. Our thoughts are with all those affected. We must continue and increase work to root out antisemitism in all its forms, here and abroad, because we will never let hatred win.
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now turn to today’s verdict in the trial of Jimmy Lai. Today, Hong Kong’s courts ruled that Jimmy Lai was guilty of foreign collusion under the national security law, which Beijing imposed on the city five years ago. They also found him guilty of conspiring to publish seditious materials. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He has been targeted by the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. This was a politically motivated prosecution that I strongly condemn. Jimmy Lai now faces the prospect of a sentence that, for a man of 78 years, could mean the rest of his life in prison. I call again for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release. On my instruction, the Foreign Office has today summoned the Chinese ambassador to underline our position in the strongest terms. My acting consul-general was present at court today to bear witness.
For many in this House and for the large diaspora community living in the UK, it is heartbreaking that such a violation of a British man’s rights could occur in Hong Kong, because the Hong Kong of Jimmy Lai’s childhood was a city where a 12-year-old boy seeking opportunity could go on to build a business empire and then a media platform. It was a city of freedom, and that freedom brought great prosperity. When the joint declaration was signed by the United Kingdom and China in 1984, both nations declared their commitment to that prosperity. Our countries agreed that Hong Kong’s uniqueness—its high degree of autonomy; its executive, legislative and independent judicial power; and its rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly and of association—was the foundation of its success, and that those things were to be enshrined in law.
For many years, Hong Kong was the embodiment of the commitments made in that joint declaration. The city, the economy and, most importantly, the people thrived. It was a remarkable, shining example to the world of what Hong Kong’s people, and co-operation between the UK and China, could achieve. Indeed, it is partly because of our important history with Hong Kong—economic as well as political—that China remains our third largest trading partner today.
In 2020, however, China began to break the commitments in that declaration. Hong Kong’s free media spoke out, and they were punished for it. In June 2020 China breached the joint declaration by imposing its national security law on the city. It was a law imposed on Hong Kong to silence China’s critics, and one that undermined Hong Kong’s autonomy and threatened the rights that China had once freely committed to upholding. It was not long before the new law was applied and Jimmy Lai was arrested, along with other advocates of democracy, free speech and freedom of assembly.
This British citizen—this businessman and journalist; this father, husband and grandfather—has endured five years of incarceration. Meanwhile, his supporters around the world have campaigned tirelessly for justice. I pay particular tribute to Jimmy’s son, Sebastien Lai, who has endured such pain and shown such determination and dignity in fighting for his father and for the wider rights and principles at stake. I know that many honourable colleagues have had the privilege of meeting this determined man, who has endured so much to take on his father’s mantle, speaking up where his father cannot.
The Government have continually and repeatedly raised Jimmy Lai’s case with China at every opportunity, urging the authorities to agree his release, yet the Hong Kong authorities continue to refuse us consular access to our citizen—a 78-year-old man whose health is suffering. Jimmy Lai remains imprisoned, despite international calls for his release and concerns regarding his health; despite UK Ministers raising our concerns directly and privately with Hong Kong and Chinese officials; and despite our repeated requests for consular access, the most recent of which was submitted on Thursday. Once again, I call for Jimmy Lai to be granted full access to independent medical professionals to assess his health and ensure that he receives adequate treatment.
Today’s verdict is sadly not a surprise, but no state can bully and persecute the British people for exercising their basic rights. We have seen how the Hong Kong authorities have tried to use the national security law to target even those living on British soil for speaking up. The UK has repeatedly called for the national security law to be repealed, and for an end to the prosecution of all individuals charged under it. It remains imperative that the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities end the deliberate targeting of opposition voices through arrest warrants and bounties in the UK and elsewhere.
The safety of the Hong Kong community in the UK is a top priority for this Government and, as the Prime Minister has recently said, protecting our security is non-negotiable—it is our first duty. This Government are unequivocally clear that China poses a series of national security threats to the United Kingdom. That is why we have taken further steps and tougher measures to defend our democracy by disrupting and deterring threats from China and other state actors, including upgrading sovereign technology; removing Chinese-made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites; drawing up new legislation modelled on counter-terrorism powers to tackle state threats; rolling out new training to police forces across the country on tackling state threats and protecting individuals from transnational repression; and continuing to support the Hong Kong British national overseas route, which has welcomed over 200,000 Hongkongers to the UK. As part of the earned settlement consultation, the Home Office has confirmed that Hongkongers will retain a five-year settlement route in the UK.
China has not upheld its commitments to the people of Hong Kong, but we will. Jimmy Lai chose to remain in Hong Kong to speak up for what was right, and he is currently paying the price. For the sake of Jimmy Lai and his family, but also for the people of Hong Kong, for the joint declaration we signed and for the rule of law, we will not relent on this. Joined by nations across the world, we call again for the immediate release of Jimmy Lai. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to give our condolences following the antisemitic targeted murder of 15 people from the Jewish community in the shooting in Bondi Beach yesterday. This atrocity was absolutely appalling, and as the Jewish community comes together this Hanukkah, we honour a tradition that symbolises resilience, faith and the triumph of light over darkness.
In the early hours of this morning, Jimmy Lai was convicted, following a shameful show trial under the repressive national security law imposed on Hong Kong in breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment, trial and conviction mark a new low in the Chinese Communist party’s shameful attempts to extinguish freedom, democracy and the rule of law in Hong Kong. They are yet more serious violations of the Sino-British joint declaration. The scenes of Jimmy, a 78-year-old man, being paraded around in chains are disturbing, but his defiance stands as a source of hope for those who still believe in freedom, democracy and human rights.
Despite all the pain and suffering, despite being persecuted at the hands of the Chinese Communist party, despite being held in solitary confinement for more than 1,800 days, and despite his health deteriorating, Jimmy’s spirit remains unbroken. Throughout the last few years, his son Sebastien, his family and supporters have fought hard for his freedom and to raise awareness of his appalling treatment. I pay tribute to them. The whole House will stand behind them as their fight to free Jimmy continues.
Jimmy should be freed and allowed to come home to the United Kingdom to be with his family. We need to know what action the Government will now take to do everything possible to secure his release and to seriously ratchet up the pressure to end the disgraceful and draconian national security law. What will the consequences be if Beijing does not change its position?
When was the last time the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment directly with President Xi? Has he called President Xi today, in the aftermath of the conviction, to demand Jimmy’s release and to demand that Jimmy be free to come home to the UK? How often has the Prime Minister raised this case directly since July 2024? What was President Xi’s response to him on the occasions that the case was raised, either publicly or in private?
What assurances have been given about Jimmy Lai’s treatment in prison? We know that his health is deteriorating and that he is being kept in absolutely cruel conditions, so what medical help and access to him is the Prime Minister pursuing, and what has been the response of the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities? Has the Prime Minister told President Xi, face to face and directly, that we will oppose this political show trial, and condemn China for breaching the Sino-British joint declaration with its national security law?
This House has previously been informed that Ministers constantly raise this case and have been in touch with their Chinese counterparts, so can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether the National Security Adviser raised it on his recent visit to China? Did he have any discussions about Jimmy’s case? Has the Prime Minister continued to raise our concerns that the national security law breaches the joint declaration? What discussions are taking place with international partners, including the United States, to pressure China to release Jimmy and scrap its oppressive national security law?
The immediate release of Jimmy Lai has to be a priority for this Government, but the case raises wider issues with UK-China relations. The Prime Minister is clearly seeking significantly closer relations with Beijing, and has, for economic reasons, effectively ended the policy of trying to reduce strategic dependency, even though the economic impact has been negligible and will not be felt in people’s pockets. The Foreign Secretary stands here condemning China, but she wrote a letter supportive of their super-embassy spy hub. Today shows exactly why that approach is deeply foolhardy.
This morning Sebastien Lai asked how we can normalise relationships if the British Government cannot put a 78-year-old man, who is in seriously bad health, on a plane and send him back to the UK. He asked how, if they cannot even do something as simple as that, we can talk about closer relations. He has called for the release to be a precondition of any further talks with China. Do the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister agree?
With the Chinese Communist party continuing to imprison Jimmy Lai and undermine freedom in Hong Kong, will the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister send a signal of our disgust to the CCP by cancelling the Prime Minister’s planned visit to China next January unless Jimmy Lai is released, blocking China’s super-embassy planning application and placing it on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Yvette Cooper
I thank the right hon. Lady for her support for the victims of the appalling terrorist attack in Bondi Beach in Sydney. I also welcome her support for the release of Jimmy Lai. That should be something that unites the entire House, and the whole House should support the calls for his freedom.
The right hon. Lady asks what action the Government are taking and have continued to take. The Foreign Office has today summoned the Chinese ambassador to convey the full strength of our feeling about this decision and about the politically motivated prosecution under the national security law. Not only has the Prime Minister raised this, and not only have I recently raised it directly with Foreign Minister Wang Yi, but a whole succession of Government Ministers have raised it with their counterparts in the Chinese Government. We see this not simply as a foreign policy matter, but as a matter that affects the entire Government relationship.
The right hon. Lady seems to suggest that we should then have no further engagement, but actually the opposite is true: we need to ensure that we are conveying the strength of our feeling, exactly because this is so important. We have been engaging with our international counterparts. The EU has today said that it “deplores the conviction”, and that this prosecution
“is politically motivated and emblematic of the erosion of democracy and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong since the imposition of the National Security Law in 2020.”
I have raised this matter at the G7, including with my G7 counterparts. She will know the strength of feeling on this issue in the US, where I have discussed it with counterparts. We will continue to raise this issue not just directly in our relationship with China, but in international discussions, to maintain pressure on China.
Chinese authorities have said that they want China to be a country that respects the international rule of law. Well, we need to hold them to that, then. At the heart of international law are the legal requirements, which they signed up to and which still stand in international law, as a result of the 1984 declaration. However, the declaration is not being respected, and it is being repeatedly violated. If China wants to uphold international law on the world stage, it should uphold those commitments in Hong Kong, it should uphold the rights and the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, and it should release Jimmy Lai.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the remarks from both Front Benchers in relation to the appalling attack in Australia?
I am greatly encouraged to hear the Government state that they want to have a whole-of-Government approach to the issue of Jimmy Lai. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He could have chosen to leave Hong Kong at any time during the years up to his arrest. He could have left in 2014, but he joined the umbrella movement. He could have left in 2019, but he joined the protests against the proposed extradition law. He could have fled in 2020, when he was given bail, but he stayed because, he said, he wanted to stand up for the city that had given him everything. Despite his great age and his health difficulties, he has been held in solitary confinement for 1,800 days. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Jimmy Lai is an inspirational example of bravery and patriotism for all those fighting for democracy, wherever they are in the world?
Yvette Cooper
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s tribute to Jimmy Lai, his bravery and his strength in the face of the most difficult circumstances, and to the way in which he has spoken up for freedom and for values, as well as for his city and communities. She is right to pay tribute to him, and I think the whole House would join in that tribute and in recognising what he has stood up for. We also recognise that others have been forced to leave Hong Kong as a result of that repression. That is why the BNO route that the Government provide is so important.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her strong statement. I associate my party with her remarks about the appalling attack at Bondi Beach. We stand united against all anti-Jewish hatred.
I share the Foreign Secretary’s utter condemnation of Jimmy Lai’s politically motivated conviction. The trumped-up charges and sham trial show how desperate the Beijing regime is to silence its critics. I agree with Jimmy’s son, Sebastien, that it is now up to the UK Government to ensure Jimmy’s welfare and secure his release. I welcome the summoning of the Chinese ambassador today. What was the outcome? Has Jimmy Lai’s access to medical treatment been assured? What further steps are the Government taking to secure his immediate release?
The Foreign Secretary is right to say that China poses national security threats to the UK, so can she explain why it is not on the enhanced tier of FIRS? Jimmy Lai is not alone in the fight for civil liberties and the rule of law in Hong Kong. Countless brave Hongkongers continue to advocate for democracy and freedom, even as the CCP works relentlessly to erode the city’s independence.
For speaking out, many Hongkongers living in the UK face daily intimidation and threats from Beijing. Just last week, pro-democracy campaigner Carmen Lau was subjected to a renewed campaign of intrusive and distressing intimidation and misinformation. What reassurances can the Foreign Secretary provide today to Carmen and other Hongkongers living in the UK that they will be better protected in the future against Beijing’s predations? Has she updated her submission to the Housing Secretary about the risks posed by the new super-embassy? Will the Government look to sanction all those CCP officials who are responsible for extraterritorial intimidation of pro-democracy activists?
Finally, the Government like to say that they will challenge China when they must. Can the Foreign Secretary indicate one thing that the Government will not do for China, in order to signal that the treatment of Jimmy Lai is unacceptable?
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for his support for Jimmy Lai and his release. Unfortunately, China has not currently agreed either to consular access or to health access, but let me be clear that we will not relent. We will continue to raise this issue with our international partners as well as directly with China, including in international forums. I join him in condemning the targeting of Carmen Lau and others who have been targeted in the UK. It is why we are strengthening the training for all police forces across the UK on how to deal with state threats and transnational repression. We increased investment in our intelligence and security agencies, so that they can deal with state threats as well as traditional counter-terrorism threats. We are increasingly using new measures, such as sanctions, on issues around cyber-threats. He will be aware that we have recently sanctioned two Chinese entities around cyber-threats and cyber-challenges to the UK.
The hon. Member also raised the embassy. As he will know, it remains a planning decision for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government under its independent processes, but security considerations have been taken immensely seriously, not only by the Home Office and the Foreign Office, but by the agencies throughout.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Hong Kong national security law and the conviction of Jimmy Lai are a breach of the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. It is a politically motivated attack on freedom. Can the Foreign Secretary reassure this House that all possible actions are being pursued, first to ensure that Jimmy Lai obtains his legal access to British consular support, and secondly to push for his immediate release?
Yvette Cooper
I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do everything we can to provide consular support for all those affected by the national security law, and in particular Jimmy Lai. May I also reiterate the tributes to Sebastien Lai, who I know is in the Gallery today?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I agree with the right hon. Lady in her comments about the terrible attacks in Bondi, and I congratulate her on raising that now, but I rise to express the view again that this case is not only about Hong Kong, but about this Chamber. I have been named nine times in the prosecution case against Jimmy Lai. Others have been named more than that. It is appalling. I would have loved to have met him and spoken to him, but I never have done. It is trumped-up nonsense from the CCP.
The second thing I say to the Foreign Secretary is that I agree with the strength of her statement about the appalling nature of the Government in China over this issue, but it is no good just meeting people to say they are wrong or calling in the ambassadors. Surely what we have to do is show them a ratcheting up in the things that we will do. First, we need to tell them that there will be no visit in January by our Prime Minister to an organisation that is so corrupt and indecent. Secondly, we should surely start imposing sanctions on those members in Hong Kong who run the place. We have done none of that. Every other country has sanctioned them, but we have not. Finally, there is the idea of allowing this regime to have a huge embassy with 200 extra spies brought in. At this point, they surely need to be told that it will not happen until they release Jimmy Lai.
Yvette Cooper
I know that the right hon. Member has campaigned and spoken out on this area for a long time, so let me recognise his continued speaking out, not just for Jimmy Lai, but more widely on issues around China and national security concerns. Let me be clear that we will continue to pursue this issue through international routes, as well as directly with China. He raises issues around sanctions. As he will know, we never talk about sanctions in advance, but we have expanded the sanctions not just around cyber-threats, but on issues such as support for Russia and the war on Ukraine.
I have addressed the question of the planning process for the embassy, but let me be clear that the UK continues to have strong restrictions on the numbers of people who can come to the UK and on the visa arrangements. All of that continues and does not change at all as a result of any planning decision. No state can bully and persecute the British people for exercising their basic rights. That is why we have been clear in our strong condemnation of this politically motivated prosecution and in calling for the release of Jimmy Lai.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her tribute to Sebastien Lai, who, as she says, has joined us in the Gallery. This afternoon, Members from across the House heard from Sebastien—Jimmy’s son and a constituent of mine—and the international legal team supporting him and the family. Jimmy is now 78. A British citizen in failing health after five years in solitary confinement, he now faces a fifth Christmas away from his family, including a granddaughter he has never met, Sebastien’s first child. What message does the Foreign Secretary specifically have for Jimmy’s family, and can she assure them that everything will be on the table in what the Government decide to do next?
Yvette Cooper
We send our wholehearted support to Jimmy Lai’s family, who face the most difficult of circumstances, and to Jimmy Lai himself, who is a British citizen and has our strong support. We will continue to raise this issue in every forum that we can. The priority must be to draw on those humanitarian grounds, if nothing else, to get the immediate release of a man who is 78 and who has already been incarcerated for far too many years.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Jimmy Lai’s so-called crime was simply being a journalist expressing his views. As the Foreign Secretary has said, he is 78, and we heard this afternoon from Sebastien and his legal team that his health is deteriorating rapidly and he is likely to die in prison unless he is released soon. Will the Foreign Secretary meet Sebastien, with his legal advisers from Doughty Street Chambers, to discuss what additional pressure can be put on the Chinese Government to obtain Jimmy Lai’s release?
Yvette Cooper
I have met Sebastien Lai previously, and I will certainly meet him again in order to talk to him about what more support we can provide.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
A constituent of mine suffered a terrible rape in Hong Kong which was not properly investigated. Her statement was made with the use of Google Translate, and no rape kit was taken. She then found herself being accused of something else as a result, and will have been in the system for two years in January. She trusted that the legal system in Hong Kong would support her, but in taking on the case of a black British woman, her lawyers have taken a risk. Does the Foreign Secretary have confidence in the legal system in Hong Kong, and is there anything that we can do to support my constituent?
Yvette Cooper
I am very sorry to hear the circumstances of my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I am happy to discuss them further with my hon. Friend. As she will know, we have raised our concerns repeatedly, especially in relation to the national security law and the way in which that law does not respect the circumstances and the commitments that were agreed. It has been a crucial part of Hong Kong’s identity for so many years, and what was embodied in the declaration was that it was about respect for the rule of law.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Carmen Lau is a Hong Kong democracy campaigner, and a constituent of mine. Earlier this year, her neighbours received letters asking them to take her to the Chinese embassy in exchange for £100,000. Last month her neighbours also received fake sexually explicit photographs of her, with a Macao postage stamp. May I ask the Foreign Secretary when she last met Carmen to discuss those concerns, and how she can reassure Hongkongers living in Britain that they will be safe?
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for standing up for his constituent. Obviously, I have seen the most recent reports of the circumstances that she has faced. I have not met her since then to discuss them and hear from her about them, but I think the whole House will be totally appalled by the experiences that she has had. I can assure the hon. Member that our counter-terrorism police, who cover both state threats and terrorism threats, take this immensely seriously and pursue every possible investigation, which it is why we as a Government have expanded their work in relation to state threats.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The use of foreign lawyers by both prosecution and defence is a long-established tradition in Hong Kong, yet Jimmy Lai has been denied that right, even as judgment has been passed. This is about justice, not rigged justice. This verdict is not only devastating for one British citizen and his family; it represents a brutal attack on free speech and the rule of law in Hong Kong. It confirms that the national security law is being used to silence critics, to destroy independent media, and to dismantle the freedoms that were promised to the people of Hong Kong. According to the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation,
“Jimmy Lai is guilty only of his unwavering belief in freedom for the people of Hong Kong. Contrary to Beijing’s intentions, the verdict today highlights Jimmy Lai’s courage and integrity and sends a clear message around the world that Hong Kong’s once proud judicial system is severely tarnished and under Beijing’s authoritarian control.”
The Foreign Secretary, and many Ministers whom she has quoted today, have raised the case of Mr Lai and spoken to people including our international colleagues, and we must continue to do so, but it is evident that that is no longer sufficient. The Prime Minister must raise the case with the Chinese regime at the highest possible level. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen, and I ask our Prime Minister to consider carefully what action we will now take to protect this citizen and many, many more. After all, the British Government’s first duty is to protect their citizens at home and abroad.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s championing of Jimmy Lai. She is right: this is about some of the most basic freedoms of all. It is about freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly—freedom to gather—and also the fundamental freedoms in relation to journalism that are so important and have been such an important part of Hong Kong’s identity and history for so long. They were embodied in the declaration to recognise that uniqueness about Hong Kong, which is why we will continue to maintain them. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister has already raised this directly with his counterparts, as have many other Ministers, and we will continue to do so.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Let me start by saying that I greatly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s words about the horrific antisemitic murders in Australia. To those who died, let us all just say, “May their memories be a blessing.”
When we talk about Hong Kong and when we talk about Jimmy Lai, we should remember that the attack on Jimmy Lai—the arrest of Jimmy Lai—is not just a punishment against his family or against him, but part of the repression from the Chinese state. It is being used deliberately to threaten and intimidate Hongkongers here in the United Kingdom. When we talk about standing up for Jimmy Lai, we are actually talking about standing up for ourselves. We are talking about defending our own freedoms and defending the liberties that British people have the right to expect, both at home and abroad.
Will the Foreign Secretary forgive me—I recognise that she been in the role for only a matter of months—when I say that what we are hearing, again, is the bureaucratisation of process and not the leadership that politics is supposed to offer? When we do not hear that decisions about, for instance, the embassy or the visit are potentially on the line, Beijing hears that it can just continue as normal. Let us not pretend that a fundamentally strategic decision such as the siting of an embassy is the mere duty of a bureaucrat. It is not. It is the role of a Government to offer leadership and direction, and I am afraid that at the moment this Government are offering none.
Yvette Cooper
Having been Home Secretary before becoming Foreign Secretary, I am very clear about the nature of the security threats that China poses. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is not simply about the threat to Jimmy Lai, and not simply about this particular prosecution. In itself it is used more widely as part of transnational repression, which is something I take immensely seriously, because this is not just about British citizens in Hong Kong but about residents here on UK soil. It is because we take that so seriously that we have strengthened our state threat response.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the sentencing is expected to take place in the new year. We are clear about the fact that we need the Chinese Government to hear the condemnation, not just from the UK but from partners around the world, of what has happened in respect of the politically motivated prosecution in this case, and to recognise the urgent humanitarian circumstances relating to Jimmy Lai. We will continue to make that a central issue in all our discussions with the Chinese Government. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are separate processes for different things, and, given his background and experience, he will also be aware of the importance of recognising independent processes.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me first associate myself with the Front-Bench comments about the horrific antisemitic murders on Bondi Beach.
The result in the case of Jimmy Lai was obvious from the point when the national security laws were passed. We have been descending down this road for many years with the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong authorities. The sentencing of Jimmy Lai will start on 12 January. May I ask the Foreign Secretary, and also the National Security Adviser, to meet Jimmy’s legal team, who briefed us today, as a matter of urgency, before the sentencing starts? Can the Foreign Secretary reassure me that there will be no positive signals towards Beijing during that time, and after that time if Jimmy is indeed sentenced for a long period? We are sending the wrong signals to the Chinese Government if we keep bending towards their will.
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for his words about the appalling attack on Bondi Beach, and also for championing the case of Jimmy Lai. Both the Prime Minister and I have met Sebastien Lai previously, and I will very happily do so again.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The whole House will welcome the Foreign Secretary’s words on the terrorist attack on Bondi Beach.
Without seeking to interfere directly in matters before the court in Hong Kong, we note that Jimmy Lai is 78, he is held in solitary confinement, his health is in sharp decline, he is unable to practise his religious beliefs and he is a British citizen. Surely this case cries out, at the least, for clemency. In view Jimmy Lai’s British citizenship, will the Foreign Secretary directly engage afresh with her opposite number, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and the Chinese state to mount the very strong case for clemency for Jimmy Lai?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with the right hon. Member that, given the immediate circumstances for a 78-year-old man in poor health, there is an urgent need for clemency and humanitarian recognition of those circumstances. We of course have strong differences on the national security law, which we are very clear is a breach of the declaration, but we surely have a shared humanity. We urge the Chinese authorities to recognise that shared humanity and release Jimmy Lai immediately.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Given that the Chinese Communist party has clearly broken its promise in the joint declaration to protect freedom and the rule of law in Hong Kong, and that this judgment was handed down by a politically appointed judge in a sham or show trial, does the Foreign Secretary agree that those Members of the House of Lords who still serve on the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong should step down from that role, so as not to lend their credibility to a system that has clearly abandoned the rule of law?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will recognise that we have independent processes for the judiciary, but he is right to say that the rule of law is really important. It is an important issue for the UK, and we stand up for those values in all their dimensions. The Chinese authorities have increasingly spoken about the importance of the international rule of law, saying that major countries ought to provide leadership on the international rule of law. Again, our strong message to them is that, to show international leadership on the rule of law, they need to recognise their legal obligations, which are still present, to implement the declaration. That means ending the national security law and releasing Jimmy Lai.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
There is a legitimate and necessary debate to be had on our wider foreign policy towards China, but surely the most important thing today is that this House should speak with one voice in condemning this sham trial and demanding the immediate release of Jimmy Lai, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for doing that. I am told that the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, of which I am a member, is cited no fewer than 500 times in the judgment on Jimmy Lai. It has had no contact from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, despite having initiated a correspondence. When the Foreign Secretary returns to the Department, can she investigate that and ensure that it is given the proper level of engagement that it requires and deserves?
Yvette Cooper
I will certainly do so. I will follow that up, and get back to the right hon. Member. I agree with him that it is immensely important that we speak with one powerful voice, with all of us calling for the release of Jimmy Lai.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I associate myself with the condolences to the Jewish community in Australia that were eloquently expressed by both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary.
In the representations on Jimmy Lai, can I ask again that the case of Lee Cheuk-yan be raised? Lee, who is a trade union colleague of mine, was the general secretary of the Confederation of Trade Unions in Hong Kong. He has been in prison since April 2021. His trial was postponed twice this year, and we have now been given the date of 22 January. We are fearful that the trial may be delayed again, but also that he will receive a long sentence. All he did was to participate in the campaign for democracy in Hong Kong and for trade union rights. The whole campaign would be grateful for any representations that can be made.
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend is right to say that many other people are facing prosecution or have already been charged and been through a process under the national security law. We are very clear that the national security law should be repealed. It directly contradicts the declaration and the legal obligations on the Chinese authorities under that declaration. I will follow up the case he raises.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Like every other communist regime that has ever existed, the Chinese Government behave with ruthlessness, impunity and unmitigated mendacity. I therefore welcome the strong words in the statement from the Foreign Secretary, but what Members on both sides of the House wish to see is stronger actions. It is not so much a case of one country, two systems, as of one Government and two faces. If our Government cannot even say that a country that poses so many strategic threats is itself a threat, we have an awfully long way to go.
Yvette Cooper
I note that the right hon. Member obviously shares the concerns about, and joins the calls for the release of, Jimmy Lai. On the wider issues, I have been very clear about the national security threats posed by China—for example, transnational oppression, support for Russia in the war on Ukraine and cyber-threats, on which we have recently introduced more sanctions. However, because of our strong history—our economic history as well as our political history—with Hong Kong, China is the UK’s third largest trading partner. Those are not things we can trade off. We do not trade off them, as the Prime Minister made very clear in his speech a few weeks ago. National security is always the first duty of any Government, but alongside pursuing threats and human rights issues, we must recognise that trading relationship. We should ensure that we pursue both, but that we pursue national security issues as the first duty.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary for their powerful words on the horrific antisemitic attack in Australia.
Jimmy Lai has been persecuted for standing up for human rights and democracy, and I know that the Bracknell Forest Hong Kong community shares my utter horror at this cowardly act by the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments. As many Members from across the House have said, such communities face their own security threats from the long arm of the Chinese state. In the light of that, I thank the Foreign Secretary for recognising the importance of the 5+1 British national overseas settlement route. It is really important that we have recommitted to that. However, will she share with Home Office Ministers my constituents’ concerns about changes to the language and income requirements for that route? It is right that we stand by Hongkongers with that settlement route and that we recognise our historical commitment to the Hong Kong community.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s highlighting of the Hongkongers in his constituency and other local communities. He will know that over 200,000 Hongkongers have been welcomed to the UK through the BNO route. I will pass on the points he has raised to the Home Office, but the route has played an important part in Hongkongers arriving and being part of our economy, our communities and our joint respect for human rights and the commitments we made in 1984.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I associate myself and the SNP with the Foreign Secretary’s comments on the appalling attack on Bondi Beach.
I welcome the statement condemning what the CCP has done with the political sham of a trial, simply for Jimmy Lai expressing his belief in democracy and freedom. However, the statement does not go far enough. I would like to ask two very short questions. First, the US, Canada and Australia are able to secure the release of their nationals. Why is it that the UK has not been able to secure a release from China in this case? Secondly, what message does the inability to secure the release of Jimmy Lai send to other British citizens who may be held in arbitrary detention by regimes who do not respect the rule of law, democracy or freedom of speech and assembly?
Yvette Cooper
There is a deep, long-standing change that we have seen in the Chinese authorities’ approach over the last five years. Successive Governments have raised that with China, but we continue to do so because the national security law is deeply damaging, undermines the declaration and undermines the international rule of law. We will continue to raise that, just as we will continue to provide consular support for people across the world where there are British citizens who need our help and where we have work we can do to assist them.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Government’s dealings with China are proving to be almost as lamentable as those of their predecessor. We have summoned the ambassador to tell him just how cross we are, but I bet we will give him his embassy, won’t we?
Yvette Cooper
I note the right hon. Member’s lack of support for the previous Government. That Government were led by his party and, in theory, he voted and campaigned for them over many years. Nevertheless, I can probably agree with him about his disagreements with the previous Government, who managed to say things but actually did not engage in the way that we as a country need to in order to pursue Britain’s interests.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Following the appalling show trial of Jimmy Lai, I have already had correspondence from members of the strong and growing community of Hongkongers in Woking. They are terrified about the signal this will send to people from Hong Kong who now live in the UK. People are facing intimidation in the UK for standing up to Beijing on civil liberties issues. As well as continuing to demand the immediate release of Jimmy Lai, will the Foreign Secretary please consider the use of targeted sanctions against Chinese Communist party officials involved in that decision and in issuing bounties and other intimidation across the world?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because of that transnational repression—threats to people resident on UK soil, including Hongkongers whom we have welcomed into our communities as a result of the repression they have faced—that we have strengthened the work of the counter-terrorism police and intelligence agencies on targeting state threats. We will continue to do so, because it is immensely important that we support not just residents here, but the freedoms and traditions of the people of Hong Kong.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to the bravery of Jimmy Lai and his family. The reality is that we are engaged in a battle over what form of state will dominate in the coming decades: states like ours that try, imperfectly, to balance the rights of individuals and the state, or authoritarian regimes such as China, which want unfettered state power. Those sorts of regimes respond to strength. The Foreign Secretary has talked about how we feel and said that the Government feel upset and angry, but those sorts of regimes respond to strength. Given that, does she agree with me that it would be a disastrous decision to allow the super-embassy to go ahead?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is an independent planning process and it has long been so. This is not just about the UK’s direct engagement with China, but about our engagement through international forums. That is why I have raised Jimmy Lai’s case directly in the G7 and with other Foreign Ministers across the world. It is why we have seen international condemnation of what has happened today. It is also why we are seeking international support for our call for the urgent release of Jimmy Lai, which I think should be the priority for all of us now.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments about yesterday’s horror in Sydney. I, too, welcome the Foreign Secretary’s clear and unequivocal call for the release of Jimmy Lai, and her condemnation of a politically motivated act that, as others have said, can only cause great fear among the Hong Kong community in this country. She said that a cross-Government approach would be taken. Will she make it clear to China that it cannot just be business as usual from now on, that it cannot expect the super-embassy simply to go ahead, that there will be sanctions, and that we will also protect our energy and national security by imposing mitigating circumstances on any contracts in which it might be involved in the North sea, in wind farms?
Yvette Cooper
I think many of the points the hon. Lady raises I have already addressed, but she raises an important further point about our economic security, for example in relation to critical minerals and energy infrastructure. I take those issues immensely seriously. There is more we need to do, working with the G7 countries and other countries around the world, on how we retain our energy security and our wider economic security, and recognise the ways in which China is operating across the world that can cause real challenges to that economic security.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I listened to the Foreign Secretary really closely, and I have to say that, without real action, even the strongest condemnation she may issue is not strong enough. Calling the ambassador will just be taken as words, because that has all been done before. The Chinese are not listening, as the conviction of Jimmy Lai proves. One show of strength she could make, of course, is to withdraw her support for the Chinese super-embassy in the heart of London. By doing so, I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government would listen, and the independent process. What the Chinese would hear is that the protection of British citizens is of paramount interest to us and that it will not be without consequence if they are maltreated.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will be aware that there is an independent process around the planning system, and he will have seen the agreement that if the planning agreement were reached, then the Chinese diplomatic premises would shrink from the current eight as a result. It is important to recognise that that is an independent planning process. Alongside whatever embassy arrangements are in place, it is crucial that we have a strong response to state threats to national security in this country and that we continue to press for the urgent release of Jimmy Lai. I hope he will agree that that should be a humanitarian priority for everyone, as some of his colleagues have said.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The politically motivated conviction of Jimmy Lai is yet another chilling sign of the breakdown of human rights and freedom of speech in Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary will know that I was refused entry into Hong Kong to visit our son and his young family, and I never got any explanation why. Where does this recent development leave British citizens still in Hong Kong and their families who are here? I am thinking particularly about the many BNOs in my constituency who are deeply worried, and I know what that feels like.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right to raise that issue. There is a real concern. I am sorry about the difficulties that I know she has had. She will know that they have been raised with the Chinese authorities. She is also right to raise the concerns of Hongkongers who live here but who still have family back home, and who, as a result, do not feel that they can visit them. Even where they have British citizenship, the Chinese authorities do not recognise dual nationality. Therefore, there are real concerns for anyone visiting family, either in Hong Kong or more widely in China, that that dual citizenship or their British citizenship simply will not be recognised. That is what has happened with Jimmy Lai and it is why we continue to raise this issue. This issue is about British citizens, and we will stand up for British citizens.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sebastien Lai, whom I and a number of colleagues met earlier, and who has shown courage and fortitude throughout this process. Ever since the verdict was announced I have been inundated with the concerns of Hongkongers in my constituency about what this might means for their safety under the programme of transnational repression and persecution being conducted by the Chinese. They say that diplomacy works until it doesn’t, and now we can see that it has not worked, so there must be consequences. May I press again for an answer on why China has not been placed in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? I understand that, as Home Secretary, the right hon. Lady submitted evidence to the Housing Secretary regarding the security implications of the super-embassy. Has she updated that advice since new risks and threats have been identified?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that the Security Minister has updated the House several times on the FIRS process and our continuous work to keep countries under review in that respect. As for the security considerations raised as part of the planning process, I again assure him that not only the Home Office and the Foreign Office, but the security and intelligence agencies take these issues immensely seriously and have been involved in the consideration. As part of that, further information provided to the planning process relates to the consolidation of the diplomatic premises, as well as wider security considerations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s comments and send my and my party’s sympathies to those affected by the murders on Bondi Beach this weekend. They are very much in our thoughts and prayers. I believe the Government should also support the Australian Prime Minister and Government in the action they take against the terrorists now in that country.
To be honest, the verdict was not unexpected. We have all read the character of the Governments and officials involved in this travesty, and this was always going to be the result of China being permitted to rule with an iron fist. But what cannot be forgotten is that this is not a Chinese-only issue; Jimmy Lai is a British national and, as such, should have had his Government protecting him. I am old enough to remember when holding a British passport gave one protection. Where is that protection? What steps will the British Government take to enable this elderly British national to secure a just result, rather than the theatre we have watched? With respect, Foreign Secretary, the time for watching has ended. Will the Government finally take action?
Yvette Cooper
I can confirm that we will not relent in our calls for Jimmy Lai to be released; we will continue to do so with other countries across the world. We need to draw on the international support for Jimmy Lai to get an urgent humanitarian release for him. I also welcome the points the hon. Gentleman made about Bondi Beach and assure him that we continue to offer our full support to the Australian Government through the Five Eyes and more broadly in their action against terrorism.
Point of Order
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 12 November, during Prime Minister’s questions, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and leader of Reform announced that the
“Reform-led West Northamptonshire Council will be issuing foreclosure notices on three migrant hotels”—
including one in my constituency—
“within the next few days,”
because of
“grave public concern about the safety of women and girls on the streets of West Northamptonshire.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 151.]
A freedom of information request response dated 9 December confirms that no such foreclosure notices have been issued. I asked the hon. Member for Clacton to correct the record and apologise for inadvertently misleading the House, but I have received no response. Given the seriousness of the issue and the sensitivities around the implications in his question, will you please advise me on how I can take the matter forward? Members of the public should be able to trust what is said in this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. I understand that she has notified the hon. Member for Clacton in advance. She will know that this is not a matter for the Chair, but her point has been well and truly put on the record.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:23 - The House divided: - Ayes: 311 / Noes: 96 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before we commence consideration of the Lords message, I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 23
Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 120N to Commons amendment 120G and their amendments 120P to 120S to Commons amendment 120H.
I am returning for the fourth time to the consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill. The Bill will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many British companies already offer their staff to all. I cannot hide my frustration that, once again, we have been blocked from getting this Bill on to the statute book by the other place.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Which British company offers unlimited compensation for unfair dismissal? What message does this measure send to companies that can locate well-paid staff anywhere in the world?
Kate Dearden
I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the reflections further on in my speech. I am not sure he entirely grasps the compensation cap proposal and our intentions.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
What message does it send to the British public when 33 hereditary peers defeat the Government by 24 votes on a manifesto promise? Some of the wealthiest are blocking measures on sick pay for some of the lowest earners, which will miss the April deadline. Should we not get on—go through the night if we have to—and get this Bill passed?
Kate Dearden
We are absolutely determined to get this legislation through, and I urge colleagues in the other place to pass this Bill for the reasons my right hon. Friend outlines: 1.3 million people will be entitled to statutory sick pay from as soon as April. That is significant, and it is why it is so important to get the legislation on to the statute books.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My colleagues in the other place all expressed concern about open-ended, unlimited compensation. That is a concern not only for them and for colleagues here, but for businesses back home. I know the Minister means well, but for goodness’ sake, this will not work for business.
Kate Dearden
If hon. Members allow me to make some progress, I will get to the background and reasoning for the compensation cap.
Continued delay to the Bill will put implementation at risk, which creates insecurity and uncertainty for workers and employers alike. I hope the other place acknowledges the importance of this and will let the Government deliver the Bill, which is backed by an electoral mandate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said. We have been engaged in ping-pong for far too long, and further delay is in no one’s best interests. I hope the arguments I make today will address the reservations of those Members of the other place who have been engaging in good faith when they have had genuine concerns about the Bill.
As I told the House last week, I convened a series of constructive conversations on the unfair dismissal provisions, which resulted in a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives and was the subject of Government amendments made last week. I can assure hon. Members, as someone who was in the room during the negotiations, that the agreement between unions and business representatives was made with good will and in good faith by all sides.
As those representatives of the British Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personal and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Small Business Britain, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry said in today’s letter to the Secretary of State, the “outcome” of the
“dialogue…represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities.”
The amendments tabled in the other place undermine that agreement, as the compensatory award cap would not be removed and instead the Government would conduct and publish a review of the impact of the cap. The removal of the cap would then require further primary legislation.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has set out how sensible the conversations have been thus far, but does she agree with me that they have been totally frustrated by colleagues down the corridor, who have no regard for the mandate that was returned to the Government at the last general election, and that we should stand firm and make sure that these rights are not further impeded by the unelected House?
Kate Dearden
That is why our motion today disagrees with the Lords amendments and insists on our amendments from the previous round of ping-pong, which deliver on the agreement made by trade unions and business representative organisations.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I wonder whether the Minister is comfortable with the fact that introducing an uncapped unfair dismissal compensation award will make the UK an international outlier, when many of our international competitors have clear limits. If she is comfortable with that, what assessment has she made of the impact on UK jobs and inward investment to the UK, particularly in business sectors that are internationally mobile?
Kate Dearden
Our proposal would remove the cap of 52 weeks’ gross pay or £118,223. It is important to reflect that, in practice, few awards get anywhere close to the cap. The median average award for unfair dismissal in 2023-24 was £6,746. Employment tribunals will continue to calculate compensatory awards to reflect the losses that employees suffer as a result of being unfairly dismissed.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Has the Minister conducted an impact assessment? If so, how much does she think this change will cost? How many uncapped awards will be made? These are the kinds of big, important decisions that the other place has concerns about, as do Conservative Members. If she has that evidence, she could put this to bed tonight by simply providing it to us so that we can make an informed decision.
Kate Dearden
An economic assessment will be published, as is standard practice.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my frustration at the sheer misinformation that has been spread about the removal of the cap on compensation. As she rightly says, the median award at the moment is less than £7,000. More importantly than that, only 2% of all employment tribunals ever result in a compensation award for unfair dismissal. Does she agree that the Government have indeed taken into account the concerns of Cross-Bench peers by committing to an assessment, and more importantly does she agree that those employers and the unions together can see what the Opposition do not, which is that this is will be fair to workers and fair to businesses that are fair to their workers?
Kate Dearden
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. We believe that the current compensatory award cap also creates a systemic incentive for unfair dismissal claimants to construct more complex cases, which could take longer for a tribunal to handle. By removing the compensatory award cap for unfair dismissal claims, the incentive may be lessened, potentially making it easier for tribunals to reach a judgment more quickly and decreasing the burdens on the system.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am not at all surprised that the Minister is having a little bit of a problem with the other place—after all, she is not the first Minister to have been confused as to what was in a manifesto and what was not; the Prime Minister seems to have been confused about the assisted suicide Bill.
May I raise a question about the cap? The problem that many businesses will have is with insurance. Most businesses take some form of insurance for unfair dismissal. Insurance companies work on the basis that they have an understandable level of risk that they are underwriting. If they do not know what that risk is, they will not underwrite it. The challenge here is that by removing the cap, the Minister is changing the level of maximum risk and therefore making it much harder for insurance companies to underwrite it. Has she spoken to insurance companies about the challenges that this poses?
Kate Dearden
I listen to the Conservatives again and again as they come to the Chamber—they have done it again today—and talk down what was a clear manifesto commitment of this Bill.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister is coming on to this in her speech, but it might be worth reiterating, for the benefit of those on the Opposition Benches, that the best way to avoid having to pay compensation for unfair dismissal is to avoid unfairly dismissing someone in the first place.
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as she always does, and I thank her for it.
To conclude, we are seeking the support of the House so that we can finally secure Royal Assent and move towards implementing our long-overdue reforms to make work pay. Today’s correspondence from business representatives to the Secretary of State states that British business believes that
“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill.”
I urge Members across the House to reflect on that comment, on our election mandate from last year and on all the work and consideration that has been put into this Bill so far in both Houses. I thank all colleagues for their work, and I commend this motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The concerns that we Conservatives have with the Bill have long been known, and I accept that we have debated them at length. I will not repeat them all today, because we are not here to debate the whole Bill, just the message sent to us from the other place.
There was a time when the Labour party would have cared about protecting jobs and those who wanted one. There was a time when Labour believed, as we do, in the dignity of work and what that meant for families and communities—a Christian socialism, if you like, rather than the state worship that seems to have replaced it. I cannot honestly think of a previous Government who would ever have passed this Bill—certainly not since the 1970s. The result, whether Labour likes it or not, is that day by day, week by week, month by month, people are losing their jobs.
This Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer people in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and who knows what it will be like next Christmas. We have the worst ever graduate jobs market. Adzuna estimates that jobs for degree holders have fallen by 33%. Labour used to care about youth unemployment, but for those aged between 16 and 24 unemployment has now reached 15%, according to the Office for National Statistics. As has been the case every month so far under this Government, tomorrow morning we are likely to hear that the rate of unemployment is higher.
This Bill could have been on the statute book today, but for one simple reason: a gross betrayal of trust. The small group of business groups that Ministers invited in for tea and sandwiches took this Government at their word.
Antonia Bance
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would like to tell the House which of these business groups he disagrees with and that he thinks we should not listen to today, because these are the groups telling us and peers in the other place that we should be voting for the Bill. Does he disagree with the British Chambers of Commerce or the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development? Does he disagree with the Confederation of British Industry, with the Federation of Small Businesses, with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation or with Small Business Britain?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady would have been wise to contain her excitement, because I agree with all of those groups in their letter today, which the Minister selectively quoted; she did not quote them saying that they are not in favour of removing the cap. I have spoken to each and every organisation that was in the room, and they are crystal clear, with one group saying:
“That was not a concession discussed with us or agreed by us in the negotiations”.
I invite the Minister to intervene on me if she thinks that a word of what I say is wrong. She is misquoting, and it is misrepresenting those business groups that do not support the cap.
Why would any sane Government scrap the cap entirely? Indeed, this Government themselves did not for 13 and a half of the 14 months that we have been debating this Bill. It was not in the manifesto or the Bill or the impact assessment. It was not considered by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and it was never discussed in this House until Ministers threw it in at the last moment in a breach of trust of the business groups with which they negotiated.
Angela Rayner
I know where this came from—the new deal for working people—and so do businesses and the trade unions. As the Minister pointed out, there have been discussions, and they came to that conclusion. What is it about protecting people from unfair dismissal that the shadow Minister has a problem with?
Andrew Griffith
What is it about protecting people from unemployment—preventing young people from getting jobs—and from economic growth? The Government of which the right hon. Lady was once a member said that was their No. 1 priority and their obsession, but they have singularly failed to deliver it.
Conservative Members want to get Britain working again. We want jobs for those young people—we think it is a stain on our character that 15% of young people are unemployed—and all we get from Labour is union-paid representatives trying to put more people out of jobs and deny young people more opportunities.
Angela Rayner
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again; he is being generous with his time. Why does he not have a problem with people being often in insecure, low-paid work without any contract that gives them regular hours? Does he realise how difficult that makes it for young people—any person—to have any security in their life? That was what he presided over in his 14 years of failure, and that is why Labour was elected on this manifesto promise.
Andrew Griffith
Our Government created 4 million new jobs. This Government have lost jobs every single month they have been in office.
The points that the right hon. Lady makes are not those we are debating. There is one issue in front of us, which is Labour’s desire to defend and remove a cap of £118,000. That has nothing to do with ordinary workers. What does it say about today’s modern Labour party that its focus, and the whole reason why we are back here and the compromise was not accepted, is its desire to remove a cap of £118,000, which will only ever benefit the better off?
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the shadow Minister recall that in 1999 when the Blair Government increased the cap, they held a consultation beforehand, and that in 2015 when the coalition Government introduced a cap, they held a consultation beforehand? Why are this Government behaving differently?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I hope somebody on the Labour Benches will address. We have seen no analysis and we have no idea of the cost of this measure. Not a single business—not a single person who employs people—has come out and endorsed the removal of the cap. It is beyond me, I am afraid.
Yet what is happening in our employment tribunals? On Friday, as I am sure the Minister knows, it was revealed that the delay and backlogs at the employment tribunal have reached their highest ever level. At the end of the most recent quarter, there were 515,000 open claims. Before anyone intervenes, let me say that I accept that much of that was inherited—[Interruption.] But before Labour Members laugh: the Government are making it worse. Merely since the Bill was introduced to this place, the claims backlog has increased by 65,000. They are doing nothing to address the backlog, which is going up every single month—I do not think they have even discussed it with their calamity of a Justice Secretary —and we know that they have carried out no impact assessment. It is extraordinary. The scrapping of the compensation cap for the highest paid will simply stoke the fire.
I make it a rule not to learn lessons in how to run an economy from France, but even France introduced a cap on tribunal payments to tackle unemployment and encourage labour market dynamism. Perhaps we should take advice from closer to home: today the Health Secretary seems to be no fan at all of giving more powers to unaccountable unions.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Andrew Griffith
Happily, if the hon. Member will talk about how he will fix our NHS.
Laurence Turner
The debate is on the Employment Rights Bill, although I struggle to follow the line of logic in the hon. Member’s speech. He said that the effect of the change would be to benefit the wealthiest employees, but chief executive officers and other senior executives rarely seek recourse to employment tribunals, for a number of reasons. Can he name a single CEO or equivalent who has pursued a case for an employment tribunal?
Andrew Griffith
Well no, I cannot, because there is a cap—the very cap that the hon. Member’s party is seeking to remove. I try not to be uncharitable about the complete absence of business experience in the Cabinet, but that level of question, together with that impact, is just embarrassing.
The Minister in her remarks—there was not much of an argument; it was really just a critique—blamed peers in the other place for the Government’s own failures. Notwithstanding how peers are doing the constitutional job we ask them to do, Lyndon B. Johnson said that the first rule of politics is to learn how to count. The Government lost the vote on its unemployment Bill last week by 24 votes, but 65 of their own peers did not want anything to do with the Bill—they did not turn up and did not vote. During the passage of the Bill, one Labour peer has even resigned his peerage and joined the exodus of wealth creators to the United Arab Emirates because of what he sees. The Resolution Foundation and the Tony Blair Institute have both criticised the Bill.
By removing that £118,000 compensation cap, the Government are not protecting the vulnerable. If that is what they wish to do, there are other ways to do that, but ordinary workers will never benefit from that. It is a genuinely mad world; I do not understand why we are having this debate.
This time last week, the Liberal Democrats agreed with me on this. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) has been campaigning for the boss of South East Water to be fired, but without a cap his payout could be millions. Is that really what they want? What changed, other than the appearance of five new Liberal Democrat peers?
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Graham Stuart
I am extremely grateful. My hon. Friend is setting out a powerful case. We are puzzled, because a system designed for ordinary workers that has a sensible cap is now being opened up to the very CEOs who, as has been highlighted, would not have previously used it. We have a Labour party in hock to the unions yet strangely proposing a measure that was not included their manifesto which can only help the rich. What happened to the Labour party?
Andrew Griffith
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will leave that hanging there and hope that Labour Members will address it.
In conclusion, I ask the Government at this eleventh hour to pull back from the brink and introduce a financial cap so that we can get this business done this week. They have no consent from business, and they sought no support for it in their manifesto. I have talked about youth unemployment and the level of redundancies. We Conservatives will get Britain working again. We will end the attacks on employers and repeal the job-killing measures in the Bill. For the sake of businesses, for the sake of the backlog and for the sake of Britain, the Government should accept the Lords amendment and drop their motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Members will be aware that the debate has to conclude by 8.24 pm, so there will be an immediate five-minute time limit. Of course, if Members did not feel obliged to use all five minutes, that would help their colleagues.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
May I first declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and donations from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers trade union, as well as my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions? I am not sure if we are on a ping or a pong now, but there is a whiff of stubbornness about the fact that we are back here again.
Last week, I called for the Government to make this place sit every day until Christmas to ensure we got the Bill through—it is a shame that the other place took that as an invitation rather than the contingency plan it was intended to be, but, if that is what it takes, that is what we should do. We are ready. It is wrong that an unelected house, where jobs are given for life, can dig in and push back on something that will give millions of workers rights that we promised long ahead of an election, and for which we have a decisive mandate.
I commend the Government and the Minister for not backing down. A deal was reached with the relevant stakeholders. It is a pragmatic compromise, and a deal they are publicly saying needs to go through. That is how mature, effective industrial relations are supposed to work.
I do not think that the Lords’ arguments are particularly substantial; they are certainly not reasons to delay the Bill again. Their point that we should not agree with the lifting of the cap because it fell outside the scope of manifesto commitments in this area does not really take us very far, given that the original concession made on qualifying periods was also outside the scope of the manifesto, and of course, that is all part of the same package. It feels to me that this is more about the Lords wanting to have the final word rather than having to deal with the substance.
Graham Stuart
We did not hear it from the Minister, so could the hon. Member please explain the case for removing the cap?
Justin Madders
I am glad that there are some Conservative Back Benchers here. Last week they were all somewhere else, but now we are hearing some contributions. I was not in the room when the negotiations took place, but I understand that that was the deal. I am afraid that there have been some wilful misunderstandings on the Conservative Benches about what lifting the compensation cap actually means. Compensation for unfair dismissal is calculated by defined heads of loss under the law, so lifting the cap will not change that one bit. If the claims are still necessary, they will be there. It just means that some workers—particularly older workers who might not be able to get another job and who may have substantial pension losses—will benefit, not the fat-cat bosses that have been talked about. It is important that we stress that point.
Also, I do not remember the Conservatives’ manifesto in 2010 promising to double the period for qualification on unfair dismissal. Neither do I remember a pledge in either the Tory or the Liberal Democrat manifesto to put a cap on compensation. None the less, the coalition Government pushed both those policies through. Those who claim that the lifting of the cap will see an avalanche of claims ignore the fact that the rationale used for introducing the cap in the first place was to deal with perceptions about levels of compensation people might recover—in other words, legislating on perceptions rather than on facts—and I have to say, we have heard plenty of those perceptions repeated again tonight.
The Opposition can complain about a two-year wait for tribunal claims, but I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for recognising his party’s culpability in that. It is important that this Government are working with the trade unions, businesses, the judiciary and ACAS to find ways of improving our system, so that we get justice more quickly, instead of just ignoring it as the previous Government did. This Government have shown flexibility and strength to negotiate a change in order to get a deal over the line. Workers in this country should not be made to wait any longer for these important rights.
It is worth reminding the House that the road map we agreed earlier this year shows that the following laws should be in place by April 2026: doubling the maximum period of the protective award; day one paternity leave and unpaid parental leave; whistleblowing protections; establishing the Fair Work Agency; day one statutory sick pay and entitlements for the first time for millions of people who have been denied them to date; and simplifying the trade union recognition process. These are not minor or trivial measures. They are substantial changes that will improve the working lives of millions of people. We should be proud that it is a Labour Government who are delivering them, and we should be determined to deliver them by April 2026.
Of course, that is just the beginning. Genuine flexible working, ending zero-hours contracts, banning fire and rehire—there is much more in this Bill that really matters to working people. And there is much more beyond the Bill: the reform of TUPE and parental leave and dealing with the epidemic of bogus self-employment are of huge importance. These are the sorts of things that a radical, reforming Labour Government need to tackle, because the world of work is changing. It is changing far faster than we can legislate for, but we can insulate our constituents against the worst excesses and unintended consequences of the tech revolution by putting security and fairness at the heart of every employment relationship, and we need to do that now. If we do not, we will have failed not only to deliver on the promises we made but to stand up for the very people we were elected to represent, so I call on the other place to agree with the will of the democratically elected Chamber and to deliver finally on our promise to make work pay.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Today we are debating the fourth round of consideration of Lords amendments to this Bill, and this long and protracted process says a lot about the way the Government have approached this legislation. The Bill was initially put together at great speed, missing much of the detail; there was a long series of Government amendments late in the process; and now a major last-minute change on the compensation cap for unfair dismissal has been sprung on businesses and Parliament. Regardless of what one makes of the different measures in the legislation, I think most of us would agree that the process followed in designing it has been less than ideal. Having said that, let me reiterate what has always been the Liberal Democrat position on the Bill: we support many of the aims of this legislation.
We welcome expanding access to statutory sick pay, improving parental leave and taking steps to address the massive pay gap facing social care workers. We agree with giving those on zero-hours contracts more certainty, even though we proposed what we view as a more practical and balanced way of doing so, and we are pleased to see a unified Fair Work Agency, which we also called for as a way of empowering employees to exercise their rights without fear of any negative consequences. However, we have made it clear that we have significant worries about the specific way in which some of those measures would be implemented, and we have repeatedly raised our concern that crucial detail was being left for secondary legislation.
By far our biggest concern was the complete lack of clarity on unfair dismissal and probation periods, which is why we have worked in both Houses to secure a vital concession setting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal at six months. We are proud that when some tried to brush aside the concerns of the business community and others sought to frustrate the process, it was the Liberal Democrats who secured this vital provision. It is the role of any responsible Opposition party to engage constructively and achieve substantial improvements for the good of our country. It could not be clearer that this fair and sensible shift will equally benefit businesses and workers. So many businesses I have spoken to have said that this is the single most meaningful change that could have been made to the Bill.
Dr Luke Evans
I am conscious that we are debating a particular point. Is the hon. Member voting for or against the cap? That is the essence of what we are looking at today.
Sarah Olney
I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that. I was coming to that in my speech. Perhaps he could listen with a little more attention.
Employers have finally been given the necessary clarity to make hiring decisions with confidence, and we have avoided the danger of unnecessarily slowing down the labour market even further, which would have deprived so many people of vital employment opportunities. That is exactly what the progressive Resolution Foundation think-tank warned of when it said there was a risk that
“employers would be nervous about hiring new workers or offering shifts, and this would make life harder for job seekers.”
As I pointed out last week, it is really disappointing that the Government decided to muddy this improvement by simultaneously abolishing the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal. Employers were not in favour of scrapping the £118,000 cap, and I once again point out that bringing in a change like this at the last minute is not how we build trust between Government and business. However, I note that employers and business groups have been equally clear that this last-minute change must not stand in the way of the far more important changes secured with regard to the six-month qualifying period. Above all else, business values pragmatism, and that is exactly why it wants to see this breakthrough protected and enshrined in law. That is what has guided our approach throughout.
Will the Minister confirm on the Floor of the House that the Government will conduct an assessment of the impact of the removal of the compensation cap, actively seeking views from businesses, as was indicated to the Liberal Democrats in the other place? On a broader level, will she give a cast-iron commitment that the Government will hold regular debates in both Houses to ensure that Parliament can scrutinise what work is being done to consult businesses and workers on all relevant implementation aspects of this Bill? How are the Government planning to support employers in order to ensure that they have robust policies and practices in place to navigate these changes to the unfair dismissal regime?
Lastly, to those in the Conservative party who have been trying to sabotage this crucial compromise on the six-month qualifying period, I simply say that they are acting not in the interest of British businesses but only in their own narrow party political self-interest.
Graham Stuart
On that very point, does the hon. Member believe that it is totally pragmatic to have disregarded her objections to the removal of the cap in return for additional places for the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords?
Sarah Olney
It is so revealing of Conservative Members’ mindset that they cannot believe what I am actually saying is the reason for our change, and that they assume instead that we must have sought some benefit for ourselves. It is so revealing that that is what the Tories think. It beggars belief that the Conservatives, having hammered businesses while in government, are now doing everything in their power to undermine UK plc from the Opposition Benches.
I note that the Government have taken steps to improve the clarity of the legislation with regard to seasonal work, introducing measures that will ensure that businesses relying on seasonal work and bodies representing seasonal workers will be properly consulted when secondary legislation is drawn up. Many businesses, such as those in the farming and agricultural sector, as well as thousands of pubs, cafés and restaurants, depend on seasonal workers, and any obstacles to hiring them could have a significant impact, exacerbating the long list of challenges they already face, so we must ensure that they are supported as much as possible. Small businesses in our local towns and communities are struggling with the Government’s unfair national insurance rise, high export costs due to Brexit red tape and a business rates system that is not fit for purpose. Struggling businesses mean fewer jobs and lower pay, so it is vital that we take steps to support high street businesses and all those who rely on them.
It is time that we listened to the business community, which is telling us that the best way forward is to look for balanced solutions through secondary legislation and to put an end to the uncertainty and avoid losing the six-month qualifying period, which we were happy to have helped secure. Continuing to delay the passage of the Bill at this late and protracted stage would risk further uncertainty for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and would jeopardise significant changes that will benefit workers, such as expanded protections against workplace harassment and improved paternity leave rights.
I urge Members to be pragmatic and to provide clarity to businesses and workers alike regarding an implementation timeline. That is critical for providing a stable operating framework so that businesses can plan ahead. We should now work together to ensure that this legislation can be implemented to benefit businesses and workers alike.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I start by pointing out my proud membership of the Communication Workers Union, just so I can get that on the record. Before I get into the issues with the amendments, I want to say that enough is enough. Unelected Lords must not get in the way of the democratic will of the people and the manifesto commitment to deliver this Bill and make work pay. My constituents have waited long enough, worked long enough and put up with it for long enough. Every delay means someone going to work ill. Every delay means another zero-hours week. Every delay means that, once again, someone gets away with bad practice.
The Lords amendments talk about a cap, but we have been here before. We have lifted caps before. Caps on compensation do not exist in cases of discrimination claims. There is no evidence to suggest that they have all of a sudden got out of control or gone absolutely mad —they have not, so we have been here before. We have lifted caps before to turn things around and send a clear message about what we want to build.
On the proposal to cap the fine for denying access to trade unions at £75,000, what sort of a cap is that? What would that do to global giants? We saw what Amazon did to the GMB to frustrate its organising. Why should we allow big businesses to pay to break the law? Frankly, we should not.
On guaranteed hours, there must be no loopholes and no cutting hours for a few weeks to dodge the law. We need a simple 12-week test, with a simple average of hours. That is fair, clear and enforceable.
This Bill is about common sense at work. If someone is sick, they should not be dragged into poverty; if they work regular hours, they should get a proper contract; and if they are unfairly treated, there should be consequences. This Bill was promised and voted for at the election; this Bill should now pass.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
We are addressing the specific issue of the removal of a limit on the cap. Of course, while this will have a big impact on businesses, it will also have a huge impact on our public sector. Large organisations that employ significant numbers of high-paid professionals, such as the NHS, will see their insurance costs driven up significantly by this measure, so it is all the more surprising that no consultation or impact assessment is before the House when we are asked to make the decision this evening.
We must reflect on the real-world impact of this measure, alongside the package of measures in a Bill that worthily deserves to be scrapped in its entirety. One of the proudest achievements of the last Conservative Government was that when we left office, youth unemployment was half what we inherited from the previous Labour Government. A huge share of those 4 million new jobs went to younger people. Today, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has hit over 1 million. The Resolution Foundation said, on this issue specifically, that
“young people are bearing the brunt of Britain’s jobs downturn”.
Most of us will have heard from businesses in our constituencies that all the measures in the Bill are significantly raising the barriers to entry for new workers into the market at a time when there is a double whammy. Our demographics as a country make it much harder to recruit them compared with older, more experienced workers, simply because there are fewer young people in our population. Imposing new measures like this that make it more expensive and harder for young people to get their first foot on the ladder is a dereliction of our duty to our economy. We must not forget that for our young people, many of whom we hope will end up as those high-paid professionals, getting and keeping a job is the thing that is most important in their lives—to their health, their mental wellbeing, their wealth and their long-term life prospects. In addition, it is our economy that pays not just for those people’s wellbeing, but for the public services on which so many other people depend.
In conclusion, while the whole Bill deserves to be scrapped—it is shocking to see the craven capitulation of the Liberal Democrats, rather than fighting the corner of British workers—let us at least vote to support this small change that has come from the other place. Let us show that somebody in this Chamber is on the side of jobseekers, wealth creators and those who will create future opportunities for our economy, our country and our people.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I will be brief. I proudly refer members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of several trade unions, and have indeed received money from trade unions to remove the Conservatives from power.
Speaking of removing the Conservatives from power, on 4 September I proudly voted, along with the vast majority of people in this House, to remove hereditary peers from the other place. I did so because I do not believe that individuals should be able to shape our laws purely because of the families they were born into. Whatever the arguments put forward on the Bill’s amendments, we are here today because hereditary peers stopped the progress of the Bill through the other place. The simple fact is that if we were to remove the hereditary peers who voted—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We are not debating hereditary peers; we are debating the amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.
Mark Sewards
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The votes in the other place serve only to strengthen my resolve that we must get the Bill through Parliament and strengthen the rights of workers.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
When I look to the other House, across the political divide I see captains of industry—people who have led businesses small and large. Does the hon. Member see any merit in their arguments?
Mark Sewards
We will always pay attention to the arguments made in the other place, but I place more credence on the arguments made by life peers—people who have been appointed because of their expertise and not because of the family they were born into. However, I appreciate that that point has been well made, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on.
Along with the fact that the Government have already compromised in good faith on the Bill with trade unions and businesses, and that those businesses and their representative organisations have welcomed what we have put in the Bill and called on us to pass it today, we were elected on a promise to get this Bill passed into law. Fire and rehire must be banned. Exploitative zero-hours contracts must be ruled out. Day one rights for parental and bereavement leave must be rolled out, and sick pay must be improved. Whichever way the House votes on these amendments today, I implore the hereditary peers in the other place to do the right thing, get out of the way, let this Bill pass and make work pay.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The impacts of the Bill in its current form are already being felt: 71% of businesses have raised serious concerns, with over 90% of small business owners expressing deep worries, resulting in 67% of companies preparing to halt recruitment. We already know that the Government do not understand business. That has been demonstrated clearly through the string of damaging policies trailing behind them, from the national insurance changes that are crippling the hospitality sector to the family farm tax that is undermining our national food security. Aspects of this Bill are no exception, the prime example being the complete removal of the employment tribunal cap on unfair dismissal compensatory awards.
As of June 2025, 515,000 open claims were in the system, and the numbers continue to rise. The employment tribunal system is inundated. It is overwhelmed and debilitated by cases, leaving thousands facing intolerable delays. Rather than addressing the issue through action that would significantly help working people—
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I wonder whether the hon. Member accepts that, as a number of colleagues have drawn to the House’s attention, the current system has a perverse incentive that pushes people towards a more complicated tribunal system that seeks to identify discrimination, rather than a simpler system of unfair dismissal, because of the cap. This measure is more likely to keep claims within the simpler, more streamlined and quicker system of unfair dismissal, thereby helping with the very problem that we all accept is real.
Bradley Thomas
I was just about to get to the point that I wanted to make: removal of the cap will make matters significantly worse. To put it plainly, it will open the floodgates for senior executives to pursue multimillion-pound claims that will further congest the courts. For many companies, the dismissal process for senior executives is fundamentally different from that used for other employees, in many cases as a result of strategic complexities relating to board involvement. Unlike the structured procedures applied to the wider workforce, senior leaders are seldom afforded opportunities such as performance improvement plans before removal. The Bill creates a significant liability and establishes a direct financial incentive for senior executives to pursue employment claims.
Paul Waugh
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at the moment, compensation for racial, sexual and disability discrimination, and for whistleblowers, is uncapped? What is the difference between that and being unfairly dismissed?
Bradley Thomas
The hon. Gentleman misses the point that I am making. Currently, there is no financial incentive for very senior executives who cannot exercise any leverage over things such as pay and equity, and the Bill risks clogging up the system. The CEOs of large UK corporations earn a median salary of over £4 million, compared with the £118,000 cap on unfair dismissal claims, so high earners have little incentive to lodge claims. Remove the cap and that incentive becomes glaringly obvious.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Bradley Thomas
I will make progress.
The idea that removing the cap will lead to anything other than a surge in cases is pure fantasy. This lack of understanding shows why the Government must listen to those who know how business works and recognise the devastating consequences that the Bill will have for companies and, crucially, for workers, rather than branding themselves champions of working people while advancing policies that benefit only high-fliers.
Graham Stuart
Labour colleagues shake their heads as my hon. Friend lays out the blindingly obvious. That goes to show why introducing a measure at the last minute during ping-pong is inappropriate and precisely why the House of Lords is right to say that we must consider this fully. It is quite obvious that Labour Members do not want to understand it; they obviously do not understand the implications.
Bradley Thomas
I thank my right hon. Friend, who makes his point eloquently, as usual.
The Government must abandon the measure. If they are really on the side of workers, the best thing they can do is abandon this measure—and abandon the Bill in its entirety.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful to have been called to speak in this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my membership of the GMB and my chairship of its parliamentary group—an unremunerated role.
The Bill has been the subject of 14 months of debate and scrutiny, and it should have received Royal Assent months ago. Let us not beat around the bush about why we are here tonight: the Bill has been deliberately delayed by some Members of the other place who disagree with the principle of what it seeks to achieve and with the electoral mandate behind it. The amendment that came from the Lords last week represents the last gasp of that approach, testing the limits of the democratic decision-making process and the constitutional relationship that binds these two Houses. This is no longer solely about workers’ rights; it has become a challenge by unelected peers to the primacy of the Commons and the greater legitimacy that our constituents lend us temporarily.
Sir Ashley Fox
Twelve months ago, the hon. Gentleman and I sat on the Bill Committee. This is the first time that the Commons has had the opportunity to debate this measure, courtesy of the House of Lords. The Lords have done us a favour, haven’t they?
Laurence Turner
I enjoyed many hours in proximity to the hon. Member. He will know that the only reason we are considering the measure in such a short time is that the Bill has been delayed, so close to the April implementation period, because of the Conservative party.
The final proof of the implications of the constitutional limits of what we are now being asked to consider can be found in the fact that the Opposition’s amendment was carried last week thanks to the votes of Conservative hereditary peers, who owe their positions to an accident of birth.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that his Government are yet to abolish the hereditary peers—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We are not having a debate on hereditary Members of the House of Lords. We are debating the Lords message on amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.
Laurence Turner
If the Lords amendment were not rejected, it would have two immediate effects. First, it would collapse the agreement between employers and union representatives. It is not some reasonable call for a review; it strikes out the changes to the compensation cap, which was a key component of that agreement. The Conservatives know that it is a nonsense to call for a review if the legislation that would give it effect is not carried—[Interruption.] Secondly, the amendment would so delay the Bill that April’s extension of statutory sick pay and parental leave for millions of people—some on the very lowest incomes—falls into doubt.
Dr Luke Evans
I was listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but he tailed off when he was talking about a problem, and it did not quite go through. I think that he was talking about the fact that there would be a delay because of the consultation. In 1999 and 2015 there were consultations on the very issue of a cap. Why have the Government not done that?
Laurence Turner
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, he would know that I was referring to the review called for in the Lords amendment. That is not all that the amendment contains; it seeks to strike out the powers to change the compensation cap. It is a nonsense to say on the one hand that the Bill must be halted in its track while there is a review, when the powers in question have been removed.
The delays to the April implementation of fundamental rights cannot be suffered. As the employers’ representatives have said, we are out of time. The opposition to the Bill is exhausted, and the Commons mandate must be respected. Parliament must pass the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
We are short on time, so I will limit myself to two points.
I will start with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) admirably described as the “craven capitulation” of the Liberal Democrats. Just a week ago, the Liberal Democrats were arguing passionately about unions’ abilities to cause strikes, and about the right to guaranteed hours. Then what happened? Five peerages came along. Now they are in favour of those things. It used to be the case with their last Prime Minister, Lloyd George, who famously used to sell peerages for money. Now it seems that the Liberal Democrats sell their principles for peerages.
Sarah Olney
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that is disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman is literally implying corruption. I made it very clear in my speech what the basis of our change in support in the Lords was for, and I think it is intolerable that we are being accused.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for her advice. As it happens, she makes a good point. The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) should not be suggesting any particular motive attributed to that issue, and could he perhaps confine his remaining comments for the next 90 seconds?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that direction, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let us move to Lords amendment 120N. This is a major new policy. We do not have to argue about whether a £118,000 cap is a good or bad idea. I think the cap is a good idea, but the amendment seeks to clarify the process by which the Government have decided to impose this measure in the Bill. It was not part of the manifesto. It was not part of the Bill or discussed in the Bill Committee. It has just been inserted at the last moment in ping-pong. There has been no risk assessment, no impact assessment, and no consultation. The amendment does not put the Government off course. All it asks the Government to do is, within three months of Royal Assent,
“conduct a review of the limit imposed by this section on the amount of the compensation awarded”.
That consultation only has to consult employers’ organisations, trade unions—one would think Labour Members would be in favour of that—and
“organisations representing employment law practitioners, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
If the Government choose to implement policy on the hoof, the least they can do is undertake a consultation that they should have carried out—
Kate Dearden
I am grateful to hon. Members across the House for their contributions today and throughout the passage of the Bill. When there is a finding of unfair dismissal at tribunal, it is important that the claimant is fairly compensated for the loss they have suffered. We also believe that the cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal incentivises claimants to construct complex cases that allege both unfair dismissal and discrimination so as to access uncapped compensation, as I stated in my introductory remarks—perhaps Conservative Members did not hear that. By removing the compensatory award cap for unfair dismissal claims, that incentive will be lessened.
By removing the cap, the Government will also deter employs from treating the cost of dismissing employees unfairly as part of business as usual, instead ensuring that employees who face significant losses as a result of being unfairly dismissed are fairly compensated. Compensation for unfair dismissal is awarded only where a tribunal finds in favour of the claimant. Claims that do not have merit will not secure any compensatory award with or without a cap.
Lifting the cap will not mean that compensatory awards start from a blank sheet of paper and become impossible to anticipate. Tribunals have well established ways to calculate the compensation that might be awarded for particular types of losses resulting from unfair dismissal. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for her support. As she referenced, and as Members will have heard in my introductory remarks, we will publish an economic assessment in due course, and I am always available for further discussion.
Conservative Members have opposed this Bill at every stage, and no matter what the issue was today, they would oppose it again. Businesses and unions have shown leadership, and Conservative Members and Parliament should respect their voice. The tripartite agreement was forged through dialogue with those who live the realities of our workplaces every day. That agreement included a package conducted in good faith and with good will, and I thank them for it.
This Government’s aim is clear: to conclude the passage of the Bill so that millions of British workers gain new rights while businesses can prepare for change with certainty. Labour Members send a clear message to the other place to now let the Bill—a Bill that delivers on multiple manifesto commitments and has a clear electoral mandate—pass. Any further delay risks leaving workers without protections and businesses without clarity. We now strive to conclude this process and deliver the change that Britian needs to make work pay. We cannot build a strong economy with people in insecure work. We are strengthening the foundations of our economy and improving living standards. The Bill, and all our work across Government, is the foundation for building an economy that works for everyone.
Question put.
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We want businesses to grow, innovate, expand, invest, find new markets here and overseas, develop new products and new services, and bring them successfully to market. That often requires two forms of financial support from Government: grants and loans. That is why the Bill builds on two different Acts of Parliament: the Industrial Development Act 1982, which provides grants to industry in the UK, and the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, which enables financial support by means of investment finance.
Of course, as Trade Minister, I am ambitious about trying to get more UK companies to export. It is a shame that only one in 10 British businesses exports, compared with three out of 10 French businesses and four out of 10 German businesses. If we could match the ambition of other countries, that would be a significant boost to the UK economy.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
Gareth Snell
It’s nice to be loved, isn’t it, Madam Deputy Speaker? I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the Bill. On exports, the world-leading ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent tells me that there used to be a fund that allowed companies to get help with the cost of going to trade expositions or being part of trade delegations, and that meant they could take their wares around the world to try to get those all-important exports. That fund no longer exists. If that fund could be brought back, I know that ceramics companies in Stoke would appreciate the opportunity to export, as this country is trying to do. Will the Minister look at that?
Chris Bryant
There are funds. Especially when there is a new free trade agreement, as in relation to India at the moment, we help lots of businesses. Businesses in the beauty industry, which I know my hon. Friend knows a lot about, have gone to a recent exhibition in India, because under the FTA, India will be taking the tariff down from, I think, 20% or so to zero. That is a big opportunity for British businesses. There are sometimes funds available.
I will look at how the ceramics industry in particular is treated. As my hon. Friend knows, I would like to establish stronger support for the ceramics industry in general, because we should be proud of it. As he also knows, I am looking at the presents that we as Government Ministers give to other Government Ministers; we could be a bit more ambitious about ensuring that they are things that people really want, and perhaps they could come from one of our creative industries, such as ceramics.
Free trade agreements can get rid of tariffs, and that is a very important way of enabling more exports, but we can also often do a great deal by getting rid of the non-tariff barriers that exist in many countries. Export ambition, even from companies that would like to export, often needs financial assistance. That is precisely what UK Export Finance is there for.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was there first, and then I will take an intervention from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).
Jim Shannon
I welcome what the Minister has said; he has clearly underlined that all parts of the United Kingdom can benefit. As the Minister will know, we are very fortunate in Northern Ireland to have a very strong agrifood sector, which promotes itself wherever it can across Europe, across the mainland and further afield. The defence sector is also active, and the Government help to create extra procurement and extra apprenticeships is very welcome. However, there are also small and medium-sized enterprises, which are mostly involved in engineering, and this group of businesses could do more. I ask the Minister, very kindly, whether he could give us an idea of what can be done for them. We want to encourage them to be involved and to export.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member is absolutely right that the vast majority of the companies we will be talking about are SMEs—88% of the companies that benefit from UK Export Finance are SMEs. We are bringing forward this Bill because we are getting to the limit of what is allowed under current legislation and we need to expand that. I have specifically spoken to UK Export Finance about looking at new ways to support SMEs. The retail banking sector in the UK also sometimes needs to understand better how it can support small and medium-sized enterprises to export around the world. One of the things that I have been trying in my own small way is to do a supermarket sweep when I have been abroad for trade missions: to see whether Rose’s lime marmalade, Walker’s biscuits, Marmite, Irn-Bru or Penderyn whisky—or whatever it may be—is available around the world. The more we can encourage businesses to export, the more likely they are to prosper.
One of the advantages in Northern Ireland in particular is that, because of the Windsor framework, it has an opportunity to enter into an EU market much more readily than elsewhere. One of the sadnesses of Brexit is that 16,000 fewer businesses in the UK now export, and that is largely because they have given up on Europe. That is one of the things I radically want to change.
Chris Bryant
I can see the hon. and learned Gentleman is practically pregnant with a question.
Jim Allister
It is always good to hear about a rise in the availability of financial assistance to industry. In the context of Northern Ireland, the Minister has referred to the Windsor framework. One of its drawbacks is that Northern Ireland is subject to EU state aid rules. In my constituency, I have a large bus manufacturer that sells buses to Germany. Can I seek an assurance from the Minister that that company, for example, will not be disadvantaged by the cap in state aid rules in comparison with a competitor bus manufacturer in another part of the United Kingdom where there is not a state aid limitation?
Chris Bryant
This is one of the problems with Brexit, isn’t it? It has provided a variety of different sets of rules for different parts of the United Kingdom, and that was always one of its inherent problems. Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, and we are now trying to make it work as best we can. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course there are going to be problems under state aid rules for some businesses in Northern Ireland. That is why we are trying to do two things at the same time: to ensure that the Windsor framework is adhered to, but also ensure that we have a single UK internal market.
The Bill is short—it just manages to get on to a second page—but it does some important things. First, it increases the Industrial Development Act limit on financial assistance from £12 billion to £20 billion. Secondly, it raises the amount that the Secretary of State may increase the limit by from £1 billion to £1.5 billion. That is something he can do four times under the 1982 Act. Thirdly, the Bill amends the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 to increase the commitment level from roughly £84 billion to £160 billion. Fourthly, the Bill allows the limit to be increased by increments of up to £15 billion by secondary legislation. Finally—this is perhaps the single most important and most useful thing to the ordinary punter out there—it changes the 1991 Act so that the limit is expressed in pounds sterling. In other words, it will be in common parlance, rather than referring to special drawing rights, which I think has confused an awful lot of people for a long time.
I will give just a few examples of why all of this matters. Some £14.5 billion of UK Export Finance support last year was used to support 70,000 jobs, adding £5.4 billion to GDP in the UK, including across several key industrial sectors such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and automotive.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear the Minister explaining what the Bill will do and how it will contribute to business, but in the creative industries and particularly in fashion, young designers struggle to access international markets and export finance. What are we going to do to support creative industries such as fashion so that we do not lose them in the UK?
Chris Bryant
That is an extremely good point. The creative industries are, of course, one of the eight key industrial sectors that we are keen to promote. The music export growth scheme is specifically intended to ensure that a wide variety of acts are able to tour around the world. We need to sort out with the European Union the issue of British acts being able to tour effectively and cost-effectively around Europe, but bands from Scotland, Wales and every part of England have been able to access that finance, and it is a key part of what we do.
As for fashion, I know that you try to do your bit, Madam Deputy Speaker—as, I am sure, do all Members who want to promote British fashion—but it is important to note that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport provides support for NewGen. A fair amount of London Fashion Week is supported by either the Department for Business and Trade or the DCMS, and many NewGen designers have gone on to achieve great success in the market. We also try to ensure that we have a presence in other fashion weeks, such as those in Paris and New York, and we provide other finance as well. There is a wide variety of measures, some of which are covered by the Bill, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the creative industries are very much part of what we are considering. I was struck by, in some—oh, I am not allowed to refer to those matters until tomorrow.
Chris Bryant
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for shutting me up.
Sir Edward Leigh
Believe it or not, more than 30 years ago I was a Minister for fashion and regional policy. These things go round in a circle, and I warn the Minister —with some experience of this—that many companies were caught in a sort of Catch-22: if they were too successful, the Department of Trade and Industry would not let them be helped, and if they were not successful enough, there was always a risk that they might go bust. How is the Minister going to hit the sweet spot and make sure that we direct the money to where it is most needed?
Chris Bryant
Well, I hope that I can find the right hon. Gentleman’s sweet spot, as he is such a dedicated follower of fashion. He has made a very fair point. This is the classic problem for Governments when it comes to any industrial support, whether it is a loan or a grant: if the business is so successful, why does it need additional financial support? That is why, because of the structure that we have created through those two Acts, UK Export Finance actually makes money for the British Government. It is based on loans being made at normal rates, and sometimes it manages to lever in retail finance as well, which is a particularly important part of its work. However, when we provide a grant we have to ensure that it is intended to achieve a set series of aims. For instance, the £128 million—I think—that has been given to BioNTech is specifically designed to develop two new R&D hubs producing 400 new highly paid jobs in the life sciences sector, and also, incidentally, to tackle skin conditions and melanoma, which are among the subjects on which it is working.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that a difficult moment often arises, but one of the complaints I have received from quite a few sectors is that the UK can be a bit slow about deciding when we are going to support someone, and I want to be able to speed up that process as much as possible. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), I think the key to much of what we are trying to do involves supporting SMEs. Of course there will be massive contracts, such as the $3.5 billion expression of interest that we have allowed for the building of the new Dubai airport so that British businesses will be able to put in for some of the ensuing tenders—perhaps for hangar doors, the building of additional facilities, maintenance services or architectural designs. However, 88% of what we are talking about in respect of UK Export Finance is for SMEs.
I will make two more points, and then I will come to a close. Through existing provisions in the Industrial Development Act, the British Business Bank’s northern powerhouse investment fund II has directly invested £115 million in more than 300 small businesses. Similarly, in the midlands, the midlands engine investment fund II has launched a £400 million fund to drive sustainable economic growth by supporting innovation and creating local opportunity for new and growing businesses.
I am getting a feeling from the Chamber that everyone will be supporting the Bill. I think that, broadly speaking, it has cross-party support, and I think it important that we get it on the statute book soon enough to be able to provide that support for the businesses in the UK in the next financial year, so that we can prosper, grow the economy and protect jobs.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I am delighted to respond on behalf of the Conservatives, who have always championed British businesses. We believe very much in the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, the skill of our engineers and the global reputation of our exporters. The Bill amends Acts dating from 1982 and 1991, and we believe that, time and again, our companies have shown that, with the right conditions, they can compete and win on the world stage. Updating those Acts will ensure that the Government have the tools to support our industries and exporters.
We should take pride in the extraordinary success of British exporters. The latest UK Export Finance annual report shows the scale of their achievements. Rolls-Royce and Airbus have together secured guarantees worth £165 million for supplying Ethiopian Airlines, £102 million for Avolon in Ireland and £66 million for Emirates in Dubai. That gives the House a flavour of the kind of deals supported through this finance. Defence exports remain significant too, with BAE Systems and MBDA receiving over £120 million per major contract, including support for the very important air defence systems in Poland. These figures demonstrate the global demand for British engineering, aerospace and defence expertise.
However, as the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks, beyond the headline numbers, 80% of firms supported by UK Export Finance are small and medium-sized businesses, which often supply the more global contracts. With their innovation and resilience, they are the backbone of our export economy, and they also deserve support and visibility.
The UK has a leading export and finance sector, and it can usually cover the commercial risks involved in exports, so UK export finance should be deployed only when no private sector solution is available. Generally, we are in favour of reducing subsidies, rather than increasing them, so we do not support additional taxpayer funding for the industrial strategy until the Government get the fundamentals of energy prices, tax and regulation right. Without tackling those basics, no amount of subsidy will ever deliver the competitiveness that our businesses need.
I have a few questions for the Minister. Can he assure the House that UK Export Finance will continue to be deployed only where no private sector funding can be secured? If this Bill is to meet its aims, export assistance must be spread across the regions. We saw from the autumn “Santander Trade Barometer” that three quarters of businesses that want targeted export support are beyond our capital. Optimism is high in sectors such as technology and media, but firms in Scotland and energy, construction and engineering companies are much more cautious. So there are regional disparities in economic outlook that the Government must address.
UK Export Finance is there to guarantee exports when the private sector cannot, and we would expect it to focus on countries where credit risks are higher. What new markets is the funding likely to be used for, and will some of the additional capacity be reserved for small and medium-sized businesses? Can the Minister reassure the House that none of this finance would ever be used to support exports to countries that could allow such goods to get around the sanctions on Russia, and that they are not used to export to any country that would wish us harm? Can he also reassure the House that, as the Foreign Office undergoes a restructuring, our fine network of embassies and high commissions are made aware of this so that we make the most of this export finance opportunity and have the right teams in place to support UK plc? Those are my opening questions for the Minister.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I am most grateful to the Minister for his statement. I hugely welcome the Government’s determination to increase trade, especially in the aftermath of Brexit. That is what it is all about: expanding and clarifying the spending limit for UK Export Finance. As we have heard, UK Export Finance has a very proud history of boosting British exports, and supporting thousands of companies and tens of thousands of British jobs. The Bill means that it will be able to do even more.
I am delighted to say that I have had the privilege of seeing UK Export Finance in action at first hand in my capacity as the trade envoy to Morocco and francophone west Africa. Just last month, I had the privilege of heading the UK delegation to the francophone West and Central Africa Forum in Togo. It was attended by nearly 1,000 people from business and Government from the UK and 10 rapidly growing African countries, all of them seeking new opportunities for trade and economic partnership. UK Export Finance did an absolutely brilliant job of co-organising the event. In my opening speech to the forum, I was very proud to be able to set out a UK approach that is based on co-production rather than extraction, an approach based on mutual respect—so different from what they have perhaps learnt to expect from other countries in the past.
Ambassadors have been mentioned. I very much appreciated having UK Export Finance’s expert support alongside our ambassadors in the bilateral meetings that I was able to hold with the President of the Council of Ministers of Togo and with representatives of the Governments of Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, Cameroon and the Republic of Congo, where we explored numerous opportunities to go further on trade, for example on electricity networks or, as the Minister mentioned, Scottish whisky—that also came up. Now, UKEF is building on what it achieved. Its hard work means that the forum will turn into investable projects, which will in turn translate into jobs, exports and impact. The theme of the forum was “success breeds success”. I am delighted that, through the Bill, we are enabling UKEF to create even more success in the future for the UK economy and our trading partners.
Closer to home, we should point out that UKEF also has an important role increasing our trade with the massive European Union market on our doorstep. The disaster—the absolute disaster—of Brexit has damaged our economy hugely. More than 16,000 SMEs have given up trading with the EU since it happened. We have lost billions in tax revenue for our NHS and schools. The idiot comment from the previous Prime Minister that the NHS would get money from Brexit turned out to be totally the opposite: we have lost billions in tax revenue for the NHS.
Alongside my determination to increase trade with Africa, I have high hopes for increasing trade with the EU, as do many, many Members on the Labour Benches; there is no single part of the House that has a monopoly on wishing, sensibly, to trade more with the European Union. The Government’s reset is very welcome. I am keen for them to be even more ambitious. We must recognise that there is no swifter route to growth than getting rid of Brexit red tape. I welcome the fact that the UK and the EU are currently negotiating an agreement to ditch much of the Brexit bureaucracy that has hit our food and drink exports and imports. I hope that will lead to lower food prices and new job opportunities for the British people. I would like to see us go even further. For example, let us boost our manufacturing industry by seeking mutual recognition with the EU of conformity assessments. Let us boost our services sector by seeking mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman talks effusively about the benefits of our biggest trading partner, Europe, and the disaster of Brexit. Does he agree with me that we should be forging a new customs union as soon as possible?
Ben Coleman
I am immensely surprised to hear that intervention—almost as surprised as I was to see Liberal Democrat Members put forward the customs union idea the other day! We struck a deal with the EU in May. We need to implement that deal. We need to see through the deal we are negotiating on food and drink. We need to talk about youth experience and a whole range of other things. Let us do those. Let us deliver on what we promised. Let us implement what we promised. Let us build the trust.
I sat down the other day with about a dozen ambassadors from EU countries, and let me tell the House, there is very little appetite for Britain going into a customs union until we have shown that we can be trusted and have delivered what we are already promising to deliver. Yes, that sort of comment might arouse the interest of some, but at this stage it is not the best thing for Britain to plough forward in that direction. Let us deliver on the deals we have, not throw them aside, reject them or say they are pointless. They will deliver jobs and lower prices for British people and that is what we need in the aftermath of Brexit.
As this Government seek every opportunity to enhance trade and economic growth, ensuring that UK Export Finance has the resources it needs to underpin export growth is the right way forward. The winners will be businesses in every part of our country.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Let me be clear at the outset that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We do so because we recognise that British businesses need backing to compete globally, and both the industrial support package and the export finance package have vital roles to play in that. The increases proposed in the Bill represent a major expansion in Government capacity and give us the opportunity to ensure that that expansion serves our priorities as a country: supporting small businesses, driving green growth and maintaining proper democratic oversight.
Small business owners have told me that the current system simply does not work for them. UK Export Finance’s processes are designed for larger transactions, larger businesses and those that are already exporting. UK Export Finance’s criteria state clearly that in any one of the last three years at least 20%, or in each of the last three years at least 5%, of a business’s annual turnover needs to be made up from export sales, but those thresholds mean that businesses trying to break into the export market, or those growing still quite modest export activity, cannot access support. As we expand UK Export Finance’s capacity, let us make sure that the commitment made is about not just bigger deals and bigger companies, but making UK Export Finance work for smaller businesses—the backbone of British exports—with simpler application processes, lower eligibility thresholds for SMEs and dedicated support teams made up of those who really understand SMEs the best.
As the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) said, we also need to understand the elephant in the room, which is that we are discussing expanding capacity of UK Export Finance at precisely the moment when British exporters face unprecedented challenges with our largest trading partner, the EU. The Chartered Institute of Export and International Trade has documented the impact, saying that among the smallest firms—those with six employees or fewer—the value of their exports to the EU fell by 30% after the trade and co-operation agreement was struck; meanwhile, firms with more than 107 employees were largely unaffected.
The Institute of Directors’ January 2025 “Policy Voice” survey found that 54.8% of businesses that previously exported and have stopped cited as a reason the UK’s trading relationship with the EU. More than half of former exporters surveyed gave up because of the barriers to trade with Europe. We are not talking about businesses that have failed to break into distant markets; we are talking about established exporters abandoning our nearest and largest market because the barriers have become insurmountable.
The priority for small manufacturers is assistance in navigating customs declarations and rules of origin to sell in Europe. These are markets they have served for decades, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a fundamental reset of our relationship with Europe—a new bespoke UK-EU customs union that would cut through red tape, boost gross domestic product by an estimated 2.2% and generate roughly £25 billion in tax revenues, according to the House of Commons Library.
Gareth Snell
I hate to burst the hon. Gentleman’s bubble, but in 2019, when this House was grappling with how to take forward Brexit, there was a vote on 1 April on a proposal from the then Member for Rushcliffe, now Lord Clarke, on staying in the customs union. I voted for that, as did my party, but it failed by three votes. Five Members from his party, including the now party leader, voted against that proposal, on the basis that trying to kill any deal might keep us in the European Union. I appreciate the position he is coming from, but one of the reasons we do not have a customs union today is the actions of his party many years ago.
Mr Reynolds
In reality, we need to look at the positions that were on the table at the time. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the positions that both our parties took when the votes were happening. Obviously I was not in the House at the time, but I recall watching and listening to colleagues on the Labour Benches opposing various things that we put forward. The proposal that the Liberal Democrats are putting forward today would add £25 billion a year to the revenue coming into the Treasury. That money is not to be sniffed at, and it should be supported across the whole House.
In discussing the doubling of UK Export Finance’s capacity to £160 billion, we need to ask ourselves whether that extra money is going to address the export challenges that British businesses actually face. Despite the fundamental barriers to the markets, the Government’s answer is simply to expand capacity, without addressing whether that capacity will be able to reach the businesses that need it most.
While I appreciate that, according to its 2024-25 annual report, UK Export Finance put in £14.5 billion of new finance, that only supported 667 UK businesses to grow and invest. UK Export Finance’s business plan for 2024 to 2029 clearly states its five-year milestones, including that it wants to support an extra 1,000 SMEs to export every year until 2029. That target was introduced under the previous Government, but it has not been amended under the current Government. Considering that there are 5.7 million SMEs in the UK and that facilitating export is a critical tool for economic growth, that number seems pitifully small. I would value the Minister’s thoughts on whether that target of 1,000 is his target and whether it can be improved. It is my hope that the Bill will ultimately support a more ambitious target for UK Export Finance. It would be stronger if we acknowledged the reality of supporting small businesses and removed the practical barriers that stop SMEs from exporting.
That brings me to my final point: parliamentary oversight. We are to spend £20 billion on industry assistance and guarantee up to £160 billion for export finance. This House deserves more than just retrospective annual reports. Fundamentally, these are political decisions about which sectors succeed, which regions benefit and how Britain competes globally. We need to have regular parliamentary scrutiny of spending decisions, transparent criteria for allocating support and proper impact assessments that show whether the funding is actually working. The assessments must show not just how much has been spent but whether it is reaching the businesses that need it the most and delivering the economic growth that we were promised.
We support the Bill. The Government have brought forward legislation that recognises that British businesses need backing, but British businesses need proper industry and export support that is strategically directed, environmentally responsible, democratically accountable and rooted in the challenges that they actually face. I hope that the Bill will deliver that.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I support the Bill. It is a common-sense adjustment of limits that were set in another economic age, so that powers that Parliament has long judged to be legitimate can carry on being exercised to support our industry. It is not in the interests of working people for arbitrary historical figures to determine whether the Government can act in the national interest today or in the future. No country can sensibly insist that its industries compete in the modern world and at the same time bind its own hands with ceilings fixed years ago when the scale of production, trade and finance were altogether smaller—and indeed when my hon. Friend the Minister was last on the Government Benches, though of course he has not aged a day since then.
Without this Bill, both UK Export Finance and assistance under the Industrial Development Act 1982 would simply run into statutory limits because the law has failed to keep pace with reality. In places like Teesside, we know what happens when the tools of industrial policy are allowed to rust. We have seen world-class steelmaking exposed not because the work lacked value but because the state lacked the capacity or will to act. This Government have shown, including in their response to the challenges facing British Steel, that they will not hesitate to step in when working people’s security is on the line. This Bill is another step to ensure that that ability to act is preserved.
For industries such as steel, which are foundational to our defence, energy, infrastructure and advanced manufacturing, an active state is a necessity. The Bill is not the whole answer, and the steel industry still needs a full steel strategy as well as clarity from the Government about their response to the current global trading environment. However, the Bill is a reasonable change to support the industrial strategy and ensure that assistance already sanctioned by this House in principle does not fail in practice because legal ceilings have been allowed to fossilise. I therefore support the Bill.
There is a clear difference between intervention that entrenches privilege and intervention that enables productive work when private markets alone cannot bear the risk. Anyone who has spent any time at all speaking to our steel manufacturers, who are competing against heavily-backed overseas rivals, understands that distinction.
In that sense, the Bill is simply a maintenance of our existing capacity, updating it to today’s values. It keeps faith with our strategic industries and the communities on which they rely and ensures that the instruments that Parliament has judged necessary are not rendered useless by neglect. It also supports jobs across every region of the country and in doing so preserves Britain’s ability to make, build and export. For those reasons, I support the Bill.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, particularly as a Member of Parliament representing a proud manufacturing seat. Our country as a whole has a proud tradition as one of the world’s leading trading nations, and exports remain a critical part of our modern economy.
Here at home, British companies continue to lead the way through innovation, research and development and high-tech manufacturing, building on our rich industrial history, but we all know that the global marketplace is changing rapidly, so it is crucial that to deliver the Government’s growth mission to spread prosperity across the country—including to constituencies like mine in the north-east—Ministers have the flexibility they need to support businesses in a changing world. That includes the provisions in the Bill to increase the funding cap for Government support to industry and increase the financial support provided by UK Export Finance to British businesses.
There are three reasons why these changes are important. First, it is crucial that we can support UK firms to compete in an increasingly complex and contested global economy, as other hon. Members have mentioned. As we see the growth of tariffs and protectionism making world markets harder to navigate, it is right that UK Export Finance should have an increased ability to provide the financial support that exporting businesses need.
I see that in my own constituency, which is home to a number of world-class companies who trade their products all over the world. Between them, they employ many thousands of local residents. They include innovative SMEs such as Filtronic, which recently secured a £47 million global order for satellite communications technologies; Kromek, which supplies radiation and biological weapon detection equipment to the US, Ukraine and our European allies; and Roman in my home town of Newton Aycliffe, whose showers and bathroom products are sold to hotel chains all over the world. Those manufacturing businesses, designing the next generation of products—each leaders in their respective fields—are exactly the enterprises that we as a Government want to encourage and support. That is why increasing the limit on UK Export Finance funding, and the Government’s wider work on these matters to support modern manufacturing, is so crucial.
Secondly, I am proud that the Government are prepared to intervene to support British business to thrive, acting confidently to crowd in investment and to step in to support the long-term future of major industries. Unfortunately, as we have seen over many years in the north-east, that stands in sharp contrast to the previous Conservative Government, who too often stood by while businesses failed, jobs were lost and regional economies were damaged when strategic intervention by the state could have made all the difference.
Of course, this is not a power that should be used lightly, but it can be an important tool when Government intervention can be the deciding factor. We have seen the value of this approach since Labour came to office in the decisive action taken at British Steel in Scunthorpe and at Jaguar Land Rover in the west midlands. I am proud that this Labour Government do not just talk about supporting modern industry but roll up their sleeves and get on with it.
The third and final reason is that while innovation, ingenuity and industrial prowess are found across our nation, for too long that has not been matched by an equitable spread of Government support across the many communities we serve. Since the election, I have been pleased to see UK Export Finance and other Government funds support businesses in a wide range of communities, and financial support for industry provided in traditional manufacturing areas that have often previously missed out. To kick-start growth and ensure that that growth benefits everyone, it is important that innovative firms are supported wherever they are found.
In conclusion, this Bill is very welcome, and as we work hard to support British firms in an increasingly complex global economy, it is vital that we give Ministers and Government bodies the flexibility they need to respond in an effective and agile way. The Minister said that this is a straightforward Bill, but as part of the wider package of measures we are taking to support industry and exports, the positive impacts that these measures could have on growing our economy and supporting UK business will be incredibly important.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This is an important Bill, not only for the agenda of increasing trade and therefore economic growth, but for our entire foreign policy in this chaotic and insecure international environment. My work over the past year as trade envoy to southern Africa has shown me just how important joined-up trade finance is to our diplomacy and to securing UK interests around the world, particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) said, in the steel industry. In many contexts, but particularly in Africa, economic diplomacy that centres trade and investment is what our partners want from us, and this is reflected in the new UK-Africa approach that was launched earlier today. Unless we have the means to commit financially and an anchor to bring together UK businesses and investors, there will be many serious challenges that we cannot overcome.
We need to build partnerships on critical minerals that protect our economy from the weaponisation of supply chains, particularly by China, and to implement the new critical minerals strategy. We need to create deeper economic ties with fast-growing countries and regions, including many of our partners in Africa, because we have been losing out on serious growth opportunities for the lack of a focused, strategic approach over the past decade and a half. We need to show our partners that we have a modern approach to international development that recognises and works with their own strategies and ambitions and therefore puts economic transformation at its heart. This requires us to be much more joined up across Government, and to do more with the resources available.
I want to ask the Minister how the changes in the Bill will complement UK Export Finance’s update of its own strategy. How will we enable organisations with a very long-term focus, including not only UKEF but British International Investment, to be more nimble and more ambitious in working together with our diplomats? As the Minister knows, I firmly believe that what our partners want from the UK is the exercise of cohering power: not providing the whole solution to our shared challenges, but being more willing to step forward and play a leading role in building that solution. Within this, our institutions could provide a bigger economic impact and secure far more UK influence if they worked more in collaboration on larger projects such as infrastructure, trade corridors, energy grid developments and critical minerals processing. This includes working together with close partner institutions, such as those of Japan and Canada, as well as with our EU partners.
The Minister will have read my views on these matters. It is clear that the UK is viewed as a cohering partner in sub-Saharan Africa, and I hope that UKEF being front and centre of that cohering international co-operation will help to address Chinese influence in the region. How does he think we can more effectively support UKEF and others to do that, given that it may require a more nimble and flexible approach than the UK institutions are used to? Today’s Africa approach rightly highlights the UK’s support for the African continental free trade area, but promoting intra-Africa trade and the critical agenda to move up the value chain often requires us to look across borders and apply a regional lens when we assess which projects to support. Can the Minister tell us how UKEF will do this?
Finally, I note that resource constraints are inevitably a threat to the implementation of the Africa approach, the critical minerals strategy and trade growth more widely. I have seen some innovative approaches across the continent that we can learn lessons from, including greater use of chambers of commerce to ensure that country and regional expertise on UK trade and investment relationships is preserved. I want to pour praise on the ambassadors in Mozambique, Zambia, Gabon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola, who have all demonstrated exceptional approaches to trade creation and innovation. I wish to ensure that they have the Minister’s support in the retention of those posts and our diplomatic network. Will the Minister set out how UKEF and our other key public institutions will work seamlessly across all mechanisms of government to ensure that we get the greatest value for public money, even when resources are tight?
Expanded trade finance through UKEF is an essential tool for putting these strategies into practice and making our country and our partners more prosperous and secure. The Bill takes welcome steps in fixing the framework governing UKEF and making that progress possible. I thank the Minister and his Government colleagues for their engagement with me on these issues over the past months, and I look forward to playing my part in driving this shared agenda forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
To wind up, with the leave of the House, I call the shadow Minister.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I would like to pick up on some of the points made in today’s interesting debate and to reiterate that, as Conservatives, we have always stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain’s businesses and great exporters. In my opening remarks, I asked some questions of the Minister, and I look forward to hearing his replies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for all the work they are doing as trade envoys to the west and south of Africa. I remember when I was Africa Minister thinking how enormous the potential is for us to do more business with these nations, so it is interesting to hear how that work is moving forward.
A number of Members highlighted the excellent export work done by small and medium-sized businesses, and we heard some excellent examples from the north-east in particular. We also heard the case made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for the importance of small and medium-sized businesses. I reiterate to the Minister, so that he is aware, the importance for the House of this money not just getting swallowed up by some of the larger household names, such as Rolls-Royce, Airbus and BAE Systems, but it giving that fighting chance to some of the smaller exporters.
I want to pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead made about the customs union. The House will recognise how much work was put in to getting landmark trade agreements with 70 countries that give UK exporters preferential access to markets worth trillions of pounds. It is work that the Minister continues energetically around the world, and he will no doubt in his closing remarks point to the India and US free trade deals, which are important pieces of work that he has been involved in. Those free trade agreements that the UK has managed to negotiate would not be possible if we were in the European Union customs union. I challenge the hon. Member to point to where the research is on this fabled £25 billion.
In conclusion, the words of Ronald Reagan keep popping into my head during debates in this Parliament. He famously said:
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
I hope to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box how he will ensure that this additional money is used in the way that I said in my opening remarks, where it crowds in private sector investment and is there as a last resort to get a deal over the line, rather than crowding out private sector funding that would have been there were it not for the Government funds. Without further ado, having got my favourite Reagan quote about this Government on the record, I can assure the House that we will not be opposing the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.
Chris Bryant
I thank colleagues for everything that they have had to say. I am not sure whether it was Reagan or Bush, but one of them went to France and said that the trouble with the French economy was that there was no French word for “entrepreneur”. It was repeated by a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, who went to Wales and said that there is no word in Welsh for “entrepreneur”—that was a bit ironic.
I will try to do something extraordinary, Madam Deputy Speaker, by answering the questions that have been put to the Government. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I don’t think it will catch on. I will start with the questions put by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). Her first question was about whether I can guarantee that no commercial finance will ever be used where UKEF finance is involved. The strict answer to that is no. However, UKEF’s mission is
“to ensure that no viable UK export should fail for lack of finance or insurance from the private sector.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) made the key point about cohering power. That is precisely what UKEF is able to provide. Sometimes, particularly under export development guarantees, UKEF funding can help to extend capacity or terms—that is an important part of what it does. It is not that there will never, ever be commercial finance and UKEF funding, but obviously we are not trying to supplant commercial funding. We are also aware, of course, that financial services are one of the key things that we do around the world. We are trying to shift our FTAs towards dealing not just with goods but with services, because that is where some of the added value is for the UK.
Several hon. Members have asked about regional disparities. Those are one of the key things we have charged UKEF with, and I know that it is keen to address them. I have a long list in my briefing notes of different parts of the country in which UKEF funding has been supportive or where there have been grants, but I will not lay them all out now.
The shadow Minister asked about new markets. That is often precisely what we are looking for: new markets for individual exporters and new markets for the UK in general. One area in which we have set aside money was specifically in relation to Ukraine, where the reconstruction will be one of the most important things for UK businesses to be involved in over future years. It will be difficult to get the insurance necessary to be able to provide that simply on the open market, which is why UKEF funding is particularly important.
The shadow Minister said that we should not export to companies that could do us harm. She is absolutely right about the side-stepping of sanctions on Russia. We have frequent discussions about that, and UKEF is particularly keen on carrying out due diligence on it. It is why we must constantly revise how we implement our sanctions regime, to ensure that it is doing damage to the Russian Federation’s economic advances.
Chris Bryant
Yes, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was here for the rest of the debate. [Interruption.] Oh, he was sitting on the Front Bench—I do apologise.
David Reed
I thank the Minister. Just on a point of clarification—I am sure that this will be hammered out in Committee—we have heard about the assistance that the Government have given over the past 15 months to UK Steel, Jaguar Land Rover and others, but it is important to talk about the significant cyber element. Jaguar Land Rover was hit by a big cyber-attack, and we saw a step change when the Government stepped in and essentially made British taxpayers the insurance company. Does the Minister see any risk in the Bill, and what message does it send to adversaries such as Russia, which he just mentioned?
Chris Bryant
On cyber, financing and JLR, I might have to correct myself in writing to the hon. Gentleman if I get what I say wrong, but as far as I am aware, I am not sure that JLR has drawn down any of the finances from UKEF that we made available. We thought it was important to ensure that the guarantee was there so that the company was able to proceed. That would be of assistance not only to JLR, but to the extended supply chain, much of which needed to deliver precisely on time, because of the way the automative industry now works, and they did not have large stocks of things that they were keeping against the day when they might be called up by JLR.
We certainly do not want to be the insurer of last resort for everybody who gets into a cyber-security problem. That is why the Government have a cyber-strategy, and we are keen to ensure that businesses take that part of their responsibility seriously. We have seen the dramatic effects that it can have on the UK economy when that goes wrong; this is a serious point. I have seen no evidence that what happened at JLR was specifically related to Russia, but we must maintain vigilance on all these matters.
The shadow Minister’s final question—I am not leaving any of them out—was about how we make sure that posts know about UKEF. We have heard already from two of our trade envoys that posts are extremely well aware of the existence of UKEF, and of how completely transformative that can be when a business is seeking to expand into a particular market. I would say that the problem is that sometimes not enough businesses in the UK are aware of UKEF, which is one of the things I have been talking through with UKEF senior management.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) has been doing a magnificent job, because I have seen video footage of him on the “News at 10” in Togo, speaking in French. We are glad that we have such a linguist in our team, and he is right to raise some of the issues in relation to the EU. We want frictionless trade. That is what we were promised, and we are going to try to achieve it as far as we possibly can. Sometimes that will mean that we align as much as possible with the European Union, rather than diverge for the sake of divergence. Of course it means that we need to get more mutual recognition agreements in place. There is a series of industries where I would like to achieve that, not least architecture.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) gave the traditional single transferable EU speech from the Liberal Democrats. I agree with large chunks of what he was saying, but not with his final premise. As I say, within the parameters of what we have, we want to deliver frictionless trade as much as possible. Everybody in my Department laughs at me, but I often refer to floristry. There are florists in every constituency in this land, and if it costs more to bring flowers in from Europe than it did in the past, that is a problem for lots of small family businesses up and down the land. That is why sorting out sanitary and phytosanitary measures over the next few months is an important priority for the Government. He asked whether the target of 1,000 SMEs is ours or that of the previous Government—it is our target as well. We want to be ambitious about that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about spending decisions and accountability. If only he knew somebody on the Business and Trade Committee to whom he could talk about questions of UKEF. Oh no, he’s on it—I’d completely forgotten, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am sure there are plenty of means for him, but I gently say to him that in my experience, the whole system of accountability of expenditure in the House is pretty shabby. It is not my job to write how we should change that in the future, but he might come up with some suggestions and put them to others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) said that I had not aged a day since I was last a Minister under Queen Victoria, but I think he inadvertently misled the House; I hope at some time that he will be able to correct the record. He is absolutely right about arbitrary figures. There are arbitrary figures, and previous Acts of Parliament did not allow us to amend them to update them sufficiently in line with inflation—we need this primary legislation to do that.
My hon. Friend is also right about the steel industry. I assure him that our steel strategy will come out in the new year. It will be very clear about how important we think the steel industry is to the UK, and about having a sovereign capacity in the UK for a variety of different forms of steel manufacture. As I told the House last Thursday, I was in Brussels last Wednesday to meet Commissioner Šefčovič to talk about the EU steel safeguards, and to make sure it is understood that we are not the problem for the EU and the EU is not the problem for us, so we ought to be able to come to some agreement in that space. We know that our steel safeguard runs out at the end of June. We need to make sure that we have adequate measures in place thereafter, and we will do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) talked about the importance of exports, in particular for businesses in his own region. To give cite just one statistic, UKEF provided a £590 million loan for SeAH Wind UK, which is building an offshore wind factory in Teesside. It will create 750 jobs by 2027 and will assist the UK steel industry, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right and I agree with him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, who is another of our magnificent trade envoys, asked more questions than the shadow Minister—I am not sure whether he is auditioning for some other post. He is absolutely right about the importance of our critical minerals strategy. Our relationship with Africa will be essential to deliver on that; other countries are seeking to make inroads there, and we cannot leave that be. He asked how the updated UKEF strategy fitted with what we are doing today. Well, the new strategy simply cannot exist without the extension of the financial provisions that we are introducing through the Bill.
My hon. Friend also talked about the cohering power, which is very important. He said that I could read his views—I know can, because he gave me a letter only 10 days ago, which I have read and officials in the Department are reading as well. I am enormously grateful to our trade envoys, in particular those who provide clear reports when they come back from visits about the things that we have achieved. They are achieving those things as part of the UK team. In the new year, I want to vitalise the whole House so that all Members, who often know the businesses in their communities better than anybody else—certainly better than any Government Department—bring people to us who might be thinking about exporting in the future, so that we can strengthen that opportunity.
This Bill is about enabling Scottish indie acts like corto.alto and Young Fathers, and Wales’s the Bug Club, to tour the world. It is about funding low-carbon hydrogen production. It is about helping Superior Wellness to sell hot tubs and spas around the world. It is about enabling 3TOP Aviation to expand its sustainable aircraft services into new markets. It is about helping SRT Marine Systems to sell its maritime surveillance in Indonesia and Kuwait. It is about enabling UK businesses to get contracts to help build the new Dubai airport. It is about enabling BioNTech to open two new research and development hubs. It is about helping Kindeva in Loughborough and Clitheroe to develop new respiratory inhalers. It is about enabling a new multibillion-pound car battery factory, creating 4,000 jobs. It is about Scotch whisky and salmon, and Welsh whisky; aircraft engines and wings; life sciences and advanced manufacturing. It is about jobs and our prosperity, so I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will support the Bill tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jake Richards.)
Question put and agreed to.
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of the Industrial Development Act 1982 or the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 out of money so provided.—(Jake Richards.)
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Radcliffe-on-Trent to Cotgrave Greenway
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I wish to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in Rushcliffe, especially those in Radcliffe-on-Trent and Cotgrave, who have signed it to signal their desire to see the public path and cycleway between Radcliffe-on-Trent and Cotgrave reopened. The public greenway linking Radcliffe-on-Trent and Cotgrave provides a vital link between the two villages for local residents, and is a valued public pathway that provides access to green spaces such as Cotgrave Country Park. The petition notes that since January 2024 the pathway has been out of action due to illegal work on its embankments. Over 2,600 residents have signed a local petition highlighting the frustration they have felt at the lack of action to get this cherished local asset reopened.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire
Declares that the greenway between Radcliffe-on-Trent and Cotgrave—used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders—is a cherished local asset which, since January 2024, has been out of action due to unauthorised work on one of its embankments; and further declares that almost two years on, despite frequent chasing by residents and resident groups, Parish, Borough and County Councillors, and the Member of Parliament for the impacted area, there has been no clarity provided about the likely costs and timelines for reinstatement, leaving residents in the dark.
The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urges the government to work with Nottinghamshire County Council to provide much-needed public clarity about the status of the Radcliffe-on-Trent to Cotgrave greenway; to provide a clear timeline for a decision to be taken about the greenway’s future; to seek to hold the perpetrators who caused the damage to account; and to prioritise the reinstatement of this much-loved active travel asset as part of its budget setting process for financial year 2026/27.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003150]
Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Speaker’s Office for finding time for this important Adjournment debate, and my hon. Friend the Minister for being in her place to hear it. I look forward to her response. I know that many Members feel passionate about this issue and look forward to taking as many interventions as I can.
There have been plenty of high-profile examples of sudden cardiac arrest in young people, but I want to speak about a case brought to my attention by one of my constituents, Maureen, who was the aunt of Clarissa Nicholls. Clarissa was studying French and Italian at the University of Cambridge. She was a keen runner and hockey player. Just days before her 21st birthday in May 2023, she collapsed and died while hiking in France with friends. It was later found that she had an undiagnosed life-threatening condition: arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. In June 2024, Clarissa was posthumously awarded a first-class honours degree from the University of Cambridge.
I have had the honour of meeting Clarissa’s mum Hilary, both privately and at a recent event in Westminster held by the Cardiac Risk in the Young campaign. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for organising that event. Hilary said:
“Despite a journey cut tragically short we want to celebrate her achievements alongside her cohort, as it should have been. We know that we would have been very proud of her today and we remain proud of her dedication, determination and resilience as she set out to be the very best she could be.”
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I have also met Hilary, Clarissa’s mum, and heard about her death and the fact that a simple electrocardiogram test can save lives. It is chilling to think that my daughters could face this. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that exercise can triple the risk of sudden cardiac death, but 80% of cases show no symptoms at all? The Government could act now to issue clear guidance, as we have done on concussion, and encourage and enable more young people to have the simple test that could save so many lives.
Chris Vince
I do agree with my hon. Friend. Clarissa was a young girl who was very involved in sport. There is no reason why young people with these conditions cannot continue to take part in sport, as long as they are aware of their condition and able to take the necessary precautions.
Hilary said that her daughter
“put everything into her studies, the friends she made here and the staff that supported her along the way including while she was on her year abroad. We are grateful for the happy times she clearly took away with her to the next life.”
When I applied for and secured this Adjournment debate, what really struck me was the number of people who came up to me and shared their personal experiences. In fact, only this morning, two Doorkeepers shared their experiences of this condition. I pay tribute to one of those Doorkeepers, Kieron, whose son Connor—who was born on 13 January 1994—died in 1995 at only 14 months old. When the post-mortem was conducted, it was found that he died of sudden cardiac death through a thickening of a heart muscle. That was over 30 years ago, but I know from talking to Kieron the huge impact it has had on his life; he will always carry that loss with him. It is important that we recognise how long we have been aware of these issues, and that it is time to talk about what action we can take.
This morning, I was in my constituency of Harlow, talking to one of our headteachers, Vic Goddard, who is the head of the Passmores co-operative learning community. He spoke about a young boy dying of cardiac arrest during his time as a PE teacher, and feeling so strongly that every school he works in should have a defibrillator. Again, having spoken to some of the staff in this place, I want to emphasise the huge difference that access to a defib can make to survival chances.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. In the time he has been in this House, he has proven himself to be assiduous, committed and a hard-working constituency MP; I think every one of us is impressed by his efforts in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and we thank him for that. Today, he has done his constituents proud, and his constituents should be proud of him, including for how he has presented his case. Well done him.
The British Heart Foundation in Northern Ireland and similar groups have noted that undetected and inherited heart conditions can lead to sudden deaths in young people. That charity has estimated that one person aged under 35 dies every month in Northern Ireland from an undiagnosed heart condition. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be early intervention through screening for heart conditions that could be inherited genetically, to ensure they can be detected and treated earlier? The reason I am supporting the hon. Gentleman is that a young constituent of mine died in the same way he has described. For them and for Strangford, I put forward their case.
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his kind words. He has intervened at the perfect time, because I was just going to go through some of the statistics. Twelve people aged between 14 and 35 die each week in the UK—which obviously includes Northern Ireland—from an undiagnosed heart condition, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) mentioned, 80% of those people show no symptoms, meaning that the first sign is often sudden cardiac arrest. Elite athletes are screened by mandate, but amateur and grassroots athletes are not, despite their facing some of the same exercise-related risks. The NHS currently screens families only after a sudden cardiac death, so Hilary and her family were screened for the condition that took away her daughter’s life, but obviously that is too late for prevention.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about elite athletes being screened, in September I went to Sidmouth college, which was hosting the very elite Exeter Chiefs rugby team. They were being screened alongside pupils from Sidmouth college because of the great work of Marion Hayman, whose son died aged 27 from a sudden cardiac arrest that came out of absolutely nowhere. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that screening young people can save many, many lives, and that setting up memorial funds in the way Marion did for her son Jonathan can enable us to save more of those lives?
Chris Vince
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know of the funding Hilary was able to raise in memory of her daughter Clarissa to do just that, and of the work that Kieron did in the name of his son Connor to raise funds for exactly that purpose. I will come on to some of my recommendations and key asks in a moment, but what the hon. Gentleman has described is one of them, so I thank him for his intervention.
As I said, the NHS screens families only after a sudden cardiac death. It screens young people with symptoms, but many active young people are dismissed without tests because they do not show those symptoms. There are currently no screening pathways for asymptomatic young people, who make up the majority of those in risk. The National Screening Committee previously rejected screening, but I believe it is now reviewing a targeted programme for amateur athletics.
Finally, I come to some of the key asks.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, he is an absolutely fantastic representative for his constituents. Will he join me in thanking the family of Aiden Joyce from Clackmannanshire? Aiden was a serving police officer and a keen sportsman, and he tragically passed away in 2023 from an undiagnosed coronary artery anomaly. His family set up a memorial fund that funds the screening of young people in Clackmannanshire at Alva academy, a local secondary school. There is absolutely no doubt that it has been crucial in saving tens of lives.
Chris Vince
I absolutely pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent and the work that has been done in memoriam, which is hugely important. I thank my hon. Friend for raising it. His intervention goes to show the number of lives that have been affected in this way.
My first key ask is a national NHS screening pathway for active young people, beginning with amateur and grassroots athletes. My second ask is routine ECG screening for all 14 to 18-year-olds at least twice, ensuring early detection before symptoms occur. My third ask is equitable access, so that screening is not limited to those who can pay for it privately. My fourth ask is that we use emerging evidence, including the forthcoming large-scale audit, to update NSC guidance and remove outdated barriers. My fifth ask is that we prioritise prevention by recognising the decades of life lost per young person and the long-term economic and societal impact.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and giving an extensive list of recommendations to the Government. He talked earlier about defibrillators. There is an important point about access to defibrillators and where they are sited in constituencies. Does he agree that it is also important to ensure that those who need to use defibrillators have the training, knowledge and skillset to confidently do so in a safe manner?
Chris Vince
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When I was a councillor in Harlow, I did a lot of work with my colleague James Griggs, who is now the leader of the Labour group on the council, to push for more defibrillators across Harlow, particularly in public places. Being confident and knowing how to use them are equally important.
I have tried not to get too emotional during this speech, and I might fail in a moment. When I was at uni, a friend of mine, Jude, died when she was only 18 years old—not because of cardiac arrest, but for completely different reasons. I think about all the things that I have done since I was 18. People say that life begins at 40. I do not know about that, but certainly from the slightly—believe it or not—geeky 18-year-old I was to the 42-year-old MP standing here, my life has changed a great deal, and very much for the better. It really saddens me that Jude never got to experience growing up, having a family and having that experience. It also saddens me to think of the many young people, like Clarissa and others, who hon. Members from across the House have mentioned.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a moving and powerful speech about the tragic loss of young lives—all the years that are lost of their lives, their families and so on, and all the suffering that happens when people die so young. I, too, lost a friend whom I met while we were studying master’s degrees at University College at Durham University in 2001. He died in 2012 of an undiagnosed heart condition, and he is a much-loved and missed son, husband, father and dear friend of mine. Does my hon. Friend agree that the huge loss that families and friends feel should inspire us all to seek as much effort as possible from the Government, from scientists and from medics to prevent these often avoidable situations? I continue my life with him in my memory, and I am inspired by everything that Michael McCarthy did and by our friendship. I miss him dearly.
Chris Vince
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful testimony and his tribute to his friend Michael. I do not think I could have put it any better.
To finish, we are all aware of the challenges that the NHS, the Department and the Minister and her team face. I recognise that I have made a lot of asks this evening, and I suppose my overall ask to the Minister is to please consider the things that have been said today and to do what she can to tackle this issue. It is hugely important to so many and every young life that is lost is a tragedy in itself. Along with that person losing their life, there is a family who are devastated and friends who are equally devastated.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate and for speaking so passionately about the issue at hand. As a reminder, 12 young, fit, healthy young people a week die of an unknown heart condition. That means that by the time we get to Christmas, 20 young people will have lost their lives. By this time next year, it will be 600 people. All of those deaths could have been prevented.
I first became aware of the scale of this tragedy when I bumped into an old school friend for his 40th birthday. He was fundraising for the brilliant Cardiac Risk in the Young, or CRY. Unbeknown to me, he had lost his brother to a sudden cardiac arrest when we were just in our teens. The second time I came across CRY, it was much closer to home. My niece’s boyfriend sadly passed away in his sleep three years ago. He was fit and healthy, having gone on a run earlier that day. His mother Lesley and my niece Izzy have been steadfast in their campaigning for CRY ever since.
What is CRY all about? It does vital work in raising awareness, supporting bereaved families and, most importantly, screening young people. CRY offers electrocardiogram screenings to all young people between the ages of 14 and 35. To date, it has screened more than 340,000 young people since its formation 30 years ago. I was lucky enough to see one of its screening days first hand at Cambridge University sports centre, organised by Hilary Nicholls, who has already been mentioned this evening, in memory of her daughter Clarissa, who passed away aged just 20 while hiking in France.
CRY is calling for the National Screening Committee urgently to review and reconsider evidence supporting the roll-out of a national screening programme, and for a national screening strategy for the prevention of young sudden cardiac death. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that. When a similar programme was introduced in Italy in the 1980s, it saw a reduction in young people dying of 85%.
Over the past year, I have been speaking to national sporting bodies alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) to identify which were already screening their players and how they do it, as well as meeting organisations that represent sports facilities. Just the other week, we heard the excellent news that cardiac screening is being introduced across the netball super league here in England as a requirement from next season, and every player will be screened before the season starts. I also understand that it will be working with CRY to provide screenings for clubs and players where there is nothing already in place. This comes after Kaitlin Lawrence collapsed while warming up for a netball match and hospital scans showed that she had an irregular heartbeat. Lawrence was asymptomatic, young, fit and an elite netball player, and her experience shows just how crucial it is to screen young people playing sport.
I should, however, make it clear that many people can still play sport after receiving a diagnosis. Wonderful tools are available, along with fantastic cardiologists across the country, to facilitate that. We need only observe how successful Christian Eriksen has been since his collapse on the pitch during an international game. This need not be a deterrent; it is information. It is simply not good enough to say that screening young people will put them off sport and should therefore not be widely carried out. Crucially, however, the necessary level of screening is not being undertaken, which means that we must ensure that we have access to defibs and understand how to carry out CPR, which is just as important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) and I met Arsenal’s team doctor, Zaf Iqbal, at the club’s training ground earlier this month. Zaf is passionate about cardiac health, and has been using his position at Arsenal—and at his previous clubs—to champion greater awareness of CPR and defibs among school-age children. I also want to draw attention to the incredible work that Brentford FC is doing with its Heart of West London campaign, opening up its ground to offer cardiac screening to the surrounding community; it carries out about 1,000 screenings a year. That kind of engagement is exactly what we need to get the message embedded in our communities of how important it is to be ready in the event of an emergency.
The fact is, however, that our defib network is nowhere near fit for purpose. I recently held a “defib dash” in my constituency, which effectively worked like a small-scale community audit of our defib network. The results were deeply concerning. Most of the constituents who took part had to dash for eight minutes or longer just to get to their nearest defib. Let me remind Members that every minute CPR or a defib is not used on someone suffering from a cardiac arrest, that person’s life expectancy falls by 10%.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) did earlier. May I pursue the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell)? Defibrillators can be incredibly useful when they are rolled out to communities, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack). It is hard to find an area in my constituency without a defibrillator that has been fundraised for and installed by volunteers, but I must admit that I do not know how to use one. Following this debate, I will go away and make sure that I do know how to use one, but how can we roll out defibrillator training nationally to ensure that as many people as possible know how to use them in an emergency?
Amanda Hack
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. Defibs talk to you; there is no need to be mystified by their use. They are clever bits of kit, and a 999 emergency responder will talk people through the process. I ask everyone please to go and be trained, because this is really important stuff.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, and I thank the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for his intervention. Throughout my constituency and indeed Northern Ireland, defibrillators have been supplied to every school and community centre. The communities in Ards, Ballynahinch and the Ards peninsula have defibrillators in their city and village centres. We have an organisation called Ards Peninsula First Responders, which provides speedy training every month for those who want to learn how to use a defibrillator. On our defibrillators in Newtownards and elsewhere is a small diagram—an ABC for how to use them. I have not had to do this, but I have been told by First Responders, “If you follow these three directions, you will be able to use a defibrillator as well as anyone else.” Does the hon. Lady have the same opinion?
Amanda Hack
The key thing that we have been trying to do in my constituency—and I would encourage other Members to do the same—is to demystify defibrillators. There are some very easy tools online that can show people how to use them, and they are such clever bits of kit that no one should be afraid of looking into it.
John Slinger
Does my hon. Friend agree that the activities of charities such as the Our Jay Foundation in my Rugby constituency are critically important? Naomi Rees-Issitt created the Our Jay Foundation in memory of her son Jamie. Not only has it installed hundreds of defibrillators in Rugby and the surrounding area, including bleed control kits, but—to her point—it holds training sessions in the community given by qualified paramedics and nurses. I have attended one of them, and they are lifesavers just as much as the defibs that go into our communities. All of this helps to reduce the number of sudden cardiac deaths in young people.
Amanda Hack
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think the conversation on defibs has been a really interesting one, but that is obviously just part of the solution to cardiac risk in young people. The main point I was trying to make is that, until we can roll out an effective programme of screening, we need to make sure we have the CPR and defibs tools in our toolkit to make sure we can support a person if they are going into cardiac arrest.
Finally, CPR training and knowing where the nearest defib is are important parts of the solution, but when we are looking at cardiac risk in young people, it is about how we make sure that asymptomatic individuals are screened and made aware of information about how they may react if they have an undiagnosed cardiac condition.
I want to put on record my thanks to CRY, the British Heart Foundation, Resuscitation Council UK, Brentford FC, Arsenal FC, the East Midlands ambulance service, Kerrie from Vitalise Health and First Aid Training, and all the bodies that have supported me in my questions on health screening, as well as fantastic campaigners such as Hilary. The truth is that we could be doing far more to tackle sudden cardiac death in young people, so why are we not doing so? I would really love to hear from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I thank my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), for bringing forward this debate and sharing the stories of Clarissa and Jude. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I acknowledge the losses to which they have attested.
I must say that visiting the Harlow constituency was one of the highlights of my year, and it was a pleasure to open the new high-security containment labs with my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. These labs are a critical part of our health and national security, and they bring jobs and growth to Harlow. I hope his constituents know how much their MP is battling for them in this place every day, and how his work is already paying dividends. I pay tribute to him for that.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this debate. I believe I saw him with a little person—a little man—in the corridor, so I congratulate him and welcome him to parenthood. When he spoke of Clarissa, as parents we could not help but be moved.
I know this may be a slightly different direction, but many out there are concerned about the increase in the numbers of particularly young people dying from sudden death syndrome, and the potential link to vaccination and covid vaccination. This is not to get controversial, but can the Minister just assure the House that data is being looked at and assessed? The Minister has spoken of labs and technology. Can she give some information to the general public about the Government’s interest in this subject, and assure them that this is being looked at?
Ashley Dalton
The hon. Member will know that all vaccines are assessed and are not issued unless they are considered safe. We collect data on conditions and potential impacts right across the medical estate. I have not seen any data that would suggest there is a link to any particular vaccine, but if there is, the data would show us that and it would be considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and I stood on a manifesto to tackle the biggest killers, including cardiovascular disease, to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions in England, and to reverse the legacy left to us by the previous Government. Through his work with the CRY campaign and everything he said in the Chamber this evening, it is evident that he is staying true to those promises. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for further highlighting the work of CRY. Any MP who campaigns on prevention is pushing at an open door with this Government. We are shifting the focus of our NHS from sickness to prevention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow rightly points out, it is a tragedy when young lives are lost to preventable illness. He and others make a powerful case for a national screening programme, so let me address that point head-on.
I fully support a national screening programme, as long as the experts agree that it would do more good than harm. Our National Screening Committee gives advice based on a range of factors and while balancing the pros and cons of screening population level groups, the committee has previously given evidence that introducing mass screening for sudden cardiac death could cause harm by misdiagnosing some people. For example, receiving a false diagnosis could lead to people being prescribed medication they do not need; people undergoing medical procedures they do not need, such as having an implantable defibrillator fitted; and people living in fear of sudden cardiac death when they are not genuinely at risk. However, the committee is currently reviewing the evidence for sudden cardiac death screening and will open a public consultation in early 2026. We will look carefully at the findings of the consultation and I know that the CRY campaign will make its voice heard.
Several Members discussed defibrillators, and their training and use. NHS England runs training sessions on first aid, CPR and the use of defibrillators both in the community and in schools under the Restart a Heart programme. NHS England has trained over 35,800 adults and children in CPR and defibrillator use in the past 13 years, and 2,134 so far this year. NHS England delivers the sessions via its resuscitation team and via its community first responders, and also runs lifesaving skills workshops for harder to reach communities and ethnically diverse groups. It has trained 407 people in lifesaving skills in that group so far this year.
It is important to remember the care and support that loved ones receive when they lose a loved one to sudden cardiac arrest, or when they find out that a family member has an inherited heart condition. NHS England’s service specification sets out how that care should be provided by specialist teams in a way that is tailored to meet the needs of families.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Minister for giving way and for the good news about looking into the possibility of rolling out screening across the whole country, especially bearing in mind the evidence from Italy, where the good has been shown to outweigh the potential downsides. I look forward to getting involved in that consultation. The amount of training on CPR and the use of defibrillators has been extensive. The choice of song to sing along to, to get the rhythm right, is really important. Will the Minister share with us whether she would use “Stayin’ Alive” or “Pink Pony Club” as her defibrillator singalong song?
Ashley Dalton
I think “Stayin’ Alive” is a bit of a sharp one, really, isn’t it? Given that once “Pink Pony Club” is in my head I cannot get rid of it for weeks, I think I will probably opt for that one! My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which is that learning CPR and how to use a defibrillator properly is a crucial life skill. I am really pleased and proud that NHS England is continuing to roll that out in our schools and communities.
NHS England is also keeping under review the specialist service specification for providing care to families, working closely with the Association for Inherited Cardiac Conditions, Cardiomyopathy UK, Heart Valve Voice and the British Heart Foundation. We are also working with the NHS genomics programme to align the service specification with genomics resources. I will talk briefly about our vision of genomics.
We are going through a revolution in medical science that means we can transform the NHS over the coming decade from a service that diagnoses and treats ill health to one that can predict and prevent it. If we can harness the power of life sciences to the health service, we can achieve many of the aims my hon. Friends and others have set out today. Within a decade, every newborn will undergo whole genome sequencing, which assesses future risk of hundreds of diseases, including cardiovascular conditions. Every baby will have their DNA mapped, allowing people to receive tailored healthcare, long before symptoms begin.
Those advances could one day put an end to blanket screening and rudimentary health MOTs. Instead of mass screening, increasingly patients will be offered personalised health checks and targeted medicines far earlier, and adverse drug reactions will be avoided. That will help to transform the NHS from a reactive healthcare system into a proactive one. This ambition will be funded by a £650 million boost to genomics as part of the Government’s life sciences sector plan. We are just scratching the surface of what genomics, gene editing and life sciences can do.
Under this Government, NHS waiting lists are falling, ambulances are arriving faster, and we are lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. Our 10-year plan is building on the founding principle of the NHS so that it provides healthcare free at the point of risk, not just at the point of need, and now we are shifting the focus of our NHS from sickness to prevention. Wherever we can go further on prevention, we will.
I have heard the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow this evening. He is a powerful advocate for those who have lost loved ones to sudden cardiac death, and we are listening to him and others who are pushing us to go further. I shall update him and, of course, the House next year, following the review of evidence and the public consultation.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Before I set out the effect of the statutory instrument, it may be helpful if I first explain the legislation that underpins the change that I am today proposing. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 governs the disclosure of cautions and convictions for most employment purposes. The ROA protects those with convictions from having to disclose those convictions and cautions once they become spent. Although more serious convictions remain disclosable for life, under the ROA, most become spent following a specified period. When a conviction or caution becomes spent, the individual is considered to have been rehabilitated for those purposes. Once a conviction is spent, it does not need to be disclosed when applying for most jobs. That supports the rehabilitation of the offender, helping them to put their past behind them and move on from their offending.
Although it is generally desirable to facilitate ex-offenders into employment, the public must remain adequately protected. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 lists activities or categories of jobs where those protections are disapplied so that individuals, if asked, are required to disclose spent convictions. That enables greater disclosure of criminal record information for people in specified roles and activities.
The primary rationale behind the exceptions order is that there are certain jobs where a more complete or relevant disclosure of an individual’s criminal record may be appropriate—for instance, roles working with the most vulnerable and/or involving a high degree of public trust, such as those with children. The exceptions order is therefore a counterbalance to the ROA in favour of the protection of the public, providing a greater level of disclosure for individuals performing roles or activities that require additional safeguards.
This statutory instrument amends that exceptions order. The Government are proposing to make four amendments to the exceptions order. First, we are adding self-employed individuals or people acting in a personal employee capacity—meaning someone who works at the employer’s home to provide domestic or personal services—engaging in regulated work with children and vulnerable adults. Secondly, we are adding employment concerned with the delivery of electronic monitoring and field services, such as monitoring offenders by a contractor in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, we are adding registered healthcare professionals employed or engaged by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or by contractors or subcontractors working for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Fourthly, we are adding pedicab driver licences in London. These amendments mean that a person’s spent convictions may be taken into account when assessing their suitability to engage in this work or hold such a licence.
There is a compelling case, I submit, to justify requiring individuals to disclose all spent and unspent convictions in these circumstances. First, I will outline the reason for adding self-employed individuals or personal employees working closely with children and vulnerable adults. This amendment is about strengthening safeguarding and closing a clear gap in the current system. At present, only those working for organisations such as schools or hospitals, or those working for an agency, can get the highest level of Disclosure and Barring Service checks, yet families increasingly hire professionals directly as private tutors, carers and therapists, who often work in unsupervised settings.
Without this change, those individuals could undergo only basic checks, which reveal only unspent convictions. That is not sufficient when the safety of children and vulnerable adults is at stake. By extending eligibility for enhanced DBS checks, including access to the barred list, we give parents and carers the same level of assurance they would have if hiring through an organisation. This amendment also delivers on a key recommendation from Professor Alexis Jay’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse to make greater use of the DBS service to protect the vulnerable. In short, the amendment ensures parity, strengthens safeguarding and puts power in the hands of families to make informed decisions about who they allow into their home.
The second change relates to the staff employed by the Ministry of Justice’s contracted provider of electronic monitoring and field services. Those roles are critical to monitoring compliance with court orders and conditions of release from prison custody. Among other duties, the relevant contractor staff install and configure monitoring equipment, monitor compliance with conditions such as curfews or exclusion zones, and report violations to the responsible agencies. At present, those positions can access only basic criminal record checks, unless the specific duties of the individual qualify for counter-terrorism clearance.
That is not sufficient, given the level of trust and responsibility involved. The risk of corruption is real, as staff may be offered incentives to make monitoring less onerous, which could allow individuals to breach conditions, commit further offences or evade detection altogether. Such failures undermine public confidence in the justice system and compromise public safety. Enabling standard disclosures would help providers to identify candidates who may be vulnerable to corruption and ensure that those entrusted with monitoring compliance meet the highest standards.
The third group—registered healthcare professionals employed or engaged by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, or by contractors and subcontractors working for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions— supports the public through the benefits system and assessment process. That includes psychologists, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, paramedics and pharmacists. Approximately 2 million health assessments are undertaken each year for people with long-term conditions or disabilities, many of whom are among the most vulnerable in society.
At present, the ROA prevents the Department for Work and Pensions and its delivery partners from requiring the disclosure of spent convictions for those roles. Without the ability to check spent convictions, the DWP cannot fully assess a candidate’s suitability, creating a potential risk to the public. This change removes that risk by bringing those roles within the scope of the exceptions order. It ensures that the DWP and its contractors can require the disclosure of spent convictions and cautions, ensuring essential safeguards for those who depend on these services.
Finally, I turn to pedicab drivers in London. Until recently, London pedicabs operated in a legal grey area, unregulated and outside the licensing framework that applies to other forms of public transport. The Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 removed that anomaly by giving Transport for London powers to introduce a licensing regime. For that regime to be effective, TfL must be able to require enhanced with barred list DBS checks, including spent convictions and cautions, just as it does for taxi and private hire drivers.
Without this change, TfL would be limited to basic checks, which do not provide the assurance that passenger safety requires. This change enables pedicab licences to be brought into line with existing standards for taxis and private hire vehicles, both in London and nationally. It strengthens confidence and ensures that those responsible for carrying passengers on London’s roads are subject to the same safeguarding requirements as other transport operators.
In conclusion, adding self-employed individuals or personal employees working closely with children in vulnerable states, people working for the relevant electronic monitoring contractors, registered healthcare professionals employed or engaged by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or DWP contractors, and pedicab licence holders in London to the exceptions order is a necessary safeguarding measure. The criminal records disclosure regime is designed to protect the public, particularly children and vulnerable adults, while enabling those who have offended in the past to move on with their lives. We believe that the proposed measure strikes that balance.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the purpose of this statutory instrument. Having reviewed it, the Opposition will not be opposing the instrument this evening.
Each amendment is limited in scope and responds to specific gaps that have been clearly identified. One of the clearest areas where that is the case is the provision for self-employed individuals and those employed directly by private individuals. As the explanatory memorandum explains, the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended enabling self-employed people working in sensitive roles with children to obtain checks against the DBS children’s barred list.
I understand that the Government’s subsequent progress update confirmed that, by the end of 2025, self-employed people and those employed by private individuals will be able to access high-level DBS checks. We fully recognise the importance of those recommendations, and I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether they are still on track for that. Forgive me if those checks have already been made available, but if they have not, are we on track for the end of the year? At present, an individual carrying out a role within an organisation can be subject to the appropriate enhanced or barred list check, while a self-employed person doing identical work cannot.
That inconsistency is neither sensible nor safe. It is also worth recognising that this direction of travel is not new; the previous Conservative Government accepted the principle of the IICSA recommendations and began the process of reviewing the supervision exemption and considering widening access to barred list checks.
The changes relating to electronic monitoring contractors are justified and a proportionate response to risk. Staff working with monitoring technology occupy positions of trust, and allowing fuller disclosure checks will help to reassure the public that the system is robust and that those carrying out that important work meet the necessary standards of integrity.
Likewise, enabling the Department for Work and Pensions and its contractors to require disclosure of spent convictions for registered healthcare professionals reflects the sensitive nature of the work that those professionals undertake. They are individuals who assess vulnerable claimants, often with access to personal and medical information; it is appropriate that they are subject to the same safeguarding standards expected in the NHS and other comparable roles.
Taken together, these changes strike the right balance between supporting rehabilitation and ensuring public protection. They are targeted, proportionate and consistent with public expectations and existing safeguarding frameworks. My questions for the Minister are about the implications for the volume of checks that we might expect as a result of more people being suitable for them, and whether he can update us with important contextual information. In my local area, for example, some people experience significant delays and sometimes wait so long for checks to be completed that job offers fall through.
We support these changes, but while they might be well intended and sensible, the Minister is introducing yet more checks into the system, so it is important that he outlines whether there are any issues in the current system—which I think there are—with people getting checks. If he is introducing more, he needs to keep them on a tighter rein. I know that the process is devolved to each local police force, but it would be good if the Minister gave an overview of how well he thinks it is currently performing.
Jake Richards
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s support for these provisions. I will write to him with an update on the specific measure that he mentioned and whether that work will be completed by the end of the year—I do not have that information today, but I will make sure that I formally respond. I also thank him for his comments on the specifics.
In answer to the hon. Member’s last question, he is absolutely right that there is no point having more adequate protections in place if the system is clogged up. We speak regularly with Home Office colleagues and the police about the management of the DBS and other relevant offender management programmes. We need to ensure that this is working. I am confident that the changes will not greatly add to the burden on the police, but we will continue to work with them to ensure that that is the case.
Jake Richards
That might be a question for Home Office colleagues to respond to, but I will look into it, and if I can respond, I certainly will.
Question put and agreed to.
Swimming pool facilities in Falmouth
Wordsworth House and Garden
Specialist treatment of stroke patients at Scarborough Hospital
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
Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal
(1 day, 10 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
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 722903 relating to the Online Safety Act.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, and to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I start by thanking the 550,138 people who signed the petition for their engagement with the democratic process, and in particular the petition creator, Alex Baynham, whom I had the pleasure of meeting as part of my preparations for this debate; he is in the Public Gallery today. My role as a member of the Petitions Committee is to introduce the petition and key contours of the issues and considerations that it touches on, hopefully to help ensure that we have a productive debate that enhances our understanding.
I believe that at the heart of any balanced discussion on this issue is a recognition of two simultaneous features of the online world’s development over the last 30 years. First, there has been the development of incredible opportunities for people to communicate and form bonds together online, which go far beyond the previous limitations of geography and have allowed a huge multiplication of opportunities for such interactions—from marketplaces to gaming to dating. We should welcome that in a free society.
Secondly, the opportunities for harm, hate and illegality have also hugely increased, in a way that previous legislation and regulation was totally unequipped to deal with. That is what prompted the introduction of the Online Safety Act 2023. As the Minister at the time said:
“The Bill is world-leading, and the legislative framework established by it will lead to the creation of a profoundly safer online environment in this country. It will kickstart change where that is sorely needed, and ensure that our children are better protected against pornography and other content that is harmful to them.” —[Official Report, 12 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 799.]
Although some aspects of the Online Safety Act have been more prominent than others since its introduction, it is important in this debate to recall that there are multiple parts of the Act, each of which could separately be subject to amendment or indeed repeal by Parliament. There was the introduction of a framework placing obligations on in-scope services—for example, social media platforms—to implement systems and processes to reduce the risk of their services being used for illegal activity, including terrorism offences, child sexual exploitation and abuse, and drugs and weapon offences. Those duties have been implemented and enforced since March 2025. Secondly, the Act required services to implement systems and processes to protect under-18s from age-inappropriate content—both content that may be passed from user to user, and content that is published by the service itself, such as pornography sites.
We should recognise that the Online Safety Act implemented measures to regulate a wide range of diverse services, from social media giants to commercial sites, but also online spaces run by charities, community and voluntary groups, and individuals. As the first substantive attempt at regulating safety online, the OSA has brought into regulation many services that have not previously been regulated.
Mr Baynham explained to me that those services lay behind his primary motivation in creating the petition. He was spurred by concerns about the impact of the Online Safety Act on online hobby and community forums of the type he uses. They are online spaces created by unpaid ordinary people in their spare time, focused on the discussion of particular shared interests—games, a film or TV series, or football teams. A number of the administrators of such forums have expressed concern that they now face liabilities and obligations under the Online Safety Act that they are not equipped to meet.
I must declare an interest at this stage. For more than a decade, I have regularly used the Ready To Go—RTG—Sunderland AFC fans’ messaging boards. They provide thousands of Mackems with online space to discuss the many ups and downs of our football club and associated issues facing the city, with current topics including club finances, “Match of the Day” tonight and, following a successful Wear-Tyne derby yesterday, “The Mag meltdown” thread.
I heard directly from the administrator of the RTG forum in preparation for this debate. He told me that he came close to shutting the site down when the Online Safety Act came into force and has still not ruled that out completely. He points out that there have been thousands of pages of guidance issued by Ofcom on the implementation of the Act, and that, while tech companies with large compliance teams have the capacity to process that volume of guidance, having volunteers do the same is a huge challenge.
Ofcom has stressed that it will implement the Act in a way that is risk-based and proportionate, and has offered a digital toolkit targeted at small services in response. But even for the smaller sites the rules seem to require, for example, a separate and documented complaints system beyond the usual reporting functionality that small forums have often had in place. The administration of that system has been described to me as time-consuming and liable to being weaponised by trolls.
Some forum hosts feel that the uncertainty regarding the liability they face under the Online Safety Act is too much. The reassurance offered that prosecution is “unlikely” has not given sufficient confidence to some who have been running community sites as volunteers. To some, the risk of liability, personal financial loss or simply getting it wrong has been too great; when the Act came into force, 300 small forums reportedly exited the online space or lost their status as independent forums and migrated to larger platforms such as Facebook.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The hon. Member is making an extremely passionate and informed speech. While the unintended consequences of the Online Safety Act on the small forums and specialist groups that he highlights are critical, does he agree that a balance needs to be struck, whereby under-age children are protected from harmful content on whatever forum or website they are exposed to?
Lewis Atkinson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he will not be surprised that I will come on in my speech to deal with some wider issues about the Online Safety Act, in particular the protection of children. I think that today’s debate is likely to be more nuanced than simply whether we should maintain or repeal the Online Safety Act, and we will talk about the implementation and potential evolution of the Act over time.
The ask that I have heard from administrators of small forums is that Ofcom take further steps to simplify the record-keeping and risk-assessment burdens for small sites. When I have met with other organisation such as the Open Rights Group in preparation for this debate, they have suggested that exemptions be made for small and low-risk sites.
It is clear that a size-only exemption would not be appropriate; unfortunately, there have been small platforms specifically to host harmful content, such as forums dedicated to idealising suicide or self-harm, but it is possible that some combination of size and risk could be considered together. These questions touch at the heart of how we maintain the positives that come from vibrant and plural internet spaces while also clamping down on online harms.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Like my hon. Friend, I want to pay tribute to site managers and moderators; I am sad indeed that an incredible example of that function from my city of Oxford, Maggie Lewis, has passed away. She was an incredible presence online for the community and did much other community and charity work.
I looked at some of the small websites that had apparently had issues because of the Act. I found one that was an internet forum known for its open discussion and encouragement of suicide and suicide methods. I found another community website that had allegedly shut down, but is still functioning and has a forum where local people can let others know what is happening in the community—just one element of it had had to close. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that, when looking at the regulatory burden, we argue on the basis of facts to make the right decision?
Lewis Atkinson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think, as a society, we want forums such as the ones she reports to close down—they have been harmful. But I recognise that there were others that, maybe pre-emptively, decided to shut down. Perhaps the Minister has further information on how far the reported close-downs were a one-off event, in pre-emption, rather than an ongoing, repeated loss of online spaces.
As I have outlined, we are getting at a more nuanced position from owners and operators of bona fide community forums who are concerned about how to ensure that they are meeting their obligations—in the same way that any person would meet obligations such as those under the Data Protection Act 2018, which has always applied. That is a more nuanced position, far from asking for a full-out repeal of the OSA, but rather asking how the obligations under the Act can be carried out in a proportionate manner.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate—and, as somebody who shares a house with a Newcastle fan, I thank him for a miserable weekend. It is important that we get the safety elements and aspects of the Online Safety Act correct, but does he agree that it should not be used as a blunt tool to stifle freedom of speech online?
Lewis Atkinson
I do, but I will come to some of the issues regarding social media platforms in what I am about to say. I certainly would not want to stifle the freedom of speech of Newcastle fans expressing their genuine heartfelt sorrow about yesterday’s events.
I turn now to wider concerns that have been expressed about the Online Safety Act, which, although they are not the motivations of the petition creator, are undoubtedly held by a number of people who signed the petition. The number of petition signatories notably increased in the immediate aftermath of the implementation of age verification requirements that have been applied to significant parts of the internet, from pornography to some elements of social media. Here, I am afraid I find it significantly harder to provide balance in my introduction to the debate, having read the report by the Children’s Commissioner that was published in advance of the implementation of the OSA, which stated:
“It is normal for children and young people to be exposed to online pornography”,
as 70% of children surveyed responded that they had seen pornography online. The report also found:
“Children are being exposed at very young ages…the average age a child first sees pornography online is 13…More than a quarter…of respondents had seen online pornography by the age of 11.”
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a clear and coherent speech. I surveyed 1,000 young people in my constituency, and the forum leads of my online safety forum said that they had found graphic and disturbing content, which they had never searched for, regularly fed to them through the algorithms. Does the hon. Member agree that that is robbing children of their childhood and that age verification needs to be stronger, not weaker, as a result of the 2023 Act?
Lewis Atkinson
I agree that there is significant work to be done to effectively implement the OSA. I will touch on that, and the Minister may wish to do so in his response.
Crucially, the report by the Children’s Commissioner found that children were most likely to see pornography by accident—a key point that some of the criticism of the Act fails to grasp. The horrifying statistics, showing the scale of online harm to children that the OSA is working to reduce, make it obvious why in a recent survey 69% the public backed the introduction of age verification checks on platforms, and why children’s charities and children’s rights organisations overwhelmingly back the OSA and—to my hon. Friend’s point—want it implemented more rapidly and robustly.
I have heard that some petition signatories are particularly concerned about age verification on platforms, such as X, Reddit or Discord, beyond those specifically designed as pornography sites. However, the report by the Children’s Commissioner shows that eight out of 10 of the main sources where children saw pornography were not porn sites; they were social media or networking sites. Those platforms that choose to allow their users to upload pornographic content—some do not—should be subject to the same age-verification requirements as porn sites in order to keep our children safe.
Following the implementation of those provisions of the Online Safety Act, it was reported that UK traffic to the most popular pornographic websites was notably down. Yes, it was initially reported that there had been in spike in the number of virtual private networks, or VPNs, being downloaded for access to those sites, but research increasingly suggests it is likely that that trend was being driven by adults worried about their anonymity, rather than by children seeking to circumvent the age limitations.
The Online Safety Act addresses harms beyond those done by porn. Content that is especially harmful to children and that children should not have access to includes very violent content and content encouraging limited eating or suicide.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Looking at those algorithms is a really important part of the Online Safety Act. When I was a county councillor looking at public health, I did a piece of work on disordered eating, and I was bombarded with content. I am not a vulnerable young person or a vulnerable adult, but my real fear is that that information is seen by people who are not as capable of managing that content. Does my hon. Friend agree that algorithm work is a key part of the Online Safety Act?
Lewis Atkinson
My hon. Friend is right. The proactive duty that the Act places on providers in relation to the nature of their algorithms and their content is crucial because of the type of content to which she refers. It is right that the largest providers, and those most frequently used by kids, have to take active responsibility for keeping children safe. The implementation of the OSA means that algorithms serving harmful content to kids are now being regulated for the first time. There is a long way to go, and I am sure that other Members will say more than I can in this introduction, but I want to be clear to my constituents that I support the action that the OSA is prompting to improve children’s safety and welfare online.
Various surveys set out the impact of the Online Safety Act; Ofcom is publishing its research and a formal Government review will follow in due course. However, most impactful for me was seeing a teenage boy say on a news piece recently that, now,
“when I’m scrolling TikTok, I’m free from violence.”
That changed for him in the months following the implementation of the Online Safety Act, so it is no wonder that organisations such as the Online Safety Act Network, which I spoke to in preparation for this debate, fully support the Act’s principles. The network points to early evidence that the Act is actively reducing harm to children and emphasised that Ofcom must move beyond content filters to ensure safety by design, which would, for example, include addressing features that incentivise pile-ons, targeting an individual with abuse and harassment.
New Ofcom research shows that 58% of parents now believe that measures in the code of practice are beginning to improve the safety of children online. My belief is that we should be considering not whether to repeal the Act, but how we can continue to enforce it in a robust, effective and proportionate manner.
The way in which the Online Safety Act addresses online hate has perhaps not had as much focus as it might have. As well as being a member of the Petitions Committee, I am privileged to be a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into combating new forms of extremism. It is very clear from the public evidence that we have received so far that, left unregulated and unchallenged, online spaces and services can be used to amplify hate, thus risking a rise in extremist action, including violence.
Analysis by the Antisemitism Policy Trust highlights that there are patterns of co-ordinated and persistent misogynistic, anti-immigrant, anti-Government and antisemitic discourse on social media, with bot accounts being repeatedly used to amplify misleading or harmful narratives that fuel hate and may increase the risk of violence. Such content often breaches platforms’ own terms of service, but under the Online Safety Act, I understand that Ofcom category 1 services will now be mandated to proactively offer users optional tools to help them to reduce the likelihood that they will encounter legal but harmful content such as that.
There is much to be done to implement those provisions in an appropriate manner. However, I invite anyone calling for full repeal of the Act to consider how we as a society deal with the rise of extremism, and a context where the internet can be used as a sort of free-for-all fuelled by hate-filled algorithms that thrive on and incentivise division and hatred, rather than consensus and civic peace.
I am aware that there are large parts of the Online Safety Act that I have not been able to touch on today; I hope that others will do so during the debate. There are questions about end-to-end encryption, cyber-flashing, the creation of abusive deepfakes, AI moderation and chatbots.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a strong and thoughtful case. Does he agree that although the Act regulates user-to-user services, it leaves a significant gap around generative AI chatbots, despite the growing evidence of harm caused to children from private interaction with them? And does he share my concern that the speed at which this technology is developing risks outpacing the legislative framework that we have in place?
Lewis Atkinson
I agree with the hon. Lady. In my understanding, when the legislation was drafted, it was not initially clear to those who drafted it that AI would develop at the astonishing pace that it has in recent years. I ask the Minister to reflect on that point in addressing the implementation of the Act and its potential future evolution through primary legislation.
Lola McEvoy
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for being so generous with his time. Can we also pass on to the Minister that, going forward, there is a possibility to brand bots? That would require the Online Safety Act to be amended to make sure that any profile that is a bot—generated by AI—is explicitly marketed as such, which would protect users as AI advances.
Lewis Atkinson
My hon. Friend makes that point well, and the Minister will have heard it.
As this discussion continues, I hope that we can find a way of reflecting these two areas of balance—these two features of the online world now. First, there is the absolute primacy of safeguarding children and tackling serious online harms, but it is also important to recognise the real benefits that living in an increasingly connected society bring us all. I think those are very much the motivations of the petition’s creator—we are talking about the work done by good, civic-minded folk, and creators and administrators of online communities and hobby forums across the country. Naturally, as our learning about the implementation of the Act continues, there is a way of doing that that supports the efforts of those people without risking such sites being used to further online harms.
The consensus, I think it is fair to say, is that reform of the Act, rather than repeal, is the realistic route forward. That is natural with such groundbreaking legislation, but reform must be sensitive to the scale, proportionality and privacy, as well as the emerging and changing nature of online harms. I thank Members for their time and their interventions, and I look forward to a positive debate.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I remind colleagues that if they wish to speak, they should bob—quite a few colleagues are bobbing already, so thank you for that.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The Online Safety Act certainly has its weaknesses, but I do not believe that it should be abolished. This law has made progress in protecting children online. Scrapping it would throw them right back to well-known harms.
I will briefly focus my remarks on one area where the Act is not adequate: AI chatbots. AI chatbots have developed rapidly in recent years and are becoming ingrained in our children’s lives. Let me give hon. Members a few figures. One in four children aged 13 to 17 in England and Wales have turned to AI chatbots for mental health support. Vulnerable children are even more at risk: 26% say they would rather talk to an AI chatbot than a real person, and 23% say they use chatbots because they do not have anyone else to talk to. Children do not have anyone else to talk to—this is the society we are creating.
Lola McEvoy
The Government launched the youth strategy last week, the first in over two decades. It was on the back of stark research that found that one in four children growing up today do not have a trusted adult they can reach out to. Does the hon. Lady agree that functioning AI could be put to good use in the NHS? It could support signposting and make sure that children can get to the charities doing great work to support them, rather than giving them algorithm-based advice?
Ann Davies
Absolutely. Personally, I think that the algorithms in the system are a disaster. Wales is very different from England, so I have to be careful that I am not treading on the toes of the Senedd, because it does excellent work on youth services, in fairness. In my Caerfyrddin constituency, we have a number of youth projects that are doing really well, including Dr Mz, which provides services to over 500 children every week who come through its doors. Surely a person-to-person conversation is so much better than looking for something online, because we do not know what is coming through the chatbot. This is my main concern.
I have mentioned the scale of the issue that we are facing. While I appreciate that a multifaceted approach is crucial to ensure that our children are safe and thriving, we cannot afford to get this wrong. Ofcom and the Secretary of State have acknowledged that AI chatbots mostly fall outside the scope of the Online Safety Act. I welcome the announcement from the Secretary of State that the Government are exploring the tougher regulation of AI chatbots, and I have asked Ofcom to clarify expectations for any that are covered by the Act, alongside a public information campaign coming next year. However, I am concerned that we are not moving at the pace or with the sense of urgency needed to get a real handle on this issue.
Can the Minister share more specific details about the Government’s plans and a timeline for implementing tougher regulation of AI chatbots? Online safety for children is a priority for all of us, and I hope that Members across the House can agree that this is a shared goal that must not be politicised. Diolch.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The new media has quickly become the worst of the old media: owned, controlled and directed by the wealthy and powerful. My particular focus will be on social media, because it is no longer a movement of the people, nor has it been built or designed for the public good. It had the potential to be, but it has been deliberately designed not to be, and we are paying the price, with real harm, hate, division, exploitation and extremism normalised.
I hear the petitioners’ concerns about the impact on community forums, but the truth is that online regulation does not go anywhere near far enough. That is because the previous Government failed to take the action that was needed. For instance, there is no fit and proper persons test—there should be. There is no editorial responsibility for content on the platforms—there should be. There is no adequate protection from malign foreign influence—there should be. There is no protection from disinformation —there should be. There are no meaningful safeguards against racism, misogyny or hate—there should be. There are no restrictions on Members of Parliament monetising content they produce—instead, they should post solely in the public interest, rather than generating income into their bank account—and there should be. There is no transparency on algorithms, nor the need to declare in-kind benefit in politics in the way that there is in almost every other aspect of political gain—again, there should be.
As it stands, truth, democracy and the safeguarding of the public interest are under threat. The previous Government ducked it, offering a watered-down version that was backed up by a toothless regulator. We have seen what is possible when red lines are drawn; Australia has decided that the welfare of its children is more important than the interests of the powerful and the wealthy. That is leadership.
The UK’s failure to stand up to powerful vested interests has played right into the hands of foreign forces who wish harm on our country, our way of life and our democracy. Technology is moving fast, as we are seeing with AI, and frankly, lawmakers need to be much sharper and quicker to keep up. The first duty of any Government is to protect the national security of their citizens, so for the Government, the question is simply this: when will they start to fight on this new front with vigour and finally do what the previous Government failed to do?
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for his powerful and eloquent introduction to this important debate. The scale of this petition should make us reflect: over half a million people have called for the repeal of the Online Safety Act, not because online safety is unpopular, but because they believe that the legislation does not yet strike the right balance.
Let me be clear: the Online Safety Act exists for a reason. I stand in strong support of its intent, aims and objectives, and I am not in favour of its repeal. For too long, online platforms have failed to protect users, particularly children, from serious harm. The statistics are sobering: nearly one in five children aged 10 to 15 have exchanged messages with someone they have never met; over 9,000 reported child sexual abuse offences in 2022-23 involved an online element; and, in recent years, we have seen tragic cases where exposure to harmful online content has contributed to devastating outcomes. Repealing the Act would leave us with very little meaningful protection, so it remains central for regulating online spaces in the UK. We must accept that necessary truth, although it is a hard pill to swallow.
Supporting the Act, however, does not mean ignoring the parts that need important improvements. One of the most significant concerns is age restriction. Age-gating can and should play a role in protecting children from genuinely harmful content, but it is increasingly clear that the boundaries of age restrictions are not defined well. There is growing evidence that lawful political content, including news and commentary on conflicts such as Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, is being placed behind age gates.
Teenagers aged 16 and 17 are finding themselves blocked from accessing political information and current affairs, sometimes more strictly than in film and television content regulated by the British Board of Film Classification. That should give us pause, particularly when the House is considering extending the vote to 16-year-olds. If we believe that young people should be active participants in our democracy, we cannot also allow systems that restrict their access to political debate by default, just because these are difficult and sensitive topics. What is or is not age-restricted needs to be far clearer, more consistent and more proportionate.
The second area where clarity is urgently needed is generative AI. As we are having this debate, the Home Secretary is making a statement on violence against women and girls, which she has rightly described as a “national emergency”. The Government’s five-year national strategy acknowledges the growing threat posed by intimate deepfakes, with one survey by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children showing that three in five people fear becoming a victim. With current laws proving too difficult to apply in complex and rapidly evolving cases, what specific legislative proposals are the Government hoping to develop to address deepfake abuse?
When this legislation was drafted and passed, the pace of AI development was very different. Today, AI tools and chatbots are embedded across social media, search engines and messaging platforms, with people relying on ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot as search engines and virtual assistants embedded into almost every online service we use. They can generate harmful and misleading content within seconds, including advice related to self-harm, eating disorders, substance misuse and suicide assistance.
Only last week, I led a debate in Westminster Hall on the need for stronger AI regulation. That debate reinforced a growing concern that many AI-driven services currently sit at the edges of the Online Safety Act. Although Ofcom has acknowledged that gap and issued guidance, guidance alone is not enough. We need clarity on how generative AI is regulated and whether further legislative action is required to keep pace with the technology.
The message of this petition is not a rejection of online safety; it is a call for a system that protects children while safeguarding freedom of expression, political engagement and public trust. The challenge before us is not to repeal, but to refine by strengthening definitions, clarifying age restrictions and ensuring that the Online Safety Act evolves alongside emerging technologies. If we get that right, we can protect users online without undermining the democratic values we try to defend.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. It was interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) about the experience of smaller hobby sites and their concerns about the Online Safety Act. I am sure that Ofcom and the Government will listen to those.
The Online Safety Act is not about controlling speech or about the Government deciding what adults think or read or say online, but about responsibility. More specifically, it is about whether we are prepared to say that the online world should have the same safety features as the offline world—whether we expect the online world to be a wild west or not. A lot of the opposition to the Online Safety Act has centred on the freedoms of adults, which I appreciate are important. Adults must be free to build their online lives as they see fit. However, that does not trump the right of children to be safe, whether online or offline, and rights are always a matter of balance.
Before I go further, it is worth being clear about what the Act actually does. It requires online services to assess the risk of harm on their platforms and put proportionate systems in place to reduce those risks. That includes harm from illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material, and harm when children are able to access content such as pornography or material that promotes suicide or self-harm. Alongside that, the Act contains proactive requirements to protect freedom of expression, and the largest platforms are now legally required to continually assess how their decisions affect users’ ability to speak freely online. That obligation is explicit and enforceable.
In many ways, the principles behind the Act are not new. Technology companies have moderated speech and removed content from their platforms since the very beginning. The difference is that, until now, those decisions were driven by opaque corporate priorities, not a clear and accountable framework of public harm.
The stakes here are high. These are some of the first young people whose entire life has been permeated by the online world. It shapes their values, relationships and mental health. For many children, when it comes to sex, self-harm or body image, the first place they turn is not a parent, a teacher or a GP; it is the internet.
I want to talk today about pornography. I think we all accept without controversy that children should not be able to access pornography offline—an adult entertainment shop does not let a 12-year-old walk in and buy a dirty video with their pocket money—but when it comes to internet pornography, we as a society have allowed children to freely access material that they are simply not mature enough to deal with. Pornography is more violent and more dangerous than ever before. Despite that, it has never been easier for children to access it. The door to the store has been wide open for too long.
According to a 2023 report by the Children’s Commissioner—before the Online Safety Act came into force—the vast majority of children surveyed said that they had seen pornography online by accident, through websites such as X, formerly known as Twitter. Kids were not even needing to seek it out; it was being fed to them. When they did seek it out, dedicated sites did not put up any barriers. The previous requirements for websites such as Pornhub were simply for someone to enter a date of birth, which meant the sole access requirement was the ability to subtract 18 from the current year. I think we all know that is not good enough.
That matters because online pornography is not passive; it teaches. It shapes how children understand sex, intimacy, power and consent. It sets expectations long before young people have the tools to question or contextualise what they are seeing. According to that same report by the Children’s Commissioner, more than half of respondents said they had seen pornography involving strangulation, and 44% reported seeing depictions of rape, many of which involved people who were apparently asleep.
Such content does not stay onscreen; it spills into real life. The Children’s Commissioner’s research showed that frequent exposure to violent sexual material is associated with a higher tolerance of sexual aggression, distorted ideas about consent and an increased likelihood of sexually aggressive behaviour. Almost half of young girls surveyed expected sex to involve physical aggression. What children learn online does not disappear when the browser closes.
With the Online Safety Act, for the first time, adult content is being age-restricted online in the same way it is offline, and sites must now use effective age verification tools. That includes third party services, which should use privacy preserving techniques to confirm users’ data without sharing personal information with the platform itself. Since the new law came into effect, Ofcom has been monitoring compliance, and many of the most visited pornography sites have introduced highly effective age checks. I will be honest: I really do not have a lot of sympathy for pornography users who object to having their age verified. If they are bothered about their privacy, they can just not use it. Pornography is not a human right; people can choose not to use it.
Pornography is not the only harm that the Act addresses: for years, platforms such as Twitter, Tumblr and TikTok have hosted vast amounts of content related to self-harm and suicide—some of it framed as support, but much not. Posts and forums provide copious instructions on how to self-harm: the implements to use, how best to hide it and where to cut to do the most damage without killing oneself. Some children accessed that content entirely by accident, before even knowing what self-harm is, while others found it when they were already struggling, and were pulled deeper into it by algorithms that reward repetition and intensity. That content not only risks normalising those behaviours; it risks glamorising them.
So many adults have no idea what is out there, and because they are not fed it on their own feeds, they do not understand the danger and the extremism. Investigations have shown that teenage accounts engaging with suicide, self-harm or depression content were then flooded with more of the same. A single click could trigger what one report from the Molly Rose Foundation described as
“a tsunami of harmful content”.
I am not saying that we should shut down places that offer support to young people who have urges to self-harm, but we need to make sure that young people can access evidence-based support and are not exposed to content that could encourage harm. That is why organisations such as Samaritans have praised the Online Safety Act.
Under the Act, platforms that recommend or promote content to users—for example, “For You” feeds on TikTok—must ensure that those systems do not push harmful content to children. Not only does that put the onus on platforms to prevent children from seeing such content, but means that, if children do come across or search for harmful content, platforms should avoid showing them more of the same so they do not go down a very harmful rabbit hole.
Clearly, it is still early days. The legislation includes a formal review, with a report to Parliament due within a few years of full implementation. We will, and should, look closely at what is working and what needs to be improved—as lawmakers, we have that responsibility—but the signs are encouraging. Sky News spoke to six teenagers before and after the new rules came into force, and five of them said that they were seeing much less harmful content in their feeds. I know that is anecdata, but it is important to listen to the experiences of young people.
Ofcom has opened investigations, and benefits have already come from them. For example, following an Ofcom investigation, file-sharing services that were being used to distribute child sexual abuse material have now installed automated technology to detect and remove such material. Proportionality is at the heart of it, and Ofcom has developed guidance to support compliance. I understand the concerns about smaller or volunteer-run forums, but some of the most harmful content appears on very small or obscure sites, so simply taking out smaller sites would be a disservice.
I am sure there will be problems that must be worked out. We should continue to explore how best to provide children with age-appropriate experiences online, and think about how to get age verification right. But while we refine and improve the system, we cannot ignore the reality that there have been serious harms and that we have a responsibility to tackle them. For the first time, the UK has a regulatory framework that forces tech companies to assess risk, protect freedom of expression and give the public far greater transparency on how decisions about online content are made.
Other countries have banned young people from social media. I have been thinking about that a lot, and I currently do not think it is the right thing to do. Online communities can provide friendship and solace to young people—particularly those who are marginalised, perhaps due to their sexual orientation, or who are restricted in life, perhaps because they are kept at home by ill health or disabilities. Online communities can offer a lot to our young children, but children have a right to be just that: children. They should not have to deal with the complexities and hardships of adult life, so we as adults must do what we can to build safe online spaces for them, just as we build safe physical spaces.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard.
At its birth, the internet was envisaged as a great advancement in a free society: decentralised, crowdsourced and open, it would share knowledge across humanity. As it grew, every one of us would own a platform and our voice. Of course, since then bandwidth has increased massively, which means that we now experience a rich variety of media. Storage and compute have increased by many orders of magnitude, which has created the power of big data, and generative capabilities have emerged quite recently, creating a whole new virtual world. Services no longer simply route us to what we were searching for but offer us personalised menus of rich media, some from human sources and some generated to entertain or meet demands.
We are now just starting to recognise the alarming trends that we are discussing today. Such rich media and content has become increasingly harmful. That compute, storage and big data power is being used to collect, predict and influence our most private values, preferences and behaviours. Generative AI is immersing us in a world of reconstituted news, custom facts and bots posing as people. It increasingly feels like a platform now owns every one of us and our voice.
Harms are dangerously impacting our young people. Research from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate illustrates some of the problems. On YouTube, the “Next Video” algorithm was found to be recommending eating disorder content to the account of a UK-based 13-year-old female. In just a few minutes, the account was exposed to material promoting anorexia and weight loss, and more than half the other recommended videos were for content on eating disorders or weight loss.
On TikTok, new teen accounts were found to have been recommended self-harm and eating disorder content within minutes of scrolling the “For You” feed. Suicide content appeared within two and a half minutes, and eating disorder content within eight. Accounts created with phrases such as “lose weight” received three times as many of these videos as standard teen accounts, and 12 times as many self-harm videos. Those are not isolated incidents, and they show the scale and speed at which harmful material can spiral into exponential immersion in worlds of danger for young people.
On X, formerly known as Twitter—a trigger warning for anybody who has been affected by the absolutely appalling Bondi beach Hanukkah attack—following the Manchester synagogue attack, violent antisemitic messages celebrating and calling for further violence were posted and left live for at least a week. ChatGPT has been shown to produce dangerous advice within minutes of account creation, including guidance on self-harm, restrictive diets and substance misuse.
I am grateful to hon. Friends for raising the topic of pornography. I had the immense privilege of being at an event with a room full of men who spoke openly and vulnerably about their experiences with pornography: how it affected their sex lives, their intimacy with their partners or wives, their dynamics of power and respect, and how it infused all their relationships in daily life. They said things such as, “We want to see it, but we don’t want to want to see it.” If adult men—it seems from this experience, at least, perhaps the majority of adult men—are finding it that hard to deal with, how can we begin to comprehend the impact it is having on our children who come across it accidentally?
This can all feel too big to deal with—too big to tackle. It feels immense and almost impossible to comprehend and address. Yet, to some, the Online Safety Act feels like a sledgehammer cracking a nut. I would say it is a sledgehammer cracking a deeply poisonous pill in a veritable chemistry lab of other psychoactive substances that the sledgehammer completely misses and will always be too slow and inaccurate to hit. We must keep it, but we must do better.
As an engineer, I am very aware that since the industrial revolution, when physical machines suddenly became immensely more powerful and complex, a whole world of not just regulations but technical standards has been built. It infuses our daily lives, and we can barely touch an object in this room that has not been built and verified to some sort of standard—a British, European or global ISO standard—for safety. We should be ready to reflect that model in the digital world. A product can be safe or unsafe. We can validate it to be safe, design it to be safe, and set criteria that let us prove it—we have shown that in our physical world since the industrial revolution. So how do we now begin to put away the big, blunt instrument of regulation when the problem seems so big and insurmountable?
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Ofcom officials came before the Speaker’s Conference, of which I am a member, so I declare that interest. They spoke about section 100 of the Act, which gives Ofcom the power to request certain types of information on how, for example, the recommender systems work on the companies’ algorithms. Unfortunately, they said that could be “complicated and challenging to do”, but one thing they spoke about very convincingly was that they want to require—in fact, they can require—those companies to put information, particularly about the algorithms, in the public domain to help researchers. That could really help with the point my hon. Friend is making about creating regulations that improve safety for our population.
Tom Collins
I thank my hon. Friend for his remark. He is entirely right. In my own experience of engineering products, very critically, for safety, it was incumbent upon us to be fully open about everything we had done with those regulating and certifying our products for approval. We had numerous patents on our technology, which was new and emerging and had immense potential and value, yet we were utterly open with those notified bodies to ensure that our products were safe.
Similarly, I was fortunate enough to be able to convene industry to share the key safety insights that we were discovering early on to make sure that no mistake was ever repeated, and that the whole industry was able to innovate and develop in a safe way. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for his comments, and I strongly agree that there is no excuse for a lack of openness when it comes to safety.
How do we move forward? The first step is to start breaking down the problem. I have found it helpful to describe it in four broad categories, including hazards that apply to the individual simply through exposure. This would be content such as pornography, violence and images of or about abuse. And then there are hazards that apply to an individual by virtue of interaction, such as addictive user interfaces or personified GPTs. We cannot begin to comprehend the potential psychological harms that could come to human beings when we start to promote attachment with machines. There is no way we can have evidence to inform how safe or harmful that would be, but I suggest that all the knowledge that exists in the psychology and psychiatric communities would probably point to it being extremely risky and dangerous.
We have discussed recommendation algorithms at length. There are also societal harms that affect us collectively by exposure. These harms could be misinformation or echo chambers, for example. The echo chambers of opinion have now expanded to become echo chambers of reality in which people’s worldviews are increasingly being informed by what they see in those spaces, which are highly customised to their existing biases.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I have met constituents to understand their concerns and ambitions in relation to online safety legislation. There is a clear need to balance the protection of vulnerable users against serious online harms with the need to protect lawful speech as we pragmatically review and implement the Act.
My hon. Friend talks about equipping our younger people, in particular, with the skills to scrutinise what is real or fake. Does he agree that, although we have online safety within the national curriculum, we need to support our teachers to provide consistent teaching in schools across our country so that our children have the skills to think critically about online safety, in the same way as they do about road safety, relationships or consent? [Interruption.]
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Before we continue, could I ask that everybody has their phone on silent, please?
Tom Collins
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). I was fortunate enough to meet the Worcestershire youth cabinet, which is based in my constituency. I was struck that one of its members’ main concerns was their online safety. I was ready for them to ask for more support in navigating the online world, but that is not what they asked for. They said, “Please do not try to support us any more; support our adults to support us. We have trusted adults, parents and teachers, and we want to work with them to navigate this journey. Please help them so that they can help us.” I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent point.
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech that gets to the heart of some of the tensions. However, he seems to be leaning quite strongly into how the algorithms are self-learning and catch on to what people share organically, which they double down on to commercialise the content. Does he accept that some widely used platforms are not just using an algorithm but are deliberately suppressing mainstream opinion and fact in order to amplify false information and disinformation, and that the people benefiting are those who have malign interests in our country?
Tom Collins
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right. All those algorithms now have hidden interests, which are sometimes just to increase use, but I think we all strongly suspect that they may stray into political agendas. It is remarkable how powerful that part of the online world is. My personal view is that it is not dissimilar to the R number during covid. If a person sees diverse enough content, their worldview will have enough overlap with other people that it will tend to converge. In the old days, “The Six O’Clock News”, or the news on the radio, provided us with shared content that we all heard, whether we agreed with it or not. That anchored us to a shared narrative.
We are now increasingly in echo chambers of reality where we are getting information that purports to be news and reactions that purport to be from human beings in our communities, both of which reinforce certain views. It is increasingly possible that the R number will become greater than one, and our worldviews will slowly diverge further and further. Such an experiment has never been carried out on a society, but it strikes me that it could be extremely harmful.
While we are exploring this theme, I would like to point to the opposite possibility. In Taiwan, trust in the Government was at 9% when the digital Minister took office. They created a digital platform that reversed the algorithm so that, instead of prioritising content based on engagement—a good proxy for how polarising or divisive something is—it prioritised how strongly content resonated with both sides of the political divide. The stronger a sentiment was in bridging between those two extremes, the more it was prioritised.
Instead of people competing to become more and more extreme, to play to their own audiences, they competed to express sentiments and make statements that bridged the divide more and more. In the end, as the system matured, the Government were able to start to say things like, “Once a sentiment receives 85% agreement and approval, the Government will take it on as a goal. We will work out how to get there, but we will take it as a goal that the public say we should be shooting for.” By the end of the project, public trust in the Government was at 70%. Algorithms are powerful—they can be powerful for good or for ill. What we need to make sure is that they are safe for us as a society. That should be the minimum standard.
Finally, we can imagine harms that apply at a societal level but come through interaction. That comes, I would say, when we start to treat machines as if they are members of our society—as people. When I first started exploring this issue, I thought that we had not seen that yet. Then I realised that we have: bots on social media and fake accounts that we do not know are not human beings. They are not verified as human beings, yet we cannot help but start to believe and trust what we see. I would say that it is only a matter of time before these bots become more and more sophisticated and with more and more of an agenda—more able to build relationships with us and to influence us even more deeply. That is a dangerous threshold, which points to the need for us to deal with the issue in a sophisticated way.
What next? It is critical that we first start to develop tools—technically speaking, these are models—that classify and quantify these hazards to individual people and to us as a society, so that we can understand what is hazardous and what is not. Then, based on that, we can start to build tools and models that allow us to either validate products as safe—they should, I agree, be safe by design—or provide protective features.
Already, some companies are developing protection algorithms that can detect content that is illegal or hazardous in different ways and provide a trigger to an operating system to, for example, mask that by making it blurred or opaque, either at the screen or the camera level. Such tools are rapidly becoming more and more capable, but they are not being deployed. At the moment, there is very little incentive for them to be deployed.
If, for example, we were to standardise in the software environment interfaces or sockets of some kind so that these protective tools could be plugged into operating systems or back ends, we could create a market for developing more and more accurate and capable software.
In the world of physical safety, we use a principle called “state of the art”. In contrast to how we all might understand that term, it does not mean the cutting edge of technology; rather, it means safety features that are common enough that they should be adopted as standard and we should expect to have them. The automotive industry is a great example. Perhaps the easiest feature for me to point to is anti-lock brakes, which started out as a luxury feature in high-end vehicles, but rolled out into more and more cars as they became more affordable and accessible. Now they come as standard on all cars. A car without anti-lock brakes could not be sold because it would not meet the state of the art.
If we apply a similar principle to online protection software, tech companies with capable protections would have a guaranteed market. The digital product manufacturers or service providers would have to keep up; that would drive both innovation and uptake. These are already practised in industry. They cost the public purse nothing and generate growth, high-value jobs and national capabilities. Making the internet safe in the right way does not close it down; it creates freedoms and opens it up—freedom to trust what we are seeing; freedom to use it without being hurt; and freedom to rely on it without endangering our national security.
There is another parallel. We would not dream of building a balcony without a railing, but if we had built one we would not decide that the only way to make it safe was to declare that the balcony was for use only by adults. It still would not be safe. Adults and children alike would inevitably come to harm and many of our regulations would not allow it: in fact, there must be a railing that reaches a certain height and is able to withstand certain forces, and it must be designed with safety in mind and be maintained. We would have an inspection to make sure it was safe. Someone designing or opening a building with an unprotected, unbarriered balcony could easily expect to go to prison. We have come to expect our built environment to be safe in that way; having been made robustly safe for adults, it is also largely safe for children. If we build good standards and regulation, we can all navigate the digital world safely and freely.
Likewise, we need to build the institutions to ensure fast and dynamic enforcement. For services, there are precedents for good enforcement. We have seen great examples of that when sites have not complied, such as TCP ports for payment systems being turned off instantly. That is a really strong motivation for a website to comply. It is fast, dynamic and robust, and is very quickly reversible, as the TCP port can be turned back on and the website can once again accept payments. We need that kind of fast, dynamic enforcement if we are to keep up with the fast and adaptive world working around us.
On the topic of institutions, I would like to point out—I would not be surprised if my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) expands on this—that when television and radio came into existence, we built the BBC so that we would have a trusted source among those services. It kept us safe, and it also ended up projecting our influence around the world. We need once again to build the institutions or expand them and the infrastructure to provide digital services in our collective interest.
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech; maybe he should consider a career in TED Talks after this. A number of competitor platforms have been tried, such as Bluesky as an alternative to X, but the take-up is not sustained. I wonder whether the monopoly that some of these online platforms have is now so well embedded that people have become attached to them out of habit. As Members, we must all feel the tension at times about whether we should or should not be on some of these platforms.
There is a need for mainstream voices to occupy these spaces to ensure that we do not concede to extremes of any political spectrum, but we are always going to be disadvantaged if the algorithm drives towards those extremes and not to the mainstream. I just test the principle of an online BBC versus whether or not there should be a more level playing field for mainstream content on existing platforms.
Tom Collins
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. If we regulate for safety, we do not need to worry about the ecosystem needing good actors to displace it. At the same time, however, those good actors would have a competitive and valuable role to play, and I do not want to undervalue the currency of trust. Institutions such as the BBC are so robustly trustworthy that they have a unique value to offer, even if we do manage to create a safe ecosystem or market of online services.
I am convening a group of academics to start trying to build the models I discussed as the foundation for technical standards for safe digital products. I invite the Minister to engage the Department in this work. That is vital for the safety of each of us and our children as individuals, and for the security and resilience of our society. I also invite anybody in the technical space of academia or industry exploring some of these models and tools to get in touch with me if they see this debate and are interested.
Only by taking assertive action across all levels of technical, regulatory and legal governance can we ensure the safety of citizens. Only by expanding our institutions can we provide meaningful enforcement, designing and building online products, tools and infrastructure. If we do those things, the internet will be more open, secure, private, valuable and accessible to all of us. Good regulation is the key to a safe and open internet.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I want to add some actual data to our debate today. We are inundated, often online or in our inboxes, with messages about repealing the Online Safety Act. These are well-funded campaigns. There is also a lot of material online coming from very particular sources, not necessarily within the UK. Actually, 70% of people in the UK support the Online Safety Act and a similar number support age verification. Much of that has to do with what our children are seeing online. Almost 80% of people aged 18 to 21 have seen sexual violence before age 18. That is a huge number of people whose initial sexual experiences or viewing of sex involves violence.
What does the Online Safety Act do? It puts porn back on the top shelf—it does not get rid of it. We are all of an age to remember when porn was on the top of the magazine rack in the corner shop. Now it is being fed to our children in their feeds. The issue is also the type and nature of porn that people are seeing online: 80% of online porn has some kind of strangulation in it. That has real-world consequences, as we have seen from the latest data on women’s health in terms of strokes. Strangulation is now the second leading cause of strokes among women in the UK. That is shocking, and it is why we needed the Online Safety Act to intervene on what was being fed to us.
In Milton Keynes, 30% of young people have been approached by strangers since the implementation of the Online Safety Act. They are most frequently approached on Roblox. We do not automatically identify gaming platforms as places where people are approached by strangers, but we know from police investigations that they approach young children on Roblox and move them to end-to-end encryption sites where they can ask them to share images.
In 2024, there were 7,263 online grooming offences—remember that those will just be the ones that are not in end-to-end encryption sites. There were 291,273 reports of child sexual abuse material identified last year—again, remember, that is not the material being shared on end-to-end encryption sites, because we have no idea what is actually being shared on those. Some 90% of that material is self-generated—that is, groomers asking children to take pornographic pictures of themselves and share them. Once a picture is shared with a groomer, it goes into networks and can get shared anywhere in the UK or the world. The UK is the biggest consumer of child sexual abuse images. The police reckon that 850,000 people in the UK are consuming child sexual abuse images.
John Slinger
I thank my hon. Friend for making an impassioned and powerful speech. Does she agree that outrage ought to be directed at us for not doing enough on these issues rather than for the way in which we have started to try to tackle them?
If the behaviours that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have referred to happened in the real world—the so-called offline world—they would be clamped down on immediately and people would be arrested. Certain items cannot be published, be put in newsagents or be smuggled into school libraries and people could not get away with the defence, “This is a matter of my civil liberty.” We should be far more robust with online companies for the frankly shoddy way in which they are carrying out their activities, which is endangering our children and doing immense damage to our political system and wider life in our country and beyond.
Emily Darlington
I completely agree and I am going to come to that.
I recently met the NSPCC, the Internet Watch Foundation and the police forces that deal with this issue, and they told me that there are easy technological fixes when someone uploads something to a site with end-to-end encryption. For those who do not know, we use such sites all the time—our WhatsApp groups, and Facebook Messenger, are end-to-end encryption sites. We are not talking about scary sites that we have not heard of, or Telegram, which we hear might be a bit iffy; these are sites that we all use every single day. Those organisations told me that, before someone uploads something and it becomes encrypted, their image or message is screened. It is screened for bugs to ensure that they are not sharing viruses, but equally it could be screened for child sexual abuse images. That would stop children even sharing these images in the first place, and it would stop the images’ collection and sharing with other paedophiles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) is absolutely right: 63% of British parents want the Government to go further and faster, and 50% feel that our implementation has been too slow. That is not surprising; it took seven years to get this piece of legislation through, and the reality is that, by that time, half of it was out of date, because technology moves faster than Parliament.
Lizzi Collinge
My hon. Friend has been talking about the dangers that children are exposed to. Does she believe that parents are equipped to talk to their children about these dangers? Is there more we can do to support parents to have frank conversations with their children about the risks of sharing images and talking to people online?
Emily Darlington
I completely agree. As parents, we all want to be able to have those conversations, but because of the way the algorithms work, we do not see what they see. We say, “Yes, you can download this game, because it has a 4+ rating.” Who knows what a 4+ rating actually means? It has nothing to with the BBFC ratings that we all grew up with and understand really well. Somebody else has decided what is all right and made up the 4+ rating.
For example, Roblox looks as if it is child-ready, but many people might not understand that it is a platform on which anyone can develop a game. Those games can involve grooming children and sexual violence; they are not all about the silly dances that children do in the schoolyard. That platform is inhabited equally by children as it is by adults.
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend does well to draw attention to the gaming world. When most of us think about online threats, we think about social media and messaging, but there are interactive ways of communicating in almost every game in existence, and that can happen across the world.
In Oldham, we have had a number of section 60 stop-and-search orders in place, because of the number of schoolchildren who have been carrying knives and dangerous weapons. Largely, that has been whipped up not in the classroom, but online, overnight, when children are winding each other up and making threats to each other. That has real-life consequences: children have been injured and, unfortunately, killed as a result of carrying weapons in our community. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this threat is multifaceted, and that the legislation probably should not be so prescriptive for particular platforms at a point in time, but should have founding principles that can be far more agile as new technology comes on stream?
Emily Darlington
My hon. Friend raises two really important points. First, if we try to create legislation to address what companies do today, it will be out of date by the time that it passes through the two Houses. What we do must be done on the basis of principles, and I think a very good starting principle is that what is illegal offline should be illegal online. That is a pretty clear principle. Offline legislation has been robustly challenged over hundreds of years and got us to where we are with our freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to congregate. All those things have been robustly tested by both Houses.
John Slinger
On that critical point about the lack of equality between offline and online, does my hon. Friend agree that if I were to go out into the street and staple to somebody’s back an offensive but not illegal statement that was impermeable to being washed off and remained on their back for months, if not years, I would probably be subject to immediate arrest, yet online that happens routinely to our children—indeed, to anyone in society, including politicians? Is that not illustrative of the problem?
Emily Darlington
I agree; my hon. Friend makes a very important point about the slander that happens online, the lack of basis in reality and the lack of ability to address it. If somebody posts something about someone else that is untrue, platforms will not take it down; they will say, “It doesn’t breach our terms and conditions.” Somebody could post that I am actually purple and have pink eyes. I would say, “I don’t want you to say that,” and the platform would say, “But there’s nothing offensive about it.” I would say, “But it’s not me.” The thing is that this is happening in much more offensive ways.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made the point that what happens online is then repeated offline. We have even seen deaths when children try to replicate the challenges that they see being set online. With AI-generated material, those challenges often are not real. It is the equivalent of somebody trying to repeat magic tricks and dying as a result, which is quite worrying.
The Online Safety Act is not perfect; it needs to go further. The petitioner has made a really important point. The lack of proper definition around small but non-harmful sites versus small but harmful sites is very unclear, and it is really important that the Act provides some clarity on that.
We do not have enough protections for democracy. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I am a member of, produced a really important report on misinformation and how it led to the riots two summers ago. Misinformation was used as a rallying cry to create unrest across our country of a sort that we had not seen in a very long time. The response from the social media companies was variable; it went from kind of “meh” to really awful. The platforms say, “We don’t police our content. We’re just a platform.” That is naive in the extreme. Quite frankly, they are happy to make money off us, so they should also know that they have to protect us—their customers—just as any other company does, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton said.
The radicalisation that is happening online is actually shifting the Overton window; we are seeing a more divided country. There is a fantastic book called “Man Up”—it is very academic, but it shows the rise of misogyny leading to the rise of every other form of extremism and how that links back to the online world. If this was all about Islam, this House would be outraged, but because it starts with misogyny, it goes down with a fizzle, and too often people in this House say, “This is all about free speech.” We know that misogyny is the first step on a ladder of radicalisation that leads people to violence—whether into violence against women or further into antisemitism, anti-Islam, anti-anybody who is not the same colour, or anti-anybody who is perceived not to be English from Norman times.
The algorithms provoke violent and shocking content, but they also shadow-ban really important content, such as information on women’s health. Platforms are happy to shadow-ban terms such as “endometriosis” and “tampon”—and God forbid that a tampon commercial should feature red liquid, rather than blue liquid. That content gets shadow-banned and is regularly taken down and taken out of the algorithms, yet the platforms say they can do nothing about people threatening to rape and harm. That is not true; they can, and they choose not to. The public agree that algorithms must be part of the solution; 78% of British parents want to see action on algorithms. My hon. Friends are right that the Online Safety Act and Ofcom could do that, yet they have not done so—they have yet to create transparency in algorithms, which was the Select Committee’s No. 1 recommendation.
[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]
Finally, I want to talk about a few other areas in which we need to move very quickly: deepfakes and AI nudifying apps. We have already seen an example of how deepfakes are being used in British democracy: a deepfake was made of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) saying that he is moving from the Conservatives to Reform. It is a very convincing three-minute video. Facebook still refuses to take it down because it does not breach its terms. This should be a warning to us all about how individuals, state actors and non-state actors can impact our local democracy by creating deepfakes of any one of us that we cannot get taken down.
Tom Hayes
We heard today from the MI6 chief, who talked about how Russia is seeking to “export chaos” into western democracies and said that the UK is one of the most targeted. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need online safety, because it is our national security too, and that as we face the rising threat from Putin and the Kremlin, we need as a country to be secure in the air, at sea, on land and in the digital space?
Emily Darlington
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. They seek to promote chaos and the destruction of British values, and we need to fight that and protect those values.
The AI nudifying apps, which did not even exist when the Online Safety Act came in, need a very fast response. We know that deepfakes and AI nudifying apps are being used overwhelmingly against classmates and colleagues. Think about how it destroys a 13-year-old girl to have a fake nude photo of her passed around. The abuse that we politicians and many others receive from fake and anonymous accounts needs to be addressed. Seventy-one per cent of British people consider this to be a problem, and we need to take action. AI chatbots are another thing that was not foreseen in the development of the Online Safety Act, and therefore it is far behind on them, too.
The Online Safety Act is in no way perfect, but it is a good step forward. We must learn the lessons of its implementation to go further and faster, and listen to British parents across the country who want the Government’s help to protect our children online—and we as a Government must also protect our democracy online.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), who made a very eloquent opening speech, and Members from across the Chamber, who have touched on really important matters.
As the hon. Member mentioned, the online space gives us great opportunities for connection and knowledge gathering, but also opportunities for greater harms. What has come across today is that we have addictive algorithms that are pushed in furtherance of commercial and malevolent interests—security interests, for example, although not the security of Great Britain—with no regard for the harm or impact they have on individuals or society.
When it comes to the Online Safety Act, we must get the balance right. Its protections for children and the vulnerable are vital. Of course, it is important to maintain freedom of speech and access to information. The Act is a step in the right direction in protecting children from extreme content, and we have seen changes in pornographic content. However, there are areas where it has not gone far enough, and it is not ready for the changes that are coming at a fast pace. There are websites that serve a public good that are age-gated, and forums for hobbies and communities that are being blocked. As the Liberal Democrats have said, we have to get the balance right. We also have to look at introducing something like a digital Bill of Rights with agile standards in the face of fast-paced changes, to embed safety by design at the base.
The harms that we need to protect children and vulnerable people from online are real. The contributions to this debate from hon. Members from across the House have been, as always, eye-opening and a reminder of how important this issue is. On pornographic content, we heard from the hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) sickening reminders of the horrific content online that young people see—and not by choice. We must never forget that, as has also been said, people are often not seeking this content, but it comes through, whether on X, which was Twitter, or other platforms. The Molly Rose Foundation highlighted that
“children using TikTok and X were more than twice as likely to have encountered…high risk content compared to users of other platforms.”
The online world coming to life has been mentioned in this debate. One of my constituents in Harpenden wrote to me, horrified that her daughter had been strangled on a dancefloor, because it showed how violent, graphic content is becoming normalised. That struck me to my core. Other content that has been mentioned: suicidal content, violent content and eating disorder misinformation, which the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) talked so eloquently about. The Molly Rose Foundation also highlighted that one in 10 harmful videos on TikTok have been viewed more than 1 million times, so we have young people seeing that ex content.
Even beyond extreme content, we are starting to see the addictive nature of social media, and the insidious way that this short-form content is becoming such a normalised part of many of our lives. Recent polling by the Liberal Democrats revealed that 80% of parents reported negative behaviours in their child due to excess phone usage, including skipping meals, having difficulty sleeping, or reporting physical discomforts such as eye strain or headaches. Parents and teachers know the real harms that are coming through, but young people themselves do too. I carried out a safer screens tour in my constituency in which I spoke to young people. Many of them said that they are seeing extreme content that they do not want to see, and that, although they have blocked the content, it comes back. The Online Safety Act is helping to change that, but it has not gone far enough. The addictive element of social media is important. In our surveys, two quotes from young people stood out. One sixth-former said that social media is
“as addictive as a drug”,
and that they felt its negative effects every day. Another young person simply wrote, “Help, I can’t stop.” Young people are asking for help and protection; we need to hold social media giants and online spaces to account.
It is welcome that some of those harms have been tackled by the Online Safety Act. On pornography, Pornhub has seen a 77% reduction in visitors to its website; Ofcom has launched 76 investigations into pornography providers and issued one fine of £50,000 for failing to introduce age checks, but we need to ask whether that goes far enough. It has come across loud and clear in this debate that the Online Safety Act has not gone far enough. Analysis has shown that Instagram and TikTok have started to introduce new design features that comply with the Online Safety Act, but game the system to still put forward content that is in those companies’ commercial interests, and not in the interests of young people.
Other extremely important harms include the new harms from AI. Many more people are turning to AI for mental health support. Generative AI is creating graphic content, and the Internet Watch Foundation found that
“reports of AI-generated child sexual abuse material have more than doubled in the past year”
and the IWF says it is at the point where it cannot tell the difference any more—it is horrific.
Jim McMahon
The hon. Lady is making a very important point. It really concerns me to see just how desensitised young people or adults can become when they see that type of content, and that inhumane content is directly linked to misogyny and racism. While I know no Member of this House would say such a thing, outside this place I could imagine an argument being made that harm depicted in AI-generated content is not real harm, because the content in itself is not real and no real abuse has been carried out. However, does the hon. Lady share my concern that such content is incredibly harmful, and that there is a real danger that it entraps even more people down the very dark route to what is essentially child abuse and to further types of harm, which will then present in the real world in a way that I do not think even Parliament has yet registered? In a sense, this problem is becoming more and more of a public health crisis.
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. The insidious part of this issue is the normalisation of such harmful content. In a debate on Lords amendments to the then Data (Use and Access) Bill, on creatives and AI, I mentioned the fact that, in the two weeks since the previous vote, we had seen the release of Google Veo 3—the all-singing, all-dancing video creation software. We are moving so quickly that we do not see how good AI-generated content is becoming. Some content that we see online is probably AI-generated, but we do not realise it. On top of that, as the hon. Gentleman said, AI normalises extreme content and produces content that people think is real, but is not. That is very dangerous for society.
My next point concerns deepfakes, which are undermining trust. Some deepfakes are obvious; some Members of Parliament and news presenters have been targeted through deepfakes. Just as important, however, is the fact that much deepfake content seems normal, but is undermining trust in what we see—we do not know what is real and what is not any more. That is going to be very dangerous not only in terms of extreme content, but for our democracy, and that argument has been made by other Members in this debate.
It is also worrying that social media platforms do not seem to see that problem. To produce its risk assessment report, Ofcom analysed 104 platforms and asked them to put in submissions: not a single social media platform classified itself as high risk for suicide, eating disorder or depression—yet much of what we have heard during this debate, including statistics and anecdotal stories, shows that that is just not true.
On the other hand, while there are areas where the Online Safety Act has not gone far enough, in other areas it has overstepped the mark. When the children’s code came into place, Lord Clement-Jones and I wrote to Secretary of State to outline some of our concerns, including political content being age-gated, educational sites such as Wikipedia being designated as category 1, and important forums about LGBTQ+ rights, sexual health or potentially sensitive topics being age-gated, despite being important for many who are learning about the world.
Jamie from Harpenden, a young person who relies on the internet heavily for education, found when he was looking for resources that a lot of them were flagged as threatening to children and blocked, and felt that that prevented his education. Age assurance systems also pose a problem to data protection and privacy. The intention behind this legislation was never to limit access to political or educational content, and it is important that we support access to the content that many rely on—but we must protect our children and vulnerable people online, and we must get that balance right.
I have a few questions for the Minister. Does he agree with the Liberal Democrats that we should have a cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament to review the Online Safety Act? Will he confirm what resources Ofcom has been given? Has analysis been conducted to ensure that Ofcom has enough resources to tackle these issues? What are the Government doing about AI labelling and watermarking? What are they doing to tackle deepfakes? Does the Minister agree that it is time to support the wellbeing of our children, rather than the pockets of big tech? Will the Minister support Liberal Democrat calls to increase the age of data consent and ban social media giants from collecting children’s data to power the addictive algorithms against them? We are calling for public health warnings on addictive social media for under-18s and for a doomscroll cap. Most important is a digital bill of rights and standards that, in light of the fast pace of change, need to be agile.
Our young people deserve better. We need to put children, young people and vulnerable people before the profits of big tech. We will not stop fighting until that change is made.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, not least because it means that you cannot speak. I think you would happily take up a good hour of the debate talking about the perils and ills of the internet, and how it needs to be shut down, so that is probably for the best.
Julia Lopez
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on introducing the debate. He made a particularly excellent contribution to last week’s petition debate on mandatory digital identification; although his party’s leadership may not have thanked him, I am sure his constituents did. He is right that the internet allows unprecedented connection, which is for good, but also for ill. Our job is to balance that inherent tension, while recognising that sometimes there is no balance to be found and that we have to make a choice when it comes to children being served a toxic online diet of extreme content.
When we were in government, that choice was the Online Safety Act, about which thousands of petitioners have raised concerns, believing that its breadth and scope are having too restrictive an effect. I have some sympathy with those concerns, because the Act is large and very complex; although it is proving effective in protecting children in many ways, the implementation undoubtedly comes with challenges, whether that is VPN usage or the inadvertent capturing of no to low-risk sites in compliance duties.
Peter Fortune
Childnet has discovered that there has been increased downloading of VPNs by children over the last three months, as adolescents use them to circumvent age verification processes. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said—I presume he was referring to the Open Rights Group. I just had a quick look at the research, and although it says that it is not the youngest children who do that, it is children from the age of 13 up, so these are vulnerable adolescents. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the Online Safety Act to be successful, the use of VPNs has to be examined further?
Julia Lopez
I agree, and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about VPNs—whether they should be age-gated, whether we should look at app store controls so that parents have to consent to children downloading VPN apps, or whether there are other, more effective ways of doing that.
The sites that we have talked about may be smaller community forums, or they may be volunteer-run, but they are often mid-size tech companies that do not have the resources that the social media giants have to navigate the legal risks and intricacies of the Act without diverting precious capacity that might otherwise be used to innovate and expand their businesses. I have talked to some of those businesses. They may have one person who can do legal compliance; if they are looking at the next stage of the OSA’s implementation, they may be pulled off other work that is helping to grow the economy. We have to take that very seriously and look into it. A lot of those sites are effectively no risk whatever, and the OSA is probably too burdensome for them. We do not want the Act to stifle our vital tech sector.
Concerns have been raised about freedom of speech and user privacy. I can understand those concerns in principle; particularly when age verification first came into place over the summer, there were instances where there was a practical impact and posts were restricted. However, it seems that those early examples have been recycled many times to suggest that the Act is having a wholesale dampening effect on what people feel confident saying online, and I am not sure that that is actually the case. Those concerns are often conflated with other issues, such as the policing of tweets, non-crime hate incidents, the application of legislation such as the Public Order Act 2023, and outrageous cases of state overreach, such as that of Graham Linehan. We must also be mindful of those who seek to exaggerate those concerns for the sake of big tech’s commercial interests. I note the comments that the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made about the power that platforms hold.
On the other side of the ledger are worries that it remains relatively straightforward for under-18s to access pornography. There is no foolproof way to age-gate the internet. We have to see the Online Safety Act as a first step in a pushback against the wholly unacceptable situation that we witnessed previously. Of course some children seek out material and will continue to do so with determination, but far too many had previously been stumbling across explicit or illegal material by complete accident.
Studies that have already been cited today suggest that 41% of children first encountered porn on X, rather than seeking it out. If the Online Safety Act has a material impact on reducing that risk, it will have served its purpose. The hon. Member for Milton Keyneps Central (Emily Darlington) provided some truly shocking statistics and rightly said that we are putting porn back on the top shelf. As she was saying that, I thought back to the advent of magazines such as Zoo and Nuts when I was a teenager. They were seen as having dreadfully explicit content that was far too readily available, but they seem quite quaint when we think about what children can access now.
Pornhub reported a 77% reduction in visitors after implementing age verification measures, but it is important to note that the traffic previously going to such sites has not simply disappeared. A chunk of it has shifted to smaller sites that may be riskier because, in some cases, they think they can financially benefit from not implementing age-gating, which is against the law. Those sites need to know that Ofcom fines are coming. No website should assume that it can sidestep its legal duties. The fines are designed to outweigh any short-term commercial advantage gained by ignoring the law.
I do not believe that the best way of dealing with these concerns is to repeal the Online Safety Act, and nobody in the Chamber has advocated for that, but it is for us to review it and to work out how to tighten up child safety while being honest about the aspects of the law that need to change. A very long and winding road led to the previous Conservative Government passing the Act in 2023, but it was one of the first markers on internet regulation to be put down globally that said that the status quo—children having easy access to illegal explicit content—simply could not continue. As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) suggested, we cannot have untrammelled freedom for adults in this space, because that status quo caused significant harm to children.
It is right that we now expect more from social media platforms, which were given an opportunity to self-regulate and were found wanting. The Act has driven them to make design changes to help parents, children and teenagers, including Meta’s teen accounts and some aspects of Roblox. Without those protections, more children would encounter harmful content, receive unsolicited contact from adults, and access material that encourages self-harm, eating disorders or even suicide. Families would also continue to face barriers when seeking answers from tech companies following tragedies. Pressure on those companies will continue for as long as we see technology’s pernicious effects on our children, including a chatbot’s recent encouragement of a teenager into suicide.
Despite the criticisms levelled at this law, it remains popular with parents. Parents must remain sovereign in how children are raised, and they must have the parenting confidence to deny phones and social media to their children, but no matter how involved or savvy parents are, they need help with these challenges—challenges that creep into the heart of people’s homes in a way that we have not seen before, and find their way to children through what other children may be sharing with them.
During the years that the Act was being drawn up, we made a lot of changes, including removing the provisions relating to legal but harmful content in 2022. That is good because, as we can see, Ofcom has an enormous job on its hands dealing with some of the biggest online problems, such as age-gating pornography. Had we taken an expansionist approach, we would now be facing far greater problems around free speech, and Ofcom would have an even heavier role—not to mention workload—as arbiter of the public square.
Hon. Members need to think about that carefully: the OSA became a Christmas tree on which everybody hung their niche, individual concerns, and it became unimplementable. If the Labour Government wish to go down a more restrictive route in some of these areas, they have to be mindful of that risk. They need something that can actually be implemented in law and they need to resource the regulator to implement it.
Long before the Act was brought in, the status quo was also having a negative impact on journalistic content. There is lots of discussion about freedom of speech, but I recall having discussions as a media Minister with traditional news content providers that were extremely frustrated by west coast content moderators arbitrarily taking down their content with no opportunity to appeal. With this legislation, we introduced must-carry provisions that would give proper news content providers a greater chance of their content being visible, which is important for journalistic credibility and to make sure that we have truth in online spaces.
As I have said, the Online Safety Act represents the start of a journey as countries grapple to find the right framework through which adults can retain their freedom on the internet while children are treated as children. This debate is particularly timely as a new social media ban was introduced in Australia last week. My party will be watching that closely, but concerns about social media and mobile phones go far beyond the ability to access porn or illegal content.
As a party, the Conservatives are concerned about the impact of social media and smartphone use on children’s mental health, education and social development. I suspect that any hon. Member who has recently been to a school in their constituency will have heard about the challenges to the learning environment, the challenges of the social interactions between children, and the challenges that parents are facing at home, which go way beyond the issue of illegal content. We have also heard other concerns. I liked the way the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) described it as “a veritable chemistry lab of…psychoactive substances”. He also made some interesting observations about safety and how, as a democracy, we must think very carefully about broader harms.
The Act will be statutorily reviewed next year. I would welcome the Minister telling us whether the Government are examining the measures that have been discussed today, including whether GDPR protections on the processing of children’s data might be raised from age 13 to 16. Age-gating also needs attention. Reports of VPN use suggest that children have been circumventing protections, and we must consider whether age-gating should be applied more comprehensively, including to VPN use or via app stores or at device level to close those loopholes. Adults also need to be assured of the privacy preserving nature of the age verification tools that they are using. There are concerns about the volume of sensitive data being collected.
As I have described, we also need to ensure that low-risk tech firms are not being disproportionately burdened. They did a huge amount of work before the July phase of Ofcom’s introduction of age verification, and they are worried that they will need to make a further step change for regulatory compliance, given the burden that will place on them.
Regulation has to remain proportionate, targeting high-risk sites and services without undermining innovation or our competitive position in tech. We also need to examine, as has been discussed many times today, the emerging technologies such as generative AI and chatbots —as was suggested by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the hon. Member for Worcester. The legal position under the OSA is not yet entirely clear, but children are increasingly exposed to AI-generated content, and we need to know if the Act is flexible enough to deal with innovations of that kind.
As hon. Members have described today, the Online Safety Act is a necessary first step, but it is only the beginning of a much longer fight to protect childhood. We have to create the space for childhood and adolescence away from screens, with all the richness and stimulation that the real world can bring. Parents ultimately can never cease their vigilance. The internet cannot be made wholly safe, and we cannot be naive about that. Ultimately, parents have to remain the ultimate backstop to make sure that their children are safe online—but they need help. It is our role as legislators to provide some of those tools and that assistance to help children through their childhoods.
I hope that we look back at the time before the Online Safety Act and wonder how we ever allowed children to be exposed to the unbridled internet culture that has hitherto been the norm. To return to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, the internet has led to the creation of new bonds and a huge multiplication of opportunity, but simultaneously the opportunity for harm. Sometimes we need to make a choice, and while the Online Safety Act is undoubtedly imperfect, the imperative to protect children will always take precedence. If social media platforms are held to greater account, so be it.
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
It is great to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I did not realise you were such a technophobe until we heard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). I am disappointed that you were not able to contribute to this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank him and other speakers for their contributions.
I have not been on the RTG fans message board that my hon. Friend mentioned, but I am sure it has been very busy this weekend. I wondered if some of the trolls mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) were perhaps wearing black and white over the weekend. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central raised an important point, however: it is the site managers and volunteers who are hosting those forums, keeping them legitimate and working very hard to abide by the law.
Jambos Kickback is an important site for my football team, and many people use it to find out what is going on. It is run by volunteers with no money at all—just for the sheer love of being on the forum together—so I fully understand what the petitioner wants to bring forward. I thank my hon. Friend for the measured way in which he put forward the e-petition. He called for robust, effective and proportionate regulation, which is what the Government are trying to do through the Online Safety Act.
The shadow Minister highlighted that by going through the ledger of the positive and negative issues that the Government face, and indeed that were faced when her party was in government. The one thing on that ledger that is non-negotiable is the safety of children online—I think all hon. Members made that point; in fact, I am disappointed that those who do not make that point are not in this debate to try to win that argument, because I would be very interested to hear what they have to say.
The petition received over 550,000 signatures. Although I appreciate the concerns that it raised, I must reiterate the Government’s very strong response that we have no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act. Parents should know and be confident that their children—I am a father of two young girls, aged five years and ten months—are safe when they access popular online services and that they can benefit from the opportunities that the online world offers. That is why the Government are working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and as effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from the Act’s protections.
This year, 2025, has been one of significant action on online safety. On 17 March the illegal harms codes of practice came into effect. Those codes will drive significant improvements in online safety in several areas. Services are now required to put in place measures to reduce the risk of their services facilitating illegal content and activity, including terrorism, child sexual abuse and exploitation, and other kinds of illegal activity.
I asked the officials for a list of the priority offences in the Act; there were 17, but that number has increased to 20, with the new Secretary of State at the Department adding some others. It is worth reading through them because it shows the problem and the scale of it. I was really struck by Members who talked about the real world and the online world: if any of these offences were happening in the real world, someone would be carted off to jail immediately rather than being allowed to continue to operate, as they do online.
The priority offences are assisted suicide; threats to kill; public order offences such as harassment, stalking and fear of provocation of violence; drugs and psychoactive substances; firearms and other weapons; assisted illegal immigration; human trafficking; sexual exploitation; sexual images; intimate images of children; proceeds of crime; fraud; financial services fraud; foreign interference; animal welfare; terrorism; and controlling or coercive behaviour. The new ones that have been added by the Secretary of State include self-harm, cyber-flashing and strangulation porn. Do we honestly have to write that into a schedule of an Online Safety Act to say that those things are unacceptable and should not be happening on our computers?
On 25 July, the child safety regime came into force. Services now use highly effective age assurance to prevent children in the UK from encountering pornography and content that encourages, promotes and provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms are also now legally required to put in place measures to protect children from other types of harmful content, including abusive or hateful content, or bullying and violent content.
When we visited schools, we spoke to headteachers, teachers and parents about the real problem that schools have in trying to deal with the bullying effects of social media. According to Ofcom’s 4 December report that some hon. Members have referenced already, many services now deploy age checks, including the top 10 most popular pornographic sites, the UK’s most popular dating apps and a wide range of other services, including X, Telegram, Reddit, TikTok, Bluesky, Discord, Xbox and Steam. This represents a safer online experience for millions of children across the UK; we have heard that it is already having an impact.
The Government recognise, however, the importance of implementing the duties proportionately. That is why proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is built into many of the duties contained within it. Ofcom’s illegal content and child safety codes of practice set out recommended measures that are tailored to both size and risk to help providers to comply with their obligations —it is really important to emphasise that. When recommending steps that providers can take to comply with their duties, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services.
Let me just concentrate on that for a minute. For instance, Ofcom recommends user blocking and muting measures to help to protect children from harmful content, including bullying, violent content and other harmful materials, and those recommendations are tailored to services’ size and risk profile. Specifically, Ofcom recommends that all services that are high risk for this content need to implement those measures in full. However, for services that are medium risk for this content, Ofcom suggests that they need to implement the measures only if they have more than 700,000 users.
However, while many services carry low risks of harm, risk assessment duties are key to ensuring that risky services of all sizes do not slip through the net of regulation. For example, the Government are very concerned about small platforms that host the most harmful content, such as forums dedicated to encouraging suicide or self-harm. Exempting all small services from duties requiring them to tackle that type of content would mean that those forums would not be subject to the Act’s enforcement powers, which is why we reject the petitioner’s views. Even forums that might seem harmless carry potential risks, such as where adults can engage directly with child users.
The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that low-risk services do not have unnecessary regulatory burdens placed upon them, which I hope reassures the shadow Minister. That is why, in the statement of strategic priorities issued on 2 July, the Government set out our expectation that Ofcom should continue focusing its efforts on safety improvements among services that pose the highest risk of harm to users, including small but risky services. The Government also made it explicitly clear that Ofcom should ensure that expectations on low-risk services are proportionate.
Alongside proportionate implementation of the Act, the Government also understand the need to communicate the new regulations effectively, and to work with companies within its scope to ensure that compliance is as easy as possible. To deliver that, Ofcom is providing support to online service providers of all sizes to make it easier for them to understand and comply with their responsibilities under the UK’s new online safety laws. For example, Ofcom has already launched a regulation checker to help firms to check whether they are covered by the new rules, as well as a number of quick guides for them.
I will address some of the issues raised by Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) started by raising the issue of pornography and other harmful content. User-to-user services that allow pornographic content, and content that promotes, provides instructions for or encourages suicide, self-harm or eating disorders, must use highly effective age assurance to prevent all children under 18 from accessing that type of content.
Services must take proportionate steps to minimise the risk of children encountering that type of content when using them, and they must also put in place age assurance measures to protect children from harmful content, such as bullying and violent content. Ofcom’s “Protection of Children Codes of Practice” set out what steps services can take to comply, and Ofcom has robust enforcement powers available to use against companies that fail to fulfil those important duties. We are already seeing that enforcement happening, with 6,000 sites having taken action to stop children from seeing harmful content, primarily via age checks. That shows the scale of the issue.
Virtual private networks have also been mentioned by a number of Members, including the shadow Minister. Following the introduction of the child safety duties in July, Ofcom reported that UK daily active users of VPN apps temporarily doubled to around 1.5 million—the average is normally about 750,000. Since then, usage has dropped, falling back down to around 1 million daily users by the end of September. That was expected, and it has also happened in other jurisdictions that have introduced age checks. According to an Ofcom rule, services should
“take appropriate steps to mitigate against methods of circumvention that are easily accessible to children”.
If a provider is not complying with the age assurance duties, by promoting VPN usage to bypass age assurance methods, Ofcom can and should take enforcement action. The use of VPNs does not protect platforms from not complying with the Act itself.
Jim McMahon
The Minister has done a huge amount of work on this issue, which I am sure is appreciated by everyone in this House. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to find a way for these VPN companies to bridge between the service user and the ultimate website or platform that they are viewing, so why are VPNs not in scope of the legislation to ensure that they are compliant with the age verification measures? Presumably, it is more difficult for the end website to know the origins of the user, if they have bypassed via a VPN. Surely the onus should be on the VPN company to comply with the law also.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend makes a good point; let me come back to him in detail on the VPN issue, as his question relates to what we are planning to do in our review of the Online Safety Act, including both what was written into the legislation and what was not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who is no longer in her place, highlighted the really important issue of chatbots, which has also been mentioned by a number of other Members. Generative AI services including chatbots that allow users to share content with one another or search live websites to provide search engines are already regulated under the Online Safety Act. Those services must protect users from illegal content and children from harmful and age-inappropriate content.
Victoria Collins
Ofcom has said, and my understanding is, that in certain circumstances AI chatbots are covered, but certain new harms—such as emotional dependence—are not. That is an area where the House and many people are asking for clarity.
Ian Murray
I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. There are a whole host of issues around porn bots and AI-generated bots that have now also sprung up. We know that we are committed to the Online Safety Act and its review as its being implemented. As technology moves on quickly, we have to keep pace with what the harms are and how we are able to deal with them. I thank the hon. Lady for raising those particular issues.
We will act on the evidence that comes forward. It is clear that if the evidence shows us that we have to act in various areas, including chatbots, we will do so. The Secretary of State announced plans to support a child safety summit in 2026, which will bring together tech companies, civil society and young people to shape how AI can benefit children and look at online harms and the movements on those.
Emily Darlington
I wanted to raise with the Minister that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will be undertaking an inquiry in the new year on brain development, addictive use and how that impacts various key points in children’s development. The Minister says that he will look at all evidence. Will he look at the evidence produced by that inquiry to ensure that its information and advice goes to parents across this country?
Ian Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does on that Committee. Of course, the Government have to respond in detail to such reports and we look forward to the recommendations it brings forward. Often we see conspiracy theories in the online world, but there is no conspiracy theory here: the Government are not trying to defend a position against what evidence might come forward.
We have just signed a memorandum of understanding with Australia to look at their experiences of protecting children online and whether there are things that we can do in this country. It has to be evidence-based, and if the evidence base is there, we will certainly make sure to act, because it is non-negotiable that we protect young people and children online.
Jim McMahon
I think there is no disagreement on the protection of children and there is no disagreement on what we have legislated to be illegal content. There is more debate needed on harmful but not illegal content and where that line is and what we enforce, and the protections for those who are not children, particularly vulnerable users and those who are being exploited and drawn into some quite extreme behaviours.
I will be honest about where some of these tensions are. How confident will the UK Government be in entering into negotiations on this when we are in the position we are in on trade with the US? The US has also made it clear that it sees any further regulation on social media platforms to be an infringement on trade and freedom of speech. When it comes to making that call, where will the UK Government be?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend makes an important point, because freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Act. Although we are regulating to make sure that children and young people are protected online, he is right to suggest that that does not mean we are censoring stuff for adult content. The internet is a place where people can access content if they are age-verified to do so, but it cannot be illegal content. The list of issues in schedule 7 to the Act that I read out at the start of my speech is pretty clear on what someone is not allowed to do online, so any illegal content online still remains illegal. We need to work clearly with the online platforms to make sure that that is not being purveyed through them.
We have seen strong examples of this issue in recent months. If we reflect back to Southport, the public turned to local newspapers—we have discussed this many times before—because they wanted fast and regular but trustworthy news. They turned away from social media channels to get the proper story, and they knew they could trust the local newspaper that they were able to pick up and read. I think the public have a very strong understanding of where we are, but I take the point about people who are not as tech-savvy or are impaired in some way, and so may need further protections. My hon. Friend makes the argument very strongly.
I want to turn to AI chatbots, because they were mentioned in terms of mental health. We are clear that AI must not replace trained professionals. The Government’s 10-year health plan lays foundations for a digital front door for mental health care. Last month, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology urged Ofcom to use existing powers to protect children from the potential harms of AI chatbots. She is clear that she is considering what more needs to be done. The Department of Health and Social Care is looking at mental health through the 10-year plan, but the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has also been clear that she will not allow AI chatbots to affect young people’s mental health, and will address their development, as mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins).
Let me touch on freedom of expression, because it is important to balance that out. It is on the other side of the shadow Minister’s ledger, and rightly so, because safeguards to protect freedom of expression and privacy are built in throughout the Online Safety Act. Services must consider how to protect users’ rights when applying safety measures, including users’ rights to express themselves freely. Providers do not need to take action on content that is beneficial to children—only against content that poses a risk of harm to children on their services. The Act does not prevent adults from seeking out legal content, and does not restrict people posting legal content that others of opposing views may find offensive. There is no removing of freedom of speech. It is a cornerstone of this Government, and under the Act, platforms have duties to protect freedom of speech. It is written into legislation.
Let me reiterate: the Online Safety Act does not limit freedom of speech. In fact, it protects it. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) was clear when he said in his wonderful speech that making the internet a safe space promotes freedom of speech. Indeed it does, because it allows us to have the confidence that we can use online social media platforms, trust what we are reading and seeing, and know that our children are exposed to age-appropriate content.
I will address age assurance, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). Ofcom is required to produce a report on the use of age assurance technologies, including the effectiveness of age assurance, due in July 2026—so in seven months’ time. That allows sufficient time for these measures to embed in before considering further action, but the Government continue to monitor the impact of circumvention techniques such as VPNs and the effectiveness of the Act in protecting children. We will not hesitate to go further if necessary, but we are due that report in July 2026, which will be 12 months from the implementation of the measures.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asked about reviewing the Act. My previous comments covered some of that, but it is critical that we understand how effective the online safety regime is, and monitoring and evaluating that is key. My Department, Ofcom and the Home Office have developed a framework to monitor the implementation of the Act and evaluate the core outcomes from it.
Tom Collins
The Minister describes the review of the Act and how we have a rapidly growing list of potential harms. It strikes me that we are up against a very agile and rapidly developing world. I recently visited the BBC Blue Room and saw the leading edge of consumer-available technology, and it was quite disturbing to see the capabilities that are coming online soon. In the review of the Act, is there scope to move from a register of harms into perhaps domains of safety, such as trauma, addiction or attachment, where the obligation would be on service providers or manufacturers to ensure their products were safe across those domains? Once again, there could be security for smaller businesses available from the world of technical standards, where if a business is offering a simple service and meets an industry-developed standard, they have presumption of compliance. The British Standards Institution has demonstrated very rapid development of that through the publicly available specification system, and that is available to help us to navigate this rapidly. Could that be in scope?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Interventions should be brief, but I am very kind.
Ian Murray
Sir John, you are indeed very kind. My hon. Friend gave two examples during his speech. First, he mentioned brakes that were available only for high-end and expensive cars, and are now on all cars. Secondly, he mentioned building regulations, and how we would not build a balcony without a barrier. Those examples seem fairly obvious and almost flippant, but it seems strange that we would regulate heavily to make sure that people are safe physically—nobody would ever argue that it would be a complete disregard of people’s freedom to have a barrier on an 18th-floor balcony—but not online. We do that to keep people safe, and particularly to keep children safe. As my hon. Friend said, if we are keeping adults safe, we are ultimately keeping children safe too.
We have to continue to monitor and evaluate. I was just about to come on to the post-implementation review of the Act, which I am sure my hon. Friend will be very keen to have an input into. The Secretary of State must complete a review of the online safety regime two to five years after part 3 of the Act, which is about duties of care, fully comes into force. The review will therefore be completed no sooner than 2029. These are long timescales, of course, and technology is moving, so I understand the point that he is making. I recall that in the Parliament from 2010 to 2015, we regulated for the telephone, so we move slowly, although we understand that we also have to be nimble to legislate.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, asked whether the Act has gone far enough. Ofcom, the regulator, is taking an iterative approach and will strengthen codes of practice as online harms, technology and the evidence evolve. We are already making improvements, for example strengthening the law to tackle self-harm, cyber-flashing and strangulation. The hon. Lady also asked whether Ofcom has received an increase in resources. It has—Ofcom spending has increased by nearly 30% in the past year, in recognition of its increased responsibilities. She also asked about a digital age of consent. As I mentioned, we have signed a memorandum of understanding with Australia and will engage with Australia to understand its approach. Any action will be based, of course, on robust evidence.
Victoria Collins
I would just like to clarify that I made a call for an age of data consent. We put that forward earlier this year as an amendment to the Act. A very first step is to stop social media companies harvesting data and using it to power these addictive algorithms against young people. It is about data consent to 16. Then of course, there is the wider discussion about what is happening with social media in general, but it is that age of data consent that is our first call to action.
Ian Murray
I take that point about the amendment that the Liberal Democrats tabled.
The hon. Lady also asked for a cross-party Committee to take action. I have already talked about the review of the implementation of the regulations that will happen in July and the other stages after that, as well as the post-implementation review. Of course, setting up a new Committee is a matter for the House. I have no objections to the House setting up Committees to look at these big and important issues that we all care about, if that is what it decides to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester talked about the issue of Parliament and engagement. He asked whether the Department would engage with the group of academics he mentioned, who are looking at technical safety standards for social media, including considering what role those academics could play in relation to these provisions. I welcome his invitation and I am sure that the Minister responsible for this area—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan)—would be delighted to participate in those talks. I am sure that he will be in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to take him up on that offer.
We have heard about algorithms, so it is worth focusing concentrating on them. Hon. Friends have talked about the algorithms that serve harmful content. The Government have been clear that algorithms can impact on the risk of harm for children, which is why the legislation comprehensively covers them. The legislation requires providers to consider, via risk assessment, how algorithms could impact children’s exposure to illegal or harmful content, and providers must then take steps to mitigate those risks. If they do not do so, Ofcom has powers that it can use.
Jim McMahon
There needs to be a tie-in here with the Cabinet Office and the review of electoral law. If a kind donor in my constituency owned a big billboard and gave me absolute free use of it during an election period, but made an offer to any other party that they could put a Post-it note on the back of it that nobody would see, I would have been expected to declare that as a gift in kind, or a donation in kind. That is not the case with algorithms that are posting and promoting generally right-wing and far-right content during the regulated period. Surely there has to be a better join-up here of election law and online law.
Ian Murray
This is a huge issue and all of us in this House are very concerned about misinformation and disinformation, and the impact on our democracy. Indeed, I am sure that in the time that I have been speaking here in Westminster Hall, my own social media will have been full of bots and all sorts of other things that try to encourage people to get involved in this debate, in order to influence the algorithm. That can fundamentally disturb our democracy, and is something we are looking at very closely. The Cabinet Office and ourselves are looking at the misinformation and disinformation issue, as is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in terms of the media outlook and how elections are run in this country. We should all be very clear about not having our democratic processes undermined by such algorithmic platforms that serve up the kind of content that provides misinformation and disinformation to the public.
Emily Darlington
I appreciate what the Minister says—that these powers are in legislation—yet the process is still the social media platforms marking their own homework. We are in a vicious circle: Ofcom will not take action unless it has a complaint based on evidence, but the evidence is not achievable because the algorithm is not made available for scrutiny. How should Ofcom use those powers more clearly ahead of the elections to ensure that such abuse to our democracy does not occur?
Ian Murray
A whole host of legislation sits behind this, including through the Electoral Commission and the Online Safety Act, but it is important for us to find ways to ensure that we protect our democratic processes, whether that be from algorithmic serving of content or foreign state actors. It is in the public domain that, when the Iranian servers went dark during the conflict with the US, a third of pro-independence Facebook pages in Scotland went dark, because they were being served by foreign state actors. We have seen that from Russia and various other foreign actors. We have to be clear that the regulations in place need to be implemented and, if they are not, we need to find other ways to ensure that we protect our democracy. At a small tangent, our public sector broadcasters and media companies are a key part of that.
To stay with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), she made an excellent contribution, with figures for what is happening. She asked about end-to-end encryption. We support responsible use of encryption, which is a vital part of our digital world, but the Online Safety Act does not ban any service design such as end-to-end encryption, nor does it require the creation of back doors. However, the implementation of end-to-end encryption in a way that intentionally binds tech companies to content will have a disastrous impact on public safety, in particular for children, and we expect services to think carefully about their design choices and to make the services safe by design for children.
That leads me to online gaming platforms and Roblox, which my hon. Friend also mentioned. Ofcom has asked the main platforms, including Roblox, to share what they are doing and to make improvements where needed. Ofcom will take action if that is not advanced. A whole host of things are happening, and we need the Online Safety Act and the regulations underpinning it to take time to feed through. I hope that we will start to see significant improvements, as reflected on by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central mentioned deepfakes. That issue is important to our democracy as well. The Government are concerned about the proliferation of AI-enabled products and services that enable deepfake non-consensual images. In addition to criminalising the creation of non-consensual images, the Government are looking at further options, and we hope to provide an update on that shortly. It is key to protecting not only our wider public online but, fundamentally, those who seek public office.
The Government agree that a safer digital future needs to include small, personally owned and maintained websites. We recognise the importance that proportionate implementation of the Online Safety Act plays in supporting that aim. We can all agree that we need to protect children online, and we would not want low-risk services to have any unnecessary compliance burden. That is a balance that we have to strike to make it proportionate. The Government will conduct a post-implementation review of the Act and will consider the burdens on low-risk services as part of that review, as mentioned in the petition. We will also ensure that the Online Safety Act protects children and is nimble enough to deal with a very fast-moving tech world. I thank all hon. Members for providing a constructive debate and raising their issues. I look forward to engaging further in the months and years ahead.
Lewis Atkinson
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for the conclusion of this debate, Sir John. I thank all Members for their contributions. I think that we had a really constructive and thorough debate, and I certainly learned a lot in the course of it. I only wish that I had heard some of the contributions before I wrote my opening speech. I particularly thank the Minister for being so generous with his time in giving a thorough response and taking interventions, which I think gave us significant insight.
The contributions from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), were thoughtfully made, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), clearly brought to the debate her expertise on this subject. I think that the points about the wider impacts on mental health and wellbeing of the new online world will be particularly relevant as the Government think more widely about the approach to mental health in their strategy, which I hope will be forthcoming. I can say, as the Minister did, that my only regret is that the few Members of the House who have publicly called for outright repeal of the Online Safety Act were not here this afternoon to give their perspective and to engage with the thoroughness that I think all Members present have engaged.
I have a final couple of reflections. I think that everyone I have heard in this space and debate has been motivated by a desire to preserve rights and our British values, whether it be rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression or freedom of association, including through small online spaces and forums, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) rightly said in his excellent contribution, safe spaces online open up space for further freedoms, and the freedoms of children cannot be infringed by freedoms for adults. It was really shocking to hear the extent of the harms that children are suffering in the current environment. I think that the motivations behind this petition were not about that at all, but it was very much about making sure that the freedoms of association that we hold dear in this country are able to be continued online through small forums. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that the Government see ample space for small and independent providers in the future as part of that.
A reflection that I had in the course of the debate is that increasingly we are talking about safety by design, but a lot of online forums came about in a world in which there was no safety by design. Part of the implementation issue is that the tech being used for online forums is probably 10 or 15 years old in relation to message boards. If a new message board were being set up today, with the use of new tech standards, I would hope that safety by design would be much more embedded, and the responsibilities that fall to individual volunteers and administrators would be lessened as a result.
It is entirely natural that the first attempt at regulation and legislation will not get everything right and that it will require evolution. The Online Safety Act was a landmark attempt to regulate online harms, but I think it is fair to say that the consensus that we have heard today is that it needs to evolve—that we should be looking not to repeal the Act but to evolve at pace and ensure implementation at pace, so that we tackle online harms in a way that is consistent with our British values and the freedoms of expression and association that we have heard about.
It only remains for me to thank again Mr Baynham, the creator of the petition, and all the petitioners for their online engagement—I have to say—in the petition process, without which today’s really informative debate would not have occurred.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 722903 relating to the Online Safety Act.
Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
This is deeply personal to me because I was one of those children, 34 years ago, sat on a double mattress in a room doing my GCSE revision and my coursework, and then having to sleep next to my mum and sister in a room while all that was going on. That is why today is so remarkably important, and why I am so proud to stand here and hear that we are going to do something about this. I can tell this House that when that happens to you, you feel alone, you feel isolated, you feel that no one cares, and your dignity and self-respect sits in somebody else’s hands. There are thousands of children out there today living in cramped B&Bs. I am so glad that the Labour Government will end that unlawful practice and protect those families from being placed in those unsafe, unsuitable conditions. Something that is massively important for me is my patience, but on this issue it runs out all the time. What is the timeline to stop that happening to those children in B&Bs?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Children who are stuck in inappropriate B&Bs should know that they have a champion in this House, they should know that there is someone who has been there too, and they should know that they are not alone. On the timeline for getting kids out of B&Bs, we will end the use of B&B accommodation by the end of the Parliament in all but the most extreme cases—an absolute emergency. It is already the law—it has been for 20 years—that children are not supposed to be in B&Bs for more than six weeks. What on Earth is going on in this country when there are 2,000 children in such a situation? Let us work together, let us do something about it and let us bring those numbers down very quickly.
[Official Report, 11 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 528.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern):
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Children who are stuck in inappropriate B&Bs should know that they have a champion in this House, they should know that there is someone who has been there too, and they should know that they are not alone. On the timeline for getting kids out of B&Bs, we will end the use of B&B accommodation by the end of the Parliament in all but the most extreme cases—an absolute emergency. It is already the law—it has been for 20 years—that children are not supposed to be in B&Bs for more than six weeks. What on Earth is going on in this country when there are 2,000 families with children in such a situation? Let us work together, let us do something about it and let us bring those numbers down very quickly.
Other Corrections
Wendy Chamberlain
St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs
The following extract is from the debate on St Andrew’s day and Scottish affairs on 11 December 2025.
Wendy Chamberlain
I pay tribute to some of the groups and organisations that work in St Andrews, such as the community hub; the St Andrews community council, which recently hosted the hoolie that marked St Andrew’s day in the town; and the university.
[Official Report, 11 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 542.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain):
Wendy Chamberlain
I pay tribute to some of the groups and organisations that work in St Andrews, such as the community hub; the St Andrews business improvement district, which recently hosted the hoolie that marked St Andrew’s day in the town; and the university.
Euan Stainbank
Topical Questions
The following extract is from Business and Trade questions on 11 December 2025.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the 340 jobs at Grangemouth announced this morning as a direct consequence of the investment made by this Labour Government and MiAlgae.
[Official Report, 11 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 481.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank):
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement this morning that 310 jobs will be created at Grangemouth over the next five years as a direct consequence of the investment made by this Labour Government and MiAlgae.
Antonia Bance
Seasonal Work
The following extract is from the debate on Seasonal Work on 10 December 2025.
Antonia Bance
… I also want to mention Chris Birch from the Swift Group in Wednesbury, who I met yesterday —he was in town to go to the Goldman Sachs “10k Small Businesses” reception yesterday evening. Chris is the managing director of a family-owned business; he and his 36 employees make industrial and commercial kitchens, and he spoke to me about the help he has received with solar panels, which are going to be installed on his buildings—he has got a grant for that. He has also got a grant to help with the CRM through the Goldman Sachs scheme.
[Official Report, 10 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 361.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance):
Antonia Bance
… I also want to mention Chris Birch from the Swift Group in Wednesbury, who I met yesterday —he was in town to go to the Goldman Sachs “10k Small Businesses” reception yesterday evening. Chris is the managing director of a family-owned business; he and his 36 employees make industrial and commercial kitchens, and he spoke to me about the help he has received with solar panels, which are going to be installed on his buildings—he has got a grant for that. He has also got a grant to set up a customer relationship management system.
Upgraded Free Trade Agreement with the Republic of Korea
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea have concluded negotiations on an upgraded free trade agreement. Building on the work of the previous Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Minister of State for Trade Policy and Economic Security, the new FTA builds on our existing agreement, which we carried over from the European Union and which came into force in 2021.
The agreement will support this Government’s mission to deliver economic growth by making it faster, cheaper and more predictable to do business with the Republic of Korea—a country with which the UK’s trade totalled £15.8 billion in 2024. The Republic of Korea is the world’s 12th largest economy, with a dynamic import market projected to grow by 26% in the next 10 years. We have protected and expanded key market access and agreed measures that will reduce barriers to trade. The deal reflects our shared ambition to strengthen ties while reinforcing our commitment to a rules-based trading system that promotes high standards. By concluding the agreement, the UK has also future-proofed its trading relationship with a key partner and reinforced its influence across the Asia-Pacific, a region forecasted to account for 10% of global growth by 2035.
We have secured continued tariff-free access for British business across 98% of Korean tariff lines in key industrial strategy growth sectors, including advanced manufacturing and life sciences, as well as key sectors such as food and drink. Both established exporters and new entrants will be able to trade on a stable, predictable footing, ensuring that renowned UK goods remain competitive in the Republic of Korea’s expanding market, supported by a trade framework tailored for British supply chains.
The UK is a services powerhouse, with Department for Business and Trade modelling estimating that services exports could increase by £400 million annually as a result of this agreement in the long run. Building on £1.1 billion worth of UK financial and insurance exports to the Republic of Korea in 2024, the agreement strengthens access to the Republic of Korea’s expanding financial market. The UK has secured meaningful commitments on data localisation and transparency, allowing British financial services firms to enter and operate in the Korean market with confidence. The agreement includes unprecedented commitments that strengthen UK insurers’ ability to provide a range of specialist insurance products to Korean clients.
The deal secures unmatched Government procurement opportunities in the Republic of Korea’s Sejong City, which procures an average of £46.2 million-worth of goods and services annually, as well as expanded access for UK advertising firms for public contracts. It also ensures fairer access to and use of public telecoms networks and services for UK suppliers by limiting the conditions placed on them when seeking access in the Republic of Korea. This will benefit suppliers across industries that rely on telecoms networks to provide their service, further supporting economic growth.
Our services exports are supported by a new and ambitious digital commerce chapter. This chapter is designed to support the 70% of services trade between the UK and the Republic of Korea that is now conducted digitally. This underscores the UK’s commitment to tech-driven trade, creating a more dynamic and future-ready environment for British businesses. We have also agreed commitments that promote and improve compatibility and interoperability of AI governance and policy frameworks. In practice, this means reducing unnecessary barriers so that the UK’s and the Republic of Korea’s businesses can use each other’s technology more easily and at lower cost. By strengthening co-operation with the Republic of Korea’s world-leading AI sector, the UK is delivering on its national AI strategy and showing its ambition to lead global conversations on safe, fair and innovative AI.
There will be streamlined access to import/export documents, simplified licensing rules and authorisation processes, and greater promotion of the use of English language and e-trade documents. Access to critical information such as financial regulations has also been improved. Collectively these reduce administrative burdens and allow British service suppliers, investors, and small and medium-sized enterprises to fully seize the opportunities offered by this dynamic market.
Simpler ways to qualify for tariff-free market access will make supply chains more resilient. This includes updated rules of origin that simplify how businesses prove where their products come from, reducing paperwork and speeding up processes. UK exports to the Republic of Korea supported around 92,000 jobs in 2020. Leading employers and business representative organisations such as Deloitte, the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders, and the Confederation of British Industry have welcomed the deal as a vital protection for the competitiveness of British goods and the thousands of jobs they support.
The upgraded agreement marks the Republic of Korea’s strongest set of commitments to date for agrifood exporters, including an upgraded provision for co-operation on animal welfare and a new article on antimicrobial resistance. The deal provides certainty for traders by ensuring that both the UK and the Republic of Korea can protect their biosecurity, while putting in place enhanced commitments, structures and processes that will allow us to avoid unnecessary trade barriers. These changes will help to protect supply chains from disruption and ensure that administrative processes remain predictable for UK business.
The FTA will also deepen the strategic relationship between our two nations, building on the Republic of Korea’s recent and significant inward investment into the UK. To support this, the deal introduces new co-operation pathways in critical areas such as innovation, gender equality and supply chains—the UK’s first dedicated chapter of its kind—to reinforce our shared commitment to future-facing collaboration. We have also embedded values on fairness and sustainability through collaboration on workers’ rights, through measures that address bribery and anti-corruption and through upgraded commitments in support of our ambitious environmental and climate goals.
We will now go through the steps to prepare this treaty for signature, and I look forward to updating the House further on this agreement in due course.
[HCWS1171]
Early Years Funding 2026-27
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
The Government are ambitious for every child. Our strategy, “Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life”, sets out our ambition for a record proportion of children to be starting school ready by 2028.
Early education and childcare are crucial to the delivery of this ambition. That is why we have expanded Government-funded childcare hours and are driving up the quality of provision, including in reception year.
In 2026-27, we expect to provide over £9.5 billion for the early years entitlements—more than doubling the Government’s commitment to funded childcare since 2023-24. This investment, alongside the hard work and dedication of early years educators, providers and local authorities, has ensured the successful expansion of Government-funded childcare, with the 30 hours roll-out saving working families an average of £7,500 a year. Against a tough fiscal outlook, the Government are choosing to prioritise and protect investment in the early years, which is why we are investing over £1 billion more in the early years entitlements next year, delivering an above-inflation increase to entitlements funding rates.
Today, we are publishing the early years local authority hourly funding rates for 2026-27. Hourly rates will vary between local authorities, reflecting the relative needs of the children and different costs of delivering provision across the country. On average nationally, we have increased the three and four-year-old hourly funding rate by 4.95%, the two-year-old hourly funding rate by 4.36% and funding rate for the nine months to two-year-old entitlement by 4.28%.
This Government are committed to closing the gap in development and school readiness between children from low-income families and their more affluent peers. So, building on the largest ever uplift to early years pupil premium in 2025-26, we are increasing EYPP rates by 15% to £1.15 per hour in 2026-27, equivalent to up to £655 per eligible child per year.
Eligible children can also receive £975 per child per year, an increase of £37 in 2025-26, through the disability access fund to support reasonable adjustments for children with a disability. And we expect to spend over £90 million on maintained nursery school supplementary funding in 2026-27, to support those high-quality providers that often support the most disadvantaged children with the unique costs that they face.
To support early years providers, we have also made some important changes to local funding rules. We know it is important that providers can plan ahead, so we have made it mandatory that local authorities must communicate their rates to providers by 28 February at the latest. From April 2026, we are also increasing the minimum pass-through requirement, meaning that local authorities must pass on at least 97% of funding to providers, to maximise the funding reaching early years settings. Full details of the 2026-27 local authority hourly funding rates, including step-by-step tables, will be published on www.gov.uk.
As we grow the childcare system, it is important that parents are able to access the affordable childcare they need. That is why, in addition to the increase in funding, we have committed to consulting on changes to how early years funding is allocated and distributed by summer 2026. As announced at the Budget, the Government will also conduct a review of our childcare system, with the aim of simplifying the system for parents and providers, making it easier to access childcare and increasing the overall impact of the Government’s offer.
[HCWS1162]
Investment in High-needs Places
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
A great school experience is one that is academically challenging, rich in opportunity and built on strong relationships. That requires an inclusive school system in every part of the country—one that stretches every young person further, and in which children with additional needs are included not only by individual schools, but by the system as a whole.
Across the last 30 years, successive reforms have improved standards within our schools, which are led by great leaders and teachers. But too many children and young people are still being left behind due to their educational needs or their background, or are simply not being stretched to achieve all that they should. We are going to change that. Ahead of our White Paper next year, we are getting on with building the foundations of a new, inclusive system that delivers for children and earns the confidence of parents. Trusts are crucial to this vision, and some of our strongest trusts continue to build on the pioneering spirit of early academies, using that innovation and community-driven ethos to spread best practice and create resilient systems that support every child to thrive. The schools White Paper will build on that legacy of innovation and collaboration, and will set out the Government’s vision for a future education system that enables every child to achieve and thrive.
As a key step towards that vision of ensuring that all our schools, colleges and nurseries are inclusive by design, today I am announcing at least £3 billion in investment over the next four years to create 50,000 places for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities across England. This investment will fund a landmark expansion of specialist, calm learning spaces within mainstream settings. It builds on the £740 million we have already invested to create 10,000 places, through specialist spaces in mainstream, accessibility adaptations, and special schools for children with the most complex needs, where necessary. This four-year funding horizon will also give local authorities the ability to plan, and will deliver high-quality, specialist provision for the children and young people who need it.
To ensure children get the specialist places they need as quickly as possible, we are offering local authorities a choice around next steps for the pipeline of special or alternative provision schools. Local authorities will, as an alternative, be given the option of funding to deliver the same number of specialist places through SEN units and resource provisions, the expansion of existing specialist settings or other adaptations, in order to get provision in place for children and young people more quickly. Working hand in hand with strong academy trusts, local authorities can deliver these places faster and more cost-effectively than via new free schools, meaning that more children will benefit sooner.
For those projects that do not have trusts appointed, and that are furthest from opening—some will not do so until 2030—we will provide direct funding to the local area, so that much-needed places are delivered more quickly. This funding is in addition to the core high needs capital allocations that all local authorities will receive. Our special schools do vital work supporting some of our most vulnerable children and young people and preparing them for adult life, and in some local authorities, a new special free school will remain the best solution.
Partnership working is central to delivering better experiences and outcomes for all our children. Local authorities should work closely with the trusts appointed to run free schools as they decide whether to accept the alternative funding offer. Where they proceed, they should collectively engage other education settings, parent and carer forums, and local stakeholders to develop plans that deliver places through alternative routes—such as high-quality SEN units and resource provisions, or the expansion of existing specialist provision.
Mainstream free schools will continue to be an enabler of this inclusive vision where they meet need and drive up standards. Multi-academy trusts have driven collaboration and innovation across the system, and in some cases the free schools programme has been crucial to meeting demographic need and pioneering new models that can raise standards. However, we must act in line with the evidence. Projects have opened where there is no need, and have later closed, diverting millions of pounds that could have supported children with SEND or addressed urgent-condition needs in existing schools. Even during the demographic boom of the last decade, the National Audit Office estimated that 57,500 places planned by 2021 would represent spare capacity. Between 2014-15 and 2023-24, the previous Government committed over £10 billion to new free schools, but under £7 billion to school rebuilding, despite mounting evidence of an estate in need of repair and the impact of poor-condition buildings on pupil attainment. Today we know that primary pupil numbers have been falling since 2018-19, with that decline set to feed into secondary. We will not pour money into new schools simply to close them again in a few years.
Accordingly, as part of our review of the mainstream free schools pipeline, projects that proceed will be those that meet the needs of communities, respond to demographic and housing demand, and raise standards without undermining the viability of existing local schools and colleges. We will back new schools that offer something unique to students who would otherwise not have had access to it. In particular, we will open new maths schools and Eton Star 16-to-19 accelerator schools, ensuring that more talented students in the north and the midlands gain a fairer chance to progress to leading universities, or to pursue advanced mathematics. We will continue to provide capital funding through the basic need grant, to support local authorities in creating new mainstream school places, where necessary. Ministers have written to trusts, local authorities and MPs, setting out which projects will progress and which I am minded to cancel. There is a window for representations where a ‘minded to cancel’ letter has been issued.
The money saved by cancelling projects in areas of surplus will be used to support the 50,000 new specialist places. Instead of adding a few thousand mainstream free school places where sufficient capacity already exists, we will deliver places that enable pupils with SEND to access the right support in a setting close to home, making mainstream provision more inclusive, and ensuring that specialist support is available where it is most needed.
This is how we renew our education system—by building provision that is inclusive by design, anchored in need, and focused on high and rising standards for all.
[HCWS1163]
Chagossians and the Diego Garcia Base Treaty
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Diego Garcia treaty, signed by the UK on 22 May 2025, secures the future of the strategically critical UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. This base is vital for UK defence and intelligence capabilities, and the safety and security of the British people.
The Government also worked to ensure that the treaty includes important provisions for Chagossians, including the establishment of a trust fund to benefit the community and a route to resettle the islands of the Chagos archipelago other than Diego Garcia. These and other related Chagossian issues have been the subject of significant debate in both Houses. The Government are pleased to update the House on recent developments.
Chagossian Trust Fund
Under the terms of the treaty, the UK will capitalise a £40 million trust fund for the benefit of Chagossians, which will be established by Mauritius. On 12 December, the Mauritian Government approved introduction of primary legislation to establish the trust fund. The Bill will be published on the website of the Mauritian Parliament and can be viewed on the Government Information Service portal of the Government of Mauritius https://gis.govmu.org It confirms the principle that the trust fund will be operated for Chagossians, by Chagossians.
Decisions on the use of funds will be taken by a trust fund management board. The board will comprise 12 members, seven of whom will be Chagossian, ensuring majority representation. The chair of the trust fund will be a Chagossian, selected by the Chagossian members of the board. Following extensive representations and engagement by this Government, the Bill also now confirms that a UK-based Chagossian representative will sit on the board alongside representatives living in Mauritius and the Seychelles. The UK High Commissioner to Mauritius will also attend board meetings.
We welcome these commitments by Mauritius which will ensure the trust fund reflects the full spectrum of perspectives within the Chagossian community.
Eligibility to Participate in a Programme of Resettlement
The treaty enables Mauritius to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia. This agreement is the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago. The UK Government have been in talks with Mauritius to ensure that this programme is open to all Chagossians, irrespective of their country of residence. The Mauritian Government confirmed on 12 December that eligibility to resettle will apply to Chagossians born on the archipelago before 31 December 1973, and children of parents either of whom were born on the archipelago before that date.
UK-based Chagossians who do not hold Mauritian citizenship and meet these criteria will be eligible for Mauritian citizenship, and therefore able to participate in any future programme of resettlement. All Chagossians will remain eligible for British citizenship under the current citizenship pathway. Chagossians will be able to hold both British and Mauritian citizenship.
Mauritius has also confirmed that civil status documents issued by the Government of Mauritius will continue to record the place of birth as the Chagos archipelago for all of those born there. Where, for any reason, this has not been the case, the Government of Mauritius will review and amend the documents as necessary.
Mauritian Criminal Code Amendment
On 29 October, the Mauritius Criminal Code (Amendment No.2) Act 2025 came into force, repealing section 76B of the Mauritian criminal code and removing the offence of
“misrepresenting the sovereignty of Mauritius by producing, distributing, supply or marketing any coin, stamp, official map or official object or document.”
Concerns had been raised that Chagossians might face prosecution for expressing their affiliation with the UK. Although no one was ever prosecuted under this law, we recognise the impact it was having on the Chagossian community and welcome the steps taken by the Mauritian Government to have section 76B of the Mauritian criminal code repealed.
Heritage Visits to the Chagos Archipelago
Both the UK Government and the Republic of Mauritius recognise the importance of heritage visits for the Chagossian community and remain committed to facilitating a programme of heritage visits to the Chagos archipelago, including Diego Garcia. We will work together to resume a programme of visits to the archipelago.
Chagossian Support Programme—Supporting Chagossians in our Communities
Separate to the treaty, the Government are increasing support for Chagossians living in the UK through both new and existing initiatives. This includes support for newly arrived British citizens and a wide range of projects that will benefit the Chagossian community.
Chagossian Contact Group
The Chagossian contact group provides Chagossians with a role in decision-making on the UK Government’s support for their community. On 11 November, we committed to exploring ways to enhance the group by increasing its transparency and frequency, provided that the contact group’s existing members agreed. FCDO officials have discussed this with contact group members, who are now consulting with the wider community ahead of making decisions. We will provide a further update once these are received.
[HCWS1166]
Sudan: Sanctions on RSF Commanders
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for International Development and Africa, the right hon. Baroness Chapman of Darlington, has made the following statement:
On 12 December 2025, the UK announced a package of four sanctions designations under the Sudan (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020—the Sudan regulations. These sanctions respond to the appalling atrocities committed by the Rapid Support Forces in and around El Fasher, north Darfur, which the RSF captured on 26 October 2025. There is overwhelming evidence of mass killings of civilians; ethnically targeted executions; sexual violence, including gang rape; abductions for ransom; widespread arbitrary detention; and attacks on health facilities, medical staff and humanitarian workers. This scale of suffering is unimaginable, with women and children bearing the heaviest burden in what is now the largest humanitarian crisis of the 21st century.
Since the start of the war, the UK has worked ceaselessly to bring an end to the fighting, alleviate the suffering and protect civilians. The UK remains the third largest bilateral donor to Sudan. The Prime Minister has committed to protecting UK funding to support people affected by the crisis, a clear signal of our unwavering commitment to justice for the Sudanese people.
Accountability for crimes remains at the heart of our response. That is why we are sanctioning RSF commanders who we have reasonable grounds to suspect have been responsible for, engaged in, provided support for or promoted the commission of these serious violations of international humanitarian law. We will impose travel bans, director disqualifications and asset freezes. This will ban these individuals from entering the UK, and stop them from being able to form, manage or promote a UK company or interact in any way with the UK economy. We are sanctioning:
Abdul Rahim Hamdan Dagalo—deputy leader of the RSF, and brother of RSF leader, General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo Moussa, “Hemedti”. He is or has been responsible for engaging in, providing support for or promoting the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law in Sudan, including the mass killings of civilians; ethnically targeted executions; sexual violence, including gang rape; abductions for ransom; widespread arbitrary detentions; and attacks on health facilities, medical staff and humanitarian workers. Acting in global resolve with partners such as the US, Canada and the EU, which have all previously sanctioned Abdul Rahim Hamdan Dagalo, this sends a strong message of international condemnation for his actions.
Gedo Hamdan Ahmed, “Abu Nashuk”—RSF commander for the north Darfur section. He is or has been responsible for engaging in, providing support for, or promoting the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law in Sudan, such as the mass killings of civilians; ethnically targeted executions; sexual violence, including gang rape; abductions for ransom; widespread arbitrary detentions; and attacks on health facilities, medical staff and humanitarian workers.
Tijani Ibrahim Moussa Mohamed, “Al Zeir Salem”—RSF field commander. He too is or has been responsible for engaging in, providing support for, or promoting the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law in Sudan, including the deliberate targeting of civilians in El Fasher.
Al-Fateh Abdullah Idris “Abu Lulu”—brigadier general of the RSF, dubbed “the butcher of El-Fasher” for claiming to have killed over 2,000 people. He is being sanctioned for his involvement in serious violations of international humanitarian law in Sudan and the systematic campaign of violence against civilians in El Fasher.
The Sudanese sanctions regime contains a humanitarian assistance exception to the asset freeze. We do not expect these designations to have humanitarian impacts and will monitor this closely.
In addition to these sanctions, the UK is stepping up our response to the crisis in Sudan with an additional £21 million. This will fund support including food, shelter, health services to those most in need, and protection for women and children in some of the hardest-to-reach areas. This lifeline will empower aid organisations to reach 135,000 people with essentials like food, medical care, and emergency shelter, as well as enable them to keep hospitals running and reconnect families torn apart by conflict. The overall UK aid commitment to Sudan this year rises as a result to £146 million, delivering lifesaving aid to over 800,000 people, and underscoring the unwavering commitment to stand with the Sudanese people and meet humanitarian needs.
As the UK, we are doing all we can politically and diplomatically to end the fighting, prevent future atrocities, protect civilians and deter the perpetrators by bringing accountability and justice—however long it takes. We are leading the charge to bring accountability to those committing heinous atrocities, at the UN and the International Criminal Court, for all to see. We will not let these horrors go unanswered.
[HCWS1169]
New Approach to Africa: UK-Africa Strategy
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for International Development and Africa (right hon. Baroness Chapman of Darlington) has today made the following statement:
When this Government came into power, we were clear that a new kind of relationship with African countries was long overdue. We inherited an approach that reflected the past rather than being fit for the future. That is why this Government committed in their manifesto to deliver a new approach to the African continent for mutual long-term benefit, recognising Africa’s growing importance to the UK’s domestic missions and plan for change.
We were clear too that reframing our relationship was not something to cook up here in London and then package up as a shared approach. Some have spoken the language of partnership that is not borne out in practice, without being clear and up front about our own interests and what we want from the relationship. So we launched a five-month listening exercise, hearing from Governments and over 600 organisations, from civil society and diaspora communities, from businesses and universities, about what they valued and wanted to see from Britain. There was a clear common message: African nations want respectful, long-term partnerships that deliver real change for people’s lives.
Today, the Government are fulfilling our manifesto commitment, marking a significant milestone in the UK’s partnership with African countries. The UK’s new approach is shaped by African leadership, ideas, and energy—aligning with the steps that the UK and African nations are already taking to unlock new growth opportunities, lead climate action, drive innovation, and push for reform to the international system—and brings this together with UK strengths. It is consistent with the principles of our modernised approach to international development, recognising we are not just donors. We are partners, investors, and reformers.
Responding to the consultation, the UK’s new approach provides a high-level framing to guide the Government’s long-term engagement with African partners, reaffirming the shift from paternalism to a partnership of respect and equality. It does so over seven areas of shared interest.
First, we are moving from donor to investor. We will go further to unlock investment and trade, helping African and British businesses create quality jobs, economic opportunities, and prosperity. Our partnerships will place mutual growth at the centre. We will back the African continental free trade area, supporting its implementation and the opportunities it creates, and strengthen UK-Africa relations through ongoing tariff reviews, building on the developing countries trading scheme and network of economic partnership agreements. We will support the development of local capital markets, mobilise private capital to invest sustainably, and scale up promising African enterprises. The UK’s investment vehicles—British International Investment, FSD Africa Investments, and UK Export Finance—will continue to drive this innovative agenda. As a long-standing partner of the African Development Bank, we will continue to strengthen our collaboration with Africa’s leading financial institution. And we are proud to be co-hosting with Ghana the 17th replenishment of the African Development Fund, using our convening power to scale up private capital for Africa’s development priorities.
Secondly, we are working together on the challenges of migration. Migration should be fair, managed, and controlled. But this is undermined by illegal migration that harms both the UK and African partners, funds organised criminal gangs, and puts lives at risk. We will provide humanitarian support to alleviate suffering; help enable protection for displaced people in their regions of origin; and work together to disrupt criminal networks and facilitate returns. We will be unapologetic in pressing for high ambition and clear progress against these priorities. Recognising the UK visa system can seem hard to navigate, we are engaging with African businesses to improve understanding, including uptake of the global partner programme, helping businesses travel, build ties, and stimulate investment.
Thirdly, we are advancing shared interests on climate, nature, and clean energy. Despite its abundant natural resources, Africa has the lowest levels of modern energy access. And despite contributing least to global emissions, African nations are among those shouldering the greatest climate risks. Therefore, we must go further to invest in renewables, protect biodiversity, and ensure climate finance reaches those who need it most, creating more opportunities for African countries by growing the scale and quality of carbon markets. We will back African initiatives such as Mission 300 to connect 300 million people to electricity by 2030. We will work with African scientists to protect the world’s largest forest carbon stores in the Congo basin and mobilise finance through the Belem call to action. And we look forward to supporting further African leadership on climate as Ethiopia hosts COP32 in 2027.
Fourthly, we want to collaborate for peace and stability, the foundations of prosperity. We will continue to work closely with the African Union and other partners to support African efforts to “silence the guns” and promote post-conflict recovery. This includes urgent work to support an end to the horror of the current war in Sudan. We will continue to work with African partners to help push the warring parties towards a ceasefire, to supply the lifesaving humanitarian aid where needed and to call out and avert, together, atrocities like in El Fasher, where we know rape has been used systematically as a weapon of war. The UN’s humanitarian chief has correctly called this the epicentre of human suffering. We are determined to support Sudan and ensure the world does not forget this devastating conflict. Beyond Sudan, we are supporting vital peacebuilding efforts in the Great Lakes region and working on conflict prevention with countries such as Nigeria, Ethiopia and Somalia. This is part of a wider push to build security partnerships to tackle regional instability and shared threats, champion respect for international humanitarian law, stand up for freedom of religion and belief, and go much further to tackle violence against women and girls.
Fifthly, we are strengthening systems that support people and growth. This is about strengthening the systems that build human capital—the engine of sustainable, inclusive growth. Rather than providing piecemeal funding to individual services, we will work with partners to improve whole systems for health and nutrition, education, and social protection. We will invest in vaccine manufacturing, disease prevention, and sexual and reproductive health and rights. Last month, the UK announced in South Africa its pledge of £850 million to the Global Fund—a pledge that stands to save over 1 million lives, prevent 20 million cases of HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, and deliver over £10 billion in economic returns. This investment demonstrates the UK’s commitment to global health, gender equality, multilateralism, and modern development partnerships. We are applying the same principles to helping African countries become financially self-reliant, harnessing UK expertise in tax, finance, and technology. Next year, the Foreign Secretary will host the illicit finance summit in London, convening a diverse coalition of Governments, multilateral organisations, the private sector, and other key stakeholders to tackle criminal and corrupt wealth.
Sixthly, we are championing African voices in global decision-making. We will amplify and work alongside African calls for fairer representation in global forums, ensuring African priorities shape the rules and outcomes that matter most. This is why the UK strongly advocated for the establishment of a third seat for sub-Saharan Africa at the IMF board, and why we continue to call for lower-income countries to have greater voting power at the World Bank. It is also why we look forward to the establishment of a borrowers’ platform, following agreement at the financing for development conference in Seville. As we look ahead to our G20 presidency in 2027, we will continue to work towards further reforms to the debt architecture to tackle unsustainable debt following the G20 ministerial declaration on debt sustainability in October, so that African countries have a greater stake in the decisions that affect them.
Lastly, we are supporting innovation and cultural partnerships. From AI and digital skills to music, sport, and design, there is enormous potential to deepen our ties across science, technology, and the creative industries. At South Africa’s science forum in November, we launched our first UK-South Africa AI policy training programme to establish a cohort of AI-savvy diplomats and officials from both countries, drawing on the expertise of leading UK and South African universities. Our forthcoming soft power collaboration will support alumni networks across the UK and Africa. We will maintain scholarships and strengthen our enduring research and education partnerships. These connections are not just economic—they are human, and they are powerful. One milestone is Imperial College London opening its first African hub in Ghana last year, marking a major step forward in UK-Africa scientific collaboration. This new centre will support fellowships in AI and climate science, accelerating joint research and innovation across medical diagnostics, vaccine research, and sustainable cities.
This adds up to a new kind of partnership. One that works with African leadership. One that is inclusive and respectful and strong enough to work through difficulties and disagreements. Our high commissions and embassies will be at the forefront of embedding this approach—in spirit and content—and we will take it forward into the UK’s G20 presidency in 2027. UK Ministers will be out there, on the continent, championing these principles, strengthening coherence across our partnerships, and backing diverse African voices to shape our work.
[HCWS1168]
Manchester Arena Inquiry: Consultation on Recommendations 7 and 8
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Home Office plans to consider options in regards to Manchester arena monitored recommendations 7 and 8 in due course.
[HCWS1167]
Counter-terrorism Disruptive Powers Report 2024
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I have today published the Counter-terrorism Disruptive Powers Report 2024 (CP 1463). The report has been laid before Parliament and copies will be available in the Vote Office and online on www.gov.uk.
It is important that there is transparency on the use of our counter-terrorism tools. Publishing this report ensures that the public are able to access a guide to the range of powers used to combat terrorist threats to the United Kingdom, the extent of their use and the safeguards and oversight in place to ensure they are used properly.
[HCWS1164]
Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2023 to 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has today laid before Parliament, pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, its annual report. This covers the period April 2023 to March 2025.
The Government recognise and welcome the independent and important oversight provided by the Committee.
I thank the Committee for the comprehensive and detailed nature of the report and the extensive work behind it.
[HCWS1170]
Copyright and Artificial Intelligence
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Today I am laying before Parliament an Act paper updating Parliament on the Government’s progress on copyright and artificial intelligence, fulfilling the commitment under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
Our approach to copyright and AI must support prosperity for all UK citizens, and drive innovation and growth for sectors across the economy, including the creative industries. This means keeping the UK at the cutting edge of science and technology, so that UK citizens can benefit from major breakthroughs, transformative innovation and greater prosperity. It also means continuing to support our creative industries, which make a huge economic contribution, shape our national identity and give us a unique position on the world stage.
It is important that we take the time to get this right. This is an issue that many countries around the world are grappling with, and on which there is no clear consensus. My Department, alongside the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has focused on seeking a broad range of input—through the consultation, Parliamentary working groups, and our engagement with stakeholders—to ensure that we hear as many expert views and experiences as possible as we seek to find a solution.
Our consultation received over 11,500 responses from individual creators, rights holders, AI developers, academics and many others. We have analysed each of these responses individually. We have brought together representatives from media, creative industries, AI developers and academia in a series of roundtables to facilitate open discussion. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I chaired the most recent roundtable in September. We have also convened cross-party parliamentary working groups, meeting with MPs in October and peers in November.
We have established four expert technical working groups, covering control and technical standards, information and transparency, licensing, and wider support for creatives. These groups are bringing together expertise from across the creative industries, the AI sector and academia to explore practical solutions io complex questions.
Work is also in progress to prepare the economic impact assessment and report required under the Act, which we will publish by 18 March 2026. The wide range of input and analysis described above will shape this report, which will cover the full range of issues raised in consultation, from transparency requirements, licensing arrangements and how copyright affects access to training data, to technical measures and standards, and enforcement mechanisms. It will also address issues relating to AI outputs, including computer-generated works, output labelling and digital replicas and enforcement mechanisms.
We want to thank the range of stakeholders who have been involved in this work so far, and encourage those with views to continue engaging with us as we seek to find a way forward that delivers our ambitions for both the creative industries and AI.
[HCWS1165]
Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 30 October.
Heat networks have a crucial role to play in our decarbonisation ambitions and energy security mission. As proven internationally, they can provide low-cost, low-carbon energy for all, particularly in high-density areas such as our major cities. They are one of the most versatile forms of renewable energy, as they can access heat from a variety of sources, including waste heat from growth sectors such as AI. This potential has fuelled government ambition. By 2050, we aim to grow heat networks from the current 3% of the UK’s heat demand to around 20%.
However, the growth of this sector depends on consumer trust, underpinned by good regulatory foundations. That means we must deliver a fair deal for the nearly half a million households that already rely on a heat network. The current lack of regulation means that many people are experiencing poor customer service, with unreliable heating and a lack of clarity on what makes up a bill. This cannot continue. That is why, for the first time, we are establishing a regulated market framework to protect heat network consumers that supports the case for sector growth.
Earlier this year, when this House approved the Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025, we paved the way for consumers on a heat network to receive protections comparable to those in gas and electricity markets. The powers for the Secretary of State to introduce these regulations were provided by the Energy Act 2023. They will apply across Great Britain. We have also consulted the Scottish Government, as per Section 220 of the Energy Act. I thank them for their support in this matter. These regulations do not apply to Northern Ireland; the Northern Ireland Executive have their own powers to introduce regulation.
The regulations made in March introduced the authorisation regime. This will work in a similar way to the domestic gas and electricity licensing regime. From regulatory commencement, Ofgem will have the powers to investigate and take action in cases of unfair pricing, establish protections for vulnerable customers and require suppliers to put in place robust complaints-handling processes. It will also be a requirement on heat network suppliers to treat their customers fairly. This instrument is therefore the last piece of the puzzle that will enable this market framework to go live from 27 January.
The instrument simply builds on previous regulations by introducing amendments that will expand the authorisation regime that Ofgem will implement. The changes include the provision of powers to Ofgem to assist with the conduct of pricing investigations, which will be essential to protect customers from unfair, high and opaque prices. It will also introduce deemed contracts to ensure that the rights of households and their supply of heat are protected even when no formal contract is in place.
Noble Lords may also note that this statutory instrument includes provisions to protect consumers if a heat network becomes insolvent. A special administration regime, or SAR, will seek to ensure that customers do not experience interruptions to their supply of heating and hot water in the event of a heat network operator or supplier insolvency. The rules for this will be set out in separate statutory instruments that will be put forward to this House in future.
The instrument also makes it clear that air conditioning systems will be explicitly excluded from the scope of these regulations, as we believe that including them would not be proportionate or in the interests of consumers, and air conditioning systems normally stand aside from the heat network itself.
In addition to the above, these amendments include provisions to partially revoke parts of the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014. This is designed to avoid duplication in legislation, as there are some existing requirements and obligations on heat supplies in the metering and billing regulations that will now be streamlined rather than entirely removed.
Finally, these amendments make changes to the scope of the Energy 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.
I wish to make noble Lords aware, by the way, 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. Officials will ensure that this error is rectified as soon as possible through the medium of a negative statutory instrument in the very near future.
We have committed to maintain minimum technical standards, which will be a key part of the market framework, and we aim to consult on proposals shortly. However, to be clear, these are not in scope of this statutory instrument and draft regulations will be brought forward to this House in due course.
I understand that four public consultations dating back to February 2020 have informed these regulations, which have helped the department to develop the final market regulation proposals. The detailed Ofgem authorisation conditions and associated guidance are still being consulted on and will be published before the authorisation regime commences on 27 January 2026.
In conclusion, this instrument and the one made in March will enable the Government to do what has never been done before, as we introduce regulation to the heat network sector. The only way to realise the Government’s growth ambition for heat networks is to ensure that customers can trust heat networks to provide safe, reliable and cost-effective heat. These regulations therefore represent a huge step forward, providing heat network consumers with much-needed protection similar to that in other utility markets that already exist. We must get on with the job and introduce the final elements of the market framework that will not only help to drive up consumer standards in this sector but help to promote market growth. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and comprehensive introduction to this SI and I welcome the fact that we are getting this long-overdue regulatory framework for heat networks. I agree with him that they are an important part of our energy future. Based on renewable and low-carbon emissions, they can give people reliable, secure energy supplies to meet their heating needs.
My questions are based on a report from Citizens Advice in July this year, titled System Critical: No Margin for Error in New Heat Network Rules. That “no margin for error” is why we are here interrogating this. As that reports outlines, and as the Minister said, since the rising price of gas after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have seen serious problems in this sector.
My first question relates to what the Minister said about regulatory commencement on 27 January. The report says that Ofgem
“must outline the standards expected”
from providers, how it will act
“to improve systems and processes”,
and how it will deal with some of the terrible behaviour we have seen from some of the providers. Given that 27 January is not far away at all, my question to the Minister is: how prepared is Ofgem to act on this? We will of course already be in the middle of winter and people will already be accruing bills, which will be a real issue.
My other question relates to my personal experiences, particularly with Camden council estates. We know that many heat networks were installed in the 1960s and 1970s and have lots of problems, including that they are not controllable. People find themselves being heated even when they do not wish to be heated. There are real problems with controls, systems, leakage and all those kinds of issues. I am interested in the Minister’s view of how those issues will be addressed under this framework.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we support the Government’s fundamental ambition grow UK heat networks from the current 3% to 20% of the UK’s heat network demand by 2050. We share this ambition; we recognise that heat networks will play a pivotal role in helping to achieve our drive towards net zero and driving low-carbon energy growth. I particularly note that this is important in relation to the planned future growth of AI.
But, if this vision is to succeed, customers will have to have the absolute trust that heat networks are safe, reliable and cost effective. For too long, as the Minister acknowledged, this part of our energy system has been in the regulatory twilight zone. The half a million households on heat networks have often been left facing poor customer service, frequent outages and opaque billing. In many cases, people have found themselves trapped in contracts with extortionate charges and little way out. So this statutory instrument definitely goes a long way; it is long overdue and very welcome, because it helps to bring some order to that chaos. In the other place, the Minister himself noted the number of complaints that he personally had had about heat networks. So this is a significant step, and it places customers on a more equal footing with those in regulated gas and electricity markets, so we welcome it.
We also welcome the introduction of the special administration regime—SAR—for protected heat network companies. This is a vital safeguard. It ensures the continuity of heating and hot water supply even if the operator collapses, and it literally stops people being left in the dark and the cold.
We broadly share the plan to share the costs of the administration across the market. This seems a sensible approach and it strengthens market confidence by spreading that risk. When will the detailed regulations be published, and how will the Government ensure that these costs are shared fairly and equitably across the market, particularly in relation to the smaller operators? Will further consultations take place on that specific aspect of that sharing of the cost?
We welcome the new deemed contracts provisions, which are important because many people move to a house that is on one of these heat networks and have no choice but to sign up to them. So these deemed contracts are important and will help to ensure that people get a fair rate for their energy.
We fundamentally welcome the new powers that have been given to Ofgem. These give the regulator real teeth in this marketplace, with explicit authority to determine whether the charges are disproportionate, to investigate poor service, to extend the redress schemes and to support small businesses and micro-businesses. I recognise what the Minister said about how the definition around micro-businesses will be changed to make sure that it fits with the other regulations.
Nearly half a million households are on these networks and, to date, they have had little power or influence, and there have been problems. So what specific guarantees can the Minister offer that Ofgem will have both the additional resources and the new technical capacity to conduct effective investigations and issue binding directions where network operators are found to be guilty of unfair charging practices? Will the Government commit to publishing a transparent industry-wide methodology, showing how this issue of either disproportionate or not disproportionate charges is arrived at?
Generally, my questions further forward are about how, as we have heard, these regulations will come into force at the beginning of January—literally in a few weeks’ time. Considering the short amount of time before they come into effect, I ask the Minister to give an assurance about the customer redress scheme and the correction of technical error, and an assurance that Ofgem has the resources and capability to implement all these systems on time, because that is a concern.
Generally, these regulations are welcome. They bring order and clarity, and they help to bring confidence to this market. If this market is to grow, it needs this regulation, so we welcome this SI.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purposes of these regulations. We welcome them, so I shall not overburden him with questions beyond those already asked by previous speakers. It is somewhat frustrating that I did not spot the error in the amendments to Regulation 56 in the current Regulation 10; I must do better. These measures represent another step towards the full regulatory framework for heat networks that consumers have waited too long to see. From January 2026, the full authorisation regime and the special administration powers are due to come into effect—a significant milestone that we welcome wholeheartedly.
As the Minister said, we must be clear about the situation facing many people with heat networks. Years of unregulated, decentralised heating have left households paying high and unpredictable costs, receiving confusing bills and unable to switch supplier or seek meaningful redress. Citizens Advice has warned that, for some, bills have doubled or even tripled, which is simply untenable.
Therefore, while we support these regulations, their success will depend entirely on effective implementation. A framework on paper is not enough; consumers need enforceable, practical protections. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, rightly identified, it is essential that Ofgem is fully prepared and properly resourced to take on its new responsibilities from 27 January. It must be able to intervene when prices are unfair, when service standards fall short and when vulnerable households are at risk of disconnection. Clear complaints processes must be in place, and operators must be held to account. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I would be grateful if the Minister can provide assurances today that Ofgem will be ready from day one, with no gaps or uncertainty for existing heat networks customers.
The introduction of a special administrative regime is similarly welcome. But, again, the test will be in its delivery. Consumers must have confidence that, should a provider fail, essential heating will continue uninterrupted, particularly for households in the winter months. The demand and use of heat networks will continue to play an increasingly important role in our energy system, and it is vital that this regulatory framework is implemented swiftly and effectively. Consumers must be able to rely on heat that is affordable, transparent and properly overseen. Without that assurance, the sector will not expand at the scale required.
These regulations take us closer to a regime that commands consumer confidence; the task now is to ensure that the protections set out in the Energy Act are delivered in practice for the half a million households that depend on these networks.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. A number of them go to the heart of why we are doing what we are doing today: the question of the state of many of the older heat networks that exist in this country. They are very far from the sorts of standards that we would expect to bring forward in new heat networks, and they have often operated with very sub-optimal arrangements for many years, to the considerable detriment of customers.
Therefore, the regulatory regime that we are introducing should give an enormous amount of succour to those who have suffered under those heat networks over a long period. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, there are heat networks from the 1960s and the 1970s which simply have not updated what they do, and they will be held accountable for what they do in these networks by the new regime under Ofgem. Ofgem can introduce fines for the systems if they are found wanting and, as a measure of last resort, can ensure that those networks are transferred to the running of another organisation entirely.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also mentioned the report encompassing a number of these issues from Citizens Advice, and that is why its work as a consumer champion is so important. I can assure the noble Baroness that Ofgem will be ready for regulatory commitments. It has raised no questions about its capacity to introduce these regulations and to make sure that they work to maximum capacity from day one. Ofgem will, however, take action such as collecting pricing data and various other things to refine how the regulations may work over the early period of their operation.
I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and all the noble Lords who raised concerns, that Ofgem will therefore be ready for regulatory commencement. Ofgem will be publishing what methodology will be used to determine reasonable pricing. This has recently been consulted on by Ofgem. However, the exact benchmark of what is considered fair pricing will not be published first, so that heat networks do not move their prices to the top of that benchmark.
Overall, therefore, I assure noble Lords that the scheme will work to the best of its design and ability from the word go and will properly encompass all the many and varied types of heat network we have in operation, with a view to bringing them all up to the same standard, rather than down to the same standard, for the future. Indeed, the instrument simply builds on previous regulations by introducing amendments that will expand the authorisation regime that Ofgem will implement. We have also heard mention of deemed contracts, which will be in place to ensure that the rights of households and their supply of heat are protected, even when there is no formal contract in place.
I am sure noble Lords will want to join me in thanking the District Energy Association heat authority, which tried to put a voluntary system into operation to secure compliance and uprating of systems. That has worked for 10 years. In itself, it has worked very well, but it encompasses only part of the heat network arena. This will cover everybody, so it will be a great step forward in that respect.
On the question of consultation, I understand that the four public consultations that have already taken place, dating back to February 2020, have informed the regulations, but the detailed Ofgem authorisation conditions and associated guidance are still being consulted on and will certainly be published before the authorisation regime commences on 27 January.
In conclusion, I consider that these regulations, which will include the most vulnerable, will now make sure that pretty much everybody enjoys statutory protections. Heat networks are indeed the future, and we must do everything we can to support their growth and instil confidence in that growth as it takes place. Sound and proportionate regulation is therefore central to delivering this and I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
One of the responses provided by the Minister provoked a question in my mind; at this point, I should perhaps declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Minister said that there would be fines for systems—we were talking in particular about those long pre-existing, 1960s and 1970s-type systems—and that they could potentially be transferred to another authority. Of course, many of these systems will be owned and run by either councils or arm’s-length organisations that used to be owned by councils or housing associations. I will understand if the Minister wants to write to me, but are the Government considering the fact that many of these will not be commercial providers?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a good point in relation to what are, as I have said, a huge number of systems of very different quality and status. Making regulations in respect of those sorts of bodies is very difficult, because they are all mini electricity or gas networks in their own right; indeed, they are mini networks that could fall by the wayside if they are regulated in a way that is not sympathetic to their particular arrangements. Noble Lords can see, I think, that these arrangements do not exactly coincide with what is in the existing gas and electricity sectors, but do try to take account of those particular circumstances.
Within that, there is a serious bottom line: these bodies must provide good value for their customers, provide good levels of redress and ensure that they are operating to the best of their capacity. Those are the sorts of things that Ofgem will ensure are looked at and regulated properly, with an eye on the fact that heat networks are not in the same position as electricity and gas networks. That bottom line is there in these regulations and should not be set aside easily. Otherwise, Ofgem will certainly be doing the business of ensuring that those bodies work properly.
I think there is nothing further for me to say, other than that I commend these regulations to the Committee. I hope, by the way, that what I have said this afternoon satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as far as her question is concerned; if she has any further concerns, I will be happy to write to her.
Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these technical regulations were laid before the
As set out in the Energy Act 2023, carbon storage licensees are responsible for complying with various obligations, including the reporting of information and samples obtained through the conduct of licensee authorities to the NSTA. We believe that the wealth of data that carbon storage licensees gather during exploration or storage activities is a national resource and its publication will accelerate the deployment of CCS in the UK. That is why we introduced the Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage) (Retention of Information and Samples) Regulations 2025, which came into force in May 2025. These regulations specify the types of information and samples that carbon storage licensees must retain and the periods for which they must retain them.
The regulations we debate today set out when the NSTA can publicly disclose carbon storage information and samples provided to it by carbon storage licensees, and which types of information and samples may be disclosed. They also amend when the NSTA can publicly disclose information on the drilling or operation of wells under offshore petroleum licences. The timeframe for this was set out in the Oil and Gas Authority (Offshore Petroleum) (Disclosure of Protected Material after Specified Periods) Regulations 2018—try saying that in one breath—and this amendment to the 2018 regulations will bring the NSTA disclosure powers across CCUS and offshore petroleum into alignment.
Information and samples play a very significant role in the UK carbon dioxide storage industry, and access to high-quality data for the NSTA, industry, academia and the public will enable efficient use of the UK’s storage potential. The carbon storage information and samples published will support sharing of knowledge and lessons learned, including best practices and innovation, ultimately leading to cost reductions and advancement of the sector. This includes accelerating the North Sea energy transition. The NSTA helps drive this transition by realising the significant potential of the UK continental shelf as a critical energy and carbon-abatement resource. These regulations will further provide opportunities for the industries based offshore, with the very significant potential that exists for storing carbon dioxide in depleted oil and gas fields and other geological formations in the UK continental shelf.
The NSTA has consulted on both the carbon storage and offshore petroleum aspects of these regulations. The consultation on the amendment of well data confidentiality closed in September 2022 and a response was published in February 2023. The consultation on the proposed regulations for the disclosure of carbon storage information and samples closed in April 2024. That consultation will ensure that the regulations are effectively introduced. A response was published in October 2025. This means that the feedback received from those consultations was positive and has been carefully considered in shaping these regulations to ensure that they reflect industry needs and best practice.
CCS is not optional; it is essential for Britain’s energy security and industrial competitiveness, and for our clean-power future. These regulations may be technical, but their impact is profound. They unlock a wealth of data that will accelerate deployment, drive innovation and maximise the UK’s carbon storage potential. This is about making Britain a clean energy superpower, safeguarding jobs, securing investment and delivering net zero in a way that strengthens our economy. I urge the Committee to approve these regulations without delay.
The regulations reflect extensive consultation and positive engagement with industry and stakeholders. They are practical, robust and future-focused, designed to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of clean energy technology. This is about more than disclosure; it is about delivering on our net-zero commitments, safeguarding energy security and creating opportunities for growth and jobs in the industries of tomorrow. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the regulations and totally agree with my noble friend about the importance of CCUS to meeting our net-zero targets. Only a few weeks ago, the Whitehead review made the same point about GGRs: you cannot achieve net zero without this. I look forward to my noble friend responding to the Whitehead review and no doubt accepting all its recommendations.
These regulations seem to fall within what the review said about regulation. Certainly, I very much agree that this is an important element for market investment and certainty. Paragraph 5.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the UK continental shelf holds
“an estimated 78 billion tonnes of theoretical CO2 storage capacity”.
Clearly, there is huge potential for the UK. The Explanatory Memorandum mentions that, potentially, there are many countries that we could reach agreement with for storage in the UK continental shelf. So, can my noble friend tell the Committee the extent to which we are now in discussion with some of our European neighbours about the huge potential of storage in the North Sea?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we welcome these regulations, which seek to establish a necessary legal framework for the public disclosure of protected carbon storage information and samples. These are crucial steps towards fostering a transparent culture in the UK’s nascent carbon capture, usage and storage—CCUS—industry. As has been said by others, CCUS is essential for the UK to meet its net-zero carbon targets and budgets—particularly as set out by the Climate Change Committee—and the sector is projected to support up to 50,000 jobs and significant future economic growth. As has also been pointed out, the UK’s continental shelf is estimated to hold up to 78 billion tonnes of theoretical CO2 storage capacity, so this is essential in helping us meet these targets and creating the green jobs and growth of the future.
We support the principles of transparency set out in Parts 2 to 4 of the regulations, which govern the storage data obtained by the OGA, operating as the North Sea Transition Authority—the NSTA. We welcome the approach, as set out, of clarifying data based on levels of commercial sensitivity; this is sensible and pragmatic. We also welcome the decision that non-commercially sensitive items will be published straightaway. For more sensitive material, the NSTA has established clear and time-limited protection periods before disclosure. For example, detailed well information, protected carbon storage samples and computerised model information may generally be disclosed, but only after a period of two years. These two years are designed to protect licensees with sufficient exclusivity for the data they have paid to acquire.
On the regulations that relate specifically to the two-year period for the disclosure of computerised model information—relating specifically to the creation of CO2 storage models that stimulate flows of fluids in storage complexes—the NSTA has acknowledged the need for further detailed consultation. Does the Minister know when those further consultations might be completed?
Other data is classified as highly sensitive, particularly in relation to storage resource information, quality of CO2 that could be stored and substrate geology—that kind of thing. I note that the NSTA provides the ability, but not the obligation, to disclose protected material, so licensees will have an opportunity to make representations concerning the delay or withholding of disclosure. That protective mechanism is important, and I recognise the need for it in the regulations, but I simply ask the Minister: what is the minimum timeframe for representations that the NSTA will guarantee to licensees before commercially sensitive protected material is disclosed?
We generally welcome these regulations and think that they are crucial for the development of this sector. This instrument is crucial for safety and for ensuring that there is a balance between the sharing of information and protecting what is commercially sensitive. We feel that, in general, the balance is in the right place here. We support these regulations as they will help underpin the successful, transparent and efficient development of the UK’s potential CCUS industry. But we urge the Government to address these essential questions of implementation, technical definition and scope, in order to ensure that the regulations achieve their full potential.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. As has been explained, these are technical measures designed to update the periods during which information relating to carbon storage licences and offshore petroleum wells remain confidential, and to ensure a more consistent and timely approach to public disclosure. We recognise the intention behind the instrument: improving the flow of information, supporting effective regulation and giving industry greater clarity and certainty.
We on these Benches recognise the importance of transparency, accuracy and timely publication of data in the offshore sector. Carbon capture and storage will continue to play an important role in meeting the UK’s future energy needs, and the North Sea will remain central to that effort for years to come. It is therefore right that the regulatory framework keeps pace with technological and operational developments and that that information is accessible and consistent across the sector.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. I will briefly try to address some of the important points made. First, perhaps I ought to knock on the head the possible suggestion from my noble friend Lord Hunt that I will be marking my own homework when it comes to the review I undertook a little while ago of greenhouse gas removals. I can assure him that others in the department will be doing that, not me. Although I hope that they will take on board the things that are in the review, it is entirely up to them and not me to do so. But I reflect that that report, among other things, was very positive about the role that CCUS can play, particularly in developing our net-negative approach to net zero over the next period.
As the noble Lord mentioned, we ought to think for a moment about what an enormous asset we have in the North Sea as far as CCUS is concerned. An estimated 78 billion tonnes of theoretical CO2 storage capacity is distributed across the UK continental shelf, and that is one of the largest, if not the largest, potential CO2 storage capacity in Europe. Therefore, the UK has the opportunity to offer cross-border CO2 transport and storage services to neighbouring countries. We very much welcome interest from EU and EEA countries, and we are committed to exploring opportunities to overcome the regulatory barriers to cross-border CO2 transport and storage networks alongside neighbouring countries with common interests. Noble Lords will know what progress the Norwegians have been making in this area, so there is no time to lose with making this work as well as it can.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his questions. I appreciate the detail in his questions. In the interest of accuracy, I think it is best that I write to him, particularly in terms of the NSTA consultation. He will know that NSTA has already consulted very substantially on a number of these aspects, but it is true that some consultations are continuing. I cannot give the exact dates by which they will be concluded, but I am sure he will get a satisfactory answer when I send him a letter to that effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, asked about investor confidence in CCUS. This is something we are taking seriously. A lot of this should have been underpinned by what has been happening with the track one cluster investments in CCUS. Very large amounts of money have been committed over the next 25 years to making those investments work fully. Therefore, from the UK Government’s point of view and an investor point of view, both sides should be completely clear that the UK is deadly serious about this. We are prepared to make the long-term investments and have the long-term infrastructure underpinning it to make the whole enterprise as successful as it can be in terms of the emergency we have in front of us for carbon capture and storage.
CCUS will complement our transition to home-grown clean energy. It will safeguard our energy security, and it will decarbonise power and industry in a way that drives growth. It is recognised as a core sector within our industrial strategy, which backs clean energy industries as a priority growth sector and is central to delivering our growth mission. I have mentioned that key to that is ensuring investor certainty in the process as it develops.
I will conclude by reaffirming that these regulations are not just a technical adjustment—very technical though they appear. They are essentially a strategic enabler for the UK’s energy transition. By providing both the public information and some investor security and clarity as the regulations come forth, I think we have got the right balance in making this happen as far as these regulations are concerned.
The Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026 will unlock critical data, strengthen transparency and accelerate the development and deployment of carbon capture, usage and storage across the UK continental shelf. These regulations, as I have underlined, reflect extensive consultation and positive engagement with industry and stakeholders. They are practical, robust, future focused and designed to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of clean energy technologies.
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before this House on 3 November. They amend extended producer responsibility for packaging, or PEPR, across England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. They represent a major step towards a circular, resource-resilient economy—one where producers take greater responsibility for packaging, and waste is designed out from the start.
Extending producer responsibility for packaging is the cornerstone of the Government’s once-in-a-generation recycling reforms. These reforms will increase the quality of the recycling that local authorities collect, support sustainable growth in the UK waste management and reprocessing sector, and reduce our reliance on material imported from overseas. As a result of the reforms, the waste management sector has committed to creating 25,000 new jobs and investing more than £10 billion in the economy. UK circular industries—those keeping products and materials in circulation for as long as possible—now deliver £67 billion yearly to the economy, and growth in this sector is more than double the rate of the overall UK economy.
The original PEPR regulations, introduced in 2024, created a framework for managing household packaging waste. They shifted the financial burden of disposal from taxpayers and local authorities to businesses supplying packaging. Producers must now cover the costs of managing their packaging waste and ensure that a proportion is recycled, with evidence provided to the regulator.
I now turn to the new obligations. These amendments aim to improve fairness, clarity and operational efficiency, responding to feedback from producers, local authorities and stakeholders, while aligning with international best practice. I will highlight three key reforms. The first is the appointment of a producer responsibility organisation, or PRO. We are enabling the appointment of a producer responsibility organisation from 2026—a very significant development. The PRO will be an independent not-for-profit body, established with the support of producers, to take on core responsibilities for the operation of the PEPR scheme. This responds to industry requests and mirrors successful models in countries with mature extended producer responsibility systems. The PRO will operate under conditions agreed by the four Governments and work closely with PackUK, the scheme administrator. Sovereign functions, such as data ownership and fee-setting, will remain with PackUK.
Secondly, I speak to the expansion of offsetting provisions. Large producers operating closed-loop recycling systems for food-grade plastics—where they collect and reprocess their own food-grade plastic waste—can now deduct these tonnages from disposal cost obligations. Eligible producers may resubmit 2024 data and receive revised invoices for 2025. We are doing this because we want to increase the recycled content in food-grade plastics. Despite sorting techniques, it is currently difficult for local authorities to keep plastic that is intended for food contact separate from other types of plastic. The result is that food-grade plastics often get downcycled, so we lose this valuable material. Closed-loop systems preserve valuable material and reduce reliance on virgin plastics, supporting the UK’s move towards a circular economy.
Thirdly, there are technical amendments for clarity and enforcement. These include material definitions, with fibre-based composites with plastic layers of 5% or less by mass being treated as paper or card, simplifying reporting and fee calculation; producer class obligations, introducing clearer rules on responsibility transfers during mergers or ownership changes; and enforcement, giving stronger powers to tackle free riders—businesses meeting thresholds but failing to register or report. PackUK can now recover costs for historic non-compliance. Regulator fees are being updated to reflect inflation, increased activity and new services, such as the recyclability assessment methodology and digital infrastructure. Lastly, local authority cost modelling will be improved to ensure that payments deliver environmental outcomes.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations and also declare that I am a vice-president of the LGA and a past leader of a local authority. I welcome and note this statutory instrument creating an obligation on businesses that supply household packaging and managing the packaging once it has been discarded, to enhance to environmental protection, and for producers to demonstrate how they can work with the general public so that more products can be recycled and, importantly, to make packaging environmentally sustainable and, we hope, more easily recyclable—with, inevitably, lower fees charged.
Importantly, the instrument also mandates producers to make more sustainable decisions at the product design stage. That means more costs for businesses to take in, so, on the counter side, what support will His Majesty’s Government undertake to incentivise employers, helping them to increase their recycling target rates to deliver more carbon savings? Will this amendment refer to small, medium and large businesses on a sliding scale, or for any exemptions? I make a request in particular for extra support for our small businesses, as they are a lifeline in our supply chains to our economy.
Another point to make is: what assessment is being designed of how the household definition could be refined to capture fewer items of packaging disposed of by businesses? How are producers to offset fees for packaging that they produce when they collect and recycle packaging themselves? In particular, the amendments allow producers to offset fees for closed-loop packaging, easier on top of the existing exemptions. How will this be truly monitored? What acceptable range of evidence must producers provide for closed-loop packaging waste, which has been recycled before fees for packaging can be offset? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, and to thank the Minister for his introduction. I broadly welcome this statutory instrument, which is at least a baby step towards polluter pays—that those who profit from the production of packaging that causes such damage in our communities should at least deal with the costs of dealing with the waste, which is of course only one small part of the total environmental and public health costs of the packaging overall.
I will start with a couple of specific questions, following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, and then ask a broader, bigger question. As the noble Baroness said, a lot of the concern around this SI has been about the trade-off between closed-loop recycling systems, turning things back into food-grade recyclate, and how that will be monitored and audited. I note that a joint submission from the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Environmental Investigation Agency and Everyday Plastic expressed concern about this and said that there was an absence of stringent and auditable evidence requirements, which could be a serious loophole.
We have to look at this in the context of how much sheer corruption and fraud we have in the waste sector. I can see one noble Lord frowning at me in puzzlement, but of course there is the 10,000-tonne waste mountain beside the River Cherwell in Kidlington in Oxfordshire and the 25,000-tonne one in Bickershaw in Wigan, which are believed to be illegally dumped waste. There are widely thought to be huge problems of lack of control and oversight.
In that context, I note the concerns expressed by our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about the resources available to the Environment Agency in England. It also refers to the other agencies, but I will refer just to England as that is within our purview. I note that the committee suggests that we press the Minister on whether Defra is confident that the regulators will have sufficient information—and, I would add, whether they will have the resources to process and deal with that information. We all know how incredibly stretched the Environment Agency is. Is it actually being given more resources to deal with this SI? That is my very specific question.
I have another specific question. I spoke about the corruption in the UK waste management sector, but significant quantities, particularly of plastics, have been shipped overseas. They are not being recycled at all and are causing huge environmental and public health issues, often in global South countries. So my specific question is: will companies be able to use a closed-loop recycling system that operates overseas, and how do the Government expect the Environment Agency in England in particular to manage that overseas information?
I turn to my second set of questions—it is one big question, really. The Minister said in his introduction that this was a once-in-a-generation action. I really hope that that is not true because, as I said, this deals only with the producers paying for the disposal of the waste. It does not cover all the environmental, social and public health damage done by the creation of that waste in the first place: by the resource extraction, the use of energy and climate emissions.
I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of a WWF UK report from 2021, Packaging Unwrapped, which spells out in great detail the different forms of packaging and what we know—and, importantly, do not know—about the damage they do. Looking at aluminium and steel, it talks about the lack of data on the damage done by mining and the energy use in their production, very often of course in the global South. On paper packaging, it talks about how much paper is imported from Indonesia and the potential, though little-documented or undocumented, links to deforestation there.
Right along the line, there are public health issues with the many thousands of chemicals added to plastics, all of which have public health implications. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that none of that is included if you just make companies pay for the waste disposal. Are the Government looking at further ways to make sure that the genuine full cost of the packaging is indeed paid by those who are profiting from its use?
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out these regulations and the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Bennett, for their important and interesting contributions. These regulations mark the next step towards the vital circular economy that many of us have advocated for over many years, rightly shifting the cost burden for packaging waste away from council tax payers and local authorities and towards those who place that packaging on the market in the first place. That direction of travel is welcome, but there are serious concerns about how the transition will work in practice, especially given the speed of the introduction, and especially for small producers and the already stretched hospitality sector.
The aims of extended producer responsibility—to reduce waste, increase recyclability and make the “polluter pays” principle real—are ones that the Liberal Democrats strongly support. The moves to refine the 2024 framework and establish a clearer role for a producer responsibility organisation can, in principle, help to deliver a more coherent and efficient system. However, from the outset, there have been calls from across the industry for a more phased, proportionate transition that recognises the very different capacities of large brands and small producers to absorb new costs and navigate complex reporting requirements. For smaller producers, this is not a marginal administrative adjustment; it is a potentially significant new cost arriving on top of energy bills, wage pressures and squeezed demand. Many smaller producers do not have in-house compliance teams, but my understanding—unless the Minister can correct me—is that they will be expected to collect detailed packaging data, interpret nuanced recyclability rules and manage new fee structures that still remain, in part, uncertain.
The concern is that, if this instrument’s timetable is implemented in its current form, some smaller producers and niche food and drink producers may find themselves priced out, not because they are unwilling to play their part but because they lack the capacity to manage the complexity and volatility of the new regime. For instance, this scheme has been described, in the voice of hospitality, as
“a well-intentioned environmental policy that’s become a margin killer for hospitality businesses”.
Indeed, the hospitality sector illustrates the risk starkly. Pubs, cafés, hotels and restaurants report feelings as if they are paying twice: once through higher prices, as suppliers pass on their producer obligations, then again through existing commercial waste contracts for exactly the same packaging. This flows from the way in which household packaging is defined, which can sweep in materials that never go near a household bin and are handled entirely as commercial waste.
As I think will be clear from all noble Lords’ speeches, we all desperately want these aims to succeed, but we hope that the Government recognise the concerns about implementation. May I ask the Minister some specific and, I hope, helpful questions? First, what changes, whether through the threshold, fee modulation or phased implementation, will the Government consider to ensure that small producers are not driven out, driven to worse packaging decisions, lowest common denominator options, or forced to consolidate solely because of the cost and complexity of compliance under these regulations?
Secondly, what steps will be taken, and on what timescale, to address the issue of paying twice issue—especially for the hospitality sector—so that operators are not charged both through their supply chains and through existing commercial waste arrangements for the same packaging?
Thirdly, will the Minister commit to publishing a clear, segment-by-segment impact assessment covering small producers and hospitality businesses specifically; and to reviewing the scheme after its first full year of operation, with a view to adjusting it where disproportionate burdens become evident?
Finally, on the evidence given to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Environmental Investigation Agency and Everyday Plastic, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, what consideration have the Government given to piloting—in the first instance, with some of the larger producers—to ensure confidence that the information streams and the system are robust, that the reporting is robust and that the loopholes are closed, before rolling this scheme out to the smaller producers I described earlier? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to these questions.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing these amended regulations. I begin by acknowledging that they make a number of sensible technical adjustments to the extended producer responsibility scheme. They show some movements in response to concerns raised by industry, and they are broadly welcomed on that basis. However, the underlying concerns repeatedly voiced by stakeholders have not yet been fully addressed. This is particularly acute in two areas: the treatment of glass within the cost recovery model; and, as also highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, the emerging problem of double-charging in food, drink and hospitality businesses.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. I am glad to have the opportunity to close this important debate and to have heard a range of views. It is clear that we are all passionate about this topic and I acknowledge that the principles behind PEPR, which began in 2024 before this Government but which we are carrying on, are taken as a good thing across the Committee. We are trying to meet its aims with sincerity, working with industry, local authorities and waste collectors.
I turn to the comments and questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, asked about the impact on small businesses. It is worth noting that many PEPR schemes around the world offer no exemptions from their obligations for small businesses, whereas in the UK we have some of the most generous measures for small businesses across any packaging scheme globally. The exemptions that we are applying in this scheme will apply to approximately 70% of businesses supplying packaging in the UK, which recognises that we want to support small businesses rather than price them out of the market, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Grender, referred to.
A number of contributions focused on the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, particularly around whether regulators would have sufficient resources to carry out their functions effectively. The charges in this scheme were calculated based on the expected activities required effectively to undertake regulatory duties, using assumptions on the time these would take based on the experience of regulating similar sectors and the fixed cost of delivery. As the system embeds, regulators will continue to review operational delivery costs to ensure that there is effective recovery. Environment Agency enforcement resource is covered by grant-in-aid funding from Defra.
As well as provision to increase charges by inflation with the consumer price index, there was additional regulatory provision to allow regulators to seek approval to supersede the charges by introducing a charging scheme made under the Environment Act 1995, the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 or the Waste Management Licensing Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003. Defra will continue to work closely with regulators on this topic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in particular raised the question of having sufficiently robust information on producers’ recycling to make a fair assessment. Draft guidance on reporting requirements will be published on GOV.UK before Christmas, ahead of the regulations coming into force. The regulator does not usually stipulate the specific documents required but will provide examples and principles, as every producer is different and may therefore have access to different evidence. Guidance will develop over time to reflect real-life examples presented by producers during compliance checks. For example, a producer could obtain written confirmation from their reprocessor outlining what percentage of the material collected and sent for recycling was actually recycled. This would need to outline the reprocessor’s method of determining this value and the regulators would expect the producer to have a documented process in place for validating this data. While these requirements apply only to the reprocessor and not the producer, these regulations put the burden of proof on producers as they are benefiting from the off-set.
In short, producers must maintain evidence that their closed-loop packaging waste has been recycled into food-grade plastic material under the closed loop system. There is no requirement for this evidence to be third party verified. Regulators will carry out their statutory duty to monitor compliance, as you might expect. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, raised that issue.
I turn to some of the wider comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which she raised when we last discussed orders on plastic waste packaging and recycling in Grand Committee. She is right to hold the Government’s feet—indeed, everyone’s feet—to the fire on creating a true reuse circular economy. To be clear, when I spoke about once-in-a-generation reform, I was not talking specifically about this SI; this is a good SI, but this is not the be-all and end-all. I was talking about the system.
I want to be clear that the Government are committed to transitioning to a circular economy, and reuse will be an important part of that journey. To help make that happen, we will be launching a call for evidence early next year on reusable packaging. This will help us to understand what support and policies are needed to increase reuse. For instance, we are encouraging the glass industry to seek to reduce the cost impacts of PEPR through a transition to reuse and refill, something that used to be commonplace in the UK and continues to be in many other countries.
That brings me on neatly to some of the issues around glass and reuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, both raised issues on dual-use packaging not being addressed in the SI. I want to reassure the Committee that the Government are taking this seriously. Minister Creagh met with leaders from industry groups affected by the dual-use issue earlier this year, and we recognise the strength of feeling. But we also acknowledge the need for a system that can be effectively monitored and enforced, given that the impact on the PEPR fees for packaging remains in scope of fees.
Workshops have been held over recent weeks to urgently and carefully identify options which address the issues, while maintaining the objectives of the scheme. Sector-specific working groups will test these proposals further. It is important to note that any amendment that exempts more packaging will increase fees for the material that remains obligated to the system. This is because the total cost producers need to cover collectively will not be affected by any such amendment. If there is less obligated packaging, the fee per tonne will increase.
Specifically on glass, there is a question about the problem of the cost in the scheme being calculated by weight, not unit. It is important to recognise that waste management costs are largely driven by weight. We have also taken account of other factors that influence collection costs, including the estimated volume of each material in bins and collection vehicles. It remains the case that glass is a heavy material with a low resale value. A unit of glass packaging costs more for local authorities to manage as waste than an item made of more lightweight and high-value materials.
On switching, major food and drinks producers have told us their view that there is little risk of short-term materials switching, owing to long lead times in changing packaging. Major supermarkets have categorically said that PEPR is not their main driver for changing packaging. Decisions on changes are likely to align with the policy objectives of moving to easier-to-recycle packaging, which, from year two of PEPR, will see a reduction in fees through eco-modulation.
There was a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on the impact of fees on differential sectors and an impact assessment. In October 2024 the Government published a full assessment of the impact of the PEPR scheme for packaging, including cumulative costs. This considered a wide range of different costs to businesses and included estimates of expected net annual cost to business for those obligated producers. This cost to business had not been split by the sector in which the producers and businesses engage in market activity, given the data’s availability, the commercial nature of data limits and the ability to provide a sectoral level assessment of impacts.
I assure noble Lords that the Government continue to work closely with industry to understand the impact of the upcoming fees on business as the scheme is implemented and rolls out. We are committed to the continuous improvement of the scheme and, where appropriate, will seek to adjust regulatory settings to address feedback from stakeholders.
That brings me to the end of most of the questions that were raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised—I do not know what to call it—the atrocious illegal waste site on the A34. I want to reassure noble Lords, as it is obviously a topic of concern to many, that the Environment Agency is now working to ensure that the public and the environment are protected from potential impacts and to pursue the criminals responsible. Following new information on the risk of fire, planning work has begun to clear the site as soon as possible on a wholly exceptional basis. The Environment Agency and local partners are now working through the most effective way to manage this work. I confirm that a 39 year-old male was arrested on 25 November in relation to this and investigations are ongoing, so I cannot comment any further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the situation in Wigan; I do not have anything about that in my notes, but I am happy to write to her with an update. This is of concern to those in Wigan and of as much concern to us as the situation in Kidlington, which was the case that, perhaps unfairly, attracted the most attention and news coverage. One awful and illegal fly-tip is as bad as another in my book, so I am happy both to write to the noble Baroness to update her on the situation and to ensure that we are able to keep noble Lords abreast of it. I hope that I have covered most of the issues—
Lord Roborough (Con)
I understand that this may be beyond the Minister’s notes today, but I asked whether there will be an opportunity to use technology more effectively in compliance and in enforcing these regulations. I am happy for the Minister to write to me on that, if he is willing, as well as on any broader opportunities for reducing the cost of both enforcement and compliance with technology.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and apologise for missing out that question. Of course, as a principle, we are keen to use technology to make monitoring and compliance easier for everybody involved in the system. We are also keen to drive down the costs of compliance so that people can concentrate resources in the whole system on driving down waste and improving the reuse and recycling of materials. I do not have specific details, so I will undertake to talk to officials and perhaps write to the noble Lord with more detail about what we have in store there.
This amendment to the legislation is necessary to maintain the circular economy for packaging in the UK; to ensure that the key industry request for producers to be involved in running the scheme is taken forward; and, ultimately, to ensure that materials and products are kept in use for longer. I trust that noble Lords understand and accept the need for this instrument. Once again, I thank everyone for their contributions.
Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Andy Roe, who has been leading the work to improve the performance of the building safety regulator and whose peerage was announced on 11 December.
The establishment of the building safety regulator was the most significant reform of the building safety regime in decades. The building safety regulator has removed significant risk from the system and placed residents at the heart of housebuilding. The regulator is an important and non-negotiable part of our built environment, particularly as we deliver 1.5 million homes and accelerate the remediation of unsafe buildings.
The BSR was first established within the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE provided invaluable leadership and experience during the establishment and early operations of the BSR. It is now time for a new phase for the BSR. In June, my department announced reforms to the regulator, including investing in strengthened and dedicated leadership for the BSR; operational improvements, including the creation of a new innovation unit to improve the processing of gateway applications; and bolstered, long-term investment in the capability of the BSR and its capacity to work with industry. Alongside this, we announced the intention to move the BSR out of the Health and Safety Executive, establishing it as an arm’s-length body of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is the specific purpose of these draft regulations.
These regulations set up a new arm’s-length body sponsored by MHCLG that will exercise the functions of the building safety regulator, as established under the Building Safety Act. The regulations transfer the functions of the building safety regulator from the Health and Safety Executive to this new body. The provisions of these regulations will come into force on 27 January 2026.
The regulations enable the smooth transfer of powers so that the BSR has the legal basis to continue to perform its functions without interruption. They include transitional provisions to cover the period where staff and services will move over in stages from the HSE to the BSR. The regulations provide that the BSR will maintain its operational independence, with its own powers, strategic plan and programme of work, as outlined in the Building Safety Act. This move does not change the functions of the regulator or the ministerial powers and responsibilities set out in the Building Safety Act.
This change will support the building safety regulator for the coming years, strengthening accountability and providing a singular focus and dedicated leadership for building safety regulation. Importantly, this is also the first step towards establishing a single construction regulator, a key recommendation of phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. The new body for the building safety regulator will form the basis of the single construction regulator. The regulations will make sure that the building safety regulator continues to deliver its statutory functions under the Building Safety Act, while leading it into a new era. This will provide the foundation for a stronger, more accountable system that prioritises safety while supporting innovation across the built environment.
I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I join the Minister in congratulating Andrew Roe on his peerage. The experience that he will bring to your Lordships’ House from London Fire Brigade and the building safety regulator will be enormously welcome.
This instrument was debated in another place last week, on 10 December, and it completed its consideration in 12 minutes. On 11 December, the Industry and Regulators Committee produced its report, headed Building a Better Regulator. Within that report is a chapter on exactly the subject that we are debating this afternoon—namely, the single construction regulator—and it gives the background to the decision to which the Minister referred: the need to have a single construction regulator. It goes on to say that witnesses were broadly supportive of the proposal for the single regulator, with several suggesting that the current system was “fragmented”.
However—and this is the point that I want to make in this very short intervention—there were notes of caution. The Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists argued that
“it is more important that these functions be delivered effectively, than that they be delivered by a single body”.
The institute suggested that the priority should be addressing current regulatory challenges rather than merging functions. Philip White questioned whether this was the right time to establish it and, as with the BSR’s move from HSE to a body within MHCLG, he argued that the organisational change would lead to “disruption”, while suggesting that the regulator would do its best to
“keep business going as usual”.
The Select Committee listened to that argument and to the argument for going straight ahead, and concluded, in paragraph 106:
“We support the Government’s broad proposal to establish a single construction regulator. However, we heard concerns that organisational changes could distract from the immediate imperative of improving operational performance. The implementation of this further organisational change should wait until the BSR is delivering its building control decisions within statutory timeframes”.
As we know, that is not what it is doing, so the question that I want the Minister to answer is: why is she going ahead, it seems, in defiance of a very clear recommendation from a Select Committee? I appreciate that it reported last week, after the instrument had been laid, but none the less it is a clear recommendation that we should not go ahead in January. I wonder how the Minister would respond to that clear recommendation from a unanimous report by one of your Lordships’ Select Committees.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I will make a very short intervention. I was quite interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about what the Select Committee said about this. Some noble Lords will be aware that I have taken an interest in this matter because of some communications I have received over the last few months in relation to delays in getting the building safety regulator’s approval, which have caused huge difficulties for the construction industry, the housing industry and individuals who want to move into a new property or premises.
In principle, I have no issue with a single construction regulator—on the basis that it will be an improvement. I am not yet convinced that it will be an improvement, because we have not seen that with our current system. I would like to see much better progress with the system we have before we move it to an arm’s-length body, because you sometimes lose a level of control with an arm’s-length body. I listened to the Minister indicate that there will still be a control mechanism. I am keen to hear what that control process will be because, if it is to be a more accountable system, it must be more accountable to both this House and the other place. Otherwise, we will not get the improvements that we are looking for and desire.
I am broadly supportive of having a single construction regulator, but we are not getting the process properly implemented as it is, so I am keen to know how it will be improved under the new process.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am sorry, but I am going to take slightly longer on this SI, because this is a really important issue. We have a housing crisis and a safety crisis in the UK, and we need to get both of them right.
The purpose of this SI is clear enough. Basically, it follows on from work that we did in the previous Government on establishing the BSR, which was established under the Building Safety Act 2022. That was brought forward by the Conservatives and it was the right thing to do. None of us wants to see again the horror of Grenfell, where 72 people lost their lives. The inquiry rightly set out that systematic changes were needed after the decades-long failure that allowed such a tragedy to occur. It is vital that any regulatory system created in the wake of Grenfell is rigorous, trusted and functional.
In principle, strengthening the clarity of responsibility is welcome and in line with the legislation brought forward by the previous Conservative Government. However, in practice, the regime that the SI seeks to underpin is already under severe strain. It is not working as intended. Developers, local authorities and construction professionals are encountering severe and sustained delays. According to the Construction Plant-hire Association, more than 150 high-rise residential schemes are stalled at the gateway 2 approval stage, with delays stretching not to two weeks but up to 40 weeks. London alone accounts for more than 60% of the affected schemes and these delays cascade down through the supply chain, leaving cranes, machinery and personnel—hired at enormous cost—idle while developers wait for decisions that should have been completed months earlier. Just as importantly, the risk of taking on new projects means that people are not doing them. This is about not only the idle projects out there but the projects that have not started.
The Government have promised 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, yet the evidence is overwhelming that they will fall dramatically short, with barely a third of the homes that should be completed actually to be completed and delivered. Experts across the board, from the OBR to Savills, the Home Builders Federation and Professor Paul Cheshire, agree that there is little to no chance of the Government hitting their target.
We now have the lowest number of additional homes in nearly a decade. The HBF states that housebuilding is flatlining at around 200,000 homes a year—far below the 300,000 required to get even close to the Government’s requirement. In London, the picture is dire: housing starts under the current mayor have collapsed, and the number of private homes under construction is projected to fall to just 15,000 by 2027.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short but interesting debate. Of course, a number of judgments always have to be made about the right time to take action. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is quite right to say that this builds on the work of the last Government. We all want the same thing here: we want the homes that people live in to be safe and for people to feel confident that the buildings they live in are safe.
I will pick up some of the points made. All three noble Lords who spoke raised similar points. I will start with the question of whether the transition to the new BSR governance arrangements will disrupt operations, because it is important. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned that undue disruption should be avoided, and I completely agree with that. The new team at the BSR is fully committed to this change and preparing for it. Maintaining a strong focus on operational delivery is its real priority. The plans to move the BSR into a new body within MHCLG are designed to have the minimal impact on current operations. Improvements in the BSR’s performance have been under way since August. Significant numbers of applications have been cleared, and new operating models are delivering dramatically reduced processing times. I think we are all very pleased to see that. It is right for the residents who are on the end of this, but it is also right for the industry, which has been waiting for this progress.
The noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Young, both asked why we are going ahead with this now. It is very important that we make this commitment now to move at pace on implementing the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry. We are taking early steps to prepare for regulatory reform by supporting the BSR to move into this new phase of its operations. The move to a new body accountable to MHCLG will deliver a dedicated focus for building safety and strengthen accountability to Ministers and Parliament, which is important. It also marks an important milestone towards our commitment to a single construction regulator. I do not think there is any disagreement in the industry that that is where we need to get to.
We are grateful for the very thorough report from the Industry and Regulators Committee on the building safety regulator. We are carefully reviewing it. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, it came out only on 11 December, so we need a bit more time to consider it. We will carefully review it and provide a full response to the committee early next year in line with the required timelines. I know there are notes of caution in the report about effectiveness, rather than a single body, but I know that the whole team is dedicated to achieving this without an interruption in performance, and with the performance improvements we have already seen. That will start the process towards a single regulator, which is important, but it is also important that it does not distract from operational performance.
I will give a brief outline of some of the performance improvements that have happened. Between 1 September and 24 November this year, a record 40 new-build applications were processed from the previous model case load, with the majority approved, allowing construction to begin on 10,000 homes. Cases received in recent months are being handled by the new innovation unit, which has dramatically reduced decision times by 20 or more weeks, compared with the previous peak of 38 weeks for approved new-build decisions. That is a dramatic improvement. Across all application types, overall performance also continues to improve, with a record 578 cases closed since August. Of course, we will continue to monitor this very closely.
Cases received in recent months are being handled by the new innovation unit, and that removes the reliance that the BSR had had on dispersed expertise. The innovation unit has dramatically reduced those processing times: as I said, by 20 weeks or more. Quality applications are essential to ensure that projects can progress. This is another area where there is a lot of dialogue between the BSR and the industry, and it has run webinars and sessions with developers to help them to understand what is needed by the BSR. That is a mutual dialogue. The BSR is continuing to support industry leaders; it is publishing guidance for applicants. But, of course, as we would all want it to say, it does not want to compromise on safety but wants there to be an understanding of what the expectations are.
We hope that moving the BSR to its own body will improve operations: the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to this. It will create clearer lines of accountability and allow the operational flexibility that comes from the BSR being its own specific organisation. I hope that will build on the record progress we have already seen since the changes made in June.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the shortage of specialist fire and building inspectors, and some of the other specialisms that are required. We recognise the overall pressures on the building control system and on fire engineering capacity, which is why we have established the independent building control panel and the fire engineering advisory panel to look at the underlying issues and report back in the new year, so that we can fix the system as a whole.
We will work with the independent panel, the BSR and the wider building control sector to establish a shared, long-term, financially sustainable vision for building control services, so that they are able to provide assurance, inspection and enforcement activities that support housebuilding, cladding remediation, decent homes, net zero and social infrastructure ambitions. We have provided £16.5 million to support the recruitment of registered building inspectors to backfill those supporting the BSR and continue to look at options to grow the overall sector.
The BSR has also enabled certain class 2-registered building inspectors to take on some of the less complex, higher-risk building work, freeing up class 3-registered building inspectors to focus on new builds and remediation. A total of 125 cladding workers will be upskilled through the launch of the Construction Industry Training Board’s rainscreen facade installer training. I thank the Construction Industry Training Board for playing a strong hand in supporting work on this. Each year by the end of this Parliament, 100,000 construction workers will be recruited and will be overseen by the Construction Skills Mission Board. Across the board, maintaining the performance is key to this. Starting to move towards a single regulator is the right move to make now. We need to keep an eye on the performance and make sure that it is maintained.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to ensuring the safety of all residents. The building safety regulator has overseen a fundamental change in the built environment, and ensures safety is at the heart of housing. These regulations will enable the smooth transfer of the regulator from the Health and Safety Executive to its own body. I hope the Committee will welcome these regulations.
UK Research and Innovation: Ethnic Minorities
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Acton
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether any UK Research and Innovation-funded grants to study in UK universities are not open to white or Asian applicants; and if so, what assessment they have made of the appropriateness.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
Last year, UK Research and Innovation funded around 1,800 training grants to support about 27,000 PhD students. Some research organisations ring-fence a small proportion of UKRI-funded studentships for groups they can demonstrate are underrepresented in order to break to down barriers to opportunities and address inequality. None of the training grants funded by UKRI entirely excludes white or Asian students from applying for a PhD studentship. Around 1% of all UKRI studentships are ring-fenced by research organisations for widening participation.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am afraid it is true that white and Asian applicants are told they cannot apply for at least one post, a post-doc post, funded by UK Research and Innovation. This is symptomatic of the capture of the research excellence framework by radical progressive ideology, as evidenced by recent research by Professor Eric Kaufmann at the University of Buckingham. I know that the Minister shares my concern and has recently taken steps to reduce the weight given to equity, diversity and inclusion in the REF. Would he like to take this opportunity to assure the House that, in future, research funding will be based on the applicant’s intellectual merit and not the colour of their skin?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I think the noble Lord may be referring to the scheme run by the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, which is one of the world’s greatest research institutions, with 12 Nobel Prizes to its name. It has rightly taken two posts out of 128 specifically to increase black representation among scientists. This is very similar to what happened in 1995, when the Dorothy Hodgkin fellowships made positions for women more easily accessible; that led to a huge number of very successful women scientists emerging as a result of that. In terms of the research excellence framework, there is an increased weighting for research outputs, which I believe to be correct. There is, however, a significant weighting on strategy, people and research environment. A culture where bullying is tolerated, challenge is suppressed and diversity is not embraced is not conducive to great science.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with the multiple analyses of major funders, including UKRI and the US National Science Foundation, which have consistently found that white applicants have higher grant awards than ethnic minority researchers? Indeed, in 2020-21, UKRI PI awardees were 81% white and 1% black. The major reason, I suggest, is that black, Asian and other minority ethnicities are underrepresented in academia; we have just 160 black professors, of whom only a quarter are women. Does the Minister agree that efforts to address these stark inequalities should be welcomed rather than criticised?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Just to add to the starkness of those numbers, it is 160 black professors out of 22,885 professors overall. These are stark figures, and we need to do things to make sure that we get opportunity right. Yes, the figures are also stark for grants. It is interesting that the analysis of schemes that have been put in place already shows that, as a result of those schemes, not only does confidence increase for black scientists but the preparedness and quality of their applications also increase.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the statements from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, of the facts involved. Can the Minister assure us that, in scrutinising individual schemes, the Government and the Office for Students will support universities’ and research councils’ ability to use lawful positive action to tackle well-documented disparities in participation and progression in the research workforce?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Yes, much of this was about postgraduate students, but it is true in the workforce. The Office for Students recently issued guidance that makes it clear that staff and students should be free to undertake academic research within the law, and should not be restricted or compromised in any way because of the conclusions that that research may reach, or the views that it supports or any conflict with the higher education provider’s values. There are schemes right the way across the system, including in the White Paper that was recently published, for how to increase participation from multiple groups, based not just on ethnicity but also on socioeconomic deprivation and those with caring responsibilities.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that funding for PhDs and research in the arts is going to be cut by up to 60%? There has been a huge uproar in the academic world, which believes that this is not right. Of course, science is important; STEM is important, but surely it should be STEAM, which includes the arts as well, which are crucial for our education and our competitiveness.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
There is no plan to cut PhD numbers, which are running at about 5,000 per year, funded through UKRI. That makes up about 20% of the total funding, with the other 80% coming from other sources, including from European grants. In the new allocation of funding from UKRI, it will be very clear that the Arts and Humanities Research Council and people in the social sciences will be well provided for.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords would agree that, whatever the merits of diversity in its own right, it cannot be a substitute for academic excellence. If so, does the Minister accept, in this light, that the more research funding is seen to be granted for reasons other than quality and impact, the more we risk loss of confidence in scientific research done in the UK?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Yes, I do agree with that, and that is why it is very clear that there is a focus on excellence in the very scheme that has been referred to, which is among the most excellent in the world in terms of what it searches for. It is worth going back to 2020-21, when the then Science Minister, Amanda Solloway, said: “We recognise that people from minority ethnic backgrounds, as well as other underrepresented groups, face systemic barriers to entering and progressing in R&D careers. We are committed to tackling these barriers to ensure that talent is not lost”. I agree with the last Government on that.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the vast majority of noble Lords would agree that genuine equality of opportunity in academia and more widely requires a commitment to fair application procedures and continuing concerted efforts to address the obstacles that prevent different groups from accessing opportunities. This includes racial and ethnic groups, lower-income groups and groups from outside of the south-east. Can the Minister outline what steps this Government have initiated to address these barriers that are faced by disadvantaged students—disadvantaged construed in the broadest sense—in accessing different kinds of postgraduate study?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
UKRI is clear that, when it allocates grants, particularly for the studentships into doctoral training centres, those organisations should consider increased participation and any disadvantages on the grounds of ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic status or caring responsibilities. There are a number of schemes specifically designed to do that—and a number more were laid out in the White Paper—and the analysis of previous schemes has shown that they do have an effect. I referred to one from 1995, which had a very dramatic effect.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, as someone who cannot claim to have had his career held back, can I also say that the evidence is what is important here? It was evidence that scientists from ethnic minorities were adversely judged, despite their talent and the quality of their application, that led to this necessary positive action. The data clearly shows that. This is based on data, not on any ideological measure.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that comment, and I agree with it.
Lord Swire (Con)
The Minister has made his career—and to an extent his reputation—on statistics. Can he clarify something for me? According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, of all academic staff whose ethnicity is known, 22% were from ethnic-minority backgrounds in 2022-23. Is that a reflection of society at large, or is it disproportionate?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The data for postgraduate research numbers in 2023-24 was that 74% were from white backgrounds, 9% were Asian students, 5% were black students, 5% were mixed students and 3% were students categorised as of “other” ethnic background. I think that this is a fair representation. I go back to the striking statistic that, out of 22,885 professors, only 160 are black and of those, only a quarter are women.
Technology Adoption Review
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the recommendations of the Technology Adoption Review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The review’s recommendations were incorporated into the industrial strategy and since its launch we have begun to deliver on our commitments. For example, we have allocated £99 million of funding to allow for the expansion of the Made Smarter programme to support increased adoption of technologies such as AI in advanced manufacturing. We are taking forward work to implement the recommendations of the SME Digital Adoption Task Force, which published its recommendations in July.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, among its many findings, the review identified that there is a proliferation of different business support schemes designed to improve technology adoption and productivity. Many of these are short lived, their impact is variable and they are hard for SMEs to navigate. What consideration is being given to streamlining business support based on the evidence of which interventions have proved most successful in the past?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her commitment and sponsorship of this important area. Long-term certainty is critical in driving private sector investment. That is why we are expanding successful programmes such as Made Smarter Adoption, and making changes to government procurement and regulation. To make it easier for businesses to find the support they need, in July we launched the new Business Growth Service, including developing a single online access point for government-backed advice and support services. It has already seen over 127,000 domestic users.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is really encouraging to hear in the report about AI adoption hubs set regionally around the country. I would like to ask the Minister about AI literacy, which is also referred to in the review. Is she happy that we are doing enough to bring about that literacy? That seems to be one of the big problems with the development of AI in this country.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to take action on a number of fronts, including AI literacy and digital skills more generally. The Government are taking action on digital skills in a number of areas, including through what was the CyberFirst programme and is now the TechFirst programme, looking at both young people and students.
On AI skills, particularly for those in the workforce, the Prime Minister announced a plan to train 7.5 million workers with essential AI skills by 2030 through our industry partnership with key players. It is great to have those players collaborating with us on that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Technology Adoption Review is clear that the UK’s ability to turn research excellence into productivity gains depends on skills and access to world-class talent across our innovation system. In light of Sir Paul Nurse’s recent warnings that high visa fees and restrictive rules are actively deterring early career researchers and damaging the UK’s science base, will the Government commit to aligning research visa policy with their technology adoption ambitions, say, by emulating the Canada Global Impact+ Research Talent Initiative?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that attracting high-calibre talent to this country is incredibly important. We have a number of ongoing initiatives to do that, including the Global Talent Taskforce, as well as through academia, as my noble friend the Minister with responsibility for science and technology talked about. The digital skills jobs plan will also set out how we can support that aim and get the balance right between growing homegrown talent and attracting those we need to from abroad, so that we have the best chances of growing our science base and the spin-outs.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that AI literacy should be extended to the police force and the judiciary? In very recent cases, it is clear that AI provided incorrect quotes in compiling reports and writing judgments; and in the case of the West Midlands Police, a non-existent football match was cited as a reason why Maccabi fans should not be allowed into Birmingham. Do we not have to do a lot more to teach people how to use AI properly?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that AI has huge potential, but that getting right its adoption and the use of critical skills, whether in the public or private sector, is an integral part of ensuring that it drives productivity and all the promised expectations.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, impressive work is already under way to drive technological innovation across local and regional government. Derby City Council was the first in the UK to introduce phone assistants powered by generative AI—they are called Darcie, Ali and Perry; do come and ask me why they have those names if you want to know—to streamline call centre interactions with residents. I declare my interest as Bishop of Derby and a member of the Derby City Partnership board. How will the Minister’s department learn from best practice and pilot initiatives across local and regional government to ensure that AI implementation maintains inclusivity and high ethical standards in all sectors?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Learning from best practice is a critical part of our approach, as is taking test and learn pilots out so that we can see what works on the ground, particularly in collaboration with local government, businesses and civil society. It is an approach that we take across many different parts of the public sector, and I will make sure that we look at that example in particular.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, the report is critical of skills shortages, problems with regulations and the financial constraints on investments. I know that it is not directly the Minister’s responsibility, but could she talk to the Treasury about looking for alternative systems of raising funds, and involving the public and extending public/private partnerships, so that we can get some initiative and money going in, in addition to the money that will be invested that she already mentioned?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
In many areas—in fact, the entire industrial strategy and particularly the Technology Adoption Review—that has been done in concert with the private sector. It is an incredibly important part of the approach. To take one example, the skills package in construction takes that approach forward; both the private and public sectors are putting themselves forward together to provide more opportunities for young people. That is the approach that we will take across digital and AI skills, as I mentioned.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I draw noble Lords’ attention to my technology interests, as set out in the register. What assessment have the Government made of the critique of the CBI and others that their technology adoption plans are too fragmented? Does the Minister agree that, without strong co-ordination across different technology adoption initiatives, we will be unable either to assess their collective impacts or to learn their individual lessons?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The technology review and many others have identified that there is no silver bullet in respect of technology adoption. What is needed in the creative industries is perhaps completely different from what is needed in the energy sector, for example. The review’s approach and its adoption into the industrial strategy is to match the needs of a particular sector with a set of technological or digital approaches. Beneath that are some common themes—for example, on skills, connectivity or infrastructure. We have to look at it in that way: measures cut across the economy and specific measures are suited to subsectors.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a teacher, when anybody in the House says, “We need to teach people stuff”, I keep on saying, “Why do we not teach it in schools and why do we not teach it properly?”
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The question of digital skills and media literacy is probably most relevant to this area. The noble Lord will have seen that the curriculum and assessment review, which came out recently, has taken into account the need to update our approach to embrace both the risks and the opportunities of the digital world and AI.
Emergency Adrenaline
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of community access to emergency adrenaline following the authorisation of needle-free delivery methods.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government welcome the approval of needle-free adrenaline delivery methods. In July, the medicines regulator, the MHRA, recommended consideration of changes to legislation to allow the supply of and access to such methods of emergency adrenaline delivery, particularly in schools. The Government are currently considering that recommendation, as well as any changes to regulations that may be required. The Government may assess community access to emergency adrenaline as part of any legislative changes.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as the mother of a severely allergic needle-phobic 17 year-old, the authorisation of needle-free adrenaline devices such as Neffy is a potentially transformative development. These products offer families vital peace of mind by enabling life-saving treatment without needles. The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, for which I am a parliamentary ambassador, is urging better access to such treatments, but Neffy is currently available only privately. Could my noble friend the Minister confirm when it will be accessible on the NHS and whether wider rollout could improve adrenaline availability in public settings?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I very much understand my noble friend’s personal involvement in this area. I congratulate her on her work in promoting the availability of needle-free delivery of adrenaline, and I too welcome its approval. It is down to local area prescribing committees to provide advice to integrated care systems on whether to include new products such as nasal adrenaline and whether they should be included in local formularies. This takes into account available evidence, as well as any relevant guidance. Following this Question from my noble friend, I will seek a view from NICE as to whether it is considering developing guidance in this area, as I know she would find that helpful.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, it has been four years since the Commission on Human Medicines first examined widening public access to adrenaline auto-injectors. It is an excellent initiative, but it requires national co-ordination. What progress have the Government made in establishing a national lead for allergy—which some refer to as an allergy tsar—given their previous support for the idea?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We have been focusing our efforts, as I said, on whether changes to the law are required to allow wider access to, for example, adrenaline nasal sprays, which are a welcome development. Our focus is on that, rather than on the appointment of a tsar, to which the noble Earl referred. We will be establishing national clinical directors, and I am sure that this will be considered in that regard.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, with the disaster of poorly managed allergy, only 24 ICBs have been able to state the extent to which they have services, and none are able to state whether they have a specialist nurse and dietician. Will the Government use the opportunity of the single patient record to provide guidance to ICBs for commissioning, to make sure that those who have serious allergies, such as we have heard about, can get the advice and support they need and be guided to the most appropriate way to manage their allergy in the immediate emergency and in the long term?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that the single patient record gives us all sorts of absolutely key opportunities, including in this regard. It is important that we note how common allergies are—they affect nearly one-third of the UK population. Although in most people allergic reactions can be mild to moderate, in some cases they are severe. We need to cut that risk and, in particular, tackle the approximately 50 suspected cases of deaths each year that we currently have. I agree with her contention.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, following on from the previous question, new delivery methods are welcome but we need a workforce to implement them. As the noble Baroness said, it is concerning that not a single integrated care board currently holds the information on whether it has specialist allergy nurses employed in its area. How can the Government ensure that patients have access to these new treatments when local commissioners are failing to track, co-ordinate or prioritise the specialist skills needed to deliver them?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is an important part of the availability, as the noble Lord has highlighted. The kind of issues under consideration when we look at the availability of these welcome products include, in addition to their ease of use without specialist training in community settings and their use through proper training, suitability for different age groups and the temperature sensitivity of the products. Training will be part of how we look at developing the workforce plan, but I take the point about assessing what training is needed when we think about where they will be available. That is very much part of our consideration.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, based on the statistics the Minister just cited about the number of lives that would be saved if emergency adrenaline was easily available in the community, can she say what training would be required? If the drug is given inadvertently to a person who is not in anaphylactic shock, what will happen?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a point on the practical and safety concerns that we would need to consider in widening access to adrenaline in the community. I should add that that would be regardless of the administration method. On his point, and following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it is essential that training ensures safe administration, whatever the formulation, because we do not want to create an unsafe environment. The training will be appropriate to what is needed. However, I must emphasise that we are in the process of considering this, but with a positive outlook and an intent to provide.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, to be helpful to the Minister, I know she will not be able to give an absolute commitment at the Dispatch Box, but with the Government’s 10-year health plan focusing on digital integration, will she commit to embedding a national allergy register within the single patient record, which would deal with many of the issues noble Lords have raised on this Question?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I know that the noble Lord always seeks to be helpful. That is indeed a helpful suggestion, which I will gladly take away, but I will not be able to give a commitment, as the noble Lord is aware.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I was a little unhappy with the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel. My understanding, having seen medical students being given injections of adrenaline during a physiology class to see what would happen—in larger doses than you would probably need in this case—is that they might feel a bit faint. I would have thought that giving a non-injection method is even safer and that the likelihood of side-effects is much lower. Is that not fair?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure that is fair and I certainly bow to my noble friend’s expertise in this regard. I thank him for that, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his question. However, I feel a little inadequate on the medical front here.
Breast Cancer
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hodge of Barking
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to enable women over the age of 70 to continue to be invited by the NHS to have regular mammograms to support the early detection of breast cancer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, too many women are dying of breast cancer. Even with a national screening programme, tragically, 11,500 die from breast cancer each year in the UK. AgeX, a large and important research study, is investigating the effects of routine screening of women over 70. Results are expected in 2027. The UK National Screening Committee has been closely involved throughout, and we will use the findings as soon as they are available.
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. She is right that a common cause of death in women is breast cancer, but age is a primary risk. One in three breast cancers occurs in women aged over 70 but, shockingly, nearly half of breast cancer deaths occur in women over 70. Yet the NHS stops inviting and encouraging women to have a mammogram at 70. Given the evidence, can the Minister bring the review of the age limit to a close more urgently than 2027, stop the discrimination against older women and ensure that women continue to be invited to have a mammogram after the age of 70?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very powerful case; I am grateful to her for doing so. The UK National Screening Committee continuously monitors emerging evidence through horizon scanning and maintains active engagement with international peers. Should robust evidence regarding the extension of breast screening age thresholds become available, the committee will look at it right away. In the meantime, a suite of public-facing information communicates to women aged 71 and over that they can have screening every three years if they wish. I realise that does not quite meet my noble friend’s request, but I hope it indicates movement to support women aged 71 and over.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, women over the age of 70 are entitled to receive free breast screening every three years. However, for those who are digitally excluded, both awareness of this and the practical process of making an appointment can present real barriers. What steps is the NHS taking to ensure that women over 70 are aware of this right, and how is access to screening being made easier for those who struggle with digital access?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Part of the 10-year plan, as we move from analogue to digital, will be ensuring that digital exclusion will not be a barrier. As I mentioned in response to my noble friend, it is indeed the case that women aged 71 and over can have screening every three years, and that can happen by women calling their local breast screening service to ask for an appointment. In other words, analogue is still possible, not just digital.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest as chairman of King’s Health Partners. Is the Minister content that sufficient resources are applied to the molecular characterisation of screen-detected breast cancer in such a way that those over the age of 70 who have breast cancer detected are appropriately treated?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I should be able to answer, I admit, but I would rather be honest with the noble Lord: I would prefer to write to him because of the specific nature of his question. I am content with the role of the research trial and that we are now harnessing AI tools through the EDITH trial backed by some £11 million of government support. Using cross-cutting AI tools in respect of the breast cancer screening pathway will be of great assistance.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I feel quite shocked after the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. I recently went for my final invited mammogram, so I did a little research. I did not come up with that figure, and I wish I had because it changes everything I was going to say; it is very important. People who do not necessarily enjoy the wonders of the world of AI and all these other things do not know all this. They are told, “Right, you’re over 70, you’re pretty much all right now”. Some people do not get any advice and, given what the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, said, we should review this as a matter of urgency.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I hope I have outlined to your Lordships’ House how the AgeX trial will greatly assist. Clinical evidence, as and when it is available—it is sought actively—is acted on by the National Screening Committee. I emphasise to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl who raised it previously that, as I said to my noble friend, NHS England is producing public-facing information to communicate to women aged 71 and over that they can have screening every three years if they so wish, and I hope that women will take that up if they so wish.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, I was unaware that women over the age of 70 can have screening every three years, and I am very grateful to have heard that today. Given the ages in the House of Lords, might it not be possible to do some screening of women here for breast cancer? What are the statistics for death from breast cancer in women over 70? How serious is the issue in terms of the number of fatalities?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers, and more than 50,000 were diagnosed with it in 2023. My noble friend Lady Hodge gave further information. On the point about offering screening here, my strong suspicion is that it will not be practical and it is better for people to go to their community. I will speak to my ministerial colleague, Ashley Dalton MP, in whose portfolio this falls. My recollection is that it is in letters or advice, but I want to check. It should be in there but, if it is not, perhaps it could be, so I will put forward my noble friend’s suggestion.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, up to what age will it be possible?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I do not know if I dare comment about vested interest, but why not? I am not aware that there is a final limit. It is on request.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Conservative Benches and then we will come to the Labour Benches.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s strategy to have a dedicated cancer plan, but can the Minister say when this plan will be published, particularly in relation to breast screening? Will she give an indication of the uptake rate by women from disadvantaged backgrounds and women from ethnic minorities? The uptake rates are very low. Will these also be considered in this national plan?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The answer to that latter question is yes, and the noble Baroness will not have to wait too long to see the national cancer plan.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as a breast cancer survivor, I cannot estimate enough the benefit of breast screening leading to early diagnosis. In that respect, I urge my noble friend the Minister to talk not only to her ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations but to oncologists within the Department of Health to ensure that we get an earlier date for publication than 2027. Women, particularly those over 70, want reassurance about the prevalence or non-prevalence of cancer within their body.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We certainly do speak with the devolved Governments, as my noble friend highlights. As I have said, this whole area is guided by the scientific and independent advice of the UK National Screening Committee, which is closely involved in the AgeX trial to which I have referred. I assure my noble friend that action will be taken as quickly as possible.
Sydney Terrorist Attack
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of any implications of the terrorist attack in Sydney for the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have said, the Government are appalled by this act of terrorism on Bondi Beach targeting the Jewish community. It is particularly horrifying that it happened at a Hanukkah celebration. My thoughts are with the victims, their families and all those affected. There is no specific intelligence of a linked threat to the UK at this time, but we must remain vigilant and are working with the Community Security Trust and police forces to support Jewish communities, including Hanukkah events, here in the UK. The United Kingdom stands firmly with Australia and with the Jewish community of Sydney and those here in the UK, at this terrible time.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
First, my Lords, I want to praise the bravery of Mr Ahmed al-Ahmed in tackling one of the terrorists. He is clearly a better human being than I am, in that he took the rifle and then put it down, because I would have shot him.
I am afraid it appears that a small portion of our British people are under serious threat, and it is no good pretending otherwise. Will my noble friend confirm that there is positive recognition of that fact by the Government? What action can we take to make that proportion of our population safer?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend on the bravery of that individual. I watched on television yesterday the pictures of him tackling the armed gunman, and that is bravery for which he should be commended. I believe he was shot in the attempt, and I wish him well and a quick recovery.
The UK Government recognise that there are real threats to the Jewish community. That is why we have invested £28 million this year to protect Jewish places of worship, schools and community centres, and it is why we are passing measures in the Crime and Policing Bill to ensure that where there is harassment of any community—obviously, in this case, the Jewish community is at the forefront of our mind—the Metropolitan Police and other police forces can direct actions against those undertaking the harassment, in a strong and effective way. The action that took place in Sydney is simply unacceptable and our thoughts are with the Jewish community in Australia at this time, but we also need to be vigilant about the threat to the Jewish community in the United Kingdom.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, it is Hanukkah. What is Hanukkah? Hanukkah is when families get together, lighting the candles, celebrating the victory of light over darkness. We had another type of family, a father and son, barbarically shooting at will. This morning, I went to Western Marble Arch Synagogue and spoke to Rabbi Mendy Vogel. His first cousin was Rabbi Eli Schlanger, who was murdered. Sixteen precious souls were lost, including a Holocaust survivor and 10 year- old Matilda. May all their memories be for a blessing.
I am tired of listening to people saying, “We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the community”. That means nothing when there are dead Jews on the ground, whether in Manchester or Sydney. If noble Lords are not clear what “Globalise the intifada” means, it was on our TV screens yesterday. I ask the Minister to act. Such hate speech must be outlawed and the IRGC and the Muslim Brotherhood proscribed. If the Minister and other noble Lords wish to show solidarity, they can come outside to Parliament Square at 6.30 pm and join members of the Jewish community to light the Hanukkah candles.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord should know, and I think he does, that this Government condemn the attacks, condemn antisemitism and stand with the Jewish community. He asks what we are doing. We are putting in resources to support the Community Safety Trust and giving the police extra powers. We will not tolerate antisemitism and, as he knows, we will continue to keep under review organisations that pose a threat to the safety of members of the United Kingdom community, whether Jewish or anyone else. We will keep under review the proscriptions that he has mentioned; I cannot comment on that today, as he knows, but that does not take away from the fact that this Government stand with the Jewish community at this time and condemn those attacks. We will work with anyone to ensure that the scourge of antisemitism is ended.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I associate these Benches with the Minister’s words of condolence with regard to the victims--including, as we heard, a 10 year-old girl and a survivor of the Holocaust—innocent people targeted purely because they were Jewish. But we also saw an intervention by a bystander who just happened to be Muslim, which emphasises the evil intent of the perpetrators. I also commend the Community Security Trust for its proactive outreach yesterday to the Jewish community. The CST supported over 100 Hanukkah candle lightings across the UK with volunteers, but the Minister must know that many Jewish children and Jewish students are particularly worried at this time. Can he say more with regard to how the Government are both reassuring and giving practical security assistance, specifically for schools and university campuses, to that particularly vulnerable group who are very worried?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Prime Minister had already tasked Government Ministers to look at what else we can do, prior to yesterday’s events. The Prime Minister has also tasked the police forces, via the Home Secretary, to look at how we can step up security patrols to give reassurance in neighbourhoods where there are synagogues and events occurring. It is absolutely vital that people are free to enjoy and celebrate their religion, and to enjoy their family community events. I say that not just of the Jewish community, but of all religions and for those people who have none. We cannot accept a situation whereby people with warped views commit atrocious acts of violence against children, women and Holocaust survivors—people enjoying their day on a beach. We cannot accept that circumstance and this Government will work with anybody to ensure that we protect our communities from similar attacks.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, the Christian community has a special responsibility to stand in solidarity with the Jewish community, not only in Australia but in this country and around the world. In view of the fact that it was revealed that one of the people who committed this atrocity had already been examined by the Australian police as a potential terrorist, is there a case in this country for re-examining some people who have been examined in the past?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope the noble and right reverend Lord will accept that I cannot comment on active live Australian investigations. It would be inappropriate for me to do so as a UK Government Minister, but in any UK context it would simply be the same. There has to be a due process to investigate what has happened and why, but, self-evidently, we need to ensure that our security services and police services in the United Kingdom, as well as the work we do in the Home Office and across government, can identify and monitor where there are potential threats, and take action to prevent those threats materialising into the type of action taken yesterday. That is an ongoing challenge but it is something that our security services do daily and will continue to do. I know that they have the support of both Houses of Parliament in that activity.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest because Rabbi Schlanger, who was murdered in this atrocity, was my relative too. Most Jewish festivals are commemorated privately at home or in synagogue, but Hanukkah is celebrated publicly. That is why my response to this atrocity is going to be to go to Parliament Square this evening to light a Hanukkah menorah, proudly and publicly. But so far as the Government’s response is concerned, while we are always grateful for support for the Community Security Trust, the debate about Jewish security needs to move away from being about higher walls around our synagogues and more guards outside our schools and on to the root causes of why we need such security. Will the Minister explain what the Government are actually doing in practical terms to counter the extremist ideologies which are driving this antisemitic violence, and to remove them and their proponents from our social media, out of our universities and off our streets?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I offer my condolences to the noble Lord for his loss. I cannot be with him this evening, because I will be in the Chamber dealing with the Crime and Policing Bill, but if I were not, I would certainly be standing in solidarity with him. The noble Lord asked what we are doing. I have given a range of things that the Government will do, and we are continually open to suggestions as to how we can tackle this scourge. We have already asked the noble Lord, Lord Mann, to review antisemitism in the National Health Service. We are also undertaking a review of antisemitism in universities, and we are demanding action from them to protect Jewish students.
We need to ensure that we encourage tolerance, understanding and knowledge of different religions, because there is a range of them in a multicultural society, and we need to have that tolerance. I reach out to the noble Lord to look on a cross-party basis at how we can ensure that the scourge of antisemitism and intolerance is tackled from very early on, so that we can ensure that people live their lives in an open, tolerant way, where their religion does not require armed guards at synagogues and schools. For the moment, I hope the noble Lord understands that we will support the Community Security Trust and police forces to deliver that safety, given that there are live threats, as evidenced by the recent Manchester attack.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that urgent steps should be taken to protect our national security and society by ensuring that those who disseminate antisemitic ideas—and, indeed, other vile racist ideas—can now expect to be prosecuted for doing so?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can give the noble Lord a definitive yes to that. There is clear legislation for police monitoring in relation to hatred and crimes of harassment that, while not leading to the type of activity that we saw yesterday—which is self-evidently a higher level of crime—should none the less be monitored and acted upon. There is no place in our society for racism; I hope that has the whole House’s support.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I was at a friend’s birthday party a few weeks ago. It was not at a school, synagogue or public place; it was a Jewish friend celebrating her birthday. She had organised security for the event, and I expressed surprise—naively. She said that this was normal for such a social gathering with a lot of the local Jewish community, which had come to celebrate her birthday.
I was very pleased to see the photo of our Prime Minister and his wife lighting the candles outside No. 10 last night; that was wonderful. However, it is not normal that a group of our society needs to have security, even at a party. My heart went out to all those people, including people in this House, who I was messaging yesterday saying, “Oh my God, I am so sorry; words fail me”. I thought that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, were absolutely on point. This is not normal. I know that my noble friend the Minister agrees, but can he say a little more about what His Majesty’s Government will do to provide education about the current, deeply ugly face of modern antisemitism in the country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful. It is important that we recognise that the Government have a responsibility in this area, but so do we all. We all have a responsibility to have no tolerance of antisemitism and racism. I will work with anybody, through the powers that we have in the Home Office, to look at how we can improve performance on those challenges. We need to ensure that, from school age through to universities and people in the workplace, intolerance is simply not accepted. I will do what I can to make sure that the Home Office responds to those challenges and looks again at what we need to do to help protect the Jewish community in the United Kingdom.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the vice-chair of the APPG on Counter Extremism, and the fact that I was the UK’s first Minister for Countering Extremism. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, we have repeatedly failed. I join others in sharing his loss, but that is not enough—specific action is required. Some suggestions have been given. I welcome the Minister’s call, and I am sure that there are many across the House who want to work with him on this objective. There are specific actions we can take. For example, let us join the Home Office and the Foreign Office together, ban extremist preachers at source, and not issue those visas. We cannot let this poisonous ideology destroy what we have built over centuries: not just a tolerant society, but a coherent society that is respectful of all faiths and none.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope that the noble Lord will accept—given that his is the last question on this Private Notice Question—that this House will stand united against antisemitism and to support people from all faiths to celebrate and use their faiths in a positive, constructive way, both to support their own communities and to have a multicultural society where that respect goes across all our communities. As the noble Lord said, this is not about the Muslim faith; it is about a perverted view of the Muslim faith and people who are terrorists and murderers. We need to make sure that we stop the radicalisation at source and work across the community to build understanding and an open and tolerant society that respects everybody. I know that the whole House will join me in that wish.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I expect the Employment Rights Bill to return to this House from the House of Commons this afternoon. I thought that it would assist the House to set out the arrangements for the Bill tomorrow. Once the Bill returns and all amendments are printed, Members have until 12 noon tomorrow, Tuesday 16 December, to table Motions or amendments. Members wishing to table should speak to the Public Bill Office as early as possible. This House will consider the Bill again tomorrow, before the Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill. I will set out arrangements for further rounds of ping-pong in the usual way, if necessary.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, this seems an appropriate moment to have a short break before I call the next business—but not while I am still on my feet.
Crime and Policing Bill
Monday 15th December 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-VI(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (15 Dec 2025)
Lord Clement-Jones
“(aa) if the name change is by deed poll, seven days prior to submitting an application for change of name (if that day is earlier than the day specified in paragraph (a)), or” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that if a person is changing their name by deed poll, they must notify a new name to the police prior to submitting the application.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses a vital aspect of public protection, closing the loopholes that allow registered sex offenders to evade detection and monitoring by changing their identity. Effective management of offenders in the 21st century requires a justice system that is not only legally robust but properly resourced and technologically capable.
On these Benches, we strongly welcome Clause 87, which requires sex offenders to notify the police of a name change seven days before using that new name, in the words of the clause. This is a significant improvement on the current retrospective notification regime, which has allowed offenders to disappear from the radar of the authorities. However, my Amendment 317 seeks to tighten this provision further regarding deed polls. As currently drafted, an offender could theoretically go through the legal process of obtaining a deed poll to change their name without the police being aware until the moment they intend using it, again using the language of Clause 87.
My amendment specifies that if a name change is by deed poll, the offender must notify the police seven days prior to submitting the application. This would ensure that the police are alerted at the very start of the administrative process of changing identity rather than at the end. It provides authorities with the vital time needed to conduct appropriate risk assessments and, if necessary, intervene before a new legal identity is formally established. This proposal has been championed by campaigners such as Sarah Champion MP in the other place, and it is a common-sense safeguard to ensure that the police are always one step ahead.
I stress that the management of offenders today is not just about physical monitoring but about digital monitoring. Just as we have seen criminal recruitment drives for money mules take place on social media platforms, we know that the internet provides avenues for offenders to reoffend or breach their conditions. Although Amendment 317 seeks to tighten the management regime legislative framework, I urge the Government to ensure that the police and relevant agencies have the digital resources and data-sharing capabilities required to enforce these new powers effectively rather than relying on a fragmented system that allows offenders to slip through the net. This measure would strengthen the safety net around our communities immeasurably. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment as a logical extension of the Government’s own objectives in Clause 87. I beg to move.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was designed for a world with low demand for gender recognition certificates and did not anticipate modern safeguarding realities. I believe that that context has fundamentally changed, and that creates a serious gap that my amendment seeks to close. The system is no longer confined to a small number of older adults. New Ministry of Justice data shows that almost 10,000 GRCs have been issued. Last year alone, over 1,169 were granted. That is the highest number on record and more than triple the annual figure five years ago. This is quite a dramatic generational shift: almost a quarter of new certificates now go to people born since the year 2000. Demand has changed but safeguarding has not kept up.
I recently tabled a Written Question to the Government after I had seen multiple cases of male-born sex offenders changing their gender identity, so by the time they appeared in court or were sent to prison they identified as women. I was curious, so I asked the Government what safeguards would prevent a convicted rapist or sex offender going on to obtain a gender recognition certificate and being legally recognised as a woman. First, I was troubled that this Question, when it came to be answered, had been transferred to the Minister for Equalities rather than being answered by the Home Office. I believe it is fundamentally a matter of safety and not about equality. It should have been answered by the Home Office, so I worry that that demonstrates a confusion at the heart of the Government on this issue. Rape and sex offences are not about equality or identity but about safety.
Moreover, and more importantly, the response ignored the core issue. While of course we welcome the measures on name changes, passports and police notification, they do not prevent a convicted sex offender, if I understand it correctly, changing their legal sex under the Gender Recognition Act and going on to live the remainder of their life legally as a woman. To me, that highlights a serious safeguarding gap, and this amendment seeks to close that.
Noble Lords may ask why this is necessary and what this risk is that I speak about. We must be frank—sexual predators cannot be cured. The risk may be managed but it is not eliminated. That is why we have the lifelong monitoring regimes we have. That is why MAPPA exists and why I believe that the law must ensure that those who pose a permanent risk to women and girls, and men and boys, cannot access a legal mechanism that alters their status in ways that Parliament never intended.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch. Both amendments have been spoken to very well and very strongly.
I want talk about one particular case, of a sex offender called Clive Bundy, who was in prison for some years for sexually abusing and raping his daughter, Ceri-Lee Galvin, from a young age. It was incestuous sexual abuse and rape. He went to prison in 2016 and before he was released, he declared he was a woman. Bundy then changed his name via deed poll, very generously helped and abetted by the prison authorities, to aid his release.
I have spoken about this issue in this House before, and there are a number of reasons why it has been brought to my attention. One reason is that Clive Bundy changed his name to Claire Fox—consequently, I know about it. Claire Fox now wanders freely. However, the most important reason is that I was contacted by his daughter, Ceri-Lee Galvin. Before we had the Supreme Court ruling, I raised this a number of times in a number of Bills to note that Ceri-Lee Galvin as a victim had been badly betrayed by this story. She was never told that her incestuous, rapist father was being released, because he was not—Claire Fox was. And of course, guess what? If you google Claire Fox, you will get horror stories, but they are about me and not him.
In all seriousness, it was a deed poll change. Therefore, Clive Bundy might well be on the sex offenders register, but Clive Bundy does not exist. Claire Fox exists, but Claire Fox is Clive Bundy the rapist and is therefore free to live in the same town as his daughter, which he has done, and he has harassed her. I will not go into the details, but Ceri-Lee Galvin has been incredibly brave in giving up her anonymity to talk about this story to the press various times. As she says, she cannot get anywhere when she tries to lobby on this point.
Therefore, in theory, Claire Fox—Clive Bundy—is not on the sex offenders register and can apply to work with young children in the local area, where her daughter goes to nursery, and nobody knows that this person is a child rapist. There must be something that the Government can do to strengthen the safeguarding, which I know is their intention in this group of amendments. Therefore, the two non-government amendments should be seriously taken up by them. They would not contradict their aims but would ensure that their aims are more than just written on paper but actually protect victims and future victims.
It is not a question of making a moral judgment. I do not care whether Clive Bundy thinks that he is a woman; that is irrelevant to me. I do not even care that he has taken my name—which, by the way, is a fashionable thing to do; to use a gender critical name is apparently a form of trolling which happens in America quite a lot. But that is irrelevant. The point is how we protect people when have a sex offenders register that does not reflect reality.
By the way, special privacy measures are given, meaning that when I have asked questions in the past, I have been told that because this person has chosen to change gender and is therefore now Claire Fox, they cannot investigate Clive Bundy. If Clive Bundy as Claire Fox turns up for a meeting to volunteer with the Girl Guides, no one can even ask whether they are the same person. We cannot even go there. This is ridiculous and it is not what the Government want. Therefore, I hope the Government are open to these two very important amendments on deed poll and gender recognition certificates.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I want first to pick up on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and both her comments and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and ask the Minister a question. Am I right in thinking that given that the Prison Service—and I think also the Probation Service—must do a full assessment of risk on any transgender prisoner, the protections they seek are already there?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for raising the case of Karen White. The Scottish Prison Service apologised because it did not do what it should have done: a full risk assessment. Had it done that, she would not have been placed on a women’s wing. I therefore hope the Minister can confirm that the protections for the public, particularly for victims, remain, because now, following the Karen White case in particular, real care is taken to make sure the law is followed. I would find it extraordinary if crimes were just dropped off the list because somebody had a transgender recognition certificate—so could the Minister confirm that this is not the case?
Turning now to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s amendment, we on these Benches also welcome Clause 87, but it needs strengthening. My noble friend’s amendment is very clear: we have to be able to stop offenders changing their names without the knowledge of the police. That also plays into the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean. Research from the Safeguarding Alliance has shown that key legislation is being made redundant because of a loophole that people can use to get through the cracks. This is not just about transgender issues; it is about people just changing their name regardless of their gender. Frankly, this makes Sarah’s law and Clare’s law utterly useless. I hope the Minister is prepared to consider this.
The remaining amendments in this group, from the Government, look as though they are sensible adjustments to the arrangements regarding sex offenders obtaining driving licences in Northern Ireland. We look forward to hearing from the Minister in more detail on those.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to participate in this debate until I heard about the Scottish case and the Scottish Prison Service admitting that it got it wrong and that it did not carry out what they should have done.
I recall Julia Hartley-Brewer interviewing the SNP Scottish Justice Secretary. The Justice Secretary was saying that it was terribly difficult to reach an assessment, make a judgment and try to get it right. Julia Hartley-Brewer said, I believe, “What is the problem? Just look down his trousers and you will find the answer”. I commend that as the best answer I have ever heard.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, beginning with the amendments that regulate the name changes of sex offenders, I am glad that Members across your Lordships’ House agree on the necessity of regulations. Clause 87 is a sensible measure from the Government, and the amendments that build on its principle are similarly prudent. An individual who commits a crime as intrusive and offensive as a sexual offence demonstrates that they are a threat to public order and safety. After all, that is the reason why we have a sex offender register. Criminals who have proven that they pose a risk should be monitored by the authorities, and the authorities should have the necessary details to monitor and manage them.
Amendment 317 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would ensure that those who change their name by deed poll are legally required to alert the police of this change. The amendments in the name of the Minister extend the provision restricting the granting of driving licences in a new name to Northern Ireland. All these amendments seek to consolidate the existing legislation to ensure that there are no gaps there or in the Government’s new law, and we support the principle behind them.
The most consequential of the amendments in this group is that tabled by my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch. It would serve to bar those who commit sexual offences from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. This is a very necessary measure. I am glad that the Government have not yet granted an exemption for sex-offending transgender criminals, which would allow them to attend a prison different from their biological sex. Hailing from north of the border—where, as others have commented, there have been several incidents of that happening—I believe that it is a very worrying scenario indeed.
The Government have still not implemented the Supreme Court’s judgment in the For Women Scotland case, neither in statute nor in guidance. There is still the chance that those who commit sexual offences can end up in the wrong prison through obtaining a gender recognition certificate. I am not remotely suggesting that the Government would wilfully do this, but I hope that, given their record on prisoner administration, the Minister can understand our concerns.
No safeguards currently exist outside of ministerial discretion. A way to guarantee that this does not happen would be to bar sex offenders from obtaining a certificate in the first place; it is a bare minimum. In sending such people to prison, we are admitting that they are not trustworthy among the public; why, then, should we risk the safety of prisoners of the opposite sex? For those reasons, I support my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope the Minister can too.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch. There are also a number of amendments in my name, which I will formally move and explain what they mean in a moment.
Clause 94, which we will come to in more detail later, provides for the police to restrict changes of name on registered sex offenders’ identity documents. Where the police consider it necessary to prevent sexual harm, they will be able to issue a notice to a registered sex offender, which may require them to apply for the police’s authorisation to change their name on specified documents. This will ensure that registered sex offenders who are deemed to be at risk of using a name change to commit sexual harm are unable to continue offending under a new name and pass under the radar of law enforcement. I am grateful for noble Lords’ broad support for the Government’s general direction of travel on these points.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Does that mean that if somebody changes a name and does not inform the police, the new name can be put on the sex offenders register?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is my understanding of the position. I hope that helps the noble and learned Baroness. That is the principle behind what we are proposing here today. Again, I say to the whole Committee that this is, ultimately, management based on risk, not on gender.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
May I press the Minister on one specific point? I understand what he is saying about management of risk, but would it be possible for a convicted sex offender—a serious sex offender or rapist—to be prevented, on the basis of risk, from obtaining a gender recognition certificate, should they wish to do so? Would it be possible for that to be barred in a specific case, should that individual be assessed as posing a risk to public safety?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 ensures that convicted sex offenders are already subject to post-conviction controls. They are managed according to their risk, and the sex offenders register is about looking at the position with regard to the individual having the risk on the basis of their actions. It would not be possible to stop someone applying for a gender recognition certificate. Ultimately, they would be placed on the sex offenders register based on their risk, not on their gender. With that, I hope that the noble Lords will not press the amendments.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, may I also ask a question for clarification? It is not really about GRC but about the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made about name change. I know that the Minister covered that in his comments, but I am still left a little confused. Can a person who is a convicted sex offender and on the sex offenders register change their name by deed poll and have their new name omitted, therefore, from the sex offenders register? Surely, as soon as a sex offender changes their name, if they are changing their name from a male name to a female name, that needs to be updated on the sex offenders register.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My understanding of the position is that the individual is on the sex offenders register, regardless of the name that they are currently providing. The risk is around the individual. If a registered sex offender seeks to change their name, the provisions in the Bill will apply, as proposed in the Bill here today.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
On a final clarification—possibly the Minister will write to us, because there is some confusion—I have always said that it is about managing risk and that it has nothing to do with gender. When I have raised this issue in the past, my concern has been that once gender is added into the mix, risk somehow gets forgotten slightly.
First, the point of the sex offenders register is not just for the authorities to know that they are there but for all sorts of institutions to know. I have been told in the past that an enhanced privacy privilege is given to those who change gender. Is that not true? Therefore, even probing that means that we will leave it well alone.
Secondly, in relation to DBS checks and so on, a change of gender, a change of identity—forget the politics of it—can mean that nobody knows that you are the person on the sex offenders register. If the DBS check is in one name, there is no way of knowing that you are the same person who is the rapist. That was why I used the Clive Bundy-Claire Fox example—Clive Bundy, as Claire Fox, would not show up on DBS checks or be on the sex offenders register if they went to work with children. That cannot be right or what the Government intend.
Maybe I have got it all wrong, but nobody from the Government has reassured me. By the way, my questions and amendments in the past were to the previous Government, so this is not having a go at this Government. This has been an unholy mess over two Governments.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It may help the Committee if I say that both the original name and the new name would be recorded. For clarity, where a DBS check applicant has changed their names, they are required to state all names that they have been previously known by on the application form. In submitting that form, applicants sign a legal declaration declaring that they have not knowingly provided false information. Failure to disclose previous names and deliberately avoiding detection of previous convictions would lead to an individual being liable for prosecution. I hope that helps to clarify the position with regard to the amendments. I invite the noble Lords not to press them at this stage.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am on the “how to change your name” government website, which says that if you are a sex offender, violent offender or terrorist offender, you must go to your local prescribed police station where you are known within three days of changing your name. It is a criminal offence if you do not tell the police straightaway. There will be probation and other things going on in the background as well.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It is worth clarifying that this group of people are not necessarily the kind of people I trust. This idea that a local sex offender—or terrorist, since we have been talking about Bondi Beach—thinks, “God, it would be against the law if I didn’t declare that I’ve changed my name”, and would be frightened by the possibility that they would be breaking the law, seems a tad naive.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I remind the Committee that the position of any of these individuals—as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned in her initial contribution—will be subject to consistently heavy management. These are serious offenders. There is a Probation Service. There is a MAPPA process. There is the registration. I have given the assurance that both names will be included in that registration.
Every piece of legislation that any House of Commons and House of Lords passes is subject to people breaking it. That happens, but there will be significant consequences in the event of that occurring. I am simply saying to the noble Baroness who has proposed this amendment, and to the proposals in the Bill that are genuinely welcome across the Committee, that there is significant supervision of sex offenders, and the requirements are as I have outlined to the Committee already. I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am glad he focused on risk mitigation, and I think we got there in the final few paragraphs of his response. We need to take very seriously what he said, and I hope that if anything he said needs qualification, he will write to us subsequently, because this is a really important area.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland) inserted after clause 63.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image generators: Northern Ireland) inserted after clause 63.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 16, makes it possible for the regulations made by the Secretary of State to prevent a relevant offender getting a British driving licence in a new name as a replacement for a previous driving licence issued in Northern Ireland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 94, page 121, leave out lines 4 to 8.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 94, page 120, line 20, makes it possible for the regulations made by the Secretary of State to prevent a relevant offender getting a British driving licence in a new name as a replacement for a previous driving licence issued in Northern Ireland.
““section 93B relevant offender” means a relevant offender who is subject to the restriction in section 93B(1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a definition of “section 93B relevant offender” into the new section about regulations restricting replacement of driving licences of sex offenders with new names in England and Wales and Scotland.
“(3) After section 93I of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by subsection (2)) insert—“93J Restriction on granting replacement driving licences in new name (Northern Ireland)(1) The Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland (“the Department”) may by regulations make provision to prevent a person from being granted a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) (a “replacement licence”) if—(a) the person holds, or has held, a driving licence,(b) the name to be specified in the replacement licence (“the new name”) is different from the name specified in the driving licence most recently granted to the person, and(c) it appears to the Department, on the basis of information provided by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“the Chief Constable”), that the person is a section 93B relevant offender who was not authorised to apply for a driving licence in the new name.(2) The regulations may, in particular, include provision for authorising or requiring—(a) the Chief Constable to disclose specified information to the Department, and(b) the Department to disclose specified information to the Chief Constable,where the disclosure falls within subsection (3).(3) A disclosure falls within this subsection if it is made—(a) for the purposes of enabling the Department or the Chief Constable to carry out their functions under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) in connection with the detection or investigation of an offence under section 93B(3).(4) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about how the Department or the Chief Constable may or must use information disclosed to them by virtue of subsection (2).(5) The regulations may include provision amending Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)). (6) In this section—“driving licence” means a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)) or under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;“section 93B relevant offender” means a relevant offender who is subject to the restriction in section 93B(1);“specified” means specified in regulations under this section.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the Department for Infrastructure to make regulations for Northern Ireland restricting replacement of driving licences of sex offenders in a new name.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“15A In section 136 (Part 2: Northern Ireland), in subsection (11), after “sections” insert “86B, 87A, 93A, 93H,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the term “Secretary of State” is not read, in relation to Northern Ireland, as meaning the Department of Justice in provisions inserted into Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where there is different provision about Northern Ireland.
“(2A) In subsection (5) for “the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland” substitute “a Northern Ireland department”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes regulations of the Department for Infrastructure under section 93J inserted by my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
“(b) for “the Department of Justice” substitute “a Northern Ireland department”.(4) In subsections (8) and (9) for “the Department of Justice”, in each place it occurs, substitute “a Northern Ireland department”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17.
Lord Blencathra
“ScheduleDisqualification for riding a cycle: minor and consequential amendments1 The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 has effect in relation to a person disqualified for riding a cycle as if it was amended as follows.2 In section 26 (interim disqualification)—(a) omit subsection (7) to (11);(b) in subsection (12), for “section 34 or 35” substitute “section 34”.3 Omit sections 34A to 37A (provisions relevant only to a person disqualified for driving a mechanically propelled vehicle).4 In section 38(1) (appeal against disqualification), for “section 34 or 35” substitute “section 34”.5 In section 39 (suspension of disqualification pending appeal) omit subsections (3) and (4).6 In subsection 40 (power of appellate courts in England and Wales to suspend disqualification) omit subsections (7) and (8).7 In section 41 (power of appellate courts in Scotland to suspend disqualification) omit subsections (3) and (4).8 Omit section 41A (suspension of disqualification pending determination of applications under section 34B).9 In section 42 (removal of disqualification)—(a) in subsection (3) omit “(disregarding any extension period)” wherever those words appear, and(b) omit subsection (3A)(b), (3B) and (5)(a).10 Omit sections 44, 44A and 45A (endorsement of licence and driving record).11 In section 46 (combination of disqualification with orders for discharge)—(a) in subsection (1), for “sections 34, 35, 36, 44 or 44A” substitute “section 34”;(b) in subsection (2)—(i) omit “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and(ii) omit paragraph (b);(c) in subsection (3), for “sections 34, 35, 36, 44 and 45A” substitute “section 34”.12 In section 47 (supplementary provisions as to disqualifications and endorsements)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) for “section 34, 35 or 44” substitute “section 34”, and(ii) omit “or endorsement”;(b) omit subsections (2) to (4).13 Omit sections 48 to 50 (exemption from disqualification and endorsement for offences against construction and use regulations, etc).”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to amend the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as it applies to persons disqualified for riding a cycle.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas is making a good recovery from an operation and has asked me to move or speak to his amendments for him. I suspect that he is watching on parliamentlive.tv to see if I get it right, so I hope the Committee will forgive this awful breach of protocol when I say, “Ralph, switch off the TV; just rest up and recover”. I shall move his Amendment 330, speak to his other amendments in the group and speak to my own amendments at the end, if I have time.
The purpose of this amendment is to fine-tune Part II of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as it applies to persons disqualified from riding a cycle. The proposed new schedule would omit Sections 34A to 37A, 41A and the other odd section on the ground that they are relevant only to disqualified drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles. For example, Sections 34A to 34C cater for reduced disqualification on successful attendance on a course and apply only to persons convicted of a specified motoring offence. Section 35 relates to persons convicted of an offence in which fixed penalty points are to be taken into account, but fixed penalty points do not apply to cyclists. Sections 35A to 35D, which relate to custodial sentences, do not sit well with the proposed new cycling offences. Sections 36 to 37A all relate to motor vehicles, whether it be by disqualification until a driving test is passed, the revocation of a driving licence or the surrender of a revoked driving licence to the Secretary of State. Accordingly, all those sections would be omitted.
Noble Lords may well ask which of the disqualification provisions in Part II would therefore remain, as they apply subject to those minor and consequential amendments set out in the schedule. My noble friend has listed them: Section 26, interim disqualification; Section 38, appeal against disqualification; Section 39, suspension of disqualification pending an appeal; Sections 40 and 41, power of appellate courts to suspend disqualification; Section 42, removal of disqualification; Section 43, the rule for determining the end of a period of disqualification; Section 46, combination of disqualification and orders for discharge; and Section 47, supplementary provisions as to disqualification. That concludes Amendment 330.
On Amendment 338, my noble friend says that new Clause 29A(7) introduces new subsections (8) to (12). This amendment would extend the clause to new subsection (12A), forming part of another amendment that I propose to speak to later.
On Amendment 339, the thrust of Clause 106 is to bring cycling offences pretty much into line with those that apply to motor vehicles. However, at present, provision for obligatory disqualification is omitted for the most serious offences, so it may be said that there will be a lacuna in the law—disqualification, with motor vehicles being, inter alia, an added deterrent to offending. Accordingly, the amendment now before the Committee would amend Section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 by prescribing that the period of disqualification for the two most serious offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling will not be less than five years and two years respectively. The other two offences of causing death or serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling, where the culpability is less, will be subject to obligatory disqualification for not less than 12 months. No additional amendment of Section 34 would be required.
The only alteration that would be made by Amendment 340, in respect to the penalties for certain serious cycling offences, is the insertion of references to “obligatory” in column 5 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The expression relates to disqualification. Without it, certain provision in the amendment of Section 34 would be of no effect.
Amendment 342 is my noble friend’s last amendment in this group. He says that it would insert three subsections. He proposes a substitute for new Section 29A(12) to extend the penalties for certain serious cycling offences set out there. The proposed new subsection (12A) would amplify the definition of “disqualified”, and subsection (12B) would introduce proposed new Schedule 11A.
The only amendment that would be made by proposed new subsection (12) is with respect to the penalties for certain other serious cycling offences not catered for in new subsection (11), again with the insertion of the word “obligatory” in column 5 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. As before, the expression relates to a disqualification. It too is necessary if Section 34 is to bite.
Proposed new subsection (12A) addresses the fact that “disqualified”, as currently defined, is couched in terms that at present can apply only to disqualified drivers of “mechanically propelled” vehicles. In other words, “disqualified” is for holding or obtaining a driving licence. That formulation is retained in paragraph (a).
As for the riders of cycles, I am sure noble Lords are well aware that a driving licence is not required for them. Therefore paragraph (b), in relation to them, inserts a different formulation. It redefines “disqualified” as disqualified for riding a cycle
“on a road or other public place”,
the latter expression being in conformity with the same wording in the new cycling offences created by this provision.
Finally, proposed new subsection (12B) would introduce a new Clause 106(11)(a), containing as it does
“minor and consequential amendments of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988”.
That concludes my noble friend’s amendments. If one thought that the debate on the last amendment was highly technical, this one is even more technical. I shall set a test at the end by asking questions to see whether all noble Lords have got it.
I turn now to my own Amendments 337B to 337F. I am certain that the Minister will see that in the Marshalled List there are four groups of amendments tabled by many more Peers than just me who are deeply concerned at the scourge of dangerous cycling inflicting serious damage on pedestrians and aiding criminality. I am sure the Minister saw the news item last week on the Met finally cracking down on the big, heavy, illegal bikes capable of 70 mph that are used for snatching phones. Many of them are driven by food delivery couriers—mainly Deliveroo. I encounter them every night on my way home on the pavements outside Millbank.
We also have the problem of thousands of e-bikes—mainly Lime—lying scattered over our pavements; of companies deliberately selling massive off-road bikes, which people then use on our streets; of some e-bikes being so heavy that they are breaking the legs of users; and of thousands of people riding on our pavements, with grossly inadequate enforcement to stop it.
The penalties under Clause 106 are inadequate and I have suggested increased penalties for anyone convicted, as has my noble friend Lord Lucas. However, I submit that no one will ever be convicted under its subsections, because a conviction depends on someone, presumably a police officer, concluding that the cycling
“falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist”,
and that a competent cyclist would conclude that it was dangerous. Will the Minister tell me how many times the Home Office expects to find a police officer present to witness this behaviour and come to the subjective conclusions in subsections (4) and (6)? We need a simple objective test, as is in my Amendment 337E, which would mean that anyone
“who rides a cycle on any pavement … is to be regarded as cycling without due care and attention”.
I challenge any noble Lord to dispute that. It seems to me pretty obvious that that has to be the case.
My Amendment 337C introduces
“a presumption that it is automatically dangerous cycling if the person is riding a bicycle capable of exceeding the legal 15.5 mph speed limit and weighs more than 30 kilograms”.
Thirty kilograms is a new concept, but it is now essential. A non-electric bike weighs between 8 kilograms and 15 kilograms, and most electric bikes now weigh about 25 kilograms. However, the company Lime has increased the weight of its bikes to 35 kilograms, leading to a phenomenon known as “Lime bike leg”. In August, the Telegraph reported the following, which the BBC also covered:
“I’m a trauma surgeon and treat patients with ‘Lime bike leg’ weekly … It’s a really common cause of leg injuries today”.
Lime bikes are 25kg heavier than normal pedestrian bikes. The report continued:
“Doctors have observed an increase in lower leg injuries caused by heavy e-bike frames falling on their riders”
and breaking their legs.
I fed into a road safety algorithm, “What would be the effect of a 35-kilogram bike with a 70-kilogram man sitting on it hitting a pedestrian at 25 mph?” and the answer was, “Almost certainly in every case: fatal with pretty horrific, catastrophic injuries”. Even at 15.5 mph, the injuries would be life-threatening, and totally fatal in the case of a child. Therefore, we must introduce a weight restriction, as well as strictly enforcing the 15.5 mph speed limit.
Would a “competent and careful cyclist” ever ride a bike on a pavement, or ride a 35-kilogram bike faster than 15.5 mph? Of course not. If someone is riding one of these massive, heavy, fast bikes, we do not need a subjective judgment on the quality of the riding; the criterion for dangerous cycling has been met per se.
My Amendment 337D would add an aggravating factor. It simply makes the point that if an innocent pedestrian is killed by a person using an illegal e-bike capable of going faster than 15.5 miles per hour and weighing more than 30 kilograms, an additional penalty should be applied. I apologise for my typo in the amendment; it says 25 kilograms, but it should be 30 kilograms. I suggest an additional five years, and a minimum of 15 years where a life sentence has been given. This is not for the ordinary cyclist who is reckless but for someone deliberately using a big, heavy, fast, killer bike.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to wish my noble friend Lord Lucas a very speedy recovery from his operation. I also thank the Minister and the Home Office for in part adopting my Private Member’s Bill, with which the Minister is very familiar, but they do not go far enough. That is why I have taken the opportunity to table Amendments 341, 343 and 344.
I have asked for a separate debate on Clause 106, because a number of us have had long discussions with the excellent clerks in the Public Bill Office. Although there is a clause in my Private Member’s Bill that relates to insurance—I put on record the concerns of the insurance industry, not least the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, about the lack of insurance provisions in this Bill—I am told that it is not in order to put it in this Bill. I will raise those issues when we discuss Clause 106 standing part.
My Private Member’s Bill is my third attempt at such a Bill. The first attempt was during Covid, when we had no Private Members’ Bills because we were quite rightly busy passing all the regulations for processing Covid at every level. Then another year was missed, but my current Private Member’s Bill still remains on the Order Paper. I still hope that it will be adopted in full before the end of this parliamentary Session.
The genesis of my Private Member’s Bill was the very sad case, with which I am sure the Minister and the Home Office are familiar, of Kim Briggs, who was mown down on a public road by a bike that was completely illegal. It did not have brakes that failed; there were no brakes fitted to it at all. It was designed to be used exclusively on the velodrome for speed trials. Poor Kim Briggs stood no chance at all: she was mown down and killed. I realised when I met Matt Briggs, Kim’s widower, that current laws do not treat road traffic offences the same way as any other incident caused by other motoring offences. That is completely wrong.
A bicycle is not a vehicle, but it can have devastating consequences, as in the case of the death of Kim Briggs and several others. E-bikes, as we have heard, are heavier and go faster. Then, of course, we have e-scooters, which are, in fact, vehicles and are meant to be completely illegal.
My Amendment 343 is taken straight from my Private Member’s Bill. We were promised that there were going to be trials for a period of time—there were going to be pilot schemes to use e-bikes on a rented basis in a number of cities. These trials have gone on and on for ever, and during that time there have been at least six, 10 or a dozen deaths and a number of injuries caused by the misuse of these electric scooters. They are used as delivery vehicles and are used by criminals to steal smartphones and other items—handbags and all sorts—particularly at this time of year.
I would like to understand why—I hope the Minister will agree to do this in summing up this debate—we cannot bring those trials and the pilot schemes to an end, report to both Houses and bring in appropriate legislation. It is meant to be completely illegal to ride—to drive, in fact—an e-scooter in a public place. You are allowed to own them and operate them on private land, which normally means a car park or some other part of your estate. The gist of the amendment is to ensure that the Government will assess whether it is appropriate to legalise the use of privately owned electric scooters in public places in order to regulate their safe use and introduce compulsory insurance. That is where I wish the Government to go.
The cost to the country and to all of us who drive a vehicle is horrendous. It runs into millions every year because there is no means of registering or insuring these e-bikes or, indeed, e-scooters, as I have mentioned. So that is the general thrust of my Amendment 343: to bring these pilots to a halt and, if there is a case for e-scooters to remain, making them legal, whether rented or privately owned, to ensure that they are safe and registered and can be insured. I think that would be a great step forward and much safer indeed.
Amendment 344 asks simply that there should be an annual report on cycling offences. I was almost mown down by a very fast-moving—I have to say younger—woman coming at me at speed on a pavement. Now, unless I am mistaken, it is currently illegal, it is against the Highway Code, to cycle or use an e-scooter or an e-bike on a pavement, but these cyclists are doing so with alacrity. Fortunately, I managed to hop out the way, even with my advanced years. I noticed that there was a police van, and I asked the police whether they had witnessed this incident. They assured me that they had witnessed the incident, but they told me there is a policy of no pursuit of any person who commits road traffic offences, whether in the Highway Code or earlier road traffic offences. The question I would like to ask the Minister and the Committee today is: what are we doing here passing new provisions if the current provisions are simply being flouted and ignored, giving free licence to people who want to ride an e-bike, an e-scooter or a pedal bike on the pavement when it is illegal to do so? I would welcome an answer to that question.
As far as my Private Member’s Bill goes, I am delighted that Clauses 1 and 2 are more or less incorporated in Clause 106 in full, so a big thank you to the Minister for doing that. With Clause 2, I would like to understand why it was considered appropriate to remove the reference to Section 28 of an earlier Act in the earlier subsections of Clause 106.
Amendment 341 would prefer 14 years as an offence for causing death or injury in those circumstances, which is the tariff for other road traffic accidents of that severity. I think that is the intention of the Government, not imprisonment for life. I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of the amendments and my remarks. It is entirely inappropriate that we have laws in existence which are simply being flouted and that the pilot scheme and trials for e-scooters have not been brought to a halt. In tribute to those who died, such as the late Kim Briggs, more needs to be done to ensure that these very serious road traffic offences are finally recognised for their gravity, whether caused by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling and whether resulting in death or serious injury. There should be compulsory insurance and therefore registration going forward.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I will speak to my Amendments 341A to 341D, 342A to 342F, 346A, 346B and 498A, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for adding their names to some of those amendments.
In 2015, 444 pedestrians were injured by cyclists. In 2024, this had increased to 603. Of those, the number of seriously injured rose from 97 to 181, and 25 of the casualties died. These numbers are based on police reporting, so it is clear that they are a minimum. They do not include incidents where the police did not attend a collision or incidents where pedestrians either did not need immediate medical treatment or later attended their GP or a hospital setting without telling the police.
Every day, particularly in our large towns and cities such as London, we see cyclists ignoring traffic regulations and putting people at risk, particularly pedestrians who have a disability or a lack of mobility, even when those same people are using pedestrian crossings. At night many cyclists are not displaying lights, wear dark clothing and ride dark cycles, and pedestrians and other road users just cannot see them.
I do not believe that cyclists are a group of people who are more criminal than the rest of society or than any other road users. However, they are less accountable than people who drive buses and cars, and general deterrence theory does not work for them. General deterrence theory claims that the risk of detection is the most effective deterrent to crime. Drivers of motor cars, lorries and buses know that there is a good chance that their behaviour will be noticed and probably investigated because they will be identified.
This identification process has allowed major strategic road safety measures to take effect. First, the licensing of drivers has allowed drivers to be prohibited from driving by the suspension of their licence. The introduction of automated cameras monitoring traffic speed and regulation has produced mass enforcement at dangerous locations to enhance police enforcement, which had proved inadequate, given the rise in the number of vehicles on the road and the miles of roads available. But these two measures are not available against cyclists. They have no licence or registration mark. This means that not only does the technology not work against them, but they cannot be identified for other road users, and they have no identification mark to offer for an investigator to identify them after they have behaved badly.
My amendments are all designed to remedy that situation. The Government usually respond to my proposals in a few predictable ways. First, they say that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the regulatory costs. I propose that at least 603 people in 2024 would not agree. How can the blatant disregard of our laws, intended to keep us safe, be allowed for cyclists, and why does their right to a healthy life trump the rights of pedestrians to feel safe?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 346A and 346B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who has just spoken, as I have added my name to them. I support the other amendments in this group in general terms. There is a lot of dissatisfaction about the arrangements for cycles, e-bikes and e-scooters, and with the never-ending nature of e-scooter pilot schemes, which my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has rightly condemned.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the new offences in Clause 106 to put cyclists on an equal footing with car drivers if they cause death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling. I am grateful to him for generously giving up time to meet me, with his officials, to discuss my various amendments to this Bill.
The truth is that, like others who have spoken, I do not believe that the Government’s proposals go far enough. I have been campaigning on the issue of the dangers of e-scooters and e-bikes for some years. It is a bit like online harm to children: you could see the matter getting worse day by day. We needed to take early action, yet nothing was done. I mainly blame the Department for Transport or its Ministers for this. They have a history of making the wrong judgment on important matters: investing in roads not railways in the 1950s and 1960s; pursuing HS2 rather than upgrading the existing railways, particularly in the north of England; and now prioritising cycling and e-scooters over pedestrians.
We have a Wild West. As a pedestrian, particularly in central London, you take your life in your hands every day. Scooters and cycles regularly ride on pavements and, because of electrification, they can go at high speeds—up to 70 miles per hour, according to the Sunday Telegraph. They cannot be heard and they steal up behind you, or approach at speed, making the pavement potentially as dangerous as the road. Those good enough to use the road or the huge number of cycle lanes that now pepper our capital have no compunction—they jump lights all the time. There is an arrogant culture of non-compliance with the law, made worse by recent legislation to give cycles priority. Both my husband and I have been knocked over.
The behaviour of cyclists and of some of those on scooters makes it dangerous to walk, particularly in the rush hour. Hired e-scooters are dumped on pavements, posing a hazard to walkers. If I was disabled, like my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who has an amendment in a later group, I would now be extremely nervous about walking around town at all. The problem is relevant to everyone, not just those unlucky enough to be involved in a serious incident, so what can be done?
There has to be a major change in enforcement, since riding on pavements and through traffic lights is already illegal. I was glad to hear of the work by the City of London Police, and to read in the Metro last week that the Met have been having a bit of a crackdown, but these initiatives are, I fear, a drop in the ocean. I would add that some riders are criminals, out to steal your phone or your handbag, transporting drugs or riding bikes that have themselves been stolen. Three members of my family have had their bikes stolen in recent years.
The indulgent culture that I have described is fuelled by Department for Transport neglect and police failure to give this area of lawlessness any priority, although it actually represents a crime wave. It reminds me of those mopeds stealing handbags in Italy—that beloved country—when I was young, but experience here is now far worse. Who would have thought that this would happen in England?
The accident and fatality statistics are chilling. As we have heard, 603 pedestrians were struck by bikes in 2024, with one fatality; in 2023, four accidents were fatal and 188 people suffered broken bones. We have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about the increase in lower leg injuries caused by Lime-style bikes, because they are so heavy. My conclusion is that there is a case for much stronger action, both from the perspective of neighbourhood safety and local crime prevention and as a contribution to reducing serious crime.
With his long experience at the Home Office, I know that the Minister is keen to take measures that work, so I would like him to make three changes. First, we need a national initiative to give scooter and cycle crime priority in enforcement by the police. I remember the Met’s Operation Bumblebee in the 1990s having a huge impact on burglary and its acceptability.
Secondly, we need to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, with his knowledge, experience and common sense. We should agree to his proposal for a registration system, which, in an era of CCTV cameras, would hugely aid enforcement and be popular with every honest cycle or scooter owner, because it would make it easier for them to get stolen bikes back and deter the gangs from seizing banks of bikes for resale.
Thirdly, we should accept the noble Lord’s amendment to treat bikes and scooters that go more than 15.5 miles per hour like motorbikes or mopeds. They would need number plates and insurance, and riders would wear helmets, limiting head injuries and freeing up time in A&E. If riders cannot be shamed into keeping off pavements, the risk of being booked—what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, described as the “risk of detection”—should be restored, at least for these ultra dangerous vehicles. It may help to persuade the Minister that New York, in the land of the free, has already imposed a 15 miles per hour limit on e-bikes. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh also mentioned the benefits that insurance would bring. I realise that it does not seem to be in scope and, although everything they said is valid, I do not want that to be used as another excuse for delay.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister. This is his Bill, not the Department for Transport’s, and I hope he will be brave. For years, the department has done nothing to tackle this dreadful issue, having been persuaded by e-scooter and cycle lobbyists and, in his time, by Boris Johnson. As in other walks of life, and in the words of John F Kennedy, we pay a heavy price for allowing a problem to go unsolved.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise with a degree of trepidation after the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I declare an interest in that I am a regular cyclist on both a normal road bike and an e-bike.
What we have going on in the world of cycling and e-scooters has some parallels with your Lordships’ House, in the sense that it is a giant experiment in self-regulation. As we know from your Lordships’ House, particularly from some recent arrivals, the individually subjective interpretation of “self-regulation” can mean, on the one hand, regulation that suits oneself or, on the other hand, regulation that thinks about everybody else. I will say no more on that subject.
We have made a huge strategic mistake alongside a great success. We have been very successful, more than we ever imagined, in encouraging cycling across this country. But, while we have successfully encouraged cycling and put cycling infrastructure in place, the element we have completely ignored is how to do it safely, and how to enforce rules and laws. With the benefit of hindsight, to do the one without the other is blindingly stupid. The results are all around us—I see them every day when the weather is nice enough for me to bicycle here. There is virtually no policing at all. The chances of you being caught are non-existent.
I recall, about 14 years ago, a fatal accident not far from where I live in Fulham. For a period of about a week, there was a very heavy and visible police presence in the area where there had been the accident. Your Lordships will be aware that at every major traffic light junction, there is an area in front of where the cars are meant to stop, which is a box with a bicycle logo inside it that is meant only for bicyclists. Noble Lords will be aware, if they are observant, that not only is that box usually full of moped delivery drivers trying to get ahead and go as fast as they can but, in many cases, it is also full of motorists, many of whom I suspect have no idea what that box is there for. That happens every day.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support the thrust of a number of the amendments that appear in this very broad group. Undoubtedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, told us, we have a significant problem, particularly in London. My own anecdotal experience is of cyclists and e-cyclists totally flouting the law, riding on the pavement and riding the wrong way down one-way streets. This is particularly prevalent among delivery riders.
I tend to walk around London—probably a couple of miles a day; most days around the West End and to and fro your Lordships’ House—and I can confidently say that I have never once seen a cyclist or an e-cyclist stopped for any very overt offences. The noble Lord suggests that he has been stopped.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thought the noble Viscount was going to say “red light”.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
Perhaps so. It is not a question of having ineffective enforcement; I would say that we have no enforcement whatever—at least none that I have ever seen. If you have a law that is not enforced at all and is defined by people ignoring it, you have a serious problem. We should not be making additional laws on the subject if we do not have a high degree of confidence that they will be enforced, or else we are wasting everybody’s time here.
I invite the Minister, in the context of all the amendments in this big group, to give us a broad overview of what the Government are going to do about enforcement. I know there are other amendments later also talking about enforcement, but unless he can convince us about that, I suggest that there is not much point to many of the provisions in this part of the Bill.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, with whom I agree on many aspects of this and other Bills, knocks the ball into the Government’s court to come up with a registration scheme for cycles. This causes me some reflection. I think it would be extremely difficult to do and would be a very large step indeed, so my preference would be for more enforcement—in essence, people being stopped for those offences—rather than the amount of complication that such a scheme would generate. Children riding cycles on their way to school, for example, cannot have points because they do not have licences. I can imagine any number of unintended consequences. However, we need to do something, and if it is a licensing scheme for the heavier, faster e-bikes, maybe that is what has to happen, and I think the Government need to grasp that.
I was very taken with my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 337E. Stating for the avoidance of doubt that if you cycle on a pavement, you are by definition cycling without due care and attention seems eminently sensible, just to make the law a bit clearer. Amendment 346B on e-bikes in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is very important. I should declare an interest in that I have a mountain bike and an e-bike. I have two, as it happens, and I use them occasionally—not at the same time, I have to say; that would be too difficult.
People who want to move around London quickly have a choice. Either they buy a motorcycle and pass a complicated series of tests to get that motorcycle licence—if they go for the full licence; it is a lesser standard for smaller machines. They need to tax the vehicle; they need to insure it; and they need an MoT if it is of that age. Or they could ignore all that and get an illegal electric cycle with comparable performance to a moped, and no one seems to be stopping them, as far as I can see. They have no insurance, no tax, no registration and, happy days, no one is stopping them for any offences whatever.
There are, of course, proper electric motorbikes where you have to wear a helmet, have a registration and so forth—indeed, I think there are a few Peers who come to your Lordships’ House on such machines. We have a very broad spectrum, but at the moment a lot of people, particularly delivery drivers, are riding vehicles that are not being pedalled; they are just pushing an electric throttle, in essence. These are obviously illegal: even as an amateur, I can see that a policeman would have every right to stop them and impound that vehicle, so I think we have to make that clearer. I think by 15.5 miles an hour, we mean a maximum powered speed, because of course if you head downhill, you will go much faster, as with a conventional cycle. However, I think we have to say, for the avoidance of doubt, “That is a motorcycle”, if it does not meet the criteria, “and if you ride that without tax, registration, insurance and so forth, you are committing a series of significant offences, and you will be arrested and prosecuted for such”.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being in my seat when my noble friend Lord Blencathra began his remarks on Amendment 330. I am very grateful to the Government Whip for taking into account the rather pathetic speed with which I can get from the Library to the Chamber. I thank him for that.
At 429 pages in length, with 16 parts, 21 schedules and 159 pages of amendments, this Bill is truly a legislative Christmas tree. I am worried it is about to topple on the Minister, which would not be very festive. I will therefore keep my remarks disproportionately brief and save the bulk of them for my related amendment, Amendment 346C, which is due to be considered later in group 9.
However, I thank those noble Lords who tabled these important amendments on dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling. In my view, they are pure common sense. I would say that we are reinventing the wheel in ensuring public safety on our roads and pavements, but I am not sure we have progressed that far, such is the scale of the anarchy that currently plagues our streets. We have, as we have heard, so much to do to reverse it.
The worst thing is that the situation we find ourselves in is entirely self-inflicted, predictable and even logical. Our response needs to be equally as logical. That is why I support these amendments; they point a practical way forward in the struggle—and there is no denying this is a struggle—against the very real threat posed by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, especially to anyone with a mobility, visual or hearing impairment.
In conclusion, I welcome these amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, most of what I wanted to cover has already been spoken to, so I have very little to add. I did, however, want to pick up on a couple of points the noble Lord, Lord Russell, covered. For me, this is about disorder. There is a sense of unfairness for a lot of people that if you are a driver, you are subject to a huge number of restrictions—especially in London, with tighter-than-ever speed limits—and yet cyclists ride along in a way that seems to be flouting the laws of the road.
I will also pick up on something my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady McIntosh covered about the length of the trials that go on for e-scooters. I believe the same can be said for the seemingly never-ending approach to the consultation on pedicabs. We legislated for pedicabs to be subject to regulations 18 months ago, and it took us years to do that. TfL has done one consultation, has just completed another and it will be 2026 before regulations for pedicabs are in place. The length of time it takes for us to actually do anything which is seemingly common sense adds to people’s sense of frustration and disappointment that things that should not be happening are allowed to happen just because there is no simple enforcement.
The other thing I want to add is about delivery bikes. Often, they are the worst perpetrators of cycling on pavements, going through red lights and cycling at speed. We know they are doing this because there is a commercial imperative for them to act in that way.
Rather curiously, I was approached recently by one of the big digital delivery service businesses. It is concerned that the new provisions for additional protection against assault for retail workers do not apply to its delivery drivers. I am not advocating for what it is asking for, but, as I said to this particular company in reply to its email to me, my question to the company is: what is it doing as a business to make sure that its delivery drivers actually obey the law and do not drive in an anti-social way, on pavements, and so on?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. Many of the amendments seem to be shaped by individuals’ bugbears that they experience a lot on the streets of London. This group of amendments looks to increase penalties for dangerous cycling and raises other issues regarding cycling and scootering which cause danger to others. I welcome some of the amendments; they have raised interesting points.
The Bill sees cycling offences updated and brought in line with driving offences. I will give some context to the debate today. It should be remembered that, according to figures released by the Department for Transport in September, in 2024, 82 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, while 3,822 were reported to be seriously injured and 10,645 slightly injured. Going further, in the latest DfT accredited official statistics, published on 25 September, its pedestrian fact sheet shows that nine pedestrians were killed and 738 seriously injured by one pedal cycle. Let us compare this to the 1,047 pedestrians killed by one car, and the 19,241 seriously injured. Clearly, any death or serious injury on our roads is one too many, but it is important that, as we debate this legislation, we understand the full picture.
We on these Benches support a proportionate and evidence-based approach to updating the law, where any changes do not discourage people from cycling, which we believe is an important mode of sustainable transport. However, as we have heard in this debate, we have seen a rise in fast food deliveries by e-bikes and e-scooters, and in micromobility sharing schemes. They have become like an explosion across our cities. Time is literally money for all of these riders—those delivering food are being paid per minute to use these bikes or scooters. Therefore, riders take risks. They break the Highway Code, moving at high speeds across pavements and roads, as we have heard, putting themselves and others at risk. We want to see an end to this danger on our roads.
I am intrigued by the discussion on the e-scooter trials, which have gone on a long time. Let us be clear: they were extended five times by the previous Government. They started in 2020 and have now been extended to May 2028. It is clear that this has been going on under two different parties in government.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, look to tackle the issue of dangerous cycling through the disqualification of a person from cycling. While at first glance this may appeal, in reality it would pose significant challenges with regard to enforcement, as cyclists, as we have heard, do not require licences. It is very unlikely that a person disqualified from cycling who decides to ignore that disqualification would be caught and convicted.
Logically, the only potential way to address this would be to introduce a licensing system for cyclists, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, proposes in Amendment 346A, where he has set out his thinking in detail. However, that is likely to be complicated, costly and disproportionate. In contrast, the noble Lord’s other amendments—seeking to add 12 points to a person’s driving licence for dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling that causes serious injury or death—seem more sensible and a reasonable way forward, which would give a greater range of options for the judge in such cases. We agree that this would be far more manageable than trying to bring in a national licensing scheme for all cyclists and cycles. Given that 84% of people aged 18 years or over who cycle hold a driving licence, according to the latest Cycling UK report, this could be an effective penalty.
Amendment 337F, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, looks to define a “cycle” as including a pedal cycle, an e-bike and an electric scooter. Given the rise in different types of micromobility, we believe that this is a reasonable amendment to try to cover all types of cycles that can cause injury, as they may otherwise fall through a loophole.
Amendment 346B, from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seeking to clarify the definition of e-bikes and motorbikes, looks reasonable—certainly on an initial reading—but we would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it. Are there any practical reasons that could make this difficult? We have sympathy with its aims, but we look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
The other amendments in this group are clearly looking to tighten up further the law on dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling. Some, such as Amendment 341, from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, look to change the penalties for causing death by dangerous cycling. We do not believe that these amendments are needed and we do not support them. However, it is important that road traffic law is enforced with equal vigour for cyclists and all road users, to secure everyone’s safety. One of the challenges not covered in the Bill or in our discussions today—it is the elephant in the room—is the limited number of road traffic police officers across the country and the clear need to invest in this part of the police workforce.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the many important points that have been raised by noble Lords today, to see how we can ensure that our streets are safer for all road users.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this important group of amendments.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I believe that the data provides an important context to this area. In 2023, there were four pedestrian fatalities and 185 serious injuries where a pedestrian was hit by a cyclist. Over the past decade, the average number of pedestrians killed annually by a cyclist has been three per year. On the roads more widely, in 2023, there were 87 pedal cyclist fatalities in Great Britain, with almost 4,000 people seriously injured and a further 10,000 classed as slightly injured. The most recent data from 2024 shows that fatalities from pedal cycles fell to 82 but serious injuries remained significant, even as overall pedal cycle traffic increased.
Moreover, as the Government recognise, the current maximum penalties for dangerous or careless cycling—a fine of up to £2,500 for dangerous cycling or £1,000 for careless cycling—are plainly inadequate to reflect the severity of incidents that result in serious injury or death. I therefore welcome that the Bill introduces the new offences of causing death by dangerous cycling, punishable with up to life imprisonment, and of causing serious injury by dangerous cycling, punishable with up to 5 years’ imprisonment. Those are severe sentences, but rightly so. In my view, they are reasonable and proportionate measures.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh spoke to her Amendment 341, which would remove the life sentence from the causing-death offence and replace it with 14 years’ imprisonment. With all due respect to her, I believe that, on this occasion, the Government have got the maximum penalty right. The penalties for the new cycling offences exactly mirror the penalties for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Causing death by dangerous cycling is just as serious as causing death by dangerous driving. As such, it is entirely appropriate for the punishments to be the same. However, we must do more.
While cyclists are required to abide by the Highway Code and other relevant traffic legislation, we know that far too many do not. We have heard many descriptions from across your Lordships’ House this evening of the conduct of cyclists in London and elsewhere. One only has to walk down Whitehall and over Lambeth Bridge to witness the appalling conduct of a number of cyclists. We heard from my noble friend Lady McIntosh about her own experience, from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
All too often, cyclists jump red lights, and they fail to stop at pedestrian crossings. While we rightly take injuries and death caused by cycling very seriously, the far greater problem is the general nuisance caused by cyclists who do not abide by the rules of the road. We currently hold drivers to a far higher standard than we do cyclists, and, quite frankly, enforcement needs to catch up.
This is even truer with regard to electric cycles. My Amendment 346 would create a new offence of altering the maximum speed and the rate of acceleration of an electric bike. Currently, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to, an electrically assisted pedal cycle is defined by 2015 regulations as being a bike with a maximum speed of 15.5 miles per hour and having an electric motor not exceeding 250 watts of continuously rated power output. Any bike with a maximum speed above that should be classed as a motorbike for the purposes of road traffic policing. In this regard, I agree entirely with Amendments 337F and 346B tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, respectively. The Bill as drafted focuses on cycles but does not explicitly include electrically assisted pedal bikes—e-bikes—or e-scooters. That legal ambiguity could quickly be exploited. Amendment 337F seeks to ensure that there is no loophole. Amendment 346B in the name of noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seeks to make absolutely clear that where an electric bike is capable of exceeding 15.5 miles per hour, it should be treated as a moped or motorbike for policing purposes.
These amendments complement the new offence that I am proposing through my amendment. By placing penalties and sanctions on those who might try to modify their electric bikes to increase the speed above the limit, we give the police the necessary enforcement powers to prevent anti-social and reckless cycling that places pedestrians in harm’s way. Many modern e-bikes are heavy, fast and capable of inflicting severe harm, especially if ridden irresponsibly on pavements or in pedestrian zones. To treat such vehicles as equivalent to push bikes would be to ignore both the mechanics and the risks.
On Amendment 337E, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Pavements are designated for pedestrians. Cyclists riding on pavements or in pedestrian-only areas pose a clear danger to the most vulnerable. By making it explicit that cycling on a pavement or in another pedestrian-only area counts as
“cycling without due care and attention”,
the amendment eliminates the ambiguity that currently hampers consistent enforcement. It is another aspect of a cyclist’s behaviour that should not occur but is all too often the norm. It reflects a simple principle of equity. Where a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle on the road, the driver of such a vehicle may be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving. A pedestrian hit by a cyclist on the pavement deserves to be treated with no less seriousness.
I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, relating to putting penalty points on driving licences for serious offences. That recognises the true severity of such offences. Misconduct on a bike should impact the standing of those with driving licences, especially where the behaviour demonstrates a disregard for road and pedestrian safety. On all these amendments, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, it seems an awful long time since my cycling proficiency test. We can debate whether standards have slipped in the 50-plus years since I took my test, but I think it is a common experience of all noble Lords who have spoken that a small minority of cyclists’ reckless actions potentially put people at risk. As a temporary resident of London during the week, I regularly see cyclists on pavements and going through red lights. I can report that, on crossing a zebra crossing one evening, I myself was almost hit by a cyclist, who was then pulled over by a police car not 100 metres later, much to my satisfaction. So it is possible for enforcement to happen.
I want to start with enforcement, because it is a thread that has run through a number of noble Lords’ contributions. It is right that strict legislation is already in place for cyclists, and the police do have the power to prosecute if these laws are broken. Cyclists have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible way that is reflected in the highway code. The Road Traffic Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned, imposes a fine of £2,500 for dangerous cycling and of £1,000 for careless cycling. The Road Traffic Act 1988 also makes it an offence to ride a bike if a person is unfit to do so due to drink or drugs. A considerable amount of activity is undertaken by the police to enforce these potential breaches of legislation. In fact, the Government themselves have pledged £2.7 million for each of the next three years to support police enforcement action on road traffic offences in the form of Operation Topaz, which is a strategic partnership between the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
I was pleased also to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about the City of London Police, who I know have taken this matter extremely seriously. They have cycling police officers who can catch offenders who have gone off-road into areas where vehicles or police officers on foot could not catch them, so it is important we recognise that. We have had contributions today from the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Hogan-Howe, and Lord Blencathra, who introduced amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We have also heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Pidgeon and Lady McIntosh of Pickering. All have touched on the issues of enforcement and whether the legislation is significant enough.
I want to draw the Committee’s attention to Clause 106, which is where these amendments are coming from. Clause 106 underlines the Government’s determination that cyclists who cause death or serious injury should face the full force of the law, as if that were done by a motor vehicle. The criminal justice system should not fail fully to hold to account the small minority of cyclists whose reckless actions lead to tragic consequences. A number of contributors to the debate have mentioned their personal experiences and have also witnessed incidents. There is a whole cohort of cyclists who obey the law and who perform well, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would anticipate me saying, there is a health benefit to cycling that should be recognised and encouraged. However, there is certainly a holding to account of death and serious injury, and that is where the Government are coming from as a starting point to the debate today.
A wide group of amendments has been put forward, and I will try to touch on each amendment in turn. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I spoke to him before he went on his short, I hope, leave of absence from the House and discussed these amendments with him briefly. I wish him well for his speedy recovery and thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing the amendments on his behalf.
Amendments 330, 338, 339, 340 and 342 would allow persons to be disqualified from cycling upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 106. Again, let us not forget that Clause 106 contains the penalty of significant jail time, and potentially a life sentence with significant jail time added to it. I agree that dangerous or careless cyclists are a serious risk to others, but disqualification would pose significant challenges. This may touch on other, later amendments, but self-evidently, cyclists are not currently required to have licences, and the only obvious way to address this would be to introduce a licensing system. However, such a system would be complicated, costly and, I would argue, potentially disproportionate, in that it would be created solely to enforce offences perpetrated by a small minority of people. Again, I do not think the noble Lord intended his amendment to serve as a barrier to cycling, but my concern is that it would risk implementation of this and would not really be workable.
In his own right, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, introduced Amendments 337B and 337F. Again, these would introduce greater criminal penalties for cyclists riding heavier, faster e-bikes. I do understand that, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, it is e-bikes that have been illegally modified for greater speed that represent an inherently greater risk to other road users. There is no longer any weight limit, following enactment of the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983, but they do specify that the electrically assisted speed for e-bikes is limited to 15.5 miles per hour. E-bikes that can achieve greater speeds would not be compliant with these regulations and therefore would be classed as motor vehicles. Because they are motor vehicles, a person using such could already be prosecuted under the existing offences in the Road Traffic Act 1988 of causing death or serious injury, which carry the same penalties as proposed in the new cycling offences: a life sentence with a 14-year potential sentence.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Just for clarification, the Minister said that they will be classed as motor vehicles. Does that mean they are still motor vehicles, even though they might not be registered or insured?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
They are classed as motor vehicles for the purposes of the legislation if they can travel above 15.5 miles per hour; but they are not, self-evidently, for the reasons I have already outlined, subject to the licensing arrangements that we have to date.
Mandatory uplifts based on specific vehicle type would be a novel but also an inconsistent approach to sentencing. Sentencing should always reflect the facts of the case and the level of culpability. Introducing rigid statutory additions could undermine the principle of proportionality, create inconsistency and risk setting an undesirable precedent. On the noble Lord’s amendments on changing the “careless and inconsiderate” cycling definition, I understand his desire to put beyond doubt that cycling on a pavement or in an area intended only for pedestrians should be considered as cycling without due care and attention. However, cycling on pavements is already an offence in its own right, as set out in Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, which is an awfully long time ago and has stood the test of time. It is also an offence under Section 129 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Given that these offences are still in place, I would suggest that, along with those in the Bill for serious offences, that provides a sufficient deterrent.
Amendment 337F would insert the definition of a cycle. Again, I come back to Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which already defines cycles, and this definition includes compliant electrically assisted pedal cycles. As I said earlier, an e-bike that does not comply with the relevant legislation is a motor vehicle for the purposes of the legislation, not a cycle.
I turn to a series of amendments—341A to 341D, 342A to 342F, 346A, 346B and 498A—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which propose that a person could receive up to 12 points on their driving licence upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 106. Reaching 12 points on their driving licence would, of course, disqualify them from driving a motor vehicle.
As I have mentioned already, cyclists do not require any form of licence to cycle, therefore the noble Lord proposes points on a driving licence as an alternative penalty. In the Sentencing Bill, which is currently before your Lordships’ House, there is already a new driving prohibition requirement that the court can impose when giving a community or suspended sentence order. This prohibition will allow a court to take a more flexible and tailored approach to punishment than a driving disqualification, and it will be available irrespective of the offence that has been committed. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that the provision in the Sentencing Bill goes some way towards meeting his objective.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 346A and 498A seek to create a registration scheme for the purposes of enforcing the new offences in Clause 106—
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, on the point about the prohibition that might come from the Sentencing Bill, is the danger that unless the sentencing guidelines shift to reflect that new piece of legislation, you will end up with a very inconsistent approach in at least 43 police force areas as applied by the magistrates in those areas? If it is just a random event, they might lose their driving licence because of anti-social behaviour, some of which might be on a cycle. I understand the principal point that the Minister makes but I am not convinced that it will lead to a radical change in the way that cyclists are called to account through their driving licence.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is ultimately for the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for the Sentencing Bill, to look at sentencing guideline issues later. I cannot give assurances on those points today. However, the Sentencing Bill is currently before this House and it is trying to look at those issues as a whole. When it is law, my noble friend Lady Levitt and others will look at guidelines and those potential enforcement issues as a matter of some urgency. The Sentencing Bill proposes, in some way, one of the issues that the noble Lord seeks to achieve.
Again, self-evidently, a registration scheme for cycles would make enforcement of offences easier. The absence of a registration scheme does not make enforcement impossible. As the noble Lord will know, the police would be expected to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry that are open to them by examining other evidence before them at the time of any potential incident.
As with the example of licensing for cyclists that I referred to earlier, the House must accept that the likely significant cost and complexity of introducing a registration scheme for cyclists would mean, for example—this was mentioned in one of the contributions today—that all cycle owners, including children and those making new purchases, would have to submit their information to a central database. That central database would be required to keep the information and the ownership up to date, and some form of registration plate would need to be affixed to a cycle. To give the noble Lord one statistic, the Bicycle Association has estimated that nearly 1.5 million new cycles were sold in 2024. That is a big undertaking. I know that the noble Lord understands that, but the enforceability of the existing legislation is the key, and the work that we are doing, which I have opened my remarks with, would be key to that and would counterbalance the potential cost to the public purse of establishing the registration scheme.
Amendment 346B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seeks for e-bikes, which are currently faster and more powerful, to be treated as motorbikes or mopeds for policing purposes. The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 mean that e-bikes which do not comply with existing regulations will be treated as motor vehicles for policing purposes. The Department for Transport, which has overall responsibility for these areas, has published fact sheets explaining that e-bikes which do not comply with regulations will be treated as motor vehicles.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has tabled Amendments 341, 343 and 344, which seek to reduce the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from life imprisonment to 14 years’ imprisonment. We have taken the view—I am pleased with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this—that the offences in the Bill bring into line this behaviour so that it is subject to maximum penalties equivalent to those already in place for dangerous driving offences, which is life imprisonment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The Minister referred in a debate last week to a Bill currently before the House with micromobility provisions. It would be interesting to know whether the consultation has already taken place before that aspect of the Bill. I am sure that it is in his notes, but I cannot for the life of me remember what Bill it was. Also, the amount of funding from the Home Office that the department has announced is an operational matter. It is very welcome, but how will he ensure that each individual force such as the Met will use that money and implement enforcement?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are operational issues. We put the money into Operation Topaz for all police forces to examine them, and ultimately it is for the forces to determine. The City of London Police has determined who is a problem in the City of London. There is a strong argument for parts of the country to face further enforcement measures because self-evidently there are problems. There will be public consultation before any new regulations come into force. It is a Department for Transport matter, so I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to reflect on that with regard to when the consultation is. I will get back to her as a matter of course.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 344 seeks to require reporting annually on cycling offences. We already publish annual statistics on those killed and seriously injured—in fact, a number of noble Lords and Ladies have quoted those in the debate today. Therefore, I suggest that this is already covered.
Amendment 346, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to make it an offence to tamper with an e-bike. I accept that some people may well tamper with or modify their e-bikes to increase their speed, but as I already mentioned, this is already an offence under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Should the police issue a fixed penalty notice, this would result in a £300 fine and six penalty points, and should the case go to court, it could result in an unlimited fine and driving disqualification.
I have tried to cover a number of points; I apologise for not referring individually to every point made by every noble Lord. The broad thrust is that there is a problem—we recognise that. There should be enforcement—we are trying to address that. There is a new measure in the Bill, Clause 106, to increase the level of penalty for causing death and serious injury by dangerous cycling. We recognise that and I welcome the support of the House. A range of discussion points and measures have been brought forward today around lifting, increasing or changing the penalties accordingly. We may well revisit those on Report, but the Government are right in recognising the problem, putting some money into enforcement and making dangerous cycling and causing death by cycling further offences with serious consequences.
I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw and not to press his amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am sorry that I could not be here at the beginning of this group. My noble friend has given a very encouraging response to the many amendments—
Lord in waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has gone over time, but in any case the noble Lord needed to be here at the start of the group to be able to intervene during the debate.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful. This Minister would not have gone over time had he not given way, but he now has gone over time and so will sit down. I commend the course of action that I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his decency in replying as fully as he possibly could. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that there are many more groups to go on cycling, and I think he will have a chance of input there.
The general thrust that the Minister detected is one thing, but, if I may say so, my forecast was right. I said at the beginning that the general thrust I would detect was that Peers from all sides would be highly critical that not enough is being done. Clause 106 is okay as far as it goes, but there is a much wider problem out there, as articulated by nine other Peers from all sides, in addition to me. My noble friends LadyMcIntosh of Pickering and Lady Stowell asked why this never-ending consultation is taking place. Someone said that, as this is a Home Office Bill, why does it not just get on with it? It may be a Home Office Bill, but it is the Department for Transport’s policy, and that is where the rot lies.
Those who criticised the last Government were absolutely right to do so. I condemn in no uncertain terms the Department for Transport under the leadership from 2019 to 2022 of Mr Grant Shapps, who was obsessed with getting more and more e-bikes and e-scooters on the road. The reason the consultations were extended was, in my view, and in what was tipped off to me, that he wanted to get so many more e-bikes out there that it would be impossible to pull back on them. It is like the police saying that everybody is shoplifting and so there is nothing they can do about it. Mr Shapps wanted to say, “Everyone has got e-bikes now, so we cannot put in a registration system and we cannot control them”.
If noble Lords want further evidence of the Department for Transport’s attitude, in February 2024 it went out to consultation again. The consultation was to double the size of the electric motor from 250 watts to 500 watts and to introduce an additional speeding system. There were 2,100 responses; the vast majority of professionals—police forces and others—totally condemned it, and the Department for Transport had to pull that back, and rightly so. But mark my words, it will try it on again and again.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made a very good point: why should cyclists have a right to a healthy life but not the pedestrians who are getting mowed down? He tabled some good amendments that would be excellent. He made the point that although everyone has called for more enforcement, you cannot have more enforcement if you do not know the bike and the identity of the person riding it.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made the point that the amendments just do not go far enough. She used the term Wild West. I assume she was quoting the press release—I have it here—from the Mayor of London, Mr Sadiq Khan, who said that very thing last month: London is now a Wild West for e-bikes.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made an absolutely excellent speech, and I commend him for it. He is right to say that we have boosted cycling, which is a good thing, but have not boosted the safety protocols. He is right about cyclists jumping red lights. You do not have to go far to see that; go to our prison gates at the Peers’ entrance and stand there and look at the pedestrian crossing and the lights. Last week, when the lights changed to red for the cars, I was halfway across when a cyclist tried to come through. I stopped and said: “Get back! Get back!” He did actually stop and move back a bit. That happens all the time. They use the red lights as an excuse; when cars stop, the cyclists belt through.
My noble friend Lord Goschen made the point that there is no enforcement at all. He wondered why anyone would bother to buy a moped or a small motorbike, when you have to have an MOT and insurance and pass a test, when they can buy an e-bike which goes 70 miles an hour and does everything you want, and you do not have to do anything to register or insure it, and no one will stop you when you break the law.
My noble friend Lord Shinkwin made the comment, rightly so, that there is a threat to disabled people. I am glad the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, welcomed my definition of cycles. It is possible that that was the only thing she agreed with me on, but I will take any little crumbs of comfort. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel supported most of my amendments, as I fully support his. I did ask for tougher penalties, but I am now content that the penalties are okay.
The Minister, in his speech, which was as courteous as usual, said that only a small minority break the law. He is right, I think, when that applies to the conventional cyclists and not e-bikes. In the past, it was my experience that it was a tiny minority of Lycra louts—the ones with their heads down between the handlebars and their backsides up in the air, belting through lights. I submit that I am certain that the majority of e-bike riders are breaking the law one way or another, either by excessive speed or by riding through lights or on the pavement. I can say with absolute certainty that 100% of the food delivery drivers are breaking the law, but more of that in another group. I disagree with the Minister that we cannot have a simple presumption that if people are riding a bike on the pavement then it is automatically, per se, and without any other judgment needed, seen as driving without due care and attention.
I simply say this again. I always come in with slightly more trenchant views than many other colleagues in the House, but we have had support today from colleagues with much more moderate amendments than mine. I am fairly certain we will see that when we come to the other groups. The Minister has to go back to the Department for Transport and tell it to get off its high horse and on to its bike. We must have proper amendments to toughen up the law and deal with all the other abuses of e-bikes, particularly in London. In those circumstances, on the assumption that we will be doing more work on this, I beg leave to withdraw my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 330.
“(b) in subsection (1) at the beginning insert “Subsection to subsection (1A),”;(c) after subsection (1), insert—“(1A) The court may only make a stalking protection order against a defendant if conditions A and B are met—(a) condition A is that the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant has engaged in stalking behaviour towards a person; (b) condition B is that the order is necessary and proportionate to protect that person from stalking, or the risk of stalking, carried out by the defendant.”.”
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 330A, I will speak to Amendment 330B, tabled in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and to Amendments 330AZA and 356E, tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. In doing so, I welcome this weekend’s announcements that were part of the Government’s strategy to halve violence against women and girls in the next 10 years, and I look forward to the publication of the strategy later this week.
We owe much to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her 2019 stalking Bill that created stalking protection orders—SPOs—which were introduced in January 2020. The Government have recognised that the SPO process is in need of reform. Strengthening the use of SPOs was a manifesto commitment within their plan to have violence against women and girls over the next decade. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ response to the stalking super-complaint highlighted the need to change the legal framework for SPOs and align them more closely to orders available in domestic abuse cases. The amendments in this group seek to reform SPOs to ensure the victims of stalking are swiftly protected from further harm.
Amendment 330A seeks to clarify the evidential threshold for obtaining an SPO, to bring this in line with domestic abuse protection orders—DAPOs—and so ensure swifter and less onerous access to these protective orders. The Stalking Protection Act 2019 provides that the magistrates’ court may make an SPO if it is satisfied that the offender has carried out acts associated with stalking. However, the legislation does not explicitly state the evidential standard to be applied. This lack of clarity can lead to inconsistent interpretation and application across police forces and courts in England and Wales. In practice, some courts have applied the criminal standard of proof when determining whether the conditions for an SPO are met. This approach means that police forces need to gather evidence similar to that required for a full criminal prosecution in order to secure an SPO. Consequently, victims face significant delays in obtaining protection, leaving them at risk.
For example, a woman called Juliana experienced online harassment, criminal damage and vexatious complaints to her employer by her stalker. She reported it to the police, and her perpetrator was arrested. While an SPO was considered throughout the investigation, there was slow progress made by the police to submit her application. Multiple witness statements were obtained to support her SPO and legal services within the police were contacted. Seven months later, Juliana is still awaiting a court date for the hearing. Due to the time elapsed, she is concerned that her perpetrator will soon be let out on bail and she will have no protective measures in place. By contrast, under Section 32 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, a court may issue a DAPO on the civil standard of proof. This lower evidential threshold allows for swifter intervention and the earlier safeguarding of victims.
According to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, approximately half of stalking victims do not have a prior relationship with the offender, which means that there is a disparity in protection between the victims who qualify for a DAPO, who have a relationship with the offender, and those who must rely on an SPO. Given that stalking related to domestic abuse and stalking not related to domestic abuse have comparable impacts on victims, I suggest that the threshold should be consistent for both types of protective order.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendments 330AA, 330AB and 330C. I have also signed Amendments 331 and 332 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, which start at Amendment 330A. She and I have been involved in strengthening the law for victims of stalking since the stalking law inquiry in 2011, which led to the first stalking laws, enacted 13 years ago on 25 November 2012.
Two decades ago, I was stalked for three years by my Conservative political opponent when I stood for Parliament in Watford. After he was caught in 2008, even though he pleaded guilty to over 60 crimes, including criminal damage to property and criminal damage using a knife, there was no separate crime of stalking from harassment. So the abusive and some sexual literature that was circulated widely on the streets, the anonymous letters to residents, the silent calls late at night when I was on my own in my flat and the feeling of always being watched just did not count in the court—other than as the same as an argument between neighbours over the height of a hedge.
The police came and advised us on security and precautions for our house, and my then teenage foster son had to learn from the police how to always put on plastic gloves before picking up any post. I never knew which of my supporters the stalker would target next. Now, we recognise that this is a tried and tested formula for stalkers—going for their friends, their family and, in this case, my political supporters.
When the stalking law came in it was much welcomed. However, after it was implemented, the practicalities became clear. Often, neither the police nor the CPS would use a charge of stalking until that case was proven beyond all possible doubt. So there was no mechanism to provide protection to victims of stalking earlier in the perpetrator’s fixation. That is why the stalking protection orders, introduced in 2019 by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, were thought to be a really helpful tool to help dissuade perpetrators and give reassurance to victims that they would be safe. But we have to consider now whether they are fully effective.
This group of amendments seeks to address the weaker points of SPOs, the result of which is causing considerable distress to victims of stalking, both domestic and non-domestic. My Amendment 330AA seeks to better protect victims from offenders who try falsely to use educational or religious reasons to gain proximity to their victims. The Bill currently states that the prohibitions or requirements in an SPO should
“avoid … any conflict with … religious beliefs”,
and with attending work and educational establishments. Although that is not inherently objectionable in itself, it should be a matter for guidance and probably not in the legislation, as this clause would give priority to an offender’s right to freedom over the safeguarding of the victim. We know that stalking perpetrators already use religious beliefs in attempts to contact their victims, in defiance of protective orders. There are examples of offenders claiming to attend the same religious institution as their victim in an attempt to be allowed into the area. The problem is that the inclusion of the clause in the Bill risks these claims becoming more commonplace. Thus, it should be dealt with in the form of guidance.
My Amendment 330AB would ensure consultation with victims when SPOs are varied, renewed or discharged. Currently, there is no requirement to hear the views of the victim—if they wish them to be heard—despite the fact that the victim is the individual being protected by the SPO and thus may have relevant information that the court should hear prior to making a decision. It is unreasonable to expect the police or other authorities to know all the details of a victim’s activities, so it is important that a victim’s views are sought prior to an application being decided upon.
This amendment would require police to consult with a victim following an application to change an SPO. As an illustration, Lisa is a victim of stalking, and her offender made an application to vary certain terms of a restraining order. The proposed changes—allowing the offender to travel down certain arterial roads on the pretence that it was their route in and out of London—seemed inherently reasonable. However, it was only when Lisa’s views were sought that it became evident that the road included a petrol station she frequented and cut through a park in which her children walked regularly. This information would not have been readily available if the victim was not consulted. In this case, the information provided by the victim enabled the CPS to mount an effective defence. The application to vary the terms of the restraining order was then denied.
Amendment 330C would create a requirement to issue guidance on SPOs. Currently, the Bill says that the Secretary of State “may” issue guidance in relation to stalking. A briefing, along with many other significant pieces of work, such as the stalking super-complaint and the HMICFRS reports, made clear the confusion and inconsistency when it comes to the response to stalking. The need for guidance is clear. The Domestic Abuse Act’s section on guidance states that the Secretary of State “must” issue guidance. This amendment proposes similar wording to support future clarity and consistency.
Amendment 331 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to which I have added my name, is important. It would ensure that stalking is part of the VAWG strategy, which is due to be published this week, while also ensuring that the terms of reference for the Wright review cover non-domestic stalking; too often, the police do not take that seriously. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that the review is under way. We did not withdraw the amendment because we wanted to make sure that some of the details discussed today will be covered.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was very happy to add my name to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I arrived slightly later to the party than the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Brinton, because I was not around when they nobly started tackling this difficult subject. However, once I arrived, I was happy to try to help in whatever way I could.
The amendments in this group are interwoven with an awful lot of other legislation that we have passed in recent years and are discussing today because many of the same traits, particularly behavioural traits, are still there, together with some of the challenges that the different authorities have in trying both to understand this behaviour and to do something about it. The parallel drawn in Amendment 330A between the DAPO, to which domestic abuse perpetrators are subject, and the stalking protection order, which has nothing like the same power or speed, is a good analogy. I ask the Government to look at and consider that very carefully. If the Government were to talk with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, they would find, I suspect, that Dame Nicole Jacobs—a dame as of last week—would be very interested in discussing it further with them and would argue the case for that.
Amendments 330AZA and 356E, which deal with the ingenuity, frankly, of perpetrators in using online means to find different ways to get at their victims, has many parallels with what we look at in many areas that deal with online abuse. I appeal to the Government that we be joined up, in terms of the experience that different departments and specialist teams are gaining through the different pieces of legislation and guidance that we are enacting, so that we are learning from one another and not operating in silos, which, I fear, we sometimes do.
Amendment 330AA, which would remove the excuse of one’s religion or the need to be in an educational establishment—again, another ingenious excuse for finding a way to get to the perpetrator—is a loophole that I hope the Government will look at very carefully.
A stalking protection notice to accelerate and streamline the process would be extremely valuable. I am sure that, if the Minister and his team were to talk about this with some of the most advanced areas of the country and police forces—in particular, the county of Cheshire, which has five gold stars for doing this really well—and to ask whether they would find a stalking protection notice useful in order to move quickly, the answer would, I suspect, be a resounding yes. Going to talk to the people who are on the front line in dealing with this day in, day out would be a very useful use of time.
On Amendment 330C, of course the Secretary of State should have the power to issue stalking guidance, not least because, as stalkers get more and more ingenious and devious in some of the ways they find to make their victims’ lives horrible, it is important that the guidance keeps up. It is often two steps behind. The people who suffer because of that are the victims and the people who gain are the perpetrators, because it gives them the breathing room to do what they do and the law is quite slow to catch up.
I am broadly in sympathy with all these amendments. Stalking is one of the main causes of distress to victims in this country, alongside domestic abuse and anti-social behaviour. They are the unholy trinity and the largest volume affecting people, predominantly women. The ways perpetrators pursue their victims are often quite complex. These are quite devious and often quite intelligent individuals. We need an intelligent response in order to do something about it.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this debate has underlined that stalking is not an occasional nuisance but a pattern of behaviour that our systems still struggle to recognise and act on early enough. The debate shows a familiar picture: warning signs are missed, threats are minimised and tools that Parliament has already provided are used patchily, if at all.
These amendments point towards a more joined-up and confident response, in which the police, prosecutors and other agencies share information, understand the particular dynamics of stalking and intervene at a much earlier stage, including online, before behaviour escalates into something far more dangerous. Looking ahead, there is now a real opportunity to embed that approach in the forthcoming review and in the VAWG strategy. Many of the ideas we have discussed—stronger use of stalking protection orders and notices, better guidance and training, and clearer expectations of consistency across forces—could and should be reflected on here.
The underlying purpose of these amendments is surely uncontroversial: to ensure that the law and practice keep pace with the reality of stalking and to give victims a response that matches the seriousness of the threat they face, so that this debate becomes a turning point rather than a missed opportunity.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, stalking is an offence which constitutes severe harassment and can instil grave fear into victims, as we have just heard. It is absolutely right that the law bears down on perpetrators of stalking. The Stalking Protection Act 2019 gave magistrates’ courts the power to impose stalking protection orders on application by the chief officer of police. Clause 97 extends this power so that a Crown Court can impose such an order where a person has been acquitted of any other offence.
The Government will no doubt argue that they are taking the necessary action to further prevent cases of stalking through this part of the Bill, but let us not forget another Bill they are currently taking through your Lordships’ House. The Sentencing Bill will suspend sentences for anyone charged with the offence of stalking. Section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states that a person found guilty of stalking is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to 51 weeks—less than the 12-month time limit for the presumption of a suspended sentence order.
Furthermore, the offence of breaking a stalking protection order is also likely to lead to a suspended sentence under the Sentencing Bill. Although a custodial sentence of up to five years can theoretically be imposed on conviction on indictment, the Sentencing Council’s guidelines state that in most cases of culpability and severity the starting point will be one year’s custody, and the ranges can go down to 12 weeks in custody and even a community order. This may very well be proportionate for low-level stalking offences, but the fact is that a person with a high degree of culpability and a medium to high level of harm will fall into the range that will mean their sentence is highly likely to be suspended.
If the Government are serious about bearing down on stalking, I suggest that letting anyone convicted of that offence walk free is not a good move for the safety of the victim. The Minister might try to rebut this argument by talking about the stalking protection orders, but I gently say to him that there is no good in letting a stalker roam the streets just because they have an order slapped on them. Given the falling police numbers, what is the likelihood of a person who violates their order actually being arrested? I also suggest that victims of stalking will not feel safer simply because their stalker has been given a court order.
What makes this even worse is that there is a very real possibility that a person who breaks the terms of their suspended sentence order will still not receive a custodial sentence. Although the automatic presumption will not apply in that case, the Government have opposed Conservative amendments to explicitly exempt people with a history of non-compliance from suspended sentences. They have also resisted our amendments to exempt repeat offenders from being handed suspended sentences.
Under this Government’s legislation, there is a very real possibility that a stalker could continually stalk their victim, break their stalking protection order and their suspended sentence order and never face jail time. That is not protecting victims. Against this backdrop, I suggest that it does not matter what we do in this place regarding stalking; we can table all the amendments we like to toughen up the protection orders, but they will not protect victims or prevent stalkers if the Government let than walk free. I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, did not have much to say about what is in this Bill. He has opportunities to talk about another Bill; let him do that at another time. I am talking about this Bill. He never mentioned what was going on in this Bill, the measures within it or, indeed, the amendments before us in his opening contribution—not a single word. Maybe he should reflect on that, because he has not endeared himself to me in these discussions.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord asks, “Do I ever?”—he does occasionally, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I was not really impressed that he did not say one single word about what is currently before the Committee. Let us have a discussion about the Sentencing Bill with my noble friends Lady Levitt and Lord Timpson another time. That is being completed. Anyway, let us leave that to one side.
I hope to be helpful in part to the noble Baronesses and others who have spoken. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for bringing their experience, their views and their passion for this subject to this debate. A number of amendments are before the Committee. As I said, I hope to be helpful in part on some of them.
Amendments 330A, 330AZA, 330AA, 330AB, 330B and 330C all relate to stalking protection orders, which, as Members know, are civil orders introduced in 2020 to protect victims of stalking. Amendment 330A in the name of my noble friend Lady Royall seeks to reference explicitly the required civil burden of proof—that is, on the balance of probabilities—for determining whether the behaviour of a person to be made subject to a stalking protection order amounts to acts associated with stalking. Currently, statutory guidance for the police published by the Home Office references that it is likely the courts will apply the civil burden of proof when considering stalking protection orders, but I agree with my noble friend that there could be a case for making this clearer. I therefore undertake to consider her proposals in Amendment 330A ahead of the next stage on the Bill. I hope that helps the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who also spoke on this matter and my noble friend.
I am grateful for Amendment 330AA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am particularly grateful to her for drawing her personal experience to the attention of the Committee. I had not realised the traumas that she had had in the run up to the 2010 election, but I had a quick chance to google those matters while she was speaking. It looks like it was an appalling experience. I am grateful to her for bringing it to the attention of the Committee.
The noble Baroness’s proposal in Amendment 330AA would remove the requirement for the restrictions in SPOs to avoid, where possible, conflict with the defendant’s religious beliefs and interference with their attendance at work or at an educational establishment. On this occasion, I understand the noble Baroness’s view that this could be brought out in statutory guidance, but it is our view in the Home Office that it is important to retain this within primary legislation, particularly regarding an individual’s rights through the European Convention on Human Rights, especially Article 9 on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, so I am afraid I cannot help her on that one.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I understand that point of not wanting it to go into primary legislation, but given the way in which it is possible to use the online world to find all sorts of ways that circumvent the conventional ways in which one would try to intimidate someone, could one not have a look at the guidance to ensure that it includes descriptions of the slightly innovative ways in which perpetrators are using it to make those charged with policing this more aware of it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for that intervention, and I will certainly discuss those suggestions and points with colleagues from the police. The current statutory guidance for police on SPOs includes a non-exhaustive list of suggested conditions, many of which could align with Amendment 330AZA. For example, the guidance could include prohibitions on contacting the victim or referring to the victim on social media, either directly or indirectly. Similarly, the statutory guidance for the police on DAPOs also includes a non-exhaustive list of suggested conditions. It may well be that the points the noble Lord has mentioned are covered in that, but I will happily reflect on what he said.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
I am sure my noble friend is correct that it is, or should be, covered in guidance, but patently the judge looking at the case that I mentioned was not aware of this and said the fact that the victim had been contacted via LinkedIn was not something he could take a view on. He did not know that this was something he could take a view on. I am grateful to my noble friend for ensuring that the guidance is properly looked at.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful again to my noble friend for referring to the LinkedIn experience. My assessment, having discussed this with officials and with my colleague Ministers, is that the statutory guidance for police includes prohibitions on contacting the victim by any means, including social media. If my noble friend will let me, I will reflect on what she has said today, and I will discuss again with officials whether the guidance in its current format is sufficient to cover that point. That is my understanding, and I think it is a reasonable understanding to put before the Committee today.
Amendment 330C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would replace the power for the Secretary of State to issue multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking with a duty to do so. This would align the provision on guidance with the Stalking Protection Act 2019 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, supported the general direction of travel that the noble Baroness brought forward in her amendment. I agree that it is important, where appropriate, to ensure that legislative provisions tackling violence against women and girls are consistent. Accordingly, this is an amendment that I am happy to take away for further consideration and to discuss with officials.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I think the key question is why it is acceptable that there are different rules for “may” and “must” between this and domestic abuse protection orders.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Baroness will allow me, we have agreed that we will take Amendment 330C away and have a look at it. That is not a guarantee that we will do something with it, but it is an opportunity to reflect on it. She can examine what, if anything, the Government do, and she can determine whether to table it again on Report.
Amendment 330B, again tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall, would introduce a stalking protection notice that could be imposed by a police superintendent. I think my noble friend’s motivation is to ensure that swift action can be taken. However, on reflection we view that introducing such a notice would potentially put further complexity into the legislative framework without significantly improving protection for victims. We also need to consider the proportionality of a police-issued notice backed by a criminal offence of breach that denies the respondent the opportunity to argue their case before an independent judicial tribunal. Failure to comply with a police-issued domestic abuse protection notice is not a criminal offence for this reason.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, tabled Amendment 331, which would provide a statutory review of the effectiveness of two stalking offences, and Amendment 332, which seeks to provide a statutory review of stalking awareness guidance. I hope the noble Baroness can accept—this goes to points that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend have also mentioned—that work is currently being undertaken on both these issues. In December 2024 we announced six new measures to tackle stalking, including a commitment to review the criminal law on stalking contained in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. As a number of speakers have referenced, we have already appointed Richard Wright KC to lead the review. It is intended to be completed by the end of March 2026. We have given a timetable. I do not think it is right and proper that we change that timetable now, as a number of noble Lords suggested. The review will consider measures to achieve clarity in the legislation. On completion of the review, the Home Secretary will consider the findings and recommendations before determining next steps, potentially including further legislation. I hope that helps the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
There are a number of government amendments to the provisions in Clause 99. We have done this with guidance from stakeholders in the criminal justice system. Government Amendments 330AZB to 330AZE and 330AE clarify the process for appealing the making of a stalking order. Our Amendments 330AC and 330AD provide for applications to vary, renew or discharge a stalking protection order and avoid applications having to be heard by a higher court. Amendments 330BA, 330D, 522A and 547A extend the provisions in Clauses 97, 98 and 100 to Northern Ireland to allow the courts in Northern Ireland to make stalking protection orders. They have been introduced in conjunction with the Department of Justice and allow it to issue guidance to the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The changes have been brought forward in amendment form at the request of the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland.
I hope I have been able to assist in part my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton—supported by the noble Lord, Lord Russell—and Lady Doocey. I undertake to examine Amendments 330A and 330C further ahead of the next stage. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his positive response to so many of the amendments and I look forward to further discussions. I am sure that if any noble Lord who has participated in this debate can be of assistance in those discussions, we will be happy to have a meeting with the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(za) in subsection (1)(a) after “order” insert “by a magistrates’ court, a youth court or the Crown Court””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the cases in which an appeal against the making of a stalking protection order can be brought under section 7 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019.
“(3B) An appeal under subsection (1), (2) or (3) to the Court of Appeal may be made only with the permission of that court.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the need for permission of the Court of Appeal to appeal to it against an order made under section 4 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the reference to an appeal in new subsection (5)(a) of section 7 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 is to an appeal under section 7.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the reference to an appeal in new subsection (5)(b) of section 7 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 is to an appeal under section 7.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment to inserted section 364D of the Sentencing Code, together with my amendment to clause 98, page 127, line 35, provides for applications to vary, renew or discharge a stalking protection order made by any court other than a magistrates’ or youth court to be made to the Crown Court.
“(c) where the order was made by any other court, the Crown Court;”Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 98, page 127, line 20.
“(3A) An appeal under subsection (2) to the Court of Appeal may be made only with the permission of that court.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the need for permission of the Court of Appeal to appeal to it against an order made under section 364D of the Sentencing Code.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Stalking protection orders: Northern Ireland(1) The Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) is amended as follows.(2) In section 6 (meaning of act associated with stalking and risk associated with stalking), in subsection (1) for “7” substitute “6A”.(3) After section 6 insert—“Meaning of “stalking protection order”(1) In this Act “stalking protection order” means an order under this Act which, for the purpose of preventing a person from carrying out acts associated with stalking—(a) prohibits the person from doing anything described in the order, or(b) requires the person to do anything described in the order.(2) This Act provides for the making of a stalking protection order—(a) on an application under section 7, or(b) where a person is acquitted of an offence, successfully appeals against a conviction for an offence, is dealt with in respect of certain findings or is convicted of an offence (see section 8(1)).”(4) In section 7 (applications for orders) omit subsection (1).(5) In section 8 (power to make orders)—(a) for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) This section applies in respect of a person (“D”) where—(a) the Chief Constable has applied under section 7 to a court of summary jurisdiction for a stalking protection order against D,(b) D is acquitted of an offence by or before a court,(c) a court allows D’s appeal against a conviction for an offence,(d) a court deals with D in respect of a finding that—(i) D is not guilty of an offence by reason of insanity, or(ii) D is under a disability and has done the act charged against D in respect of an offence, or(e) D has been convicted of an offence and a court deals with D for the offence.”;(b) in subsection (2), in the words before paragraph (a), for “the order” substitute “a stalking protection order”. (6) In section 10 (variations, renewals and discharges)—(a) in subsection (1), for “a court of summary jurisdiction” substitute “an appropriate court”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In subsection (1) “appropriate court” means—(a) where the stalking protection order was made by a court of summary jurisdiction other than a youth court, a court of summary jurisdiction which is not a youth court;(b) where the stalking protection order was made by a youth court—(i) if the defendant is under the age of 18 when the application for variation, renewal or discharge is made, a youth court;(ii) if the defendant is aged 18 or over at the time the application for variation, renewal or discharge is made, a court of summary jurisdiction which is not a youth court;(c) where the stalking protection order was made by any other court, the Crown Court.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)—(a) a stalking protection order made by a court on an appeal is to be treated as made by the court whose decision was appealed against;(b) a stalking protection order that is confirmed, varied or renewed on an appeal remains an order of the court that first made it (or, if it was made on an appeal, the court that is treated as having made it under paragraph (a)).”(7) In section 11 (interim stalking protection orders), in subsection (2), after “application” in the first place it occurs insert “under section 7”.(8) In section 12 (procedure)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) An application to the Crown Court under section 10 is to be made in accordance with Crown Court rules.”;(b) in subsection (5) omit “10 or”.(9) After section 12 insert—“Appeals(1) Where a stalking protection order is made in the circumstances mentioned in section 8(1)(b), (c) or (d), D may appeal against the making of the order as if—(a) D had been convicted of the offence and,(b) the order were a sentence passed on D for the offence by the court which made the order,(if an appeal would lie against such a sentence).(2) Where a stalking protection order is made in the circumstances mentioned in section 8(1)(e), D may appeal against the making of the order as if the order were a sentence passed on D for the offence by the court which made the order (if an appeal would lie against such a sentence).(3) The following may appeal against a decision under section 10 made by the Crown Court—(a) the person against whom the stalking protection order in question was made;(b) the Chief Constable.(4) An appeal under subsection (3) is to be made to the Court of Appeal, and may be made only with the permission of that court.(5) On an appeal under this section, the court may make—(a) such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and (b) such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be appropriate.(6) For appeals against decisions of a court of summary jurisdiction on an application under section 7, 10 or 11, see Article 143 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26) (appeal to county court against proceedings on complaint).”(10) In section 21 (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “stalking protection order”, for “section 7(1)” substitute “section 6A(1)”;(b) at the end insert—““youth court” has the meaning given by section 12.”(11) In section 20(3) (report on the operation of Act)—(a) in paragraph (b) omit “and the number of orders made under section 8”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) the number of stalking protection orders made under each paragraph of section 8(1);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision extending the power of courts in Northern Ireland to make stalking protection orders at the end of criminal proceedings, similar to the provision made for England and Wales by clauses 97 and 98.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Guidance about disclosure of information by police: Northern IrelandIn the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)), in section 17—(a) in subsection (2) for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The Department must issue guidance to the Chief Constable about the disclosure of police information for the purpose of protecting persons from risks associated with stalking.(2B) The Chief Constable must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (2A).”;(c) in subsection (3) for “subsection (1)” substitute “this section”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause requires the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to issue guidance to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about disclosure of police information about stalking.
Baroness Doocey
“(6) In determining the sentence for an offence under this section—(a) where the encouragement or assistance of self-harm is preceded by a history of domestic or “honour”-based abuse committed against the victim or other person by D, the court must treat their offence as aggravated by reason of such history;(b) where D has subjected the victim or other person mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) to physical, psychiatric or psychological harm that results in that person’s death by suicide, the sentence shall be one of life imprisonment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment recognises that where a victim has been subjected to domestic or “honour”-based abuse, any encouragement or assistance of self-harm is an aggravated offence for sentencing purposes, and that where such abuse, including physical, psychiatric or psychological harm, results in or significantly contributes to the victim’s death by suicide, the perpetrator can be subject to the same range of sentences as for murder.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 334A is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. I am grateful to Southall Black Sisters for the detailed evidence it has provided. On Wednesday we are going to cover broader issues around codes of honour and the deployment of these as a motivation and an excuse for horrendous crimes against the person. Amendment 334A deals with, in some ways, an even more insidious and hidden issue. It recognises the growing number of suicides and self-harm cases linked to domestic and so-called honour-based abuse.
I remember meeting a group of young women when I was a member of the London Assembly and hearing with horror the widespread acceptance that a murder could be justified by codes of honour in their community. It most certainly cannot. Culture does not transcend or trump the law, and nor should it. We are all familiar with the concept of death by a thousand cuts. Prolonged abuse and prolonged encouragement of self-harm can have devastating consequences beyond the physical and the immediate.
Last month, an inquest into the death of Michelle Sparman, a Caribbean woman who died by suicide in August 2021, reached a landmark verdict at Inner West London Coroner’s Court. The assistant coroner concluded that Michelle’s state of mind was “contributed to by neglect”, and that her prior relationship was marked by “toxicity”, highlighting an abusive pattern of relentless coercive messaging from her ex-partner that undermined her confidence and mental well-being. Crucially, the coroner identified this abusive conduct as the key causative factor in her death—a rare explicit recognition of prolonged domestic abuse that had contributed to her suicide. But there is a serious gap in the law. Michelle’s family were told by police that suicides were outside their remit and there was no case because Michelle had not reported domestic abuse when she was alive.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lady Doocey in this small but perfectly formed group of amendments. My Amendment 335 would mandate a statutory consultation on the guidance to accompany the new encouraging or assisting serious self-harm offences contained in Clauses 102 and 103.
On these Benches we welcome the underlying intention of Clauses 102 and 103 to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations for a broader offence covering encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm, expanding beyond digital communication to include direct assistance. However, offences that involve encouraging self-harm must be handled with the utmost care, given the vulnerabilities inherent in such cases. The critical issue here is the risk of inadvertently criminalising legitimate support services, which has been raised with us by a number of support organisations.
The offence requires a specific intention to encourage or assist serious self-harm. This is intended to ensure that charitable organisations and mental health professionals who advise sufferers on how to moderate or manage self-harming behaviour are not criminalised. My amendment addresses this directly by requiring the Secretary of State to produce guidance and consult extensively with representatives of self-harm support charities and organisations; mental health professionals, including those providing trauma-informed care; and legal experts—prosecutors and defence practitioners—regarding the application of the specific intent requirement. This mandatory consultation is essential, in our view, to ensure that the statutory guidance clearly differentiates between criminal encouragement and legitimate therapeutic activity. Without ensuring that this guidance is informed by experts and laid before Parliament, we risk confusion among front-line practitioners and the inadvertent penalisation of those working hardest to help vulnerable people. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to this amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I fully appreciate the general principle behind these proposals. This is an incredibly serious subject, and I appreciate the sincerity with which the noble Baronesses have approached the debate.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Blower, everyone wants to reach a scenario where all possibilities are accounted for, and there are no loopholes through which those who either encourage or abet self-harm can jump. It is for that reason that I cannot offer my support for proposed subsection (6) in the noble Baronesses’ amendment. First, I am sceptical of the need for more aggravating factors. The general offences that fall under loosely defined so-called honour-based abuse are crimes themselves, so I am unsure why there is a need to create an aggravating offence when a criminal will already be able to be tried for those offences individually.
Primarily, though, I do not think this is the right time to be incorporating new definitions into our legal framework. There is guidance for Crown prosecutors as to what might fall under honour-based abuse and examples as to how that might look, but it is yet to be enshrined in law and it is a rather broad and non-exclusive term within our law. That is not to say that it is not easy to spot—it often is—but it should have its own delineated legal definition before it is made an aggravating factor. I agree with the noble Baroness that honour-based abuse is an increasing issue that we must tackle head on, but that cannot be done with a single amendment. However, I offer my support to the principle behind proposed subsection (6)(b).
I welcome the sentiment behind Amendment 335 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Policy rooted in pragmatism is crucial, and consultation and guidance are one of the primary ways to achieve that. The Government should base all the policy that they bring forward on the testimonies of people who dedicate their lives to the subjects that we legislate on, and that it is especially important for a policy in such a sensitive area as this. I hope the Minister agrees, and I look forward to her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling Amendments 334A and 335 respectively.
I am aware of the cases that have motivated the desire to have an amendment such as Amendment 334A, and I completely understand; the stories that the noble Baroness outlined cannot fail to move anyone listening to them. Having said that, the Government will not be supporting either of these amendments today, for the following reasons.
I shall deal first with the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. When a defendant has previous convictions, including those relating to a history of domestic abuse, that is already recognised as a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing. In addition, aggravating factors that are associated with honour-based abuse, such as abuse of trust or targeting vulnerable victims, are already covered in the domestic abuse guidelines. The presence of aggravating factors such as these should therefore already result in the sentence reflecting those factors, and in my experience it always would. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about not adding an ever-increasing list of statutory aggravating factors. This is certainly the third group of amendments that I have dealt with that has proposed different forms of offences.
On the second aspect of the amendment, proposed subsection (6)(b) raises a sensitive and important issue. The Government wholeheartedly agree that, when it can be proved that suicide was the result of abuse or encouragement, the abuser should be held accountable. There are existing offences that cover this situation, such as manslaughter or encouraging or assisting suicide offences, which have maximum penalties of life imprisonment and 14 years’ imprisonment respectively. However, imposing a requirement for the court to sentence the defendant in those circumstances as though they had been convicted of murder, when in fact they have not been convicted of murder, would be at odds not only with the current sentencing approach but with the principle that people are sentenced only for matters that have been proved to the satisfaction of the court. I also make the perhaps obvious comment that there is no range of sentences for murder; there is only one sentence, which is life imprisonment. For those reasons, amending Clause 102 in this way would not be appropriate.
However, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that the Law Commission is currently undertaking a review of homicide offences and of sentencing for murder, and this will include a review of the use of, and the obstacles to using, manslaughter offences where abuse may have driven someone to suicide. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why the Government are reluctant to make any piecemeal amendments in advance of the Law Commission reporting.
I turn to Amendment 335, from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I thank the noble Lord for his welcome of the offence. As to the guidance that he proposes in the consultation, as many in this Committee are aware, I was principal legal adviser to a rather well-known former Director of Public Prosecutions—I spent five years working for the Crown Process Service—so it is important to me to emphasise that it is in fact for the independent Crown Prosecution Service to update guidance on prosecuting offences under this new provision. It may well be that many noble Lords know this but, while the statutory Code for Crown Prosecutors governs in general terms how prosecutors make decisions on which cases to prosecute and which not, sitting underneath that is a raft of legal guidance that is published and publicly available. It exists for two reasons: the first is so that members of the public can see the basis on which the CPS makes its decisions, but the second is so that the CPS can be held to account. If it fails to follow its own guidance, that will often provide a ground for challenging the decision made.
I understand that the noble Lord’s amendment aims to ensure that legitimate support or therapeutic activity is not criminalised, so I reassure him that the offence has been carefully drafted to avoid capturing vulnerable individuals or those providing mental health support. The offence as drafted in the Bill was recommended by the Law Commission in its 2021 malicious communications report and contains two key safeguards: first, that the person must intend to encourage or assist serious self-harm and without such intent no offence would be committed; and, secondly, that serious self-harm is defined as harm amounting to grievous bodily harm. These safeguards ensure that the offence targets only the most serious and culpable behaviour and protects those who are, for example, sharing personal experience or discussing self-harm but not encouraging it.
The offence also does not cover the glorification or glamorisation of self-harm. The Law Commission found that that was too broad and would potentially capture vulnerable people who might then be exposed to prosecution: so, taking on board the commission’s comments, the Government have not included that.
In our view, this approach ensures that the offence is necessary, proportionate and focused on genuinely harmful acts. There is also a further protection for the vulnerable, which is provided by the public interest stage of the full code test. This requires that, even where there is sufficient evidence, prosecutors must consider whether or not a prosecution is required in the public interest, and plainly the vulnerabilities of the potential defendant would come into play at that stage.
I hope that the reasons I have provided clearly set out why the Government do not support either of these amendments today, and I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, do not press their respective amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister, who has carefully taken us through three limbs, as far as I tell: first, there will be CPS guidance in terms of the specific offence, in the way that it decides whether or not to prosecute; secondly, the way that the offence itself has been drafted; and, thirdly, the public interest test. However, will she engage with the organisations that are concerned about the offences? I think I understand what she is saying about intent, grievous bodily harm and the other limbs that mean we will not see the kinds of prosecutions that people are concerned about, but will the MoJ engage with the organisations that have concerns?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. As far as the first of the three protections is concerned, obviously I cannot bind the Crown Prosecution Service—the whole point about it is that it is independent of government. However, based on my own experiences, where there are areas of the law that plainly need clarification as to when the Crown Prosecution Service would prosecute and when it would not, it usually issues guidance. As regards engaging with the organisations, of course, it is sometimes not easy to explain the law and the thinking behind it. It is in everyone’s interests that the organisations which are concerned for vulnerable people understand that the Government have those interests very much at heart. I would welcome the opportunity to explain to them.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am not a lawyer and certainly do not understand the law, even vaguely, but I really do not understand this. If what I am asking for is not necessary—I totally accept what the Minister has said—how come we have three cases of suicide a week, which is suspected to be an underestimate, and only one conviction since 2017? Those numbers do not seem to add up to me.
I take the point the Minister made about the Law Commission’s review. Reviews are helpful, but a recent report by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner exposed ongoing failures by government to act on the lessons from domestic homicide reviews. Only a quarter of national recommendations were fully implemented between 2019 and 2021, and this extends to domestic abuse suicides. It is very sad that victims have waited years for concrete changes and it now seems that there is not a huge amount, according to what the Minister said in her response, that will make the difference. There needs to be something, so I will think carefully about everything she has said. I certainly plan to come back at the next stage with something that perhaps will not have so many holes in it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for now.
Baroness Brinton
“(1B) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1A) where—(a) the person is a victim of domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and(b) the act of detaining the child outside the United Kingdom was attributable wholly or mainly to safeguarding themselves or the child from domestic abuse.(1C) In determining whether subsection (1B) applies, the court must have particular regard to—(a) any evidence of domestic abuse directed towards the parent or the child, and(b) any risk that return of the child would expose the parent or child to further abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Brinton, is intended to probe the effect of Clause 104 on victims of domestic abuse.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 335A and 335B, which relate specifically to child abduction across the United Kingdom. Government Amendments 336, 496, 521 and 549 relate specifically to the abduction, detaining and retention of children abroad who came from Northern Ireland—I was about to say “in Northern Ireland”, but that would be a tautology.
I am very grateful to all the organisations that have written to a number of Peers regarding child abduction. My two amendments are probing amendments, in which we seek to understand how Clause 104 will work and what the effect will be on a person who is a victim of domestic abuse, within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and who takes their child outside the UK to safeguard themselves or the child from domestic abuse, or who gets abroad and then decides to remain abroad to continue to safeguard themselves or their child.
Clause 104 arises from a recommendation from the Law Commission following the case of Nicolaou in 2012. That case focused on whether a parent commits an offence under Section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 if they initially have the appropriate consent to take a child outside the UK, for a defined period, but then fail to return the child after that period expires. The background is this: a father took his son to Cyprus for an agreed contact visit but did not return him to the UK at the end of the specified time, despite court orders from both Cypriot and English courts for the child’s return. An arrest warrant was issued for the child abduction.
In June 2012, the High Court ruled that an offence had not been committed under Section 1 of that Act in this specific scenario. The section, as written at the time, applied to the act of taking or sending a child out of the UK without consent, not the failure to return them after a period of consented absence. This case, along with another, R v Kayani 2011, highlighted a significant loophole in the Child Abduction Act 1984, which the Law Commission subsequently made recommendations to address. Its recommendation in its report Simplification of Criminal Law: Kidnapping and Related Offences is very legalistic in its approach. It makes no reference to having considered domestic abuse as a defence, for example, or even a contributory factor.
Article 12 of the 1980 Hague convention on abduction provides that, where a year has elapsed after a child has been wrongfully removed to or retained in another contracting state, the court has a discretion not to require the child’s return if the child is
“settled in its new environment”.
Clause 104 makes it a criminal offence to retain a child outside the UK “at any time” after the child is taken or sent outside the UK without the appropriate consent. It therefore criminalises conduct in a situation where a court may decide not to order the return of the child to the UK. Clearly, this is not in keeping with either the spirit or the letter of the Hague convention.
Additionally, it could significantly hamper efforts to enable the safe return of children and their taking parents—the parents who removed them—and could increase the number of cases where children are compelled to return alone, without their mothers, possibly to the care of an abusive father or to state care. My question to the Minister is: what is the position of someone who uses a defence of being a victim of domestic abuse as the reason why they have not returned to the UK with the child? If a court were asked to adjudicate on such an issue, would it demand evidence of abuse? I ask that because your Lordships’ House knows that in such cases, often the victim mother—it usually is a mother—will have been living in the UK with the perpetrator of domestic abuse and coercive control, but not many would have been to the courts. On that basis, what protection is there for that victim and their child in this position?
The real problem is that the Law Commission report, which has informed Clause 104, does not cover this difficult territory at all—nor do the Explanatory Notes for the Bill. My amendments are genuinely to probe the Government’s intention on how they would manage a case that involved domestic abuse and coercive control. While we agree that Clause 104 is important, letting it pass without taking account of the complex issues relating to those parents who are fleeing domestic abuse will be problematic and could even lead to miscarriages of justice. I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her probing Amendments 335A and 335B, raising the problem of wrongful retention of children in the context of the criminal law and, in particular, the Child Abduction Act 1984. Essentially, that Act criminalised the wrongful taking of children, but not their wrongful retention after the end of a permitted period of contact.
In 1984, when the omission of unlawful retention was pointed out in debate on the Child Abduction Bill, as it then was, in another place, it was not addressed by the then Government. Indeed, the opposition spokesman at the time, now the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that it must be “for another day”. Moving on to 2012, the continuing discrepancy was highlighted by the decision of the High Court in the case of Nicolaou, referred to by the noble Baroness, which was indeed a classic case of unilateral retention of a child abroad in the face of court orders. In 2014, a Law Commission report speculated about the rationale for the difference between removal and retention cases and recommended what the Bill now seeks to do in Clause 104.
So, 41 years after the noble Lord, Lord Dubbs, spoke of “another day”, it now seems to have arrived. Unjustified retention of a child can be both irresponsible and very harmful. Whether the decision to retain the child is planned or is more spontaneous, it can have a considerable emotional and practical consequence for all concerned, not least the child. I suspect that, with a little more analysis and resolve back in 1984, we would not be where we are today. However, there have been significant developments in the intervening period to make us think about what, if anything, is currently required in legislative terms.
First, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is now well established as a successful measure that deals with most cases of this sort, providing for the immediate protection and swift return of children to their home country when justified. In most cases, the use of the Hague convention, coupled with any necessary consequential proceedings in the home country, means that the wrongful retention of children is adequately and firmly dealt with in the family courts without recourse to criminal proceedings.
Secondly, there is now a far wider understanding of the nature and effects of abusive and alienating behaviour and attitudes as experienced by mothers and children, and, to some extent, by fathers. This is the sort of behaviour covered by the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. In reality, the retention of children by one parent occurs within a very wide range of scenarios. These are fact-sensitive cases. At one end of the range is the spiteful and vindictive parent who wants to remove the child from the other parent’s life. At the other end of the range are the cases of fearful and protective parents who realise that the child is at risk if returned to the other parent. In between those extremes are any number of variable situations and motivations.
The Law Commission report noted:
“The general policy of the law is that parental disputes about the care of children should be pursued in civil rather than criminal proceedings”.
If that is the general policy, criminalisation should be reserved to a limited number of cases of this sort, and criminal prosecution should be seen as a last resort to mark disapproval of plainly wrongful and harmful retention of a child. Moreover, overlapping criminal and family court proceedings should be avoided wherever possible, and the use of, or threats of, criminal prosecution should remain well out of the armoury of most warring parents. That is why, when resolving Hague proceedings, many parents often formally agree not to instigate or support criminal proceedings against each other. Such agreements remove one source of control and recrimination, and they serve to keep the focus on the children rather than on the parents’ grievances against each other.
I therefore hope that the Government will accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, or at least undertake some further analysis of what is needed for cases where the parent concerned is seeking to safeguard themselves or the child from harm. If not, will the Government confirm that any prosecution of these offences will continue to require the consent of the DPP under Section 4(2) of the 1984 Act? Will they confirm that there will be a restrictive approach to the prosecution, and that the guidance on prosecution will be reviewed and updated to cover the important points raised by the amendment?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 335A and 335B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out these probing amendments, because, as the Minister will know, there is concern that this change will criminalise domestic abuse survivors, who constitute the overwhelming majority of parents involved in retention cases.
As we have heard, Clause 104 is intended to close the gap in legislation, which the Law Commission recommended back in 2014. However, that recommendation did not take domestic abuse into account. Our understanding has evolved significantly since then, and, given our current knowledge of perpetrator behaviour, post-separation abuse and the Government’s stated commitment to end violence against women and girls, we should look at whether implementing that recommendation now would be appropriate. We need to consider the significance of domestic abuse in these proceedings.
On the difference between removal and retention, these actions are not equivalent. Treating them as equivalent fails to recognise that retention often reflects a delayed recognition of abuse, which the parent understands once they are safe among family and friends. As Clause 104 currently stands, these women would be criminalised and therefore deterred from returning with their child. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, set out how we could see some perverse outcomes from this.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, having heard a number of cogent arguments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I cannot remain silent. I was certainly persuaded on the noble Baroness’s Amendment 335A, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister has similarly been persuaded.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in this group concerning the important issue of child abduction. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions this evening. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for bringing forward Amendments 335A and 335B, which raise important questions about the interaction between Clause 104 and the lived reality of victims of domestic abuse. The amendments probe how the new offence will operate where a parent has acted out of fear for their own safety or that of their child, and they touch on the wider issue of how the criminal law recognises coercive, controlling and violent relationships.
We very much support the principle behind the noble Baroness’s amendments and the safeguarding concerns that they highlight. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government intend to ensure that the operation of Clause 104 does not inadvertently criminalise vulnerable parents acting in desperation to protect themselves or their children.
Government Amendments 336, 496, 521 and 549, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, create and support a parallel offence in Northern Ireland relating to the detention of a child overseas without consent. I recognise the importance of maintaining consistency across jurisdictions and ensuring that children in Northern Ireland benefit from equivalent protections. I would be grateful if the Minister can set out how the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland intends to exercise the new regulation-making and commencement powers. What discussions have taken place with relevant agencies to ensure that the offence can operate effectively in practice? I look forward to the Government’s response on these points.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling Amendments 335A and 335B. Her amendments have been grouped with the modest collection of government amendments—336, 496, 521 and 549—tabled in my name, which extend the provisions contained in Clause 104 to Northern Ireland.
I note the concern raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Davies, my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, that Clause 104 will criminalise parents who are fleeing domestic abuse where the detention of the child is primarily motivated by the intention of keeping themselves and/or the child safe. I reassure your Lordships that this absolutely is not the intention of the existing Clause 104. Indeed, in developing the provisions, very careful consideration was given to the implications of potentially criminalising a parent who has detained their child abroad.
Before I turn to the reasons why the Government will not be supporting these amendments today, I want to explain a little more about the purpose of Clause 104’s inclusion in the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her clear and even-handed explanation of her understanding of the reason why the Government included it in the first place. The clause seeks to implement the Law Commission’s 2014 recommendation that the Government should close a small gap in the law by making it a criminal offence for a parent, or person with similar responsibility to a parent, to detain a child abroad without appropriate consent, once the original consent has expired.
I am sure that I do not need to explain to anyone that the abduction of a child by a parent is an extremely distressing experience for everyone involved. For any Government, the aim is to safeguard children from abduction by preventing the unlawful removal of a child, ensuring their swift and safe return when they have been taken and upholding custody rights through international co-operation and legal enforcement. The new measure is intended to be consistent with the existing criminal framework, to stand as a deterrent and a backstop where we know that a gap in the law is being exploited, even if by very few people. Some of those who have not returned a child are themselves abusers; they are abusive parents seeking to evade the law. We cannot leave that gap unclosed.
However, I have listened very carefully to the concerns raised by your Lordships this evening, and to some sent to me by organisations with an interest in this area. I remain satisfied that there is no risk of vulnerable parents who have been victims of domestic abuse being criminalised. I hope I shall be forgiven for setting out my reasons in a little more detail; I alluded to them earlier in relation to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but that was in a slightly different context, and I think I need to give more detail.
Many of your Lordships will be aware that there is a two-stage test for the Crown Prosecution Service to apply when deciding whether a prosecution should be brought. The first is an “evidential sufficiency” test but, even if that stage is passed and it is felt that there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution, that is not the end of the matter. The second stage is the “public interest” test, which asks whether the public interest requires a prosecution to be brought. It is this stage of the test that is often applied in, for example, assisted dying cases. This is important, including in a domestic abuse context, because it means that prosecutors must consider the background, including whether the alleged offender was acting from benign motives or was themselves a victim of domestic abuse, before deciding whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. Additionally, and importantly, a third test applies for the new offence in Clause 104 which adds an additional safeguard: that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for a case to proceed.
Prosecutorial discretion remains a key safeguard, and evidence of domestic abuse would be a highly relevant factor in any decision to prosecute, or in whether the Director of Public Prosecutions would give his consent in addition. Factors that are relevant to the public interest do not require proof to the criminal standard. It is a much more “in the round” assessment than would be required if bringing some kind of criminal proceedings.
To be clear, in answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the Government continue to believe that the civil courts remain best placed to deal with child abduction cases. That is why we support international co-operation and recourse to the 1980 Hague convention as a civil mechanism for facilitating the safe return of children. The UK continues to work with other state parties and the Hague Conference, especially in cases involving domestic abuse, to ensure that the convention operates effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, in effect agreed, that this prosecution should be the act of last resort. We agree. We are conscious, however, that criminal proceedings may be needed in some cases. It has been suggested that some parents see detaining a child abroad following any earlier consent as an easier route to keeping their child permanently outside the UK with no criminal charges or police involvement. That clearly circumvents the law. This change to the criminal law is intended to sit alongside and supplement existing civil remedies, rather than filling the courts with people who have retained their child abroad.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asks whether the Government would be prepared to add a domestic abuse defence, in effect. The law on defences, including those relevant to domestic abuse, is highly complex. It requires definitions and decisions about where the burden of proof lies and what the standard of proof will be. It is precisely because of this complexity that the Law Commission is currently reviewing defences in domestic abuse cases as part of its wider project on homicide and sentencing. While the primary focus of its review is on homicide, the findings are likely to have broader implications for how defences operate in domestic abuse contexts and could be relevant across a broader range of offences. A bespoke defence of domestic abuse in the offence created by Clause 104 could have implications far beyond the child abduction framework.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept from me that the Law Commission’s findings will be carefully reviewed before any changes to the law are considered, in order to ensure that any legislative changes are informed by evidence. In the meantime, we are exploring ways to strengthen our understanding of how defences operate in non-homicide cases by gathering more robust data. For these reasons, it would be premature to legislate before the Law Commission has completed its work, but I take the point about the equality impact assessment and the gendered nature of some of these offences. I will, if I may, write to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and, obviously, to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as well.
I turn very briefly to government Amendments 336, 496, 521 and 549. Until now, the provisions in Clause 104 extended to England and Wales only. However, at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive, these provisions will now also apply to Northern Ireland. I note the concerns raised by the two amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment at this stage. I hope your Lordships will join me in supporting the government amendments in this group.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to all those who have spoken. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Davies, for their implied support. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for their detailed responses to the amendment and the debate we are having. They rightly confirmed that criminal proceedings must be a last resort, and that we should always aim for these cases to be settled via the family court and through the Hague process.
I am particularly grateful to the Minister for her detailed response on the two-stage test, especially the public interest test. If that is where domestic abuse issues can be assessed, that is good. I am also grateful that she has repeated that the consent of the DPP must be obtained, and that this is not up to the criminal standard. That is very reassuring.
It is always difficult when the Law Commission is working on something, because one cannot say “When is it going to be done?” I hope that it will not be too long. If issues remain after the Law Commission reports, I hope that the Government, or a future Government, will be prepared to discuss this at that point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Levitt
“Child abduction: Northern Ireland(1) The Child Abduction (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/1638 (N.I. 17)) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In Article 3 (offence of abduction of child by parent etc)—(a) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Subject to paragraphs (2A) to (3A) and (7), a person connected with a child under the age of 16 commits an offence if—(a) the child is taken or sent out of the United Kingdom with the appropriate consent, and(b) at any time after the child is taken or sent, the person detains the child outside the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent.”;(b) in paragraph (2A)—(i) in the words before sub-paragraph (a), after “United Kingdom” insert “, or by detaining a child outside the United Kingdom,”;(ii) in sub-paragraph (b) (before its substitution by paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 3 to the 2022 Act), after “United Kingdom” insert “, or detains the child outside the United Kingdom,”;(iii) in each of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) (as substituted by paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 3 to the 2022 Act), after “United Kingdom” insert “, or detains the child outside the United Kingdom,”;(c) in paragraph (2B), after “United Kingdom” insert “, or detaining the child outside the United Kingdom,”;(d) in paragraph (3A), in paragraph (b) after “out of the United Kingdom” insert “, or detaining the child outside the United Kingdom,”. (3) In the Schedule (modifications of Article 3 for children in certain cases), in each of the following provisions after “paragraph (1)” insert “or (1A)”—(a) paragraph 1(2)(a);(b) paragraph 3(2)(a) (before its substitution by paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 3 to the 2022 Act);(c) paragraph 3(2)(a) (as substituted by paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 3 to the 2022 Act);(d) paragraph 4(2)(a).(4) The amendments made by this section apply only in cases where the taking or sending of the child out of the United Kingdom takes place on or after the date on which this section comes into force.(5) In this section “the 2022 Act” means the Adoption and Children Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 18 (N.I.)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it an offence in Northern Ireland for a parent etc to detain a child under 16 outside the UK without appropriate consent.
Resident Doctors: Industrial Action
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the announcement of further industrial action by resident doctors is obviously deeply concerning. These strikes, which we now know will go ahead after all, will have a serious impact on the capacity of our health service to function at precisely the time of year when demand is at its highest. Resident doctors make up almost half the medical workforce, and NHS leaders have already warned that action will cause significant disruption.
We on these Benches agree with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care when he says that the BMA has clearly chosen to strike when it will cause maximum disruption, causing untold anxiety at the busiest point of the year. We agree with Rory Deighton, the acute and community care director of the NHS Confederation, who warned that, with the winter now upon us and rising levels of flu and staff sickness, pressure on services will be intense, with the likely consequence of
“thousands of cancelled appointments and operations”.
The impact of these strikes is compounded by the fact that NHS England has warned that it is bracing for an unprecedented flu wave this winter. In London alone, there are three times as many people hospitalised with flu compared to last year, with an average 259 hospital beds occupied each day, compared to just 89 a year ago. It is in this context that the CEO of the NHS described the BMA’s decision to strike in the run-up to Christmas as
“cruel and calculated to cause mayhem”.
There is a wider concern, shared by patients and families across the country. When the Government caved in to the BMA last year with an unconditional 29% pay settlement, noble Lords on all Benches warned that this would only incentivise the BMA to come back year after year with more demands. At the time, the Secretary of State brushed off these concerns and criticised those who raised this obvious observation, claiming that there would be no further strikes, no more cancellations and no more disruption. While we agree with the Health Secretary that this action by the BMA is cynical, strong words alone will not keep operating theatres open or ensure that patients receive their care in a timely manner. Appointments will still be postponed or cancelled, operations will be postponed and patients will suffer.
Now that the BMA membership has rejected the latest offer and is pressing ahead with further strikes, will the Minister lay out the Government’s plan? What additional resources have been made available to mitigate the serious disruption that these strikes will inflict? Given the combined pressures of flu and RSV, what steps are being taken to ensure that those who are eligible for vaccination actually receive it?
It appears that we are stuck in a downward spiral. Strikes are threatened, offers are rejected, strikes happen, misery is inflicted and then it is threatened all over again. If the Government do find a way of ending the threatened action, will they please do a couple of things? Will they make sure that it is conditional on updating work practices, to ensure that we have a more efficient health system? Many people who work in the health system know that some practices are out of date and have not moved on since the 1940s. Will they make sure that it does not incentivise the BMA to pocket any settlement and return next year threatening more strike action? The very uncertainty surrounding future militancy by the BMA is deeply damaging. It should be a matter of grave concern to the Government that the public seem not to have any confidence in the Government’s ability to keep doctors at work and keep the health service functioning.
As part of this, does the Minister recognise that the Government’s Employment Rights Bill risks making matters significantly worse next year? Will they think again about their rejection of minimum service levels to protect patients in the future? Finally, we know that the OBR has said that the cost of industrial action is a major risk to health spending. What estimate have the Government made of the cost of strike action in December, and will costs be paid using existing NHS budgets? As we know, the Chancellor often says there is no more money.
We are clear that these strikes must end and that the behaviour of the BMA is indefensible, but we must remember that it is not Ministers, unions or negotiators who will bear the cost of this action; it is patients and their families and loved ones. They deserve better. I am sorry to say that we are not yet convinced that the Government are on top of this and working to end the threat of these damaging strikes now and avoid incentivising future strikes in future years. I really hope that the Minister can reassure noble Lords that the Government have a plan.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting the Statement before us, but do so with a measure of frustration—a feeling shared by countless citizens. This frustration with the ongoing and deeply damaging resident doctors dispute is directed at both parties, the Government and the British Medical Association leadership. We are witnessing a breakdown in negotiation, a failure of common sense and, critically, a failure of duty towards the patients who rely on the National Health Service.
First, let me address the actions of the Government. The manner in which this dispute has been handled is, frankly, not best practice. We have seen periods of silence followed by 11th-hour media interventions by the Secretary of State. This pattern suggests not a serious negotiation but a high-stakes, last-minute political gamble, PR approach. The way the reported details of the last-minute offer were put before the public and resident doctors serves only to deepen this suspicion. This approach disrespects the process and the professionals involved. Given that the issues addressed in the Government’s 11th-hour offer have been known since the general election, why did the Government choose a high-stakes, last-minute intervention, rather than presenting the offer within a calm, realistic timeframe that could have facilitated constructive consideration by resident doctors?
Further, I must express my dismay at the tone sometimes employed by the Secretary of State. Using rhetoric that seeks to divide resident doctors from the public is counterproductive. This dispute will not be solved through grandstanding but through respect and meaningful compromise. The Government must reflect on their tone and timing.
However, the frustration I feel over the Government’s handling is matched in equal measure by my frustration over some of the tactics and demands employed by the BMA leadership. The pursuit of this round of strike action, especially scheduled at the most challenging time of the year, is, in my view, deeply irresponsible. The BMA has a singular responsibility that transcends typical union negotiations. Their members are the direct custodians of people’s health. We are currently grappling with two severe pressures on the NHS: the rising tide of flu and the deliberate scheduling of this strike to coincide with the Christmas period. To choose this time, when hospital rotas are already thin and the NHS is under maximum strain, is totally unacceptable. It shows a disregard for the welfare of the most vulnerable patients. We on these Benches wish to thank the consultants, those resident doctors who decide to go into work, and the other dedicated staff who will keep our NHS safe during this unnecessary strike, for doing the right and decent thing.
The core demand pushed by the BMA leadership is full pay restoration. While I acknowledge the significant financial pressures facing resident doctors, a demand for full restoration to a prior decade’s real-terms value is neither achievable nor reasonable in the present economic climate. By focusing the entire dispute on this single maximum pay demand, the BMA leadership is allowing the Government to ignore the far more crucial systematic issues that genuinely plague resident doctors and threaten the future of the NHS workforce.
This failure is a stain on both parties. The Government must return to the table with a genuine commitment to a multi-year funded plan that addresses the systematic non-pay issues, and the BMA leadership must immediately reassess the morality of its current strike schedule and shift its focus from an unrealistic pay demand to achievable reforms in training and conditions.
I have two further questions for the Minister. The recent offer included a promise to create up to 4,000 extra speciality training posts. However, the BMA leadership has claimed that these posts are simply being cannibalised or repurposed from existing locally employed roles. Will the Minister confirm categorically that these 4,000 places represent genuinely new, funded training opportunities that increase the total number of doctors retained in the NHS career structure and are not merely a reclassification of existing roles?
Given that the pay restoration demand is deemed unachievable, how will the Government—outside of pay—guarantee fundamental reforms to the working time directive enforcement, the quality of training rotations and the rota planning to ensure that resident doctors are used efficiently for patient care and for the development of their skills, thereby making a medical career in the NHS sustainable and attractive?
Our healthcare system cannot afford this deadlock. I urge both sides to put down their political weapons, swallow their pride and focus on the real-world issues before the consequences become truly tragic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have made a comprehensive offer to resident doctors to resolve their disputes. I listened closely to the assessment of the Government’s performance made by the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Scriven, and it is not a reflection I agree with. This has dominated the agenda, and the Secretary of State has taken a proactive and collaborative approach with the BMA resident doctors committee. For example, he has had 18 meetings and seven phone calls with the BMA; he has sent 10 letters; and there have been dozens of meetings with officials.
I cannot recognise the suggestion of a hands-off, confrontational approach: the Secretary of State has consistently chosen to do everything he can, particularly to cancel the Christmas strikes, which are timed for the most damaging period of the year. The Secretary of State even went as far as to extend the BMA’s strike mandate, giving it time to call off strikes while it consulted its members and an option to rearrange if the offer was rejected. I am astounded that the BMA rejected the offer that was put before it. It was a comprehensive offer to resident doctors to resolve their disputes, providing those currently applying with more training job opportunities, prioritising UK-trained graduates, and it would have put money back in the pockets of resident doctors. Among a whole range of things that noble Lords have rightly acknowledged, the rejection of the offer means that NHS colleagues will be cancelling Christmas plans to cover shifts and patients will have their operations cancelled as the NHS prepares for the worst.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked: what happens next? In these circumstances, it is a very powerful question. The Government will consider our next steps, with our first priority being to deal with strikes. I reassure noble Lords that the focus of the department and the NHS will be on getting the health service through the double whammy—as has been well referenced by noble Lords—of flu and strikes. We have already vaccinated 17 million people, which is 170,000 more than last year; we will continue to work intensively with front-line leaders to prepare for the coming disruption.
On the offer, the BMA asked us to create more training places, which is what we would have done. The offer would have created 4,000 new speciality training posts for resident doctors over the next three years, with an additional 1,000 for this year. Under this deal, more doctors in non-training roles would have had the opportunity to progress their careers and become the consultants and GPs of the future we all want to see. Sadly, this offer is no longer on the table, thanks to the rejection by the BMA membership. That is why our focus has to be on dealing with strikes and getting through.
Our operational response is to mitigate the impact of any industrial action. We should acknowledge, as we have heard from the Front Benches, that flu rates are the highest they have been in the last five years for this time of year. I am sure that all noble Lords, while recognising legitimate concerns about access to training places, will remain concerned that an offer that would have made a real difference has been wholly rejected and strikes are going ahead. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I do believe there was a way out and the BMA membership has chosen not to take it.
On the estimated cost of strike action, the July strikes cost the NHS around £250 million. If those costs repeat themselves for November and December, strike action will have cost around £750 million in this year alone. The cost of the five-day resident doctors’ strike in July could have paid for training for over 1,600 GPs over three years or 28,000 hip and knee replacements. But, again, the Government’s offer has been rejected so we will have to make our first priority dealing with the strikes.
Through the Employment Rights Bill, we want to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation; we want productive and constructive engagement; we want to respect the democratic mandate of unions; and we want to reset our industrial relations. For me, this sets us back considerably, sadly, and that has been clearly acknowledged. What do strikes do? They suck up time, resources and energy, and the costs for the NHS, as I have already stated, are around £250 million. While we have made a number of offers and acknowledged legitimate concerns, I do not believe that that has been treated in the way it should have been.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about the 4,000 roles. That was in response to the BMA, which asked us to create more training roles, which was a fair request and exactly what we would have done. It would have created 4,000 new speciality training posts for resident doctors over the next three years, with an additional 1,000 this year. It would have meant more doctors in non-training roles having an opportunity to progress. But, as a Government, it is our duty to consider our next steps, and our first priority will be to deal with the strikes.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister respond to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: are these genuinely new training places? I put this question last week and did not really get an answer. I understand that resident doctors are concerned about the inability to plan ahead for training places, and want to have a place that will last for up to a year or longer. They are at the age where they want to put down roots and probably marry and have a family, but because of the way training is organised, that is not possible.
Furthermore, I am not quite sure if it was a 29% or 30% pay increase in any one year, but whatever it was, I understand that this still leaves resident doctors with an under-pay performance of less than 17% compared to 2009. They are being paid less than a train driver, a tube driver or even an Uber driver. I believe we owe them the respect they deserve. My father and brother had to work every Christmas or new year. In my father’s time it was every other night and weekend on call. We have come a long way since then, but we need to give the British-born doctors who want to train a priority in the system which is not being shown to them at the moment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness has just made a very good case as to why the offer which has been rejected would have been so helpful. On the issue of pay, our door has remained open to the BMA and to reasonable, realistic solutions to resolving the dispute, on which we have been repeatedly clear. I know the noble Baroness did not say this, but I say more broadly that there can be no suggestion that the BMA was not aware that we can go no further on pay this year. Resident doctors have already had a good deal on pay—an average 28.9% rise over the last three years—but pay expectations have to take account of the fiscal position and the impact across the whole of the NHS and beyond. I am glad to hear that noble Lords are in agreement with that approach.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the BMA pay claim has been ridiculous right from the start, and I share my noble friend the Minister’s outrage at the decision to carry out these strikes at a moment when the health service is on its knees, certainly in Birmingham. We are in a critical situation: the service is working under huge pressure, and ambulances are finding it very difficult to discharge patients at A&E because we cannot get the flow of patients through the system.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I wondered if my noble friend the Minister shares my view. I remember the 2014 junior hospital doctors’ dispute. Although that was ostensibly about pay, what came through was frustration at the way training and working lives were organised, with inflexible placements and utterly insensitive rota allocations. It made junior doctors’ working lives increasingly difficult. This was 2014. Does my noble friend the Minister think that part of the reason we are here now is that nothing was done to respond to the substantive issues juniors raised at the time, and that at some point, there will be a constructive way forward? I am convinced that tackling the way junior and resident doctors are treated in the health service will have to be at the heart of what we do.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, and I share his view. I am sure he will be very familiar with this, but it is worth reminding ourselves that in the Statement we are debating, the Secretary of State said last week:
“On jobs, I have much more sympathy with the BMA’s demands. I have heard the very real fears that resident doctors across the country have about their futures; it is a legitimate grievance that I agree with”.
As the Secretary of State outlined and my noble friend referred to, we have inherited
“training bottlenecks that … leave huge numbers of resident doctors without a job … UK graduates”
used to compete
“among themselves for specialty roles; now, they are competing against”
the rest of the world.
“That is a direct result of the visa and immigration changes made by the previous … Government post-Brexit, and … compounded by the”
then Government’s
“decision to increase the number of medical students without also increasing the number of specialty training places”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/25; col. 429.]
This has not just come about, and I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of the history of this.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, the Minister was asked what happens next. May I ask her to consider this? Notwithstanding what has already been discussed tonight in this Chamber, the general public out there are going to face a long period with a lot of bank holidays. If we think back to the Covid period, people, for different reasons, were reluctant to dial 999 or 111 to get medical advice or to seek assistance. I know from a personal point of view that I would really not want to be admitted into an emergency department unless I was literally dead. People have a fear of this: we see the trollies and hear now of the shortage of staff. I say that having worked in an operating theatre over a Christmas period.
Can the Minister say what plans the Government have already made to give accurate information to the general public about how they should proceed during this Christmas period if they have relatives who are showing cardiac symptoms or severe respiratory problems? There is a need for some practical guidance on what to do and to encourage people—if they are sitting at home and are genuinely that ill, they must seek help.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I absolutely agree with a number of the points made by the noble Baroness, particularly her last one: people must seek the help they need. I assure your Lordships’ House that the entire focus of the department and the NHS will be on getting the health service through this double whammy of flu and strikes. Despite the huge extra numbers, there will still be people who are not vaccinated. Therefore, in addition to seeking help when needed, I also make a plea to those who have not yet been vaccinated please to do so; that will help immensely.
It is probably worth saying that the next round of strikes will bring the total number of days of strike action to 59, over 14 rounds of industrial action, since March 2023. So I remind your Lordships’ House that this did not start with this government but has preceded it for some time.
To the noble Baroness’s point about performance, I pay huge tribute—as I am sure we all do—to the dedication of NHS staff at this time. During the November round of strike action, the NHS set an ambitious goal to maintain 95% of planned care. It succeeded in doing that, which is totally down to the NHS workforce pulling round. We also proved last time that we could maintain a near full programme of elective care. Our immediate plan, which the noble Baroness asked about, is to replicate this over the upcoming five days of industrial action in December. There is no reason for these strikes, and I know the effect they have and the concern they create for the general public. The noble Baroness allows me to remind us that these strikes are not supported by the general public.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, one of the four priorities named in the Budget delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reducing waiting lists. If this strike goes ahead, what increase would there be in the waiting lists? Secondly, the Secretary of State in his Statement said that he is putting
“money back in … doctors’ pockets by”
funding
“royal college portfolio, membership and exam fees … backdated to April”,—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/25; col. 430.]
and increasing the allowance for less-than-full-time doctors to £1,500. Where is the money coming from? Is this funded, or will this money be borrowed?
Finally, taxpayers spend £4 billion training medics every year. Are the Government persuading resident doctors to keep their social contract with taxpayers? It seems to me that calling this strike at this point in time is a bargain betrayed.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly understand the noble and right reverend Lord’s point. The offer we made—which covered a number of the areas that the noble and right reverend Lord referred to, plus more—is not applicable because it was not accepted. We put it forward, developed it further and did all we could that was realistic. The noble and right reverend Lord asked whether it is funded, but I will change the tense of his question: it would have been funded, but the offer was rejected and therefore is no longer on the table. That is why it is not going ahead.
On waiting lists, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, we have proved that we can maintain a near full programme of elective work, with 95% of planned care being maintained—and, again, let us pay tribute to the NHS staff who have done that. But let us not suggest that there are no effects. It affects the staff who step in to cover for their colleagues. We have an NHS in desperate need of reform. We are turning it around, but these strikes get in our way. As I mentioned, we cannot underestimate the amount of effort, finance, direction and morale—the list could go on—that these strikes take up. I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord for raising those points.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I share the outrage, fury and frustration about this industrial action. My noble friend the Minister and others around the Chamber are absolutely right to pay tribute to the workforce, and I give a particular shout-out to nurses. We are always focused on doctors—I hope noble Lords present who are doctors will forgive me—but nurses do a splendid job, and too often we forget that they work for relatively little pay as well.
I was glad that when the Secretary of State was negotiating, he was talking about the training places, because the training bottleneck is absurd. I know many brilliant young resident doctors who are so frustrated and have a terrible deal, so I urge my noble friend to pass on to the Secretary of State my view that, when he is next around the negotiating table, training places should be there in the negotiations.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend rightly refers, as I did earlier, to the training bottleneck. The Secretary of State was glad to acknowledge the need to tackle training. While he felt that there was no point on pay to be accepted, he certainly felt that the BMA resident doctors committee had a good point on jobs. To be honest, that is why it is so disappointing to be where we are today.
I will pass on my noble friend’s generous comments to the Secretary of State. He offered to introduce emergency legislation in the new year to prioritise UK medical graduates and other doctors with significant experience of working in the NHS in speciality training posts. That would have made a huge difference, but it has been rejected. He also offered to increase the number of training posts over the next three years, from the 1,000 that was originally announced to 4,000, bringing forward 1,000 of those training posts to start next year—that would have made a huge difference. I could go on, but I have made my point.
I agree with my noble friend’s point about acknowledging the role of nurses. In fact, if my noble friend will allow me, I will go further: we are talking about the whole healthcare team. That is another point to the issue on pay: while the BMA doctors committee continues to press for a pay deal far in excess of anything that anyone else is getting, the impact across the NHS, both on staff and on services, continues to be under threat—and we cannot allow that.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, as a doctor, I feel that a doctor withdrawing or withholding services from a patient is dishonourable and unethical—full stop. I find no reason that I can support for a doctor to withdraw their services, because their patients are trusting them with their lives. As far as I am concerned, junior and senior doctors should never go on strike, whether or not the issue with pay is justified—that is a separate issue; there are other ways to discuss and handle that. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about what should happen now, junior doctors or resident doctors, or whatever they call themselves, should go back to work and not go on strike—not now and not ever.
There is a separate and long-standing issue with training, which has been referred to. Some years ago I reviewed medical training and was chairman of the Specialist Training Authority. There is a need now to review doctors’ training completely, particularly postgraduate training. It is not sufficient to allow for more training posts—that does not solve the issue. What is required is a complete review of the training of speciality doctors. I hope that the Secretary of State, in his discussions, can make that offer and set up a review. I have no reason whatever to support the junior doctors’ strike.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is an honourable man, as we all know in your Lordships’ House. I heard his comments on how he sees withdrawing labour in this regard, and I hope they are heard more widely. He makes a good point about reviewing training. Unfortunately, we are currently in the position of having made an offer that was rejected. The offer we made is not going ahead, so I cannot give the commitments that the noble Lord might like. We will deal with the strikes in the first instance, as I know noble Lords would expect. I am sure that if we ever get back to a constructive discussion, the issue of a review could be put forward, as the noble Lord suggested.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on strikes. Why are we still allowing in overseas doctors, when domestically trained doctors cannot secure the speciality jobs that they are applying for? When will the legislation that the Government have talked about come in? It really would make a difference.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can only agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness about what a difference it would make. It was actually included in the comprehensive offer that we made to the BMA on 8 December. Our first point was about introducing emergency legislation, which would—exactly as the noble Baroness asks for—prioritise UK medical graduates and other doctors who have significant experience of working in the NHS for speciality training posts. At the risk of repeating myself, I can do no more than to say that the BMA has rejected that, as part of the offer, and so it will not go ahead. Had the BMA accepted it, we would have been absolutely willing and able to introduce that emergency legislation. Our job will be to consider the next steps, now that we have had confirmation of the rejection of the very point that the noble Baroness rightly emphasised.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, has not the time come for the BMA to reject the way the resident doctors committee is behaving? I do not believe that the NHS I know would be supportive of its actions.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure that the BMA will hear what your Lordships’ House has said today and, in particular, the point made by the noble Baroness. Perhaps I could conclude this important debate by referring to a YouGov poll which was conducted on 12 December. It found that only 33% of the public support strikes in this area and that 58% of the public oppose strikes. The public have made their voice clear, as has your Lordships’ House, for which I am grateful.
Crime and Policing Bill
Monday 15th December 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-VI(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (15 Dec 2025)
Lord Katz
“Safeguarding vulnerable groups: regulated activity (Northern Ireland)(1) Schedule 2 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/1351 (N.I. 11)) (regulated activity) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 1 omit—(a) in sub-paragraph (2A)(b), the words “(disregarding paragraph 2(3A) and (3B)(b))”;(b) in sub-paragraph (2B)—(i) in paragraph (a)(ii), the words “(disregarding paragraph 2(3A) and (3B)(b))”; (ii) paragraph (b) and the “or” immediately before it;(c) sub-paragraph (2C);(d) sub-paragraph (13).(3) In paragraph 2 omit—(a) sub-paragraph (3A);(b) in sub-paragraph (3B), paragraph (b) and the “and” immediately before it;(c) sub-paragraph (3C).(4) Omit paragraph 5A and the italic heading before it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for Northern Ireland which is equivalent to that made by clause 105 for England and Wales.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 337 replicates for Northern Ireland the provisions of Clause 105, which apply to England and Wales. Amendments 520, 550, 559 and 561 are consequential to Amendment 337.
Currently, the definition of regulated activity—that is, roles that are subject to the highest level of enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service, or DBS, check, such as those working closely with vulnerable adults and children—includes an exemption for work which is
“subject to the day to day supervision of another person”.
This means that people in roles which involve close work with children are not in regulated activity if they are working under supervision.
In its final report, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse recommended that anyone engaging an individual to work or volunteer with children on a frequent basis should be able to check whether they have been barred by the DBS from working with children, including where the role is supervised. The Government agree with this recommendation, and, at the request of the Department of Health, these amendments make the same change to the law for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has Amendment 337A in this group. I will respond to that once we have heard from the noble Lord and others. For now, I beg to move.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 337A, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Doocey. As ever, I declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher and as a level 2 ECB cricket coach, which is relevant here. I tried to table a similar amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill but was told that it would be better here, so here we are. I give thanks to Alistair Wood of Edapt, who has doggedly pursued this issue.
I was astounded to learn earlier this year that someone who has been barred from working with children can still privately tutor without having to reveal their conviction, as it is a private matter between tutor and parents or carers. Amendment 337A therefore seeks to address a simple but significant safeguarding loophole in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 that allows individuals who have been barred from working with children to operate entirely legally as private tutors, coaches or instructors in out-of-school settings.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 337A, which is about consistency and common sense. The same standard of protection should apply wherever a child is taught, whether in a classroom, online or in their own home. Parents assume that safeguards already exist, and they are shocked when they learn that someone barred from working with children can still legally offer tuition. In my experience, the vast majority of parents do not know this. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has said, this is a huge loophole, and something needs to be done about it as a matter of urgency.
The targeted change would simply ensure that the law reflects modern patterns of learning and closes an indefensible gap without adding either bureaucracy or cost. It would strengthen public confidence in the DBS system and in the integrity of child protection as a whole. Tutoring is now a central part of many children’s education, especially those who are already vulnerable or struggling, and the law really does need to keep pace with this reality. By backing the amendment, the Government can demonstrate that safeguarding principles are applied consistently across all settings, formal and informal alike, and that known risks will never again be allowed to fall between the cracks of overlapping regulations. It is a modest step, but one entirely consistent with our shared commitment to protect every child from exploitation and harm. In the end, it is simply a test of resolve. If we know where the danger lies, we have a duty to act before another child is placed at risk.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, just to demonstrate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, this is a cross-party matter and he has my support. I would be interested—he may or may not know—in the number of children affected by the failure of the regime to make sure that these tutors and so forth are properly registered. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that this is a common-sense measure and needs to be brought in as soon as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, one area that is of great concern to me is private music tuition. I have had some pretty horrendous safeguarding cases to deal with in churches, where a church musician who has committed some serious offences has gone on to privately tutor underage pupils. That particular form of tuition—which is very often done privately, arranged by parents who see an advertisement on the internet or in a newspaper—needs to be included.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I have been a community worker for over 35 years now and I have dealt with many communities where one parent has found someone to do tuition, and that has acted as a bit of a kitemark. Other parents have felt they were safe because of the relationship they have with that particular parent. This very strong common-sense proposal would protect entire communities in one fell swoop. I really support this very important amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments tabled by the Government and to Amendment 337A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Amendment 337 provides Northern Ireland with provisions equivalent to those in Clause 105. As with similar amendments earlier in the Bill, we recognise the need for aligned protections across jurisdictions, and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the engagement with Northern Ireland departments and confirm that operational partners are prepared for implementation. Similarly, Amendments 520 and 550 ensure appropriate territorial extent and commencement powers for Northern Ireland. These are direct drafting and procedural changes that appear entirely sensible.
Turning to Amendment 337A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, we are supportive of the principle it raises. Closing a loophole that allows barred individuals to tutor children through so-called private arrangements seems an important and proportionate step, while the amendment sensibly preserves the long-standing exemptions for family and friends. I recognise, however, that extended regulated activity in this way may raise practical questions about enforcement and the potential impact on legitimate private tutoring arrangements, and it would be helpful to understand how these concerns would be managed in practice. I hope the Minister will respond constructively to the issues highlighted here.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for setting out the case for his Amendment 337A. I pay tribute to his advocacy on this issue and on many other related issues as a teacher and—I did not realise this until tonight—as a cricket coach as well. I hope he is doing good work churning out a better set for the next encounter we have with the Australians, because I am afraid I have fears for the third Ashes Test, which is due to begin.
I also pay tribute to other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, to demonstrate the cross-party nature of the issue that we are talking about and the consensus, we must make sure that there is protection for families and young people in every scenario and every setting. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing the specific issue of music tutoring to the Committee’s attention, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for sharing his experience from his years as a youth worker.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has explained, this amendment seeks to prevent individuals who are barred from working in regulated activity with children from working as private tutors when hired directly by a parent. It does this by specifying that private tutoring is a regulated activity, even when provided under a private arrangement. I can assure the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary because the existing legal framework already achieves this outcome. Under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, teaching, including private tutoring, that meets the statutory frequency criteria—for example, on more than three days in a 30-day period—is already a regulated activity. It is already an offence for a person on the children’s barred list to undertake such activity.
It is certainly the case, as the noble Lord pointed out, that parents are currently unable to check whether a private tutor is barred from working with children. This is because, under the current legislation, self-employed individuals cannot access higher-level DBS checks, which may include information on spent convictions, cautions and barred list status. However, I am pleased to inform your Lordships that on 20 November, the Government laid a statutory instrument, which was debated in the other place this very evening and is due to come into force on 21 January. It is an affirmative statutory instrument, so your Lordships’ House will be discussing it early in the new year.
This SI will allow individuals who are self-employed or employed directly by an individual or family where they are engaged in regulated activity with children and adults to access enhanced DBS checks, including checks of the relevant barred lists. As a result, private tutors who meet the statutory frequency criteria for regulated activity with children will be able to obtain an enhanced DBS certificate, including a check against the children’s barred list. Parents will be able to see this check before deciding whether to engage the tutor and will not become regulated activity providers by doing so.
This statutory instrument delivers the core safeguarding purpose of the amendment, enabling parents to check whether a prospective tutor is barred by the DBS from working with children and giving them the information that they need to make confident and informed decisions. I have already spoken about the government amendments, but in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, around engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive, they approached us to ensure that there was UK-wide coverage of the enhanced scheme. We have been working very much hand-in-glove with them to develop the regime that the government amendments put in place.
I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord will not move his amendment but will support the government amendments.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I am not quite sure that I understood properly. The statutory instrument will allow parents to check whether somebody is on the barred list, but it does not seem to affect the critical bit. People can still work with children or say that they are tutors even though they are on the barred list. Am I correct? This seems to be the crux of the whole thing more than where parents sit on this and whether they are regulated providers.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The important change that we are making is that it enables parents to access checks at the higher level, so they will be able to decide on whether to engage somebody. The parent will be able to access the check, see their history and, based on what the DBS check throws up, decide whether they will be engaged without necessarily becoming classified as a provider as in the current regime. That is an important distinction. It does not pull them into a different sphere of activity but allows them to ask a crucial question: is this person fit to be a tutor for my child?
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I am still not clear. There are 90,000 names on the DBS barred list. I understand the Minister to have said that parents will now be able to access the enhanced barred list, therefore things that would not be picked up in a lower-level DBS check will be picked up with the enhanced one. However, if somebody asks, “Is Fred Bloggs okay?”, can they just ask for his enhanced records or will it say that “Fred Bloggs is one of the 90,000 people that are on the DBS barred list”?
Lord Katz (Lab)
To be clear, they will have the same rights and access as a school has at the moment. We are equalising the scheme, so yes, they would be able to see that he is on the barred list and have access to the record. I hope that clarifies it for the noble Baroness.
Lord Hampton (CB)
As the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the right reverend Prelate were saying, the fact that these people can set themselves up as tutors or much respected musical educators is what I find astonishing. There seems to be no way of stopping these people posing as those even when they are on a barred list. They cannot work in a school or somewhere where they would be regulated, but they can work in people’s homes—in people’s bedrooms.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I understand the point that is made, but the system is about evaluating, classifying and giving information—in the current case to institutions—about the worthiness of the individual to work with children or with anybody in a safeguarding situation. We are levelling the playing field so that anybody who wants to engage someone in that capacity can do that and have the same knowledge and security that they are engaging with somebody who is—
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I know that the Minister is doing his best and this is not meant to be a controversial debate, but surely the paramount concern must be the welfare of the children. Sharing information is not just a mechanical exercise. It requires trust by the parent who is employing the music teacher in a private space that they are approved—that they are permitted to engage in one-to-one teaching activity in somebody’s home. The parent could be downstairs or in the next room, but I know that music teachers can get up to all sorts of tricks while the parent is in the next room. We need to be a little bit more robust in ensuring that this regime is there to protect children and not simply to make life easy for bureaucrats.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
This supposes that a parent has the wherewithal, time and skill to interrogate this list. It is not making a level playing field. I have been a governor of many schools. We have people who are employed specifically to do these things. I have never met a parent who has done them. We should be sending a message to people who are deliberately trying to trick parents that they will be held directly responsible, not that the parent will have to catch them out. It only takes one predator to get lucky once to devastate a child’s life, whereas a parent will have to be lucky every single time to stop this. The emphasis is in the wrong place.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I appreciate the points that the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, are making. To be absolutely clear, anyone who is on the barred list who works with children is committing an offence. What we are doing by laying the statutory instrument is to allow anybody easy access to understand the nature of the person they are engaging with, whether that person is on the barred list or not. We are not trying to make life easy for bureaucrats here, but we are not trying to invent a whole new system. We are trying to make a system that is effective in all settings.
Obviously, we will have a debate on the statutory instruments, so there will be another opportunity in the very near future for your Lordships to come back to this discussion. But it is clear that this, as we have all agreed, is about safeguarding children. We do not want to disrupt a system or have different tiers and levels of access, or different ways of operating, depending on whether you are talking about private tutors in one setting or another. We are just trying to make a level playing field, and that is what the system we are proposing does.
The Northern Ireland Executive want to buy into it, and that is why they have asked us to lay the government amendments in this group. So I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—we are all speaking from the right place and with the right motivation—so I hope he understands and will not move his amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to have a short debate—not so much on Clause 106, which I welcome and congratulate the Government on bringing forward, but rather more on what is not in Clause 106. I am delighted to have my Private Member’s Bill still before the House, so it may yet be adopted before the end of the parliamentary Session. I know that my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith took some parts of it and ran with it in a previous Bill—I think it was criminal justice—now an Act.
There are two aspects omitted which concern me, and which we touched on. I will not go into great length, but I just want to float them before the Minister and the Committee this evening. One is the question of insurance. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau was first established in 1946 to compensate victims of accidents involving uninsured hit and run drivers under agreements with the Department for Transport. It aims to reduce the level and impact of uninsured driving in the UK, which is something we all commend and support.
Since 2019, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau responsibilities have also included compensating victims for Road Traffic Act liabilities arising from the use of a motor vehicle in an act of terrorism, whether or not the vehicle is insured. So, obviously, the funding to the MIB is quite considerable. The levy is set at £530 million for this year and it handles something like 25,000 claims every year.
What is really missing here is the insurance link. The department has brought forward, rightly, in Clause 106 offences which have been missing. Two of them, as I mentioned earlier, are the first two clauses of my Private Member’s Bill—so far so good. But then it goes rapidly downhill. If you are going to create these offences and these liabilities where someone cycling a pedal bike or an e-bike or driving an e-scooter causes death or injury by dangerous cycling and other forms of cycling—death by careless or inconsiderate cycling as well as dangerous cycling—the corollary must surely be that insurance cover must legally follow. That is what is missing from the Bill at the moment.
I have tried to plug that gap, and I think another noble Lord earlier also mentioned that they had tried to come forward with provisions in that regard. Obviously, the department is in the best position to do this. The Minister is doing a great job on the Bill and is listening to all sides of the Committee very carefully and considerably. That is greatly appreciated.
Before the Bill leaves Committee—I would like to bring this back on Report—I would like to leave it to the Minister’s good offices to plug that gap. The corollary of creating these motor offences is that there must be some form of compensation for the victims concerned. I do not see why I, as a motorist—unfortunately, I do not cycle any more; it is a question of balance, not a lack of good will—should have to pick up the compensation claims for those who have been injured in this way.
I touched earlier on the second point I want to raise, but I have now remembered the relevant Bill. Micromobility is also being dealt with in a small part of—I hope I have not forgotten it again. There are so many Bills coming through: you wait for one and 27 come along at once. It is the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—not the most obvious place to have a chapter on micromobility.
This is the second request I have of the Minister this evening and, if he is not prepared to, I stand prepared to do it. There was an earlier amendment that did not go as far as the clause in my Private Member’s Bill. I would like to help the Minister. I know that, were we in the other place together, as we were once, he might find this a cynical approach, but I genuinely would like to help the Minister.
The definition that I propose is that which I have set out in my Private Member’s Bill, and I am grateful to the clerks for helping me draft it. I know your Lordships will all want to go away to read it, so I should say that it is the Road Traffic Offences (Cycling) Bill. I am prepared to answer any questions on it, at any stage.
I propose the following definition:
“a pedal cycle … an electrically assisted pedal cycle … a mechanically propelled personal transporter, including … an electric scooter, …. a self-balancing personal transporter (including a self-balancing scooter, self-balancing board or electric unicycle), and … any other mechanically propelled personal transporter provided for by the Secretary of State in regulations made under this section”.
The clause concludes by saying that, for the purposes of this subsection,
“mechanically propelled personal transporters are to be defined in regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section”.
I am very grateful to the clerks for coming up with that form of words.
The point I am trying to make is that we have two departments involved here: the Home Office for the purpose of the Bill before us this evening, and the Department for Transport in a Bill which is not its Bill but the English devolution Bill. I hope the Minister will agree that, for both Bills, we need a definition of these pedal bicycles or other such, and micromobility vehicles. I hope that he might come forward with a form of words in this regard and bring the two departments together, so that we are all on the same page for the purposes of this Bill and the English devolution Bill.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this clause stand part notice seeks to remove the clause that creates the new offences of dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. I now understand why: it is to raise the issue of insurance and the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill, which was raised and discussed in an earlier group today.
If we look at the figures from Cycling UK, we see that the proportion of cycling trips has returned to pre-pandemic levels. Some 41% of those aged five or above have access to or own a bike. We are looking at around 22% of people over five cycling more than once or twice a month, so it is a really important mode of transport. It is important for people to be able to get around, but we need to make sure that people who cycle are able to do so safely through good infrastructure and that they are considerate, obey the Highway Code and cycle in a safe and considerate way.
As I raised earlier, given that in the period 2020-2024, nine pedestrians were killed and 738 were seriously injured in incidents involving a pedal cycle, it is important that the law is up to date and provides the necessary penalties for such actions. Therefore, on these Benches we do not support the removal of the clause.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I was very interested in the list of different types of wheeled movement produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Mcintosh of Pickering. It is easy to go into great detail—she mentioned monocycles. You could have further definitions depending on the diameter of the wheel, the pressure in the tyre and any other kind of thing. But where will it get us apart from more fines and a lack of enforcement? As my noble friend said in the last group of amendments, he is doing his very best with enforcement, particularly in the City of London. There is a limit to how much enforcement you can get.
You could then have a category for different-sized boxes on the back of these things. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has got it right—we should just keep it simple; make it proportionate to the damage and effect that cycling and scootering have on other people, and leave it like that.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her clause stand part notice. On behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, we support Clause 106. As was set out in response to one of the earlier groups on cycling, we on this side strongly support the creation of the new offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling.
It is often said, and too rarely challenged, that cyclists are harmless; that their contribution to road danger is negligible. But the facts tell another story. As was said earlier, there were 82 pedal cycle fatalities in 2024 and many more serious injuries. Yet in the same period, the number of prosecutions for careless or dangerous cycling remained vanishingly small. In 2023, only 44 pedal cyclists were convicted for careless cycling and only five convicted for dangerous cycling. That discrepancy between actual harms and enforcement cannot stand.
Contrast that with motor vehicle driving—serious collisions involving cars or motorbikes routinely lead to formal investigations, charges, licence points, disqualifications and even long prison terms. The law, and indeed the public, treat death or serious injury caused by a motor vehicle as a major crime, but there is no comparable public or legal response when a cyclist injures or kills a pedestrian. That double standard undermines justice and safety and sends the wrong message.
Furthermore, with the rise of e-bikes and e-scooters, a dangerous tool is emerging that should not go unaddressed. As noted in the impact assessment for the Bill, prosecutions for existing offences are minimal and the penalties are insufficiently dissuasive. That suggests not only a failure to protect law-abiding cyclists and citizens but a broader pattern of underpolicing of cycle-related crime.
If we are serious about public safety and fair and equal enforcement, we cannot continue to treat dangerous cycling as a lesser category of offence. For that reason, I support Clause 106.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
The noble Lord did not mention cars running over pedestrians and killing them—does that not matter?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Of course it matters. It is quite a serious matter, in my opinion.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I agree: it does matter. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for Clause 106.
I will bring the debate back to what Clause 106 is about, which is ensuring that every road user complies with road traffic law in the interests of their safety and that of other road users. This includes cyclists, which is clear in the Highway Code. Clause 106 should stand part of the Bill. We put the clause in so that there is parity between cars and cyclists in the event of death and serious injury. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for that. If I accepted the recommendation that the clause should not stand part, we would not have that provision before the Committee today.
It is important that we agree to the clause for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that over the past 10 years an average of three pedestrians have been killed by cyclists per year. In total, there were 603 pedestrian injuries following a collision with a pedal cycle in Great Britain in 2023, which was a quite considerable rise on 2014.
In the earlier debate, we heard concern around cyclists riding on pavements and going through red lights and zebra crossings. This is not about putting cyclists in prison for serious offences; it is about trying to change behaviour. It is about ensuring that people recognise that there is a penalty for poor behaviour. If somebody is killed or seriously injured as a result of someone cycling badly, it is absolutely right that we take action with Clause 106.
The Government do not believe that the current offences for cyclists who exhibit dangerous or careless behaviour have appropriate penalties, particularly when it results in death or serious injury. That is why we are introducing the new dangerous cycling offences here in Clause 106. That will bring equality before the law. It will make sure that there is parity with motoring offences. If somebody is killed because of the poor performance of a road user, that road user should ultimately face a penalty whether they are on a bike or in a car.
I say again: this should be about trying to make cyclists aware that their vehicle is dangerous, even though it is a bike, and that it can lead to death or to serious injury. At the same time, we want to ensure, as we are doing, that we get the huge health and environmental benefits of cycling. The Government have committed £600 million in the spending review for new cycling and walking infrastructure, and that is the right thing to do.
I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on these matters. She has asked two specific questions, about insurance and about defining the type of vehicle involved. They are both amendments to the clause, in effect, but I accept the discussion. The question is about the clause and its implementation, but the clause is not about insurance or about defining. Any change to insurance requirements would require some very careful consideration, as it could put people off cycling and have adverse effects on health and congestion. It might well stop people cycling; they would use cars for short journeys instead. It might involve an enforcement regime, which we have talked about earlier, being examined again. Some cyclists have third-party insurance and that is good.
This is predominantly a Department for Transport matter. I will examine both the issues, on insurance and on definition, that the noble Baroness raised and discuss them with the Department for Transport. Ultimately, Clause 106 is about prevention of death or serious injury by cycling. It should stay part of the Bill and should not be deleted. That is why I hope the noble Baroness will not take that option at an appropriate moment, if not today. I hope she reflects on what I said, and I will certainly reflect on what she said.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am not sure whether the noble Lord replied on the definition.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect, I am very happy to look at that. Essentially, there is a Home Office aspect to this clause, which is death and serious injury by dangerous cycling, but the issues the noble Baroness raised about insurance and the definition are for the Department for Transport. I will take those issues away and make sure that my noble friend Lord Hendy examines them, but it is not for me to look at issues that I have not thought through because they are Department for Transport issues. We have thought through this Bill and the clause before us, and it is about death and serious injury by dangerous cycling, not the two issues that the noble Baroness raised.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank the Minister for responding. There will be another opportunity in the other Bill to do this. I tried to table an amendment on insurance, but we were told it was out of scope. However, it is a corollary of creating the offences, and we welcome the creation of the offences.
Lord Blencathra
“Police guidance and pilot: enforcement of criminal offences for illegal vehicles on roads(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to the college of policing and the National Police Chief’s Council on enforcement of criminal offences committed by drivers of vehicles illegally being driven on public roads.(2) The guidance under subsection (1) must include guidance on enforcement of criminal offences committed by drivers of vehicles which—(a) do not have a valid MOT;(b) are not registered with the DVLA;(c) are driven without a registration plate or one that is non-complaint or not associated to that vehicle;(d) are driven by drivers without a valid driving license;(e) are not insured;(f) are persistent evaders of toll, congestion or parking offences;(g) are displaying a stolen, ceased or fraudulent Blue Badge;(h) are vehicles registered overseas which have been in the UK for more than six months.(3) In conjunction with the guidance published under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must by Regulations make arrangements for an enforcement pilot, within the area of one or more police forces and for a period of not more than two years working with other public bodies that may lead to improving enforcement of the criminal offences in subsection (2).(4) In the context of the pilot under subsection (3), the Secretary of State may provide by regulations that—(a) outsource the operation (but not the oversight) of the pilot to another public body, or to a firm accredited by the Enforcement Conduct Board; (b) permit information sharing between relevant public bodies who hold information which will assist enforcement of those criminal offences in (2) and the operators of the pilot;(c) provide the operators of the pilot the powers that they need to detain vehicles where the owners have not responded to requests to regularise any of the offences in subsection (2).”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Amendments 345 and 398 stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. As I said earlier, my noble friend is making a good recovery from an operation. Amendment 345 is straightforward. It asks the Secretary of State to give clear national guidance to policing bodies on how to enforce criminal offences committed by drivers of illegally operated vehicles and to run a short, tightly defined pilot to test practical improvements in enforcement. Across the country, too many dangerous and unlawful vehicles remain on our roads. We have vehicles without MOTs and without insurance, driven by drivers who are unlicensed or who are using stolen or fraudulent plates. These are not just paperwork problems; they are real risks to road users and communities. At the same time, persistent evasion of tolls, congestion charges and parking rules blights town centres and funds organised offending. The current responsibilities are fragmented between the DVLA, local authorities and the police, and that fragmentation creates gaps that offenders exploit.
My noble friend’s amendment would do three things. First, it would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council so that enforcement is consistent, proportionate and focused on the highest harms. Secondly, it would mandate a time-limited enforcement period so that we can test new operational models and information-sharing arrangements in a controlled way. Thirdly, it would allow a pilot to be run with accredited partners under strict oversight so that we can learn what works without rushing into permanent untested powers.
Why is a pilot the right approach? A pilot is the responsible way to proceed. It would let us trial better use of data, test targeted interventions against repeat and organised offenders, and measure the impact on road safety and community harm before any national rollout. It would also allow Parliament to see independent evidence about proportionality, costs and safeguards, which is exactly what the public expect. Let me be clear: this amendment is not a blank cheque. Any information-sharing would have to comply with data protection law, any detention powers would be narrowly defined and subject to review, and any outsourced delivery would operate under ministerial oversight and public reporting. The Secretary of State would have to build those safeguards into the regulations and the pilot design so that civil liberties and accountability are front and centre.
This would be a practical, evidence-led new clause. It would build on existing enforcement work and give police the tools to tackle the most dangerous and persistent offenders while protecting the public and taxpayers. I ask noble Lords to support this amendment so that we can make our roads safer, reduce organised and repeat offending and ensure that enforcement is effective and accountable.
I conclude by saying that I like the other amendments in this group, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and other Peers who have signed them. I look forward to hearing what she has to say. However, I am mystified as to why this amendment is in a group of amendments all about drunk-driving. Having said that, I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 350 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, Amendment 416B in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, and Amendments 356G and 398 to which I have added my name.
I will turn first to Amendments 350, 356G and 398, about drink-driving, something we all want to see end. Amendment 350 would bring the UK into line with virtually every other country by reducing the permitted blood alcohol level from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. This has widespread support among the public and has been endorsed by an impressive range of organisations, including the BMA—which is not very popular at the moment—the National Police Chiefs’ Council, IAM RoadSmart, PACTS, RoSPA, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Society for Acute Medicine, the College of Paramedics, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners—in other words, exactly the people who have to pick up the pieces when drivers have been behind the wheel after drinking. As RoSPA’s strapline states,
“accidents don’t have to happen”
—never so true as with drink-related car crashes.
The arguments are clear. England and Wales are now the only countries in Europe with a limit as high as 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. All the others, including Scotland, have a limit of 50 milligrams or lower, which the bodies I have name-checked want for new and commercial drivers. A 50-milligram limit leads to fewer crashes and fewer deaths and injuries. Drink-driving fatalities have risen to a fifth of all road deaths, the highest rate since 2009. That is 260 deaths a year, with the victims often an innocent passenger, a pedestrian or a driver from another car. That is only part of the problem, with over 7,000 casualties, some life-changing, because while wonderful medicine and brilliant ambulance staff can save lives, they cannot always save limbs. Public support for change is overwhelming, with three-quarters favouring a lower limit, and nearly this number wanting zero tolerance of drink-driving.
Amendment 398 allowing random breath tests, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, would be a major disincentive to drivers, knowing they could be stopped on any road for a quick blow-into-the-bag test. Few would risk their licence if the chances of being stopped were increased and unpredictable. Regrettably, enforcement of our existing laws has nearly collapsed, with the number of breath tests more than halved since 2009. Meanwhile the proportion of drivers who admit to driving while over the limit has been rising, especially among the under-25s, with some one-third confessing to this. Random breath testing happens in many other countries and the effects are evident. In Queensland, Australia, a reduction from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams with the added use of random testing saw fatal accidents drop by 18%. It is easy to see why. If the chance of being caught is slim, then the likelihood of risking it is high, but if the chance of being caught is high, then the likelihood of risking it is slim.
There is a further measure in Amendment 356G in this group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will speak in more detail. This is aimed at the repeat drink-driver who, once caught, would then have to have an alcolock fitted to the car, meaning a compulsory unavoidable breath test before the ignition could be switched on. This measure is clear, effective and preventive, and widely used in other countries and widely supported by the public.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 416B, which might answer some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. This is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, and it concerns something very different. It addresses an oddity that has grown over the years; namely, that the maximum fine for keeping or driving an uninsured car is now well below the cost of insuring a car. It is a real disincentive to bother with that small matter of purchasing insurance.
There are up to 400,000 uninsured cars on our roads every day, yet, as a result of inflation, the fixed penalty notice for uninsured driving remains at just £300, and for keeping such a vehicle a mere £100—this, when the average insurance is about £560. So the price of doing the wrong thing is half of doing the right thing.
Of course, any accident of an uninsured cover driver is covered by all the rest of us via our insurance premium, because some of that funds the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which pays out. The victim of any crash caused by an uninsured driver is still compensated, so we are all paying for the uninsured driver. Every 20 minutes, someone is injured by an uninsured driver. Indeed, those drivers account for about 130 of the deaths that I have mentioned each year. Despite that, deterrence against non-insurance is minimal so long as the fine is half the average premium.
Our intention when we looked to table an amendment was simple: we wanted to increase the level of the fine, whether for keeping or driving an uninsured vehicle, to a figure well above the cost of insurance. However, that fell foul of the clerks, who advised that it was out of scope of the Bill, meaning that we could not table a change to increase the penalty. What is in scope is to allow the police to confiscate an uninsured vehicle and to hold it until it is insured or, failing that, for the police to take ownership of it—when I told my noble friend the Minister this, I think he hoped it was a Jaguar that was going to be uninsured, which would help the police no end.
Of course, it would be a real incentive if you would lose your car if it was not insured. It was not the original intention to call for that, but I have to say that now it is on paper I am rather attracted to it. However, my question to the Minister today is: please will the Government either take their own action to jack up these fines for having an uninsured car or take the more radical step of giving police the nod to confiscate any car on the road without insurance?
In summary, the amendments to which I put my name would deter people from keeping or driving an uninsured car. Via the random breath tests, about which we will hear shortly from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, they would deter people from driving after drinking. Via the lower blood alcohol level, they would push down the rates of driving after drinking and, via the alcolocks, they would prevent a drink-driving offender taking to the car for a second time. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I shall speak to Amendment 356G in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who has spoken so forcefully on the subject.
Drink-driving remains one of the most preventable causes of death on UK roads. The latest Department for Transport figures show that an estimated 260 people were killed in crashes on Britain’s roads involving at least one driver over the legal alcohol limit in 2023, and approximately 1,600 people were seriously injured.
Alcohol interlock technology, or alcolocks, can reduce reoffending and save lives. Alcolocks prevent a vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected on the driver’s breath. The driver has to breathe into a tube, and the levels of alcohol are instantly detected before the engine is able to be turned on. According to the RAC Report on Motoring 2025, 82% of UK drivers support the introduction of alcolocks, so—stops, looks meaningfully at Ministers—it is very popular with voters. Research for the RAC report also found rates of admitted drink-driving near pre-pandemic levels, with more than one in 10 respondents, 12%, saying they had driven when they thought they were over the limit, either directly after drinking or on the morning after. The figures for younger drivers were even more pronounced, with 14% of those aged 25 to 44 admitting to drink-driving, and as many as 18% of those under 25.
The good news is that alcolocks are already in the Road Safety Act 2006, but the experimental wording in its Section 16 effectively turned the interlock provisions into a contingent pilot that ended in 2010. That pilot was never fully taken forward and the powers never came into effect. As a result, alcohol interlocks are not part of the UK courts’ sentencing toolkit. This has left the interlock scheme in limbo, despite years of persistent drink-driving offending and the accompanying road deaths and injuries. However, removing this experimental wording will mean that the interlock scheme under Section 15 of the Road Safety Act can be brought into force, restoring the original purpose of the Act to give courts a rehabilitative, safety-oriented sentencing tool for drink-drive offenders.
Section 16 meant that courts could impose an alcohol ignition interlock programme order only in designated pilots or trial court areas—that is, only in areas specifically chosen by the Secretary of State. This was a purposefully cautious approach for any scheme to be selective and closely monitored to build an evidence base. However, the evidence base is now robust and expansive, and the UK is behind the curve, with all 50 US states, most EU countries, New Zealand and more all introducing a form of alcohol interlock programme, with substantial research available that supports their effectiveness.
This provision is already there in legislation; it just needs a tweak. These international programmes show that alcolocks can reduce reoffending by up to 70% and are as effective as airbags in reducing road deaths. All the Government have to do is accept this amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
May I ask for one point of clarification? These alcolocks sound fantastic. Do they have to be fitted by the manufacturers when the car is made, or can they be attached as a gadget afterwards?
Lord Hampton (CB)
I hear that they can be fitted in an hour for under £200.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 398 in this group. I will first address my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 345. My noble friend Lord Blencathra expertly articulated it, but I fear that I did not find it convincing. As I understand it, he is really proposing a function that should be undertaken only by a police officer or the police. The power to detain a vehicle is a significant one and should not be undertaken lightly. I am not in favour of this amendment, and I hope that the Minister will speak in similar terms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is a tireless advocate of road safety; if she had not tabled her amendment, I would be worried for her. Had she run out of steam? Apparently not. I agree with much of what she said about the harm that alcohol can cause and will not repeat what she said so skilfully. While we are closely aligned, we part company over what is an appropriate blood alcohol concentration, or BAC. The Committee will recognise that the Grand Rapids study showed that the standard of driving deteriorates rapidly once a blood alcohol concentration of 80 milligrams is reached, and that is why our drink-drive limit is set at that level. However, I agree that there is no safe limit for driving a vehicle and that any alcohol will cause a deterioration in the standard of driving.
I suggest to the Committee that there are three broad classes of drink-driver offenders. I accept that there is a small cohort who regularly drink sufficient alcohol to take them to, or over, the limit. The next is a group who make a horrible mistake and, for one reason or another, unusually find themselves driving over the limit. I will not rehearse all the reasons why this may happen, but there is no excuse; they are relatively easily caught by a skilled traffic police officer. This is partly because they give themselves away with their style of driving. This offence is no longer socially acceptable and we rightly have severe minimum penalties in place.
I contend that the real problem lies with unregulated drinkers who are usually clinically dependent on alcohol, have no idea how much alcohol they have drunk and pay absolutely no attention to what the law says. Lowering the BAC will have no effect at all on them. The bad news is that their driving tends to be very fluid, so it is hard for the traffic police to detect them from their driving alone, and they often drive only short distances.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I thought that the noble Lord was going to tell us about the experience of driving tanks—I know he is a great expert on that—with or without the right alcohol limit, but he did not.
I have listened very carefully to all the speeches on this group of amendments. They seem to have one thing in common, which is that it is a way of trying to mitigate the previous scaredom, if you like, of previous Governments to upsetting the motorists: “Let’s do the minimum, because we don’t want to upset the motorists”. That applies to the random breath tests and many other things.
My noble friend Lady Hayter listed the various countries with the different blood alcohol limits. If you dig a bit further, you find that there are four European countries that have a zero-tolerance level, where you must not have any alcohol at all. They are the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. Many of us have visited these places; maybe their driving is safer and maybe it is not. Then there is of course the question of bikes. Should you be under the influence of 80 milligrams or 50 milligrams if you are riding a bike? I will not go into that one now; we have talked a lot about bikes today. However, many noble Lords have been fighting to get it down from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams for many years, led by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I have tried to help. We have all failed because it appears that Governments of whichever hue—the Labour Party, the Tories, or whatever—have been so frightened of the motorists’ reaction that they have refused to go forward with it.
The evidence is uncontroversial now, and we should go for this. I favour a 50- milligram limit to start with, but—it is a big but after our discussions today—with much better enforcement and much better reduction in the number of different rules that have to be applied before anybody can be tested with a breathalyser. It has to be simple and, if people will be frightened by it, that, combined with a lower limit, will hopefully make the roads a great deal safer.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 416B, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, which concerns the issue of uninsured drivers and to which I have added my name, as this is a serious crime. I declare my interest as an insurance broker with Marsh Ltd.
Within the motor industry, it is a regrettable truth that a significant number of vehicles on our roads are being driven without insurance. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau estimates that between 300,000 and 450,000 vehicles fall into this category. That figure alone should give us pause for thought. It represents not merely statistics but a vast unknown risk to every law-abiding citizen. When accidents occur involving these vehicles, there is no third-party insurance to provide protection or compensation. Instead, the burden falls upon the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which must step in to provide cover where none exists. Sadly, we read of such occurrences all too often, particularly in the local press.
The scale of this problem is stark. The bureau receives a claim arising from an uninsured driver every 20 minutes. Every week, at least one person is killed as a result of uninsured driving and, every single day, another individual suffers injuries so severe that they require lifelong care. This is not a marginal issue but a persistent and devastating reality.
The financial consequences are equally sobering. The bureau spends approximately £400 million annually on claims, with its 2024 annual report noting reserves of around £3 billion. It estimates that uninsured driving costs the UK economy £1 billion each year and adds £260 million to motor insurance premiums. These figures are not abstract. They translate to an additional cost of around £15 on every policy paid by law-abiding drivers. In effect, responsible motorists are subsidising the reckless and the negligent. Anecdotally, when police apprehend uninsured drivers and ask who is their insurer, the response is simply, “The MIB”—the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. This casual reliance on the bureau underscores the inadequacy of current deterrence.
At present, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has explained, the penalties stand at £100 for keeping an uninsured vehicle and £300 plus six penalty points for driving without insurance. These sums are significantly lower than the average premium of £550 and far below the £1,000 often paid by younger drivers. This disparity is glaring. The penalty for breaking the law is cheaper than the cost of compliance. It is little wonder, then, that uninsured drivers persist at such scale. Ideally, we would strengthen the financial penalties to reflect the gravity of the offence. However, as these measures have been ruled out of scope, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned, this amendment offers a practical and proportionate alternative. It would empower authorities to confiscate uninsured vehicles and, if insurance is not secured within 28 days, to have them permanently removed from the road. That, to you and I, means crushed—gone. This is not punitive for its own sake: it is a necessary step to protect the public and to uphold the principle that motor insurance is mandatory for the benefit of us all.
Uninsured driving is not a victimless crime. The law-abiding majority should not be asked to carry the burden of those who flout their responsibilities. Amendment 416B is a measured and effective response to this scourge and I commend it.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, just briefly, in 2011, I went out with Hampshire traffic police who were demonstrating ANPR systems to me. We detected an uninsured motorist and they relieved the motorist of the car. I absolutely agree with my noble friend about the problem he describes.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 416C in my name, but before I do that, I give my unequivocal support to my noble friend Lord Ashcombe’s amendment. We really need to take into account the confusion this causes for poor communities, because people will sit around and make a direct calculation about what is cheaper, and unless we send a very strong message about which is riskier, these numbers will continue to grow. As motoring becomes more expensive, insurance will become optional for many communities, whereas if you are involved in an accident, it will be anything but optional, so I really support the amendment.
I speak to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as someone who last had a drink, I think, when I was 17 years old—I do not drink at all—but I deal with young people regularly and have been doing so for over three decades now. What is important about a limit is how easy it is to detect in the moment, so although the noble Baroness would lower it to 50, I think we should lower it to zilch, to nothing, to nada, because when you are out with your friends and you are 18, 19 or 21 and the night is going your way, you will not make that adjustment. To ask, “Have I jumped 50, have I done 80?” probably will not happen: you will take the risk. Young people are full of energy, they are risk takers and it is too much estimation, so I support the noble Baroness’s amendment as it stands but we should probably be going to zero, so that people have no confusion when they are out of a night enjoying themselves, particularly young people.
On my own amendment, this is a requirement for occupants to leave their car once they have been stopped on a traffic stop by a police officer—so that police officers have that power. There is a gap in the current law: the Road Traffic Act 1988 does not currently have powers for an officer to request that vehicle occupants exit the vehicle during a traffic stop. This leaves officers vulnerable to attack and ambush, particularly in the light of modern vehicles. If you are a police officer and you stop a vehicle, you may want to listen to the engine, but now electric vehicles can run silently and their ability to accelerate is unbelievable. They weigh more, so they tend to be more deadly when used in an attack, and I think we need the law to respond to that.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I support Amendment 416B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and signed by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe. There is no real justification for any vehicle to be on the highway and uninsured. There will be a variety of reasons for it be uninsured—car insurance is very expensive, and the like—but, in reality, there is no excuse. Therefore, this is a sensible measure, recognising that a number of public bodies have the power to not only seize vehicles but crush them instantaneously. As a consequence, this seems like a modest measure to allow people 28 days, or four weeks, to make sure that the car has been insured.
As an aside, I should perhaps approach my noble friend because my car insurance went up massively this year. Perhaps I need to come and find him to discuss this. I am not quite sure what has happened in my life. Joining the House of Lords seems to have massively increased the risk, apparently.
That said, I am not as convinced by a number of the other amendments, although I understand the seriousness of drink-driving and the impact it can have. My noble friend Lord Attlee talked about the evidence, and the balance regarding whether the limit is 50 or 80. All the evidence so far has shown there is a massive distinction, so it not only covers England, but Wales and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that Scotland has gone to 50, recognising some of the other measures they have introduced in order to tackle the consumption of alcohol, such as minimum alcohol pricing. However, I am not convinced that this is the reason why.
I am not trying to advocate drink-driving at all, but I think of rural pubs and the like, where people believe that they can probably have a pint of beer and be able to drive their friends or family home safely without needing to make a calculation. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is trying to do in attempting to address something from the 2006 Act, but there is a reason why, 19 years on, it still has not been put into place. The evidence has shown it just has not been needed in that regard.
I was struck by what my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington said about the drive-away. I was genuinely interested in trying to understand where he was going with his amendment, and whether this was really an issue. I was struck by the number of significant accidents in that regard. It is worth considering whether this is an issue solely for the Met, in London, or whether it is an issue elsewhere, before the Government consider making any further changes.
I understand where my noble friend Lord Attlee is heading with the random breath test, but I take a different perspective. I am not sure of the best way to say this, other than to say that I do not want the police to have a reason to stop people for just anything. They should have a real reason to stop people going about their everyday lives. I understand what he is trying to achieve in his amendment, but we need to make sure that when the police use their already extraordinary powers, it is because they believe that somebody is genuinely doing something wrong. Therefore, the current position is sufficient. I hope that my noble friend, with whom I do not disagree very often, will understand why I disagree with him on his amendment tonight.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, to make a counterargument, I absolutely understand my noble friend’s concerns, but the fact of the matter is that if the police want to stop someone, they can.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments looks at illegal vehicles on our streets, enforcement and guidance. Amendment 345 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks guidance on enforcement in respect of illegal vehicles. However, having looked into this, my understanding is that a range of powers exists to enable the police to deal with these offences. The College of Policing already produces authorised professional practice on roads policing that sets out the existing powers and their operational application in detail. We therefore do not think the amendment is needed.
Amendments 350 and 356G, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on drink-driving, are very important. The first, as we heard, seeks to reduce the drink-driving limit so that it is in line with most other countries. The second is about alcohol ignition interlocks, which are in use in many jurisdictions.
As we have heard, drink-driving remains a major but preventable cause of death and serious injury on our streets. Reducing the drink-drive limit is one step in trying to tackle that, but it would need to go hand in hand with a publicity and enforcement campaign for maximum effect. When I was younger and learning to drive, it was absolutely drummed into us that we never went out and drank and drove. One person would be the designated driver, or we would use public transport or a taxi, or we would persuade someone’s parents to come and pick us up. This message needs to be amplified—as well as for drug-driving, which I have raised in this Chamber before, and which seems to be a growing trend. This needs to come as a package.
Alcolocks, which we have discussed, are an important development in trying to reduce drink-driving and people reoffending. It is a simple breathalyser linked to your ignition, which means that, if you are over the limit, you simply cannot start your vehicle. There was a drop-in, only a couple of weeks ago, in Portcullis House in which this was all demonstrated to us, and I thought it was a fantastic invention. As we have heard, it is already used in many EU countries, New Zealand, Australia and the United States. Given that around 260 people are killed in drink-driving collisions every year, and that drink-driving accounts for around 16% of all UK road deaths, this is an important yet simple development that has been shown to work successfully and to reduce repeat offending internationally. Why would we not want to bring it in here? We fully support this amendment and hope that the Government will respond positively. I note that a Minister from the other place also came to the drop-in, so I hope that the Government might be moving in that area.
On the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that, without suspicion, having random breath tests is not proportionate. Therefore, we on these Benches do not support it.
Amendment 416C, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, highlights a potential loophole, which he outlined; it is interesting to consider given that technology has moved forward. Amendment 416B, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, makes a strong point about uninsured vehicles. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to these and the other issues raised in this group.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group consider a highly important issue that requires the utmost consideration, so I thank noble Lords who have contributed thus far.
We support the idea behind my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 345 that guidance, and a pilot based on that guidance, is a viable approach to stemming the proliferation of illegal vehicles and criminal offences by the drivers of those vehicles on our roads. A measure such as this is all the more urgent following the report published this week by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Transport Safety, which laid bare the scale of criminality plaguing our roads. As many as one in 15 vehicles may carry modified and ghost number plates to evade ANPR detection. These modified vehicles, guilty of a crime in and of themselves, are then being used to bypass surveillance and undertake activities such as black market trading, drug dealing and organised crime.
Over 34,000 suppliers are registered with the DVLA to produce UK number plates, many of which are private and unregulated. A consultation and pilot should be the bare minimum. The APPG report has issued recommendations, but a more general consultation would be able to cover different types of road crime. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have acknowledged this report and are considering wider measures to deal with illegal vehicles and criminal activity on our roads?
I take much the same approach to Amendment 416B, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, and Amendment 416C, in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington. Both measures aim to reduce crime on our roads by increasing police powers. I am not sure whether there is a power already under Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for police to take possession of uninsured vehicles on the road; I stand to be corrected on that.
I support the principle behind the two amendments, particularly Amendment 416C, which closes an obvious gap in the law that has emerged as technology has developed. That said, simply increasing the powers of our police is meaningless if there is not the manpower to use those powers. New powers are welcome, but they should come with effective enforcement.
I am not opposed to the principle behind Amendment 350, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Both Houses, when legislating on matters concerning public safety, as the amendment does, should err on the side of safety. It is the same reason why we are not opposed in principle to the Government’s announcement of their intention to reduce the drink-driving limit per 100 millilitres of breath.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the amendments in this group, I shall briefly set out the Government’s plans for road safety. As many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate will know, the Government are currently developing the first road safety strategy in a decade. The safety of road users is a top priority for the Government, and we are fully committed to considering the range of existing motoring offences and police powers, while implementing policies that will improve road safety for all. Our intention is to publish this strategy soon. Many of the issues raised in these amendments fall under the purview of this strategy, and I encourage noble Lords to study the strategy once it is available.
Amendment 345 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on his behalf, seeks to make provision for a pilot to help tackle the problem of non-compliant vehicles on our roads—that is, vehicles which are uninsured, unregistered, untaxed or without an MoT. The police already have robust enforcement powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Police Reform Act 2002, including the ability to seize and dispose of vehicles for offences such as driving without insurance or a valid MoT. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, the College of Policing provides authorised, professional practice guidance on roads policing, and the strategic policing requirement prioritises this nationally.
Enforcement on the roads is a matter for the police, given their operational independence, and should remain so. We have already talked earlier at some length this evening in Committee about the impact of Operation Topaz on focusing efforts of all partners in improving road policing, and certainly the Government, as we have heard, are investing in this. It is for police forces to enforce road traffic legislation, with chief officers deciding how to deploy available resources, taking into account any specific local problems and demands. Given his experience in road transport matters, it is good to be on the same side of this argument as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, at least on this one amendment tonight. For future days we shall see. Additional statutory guidance, as envisaged by the amendment, is therefore unnecessary. Mandating new guidance and pilots would place further strain on police resources without clear funding or staffing provisions.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, intends that the pilot would provide a self-funding solution, but it is not immediately apparent to us how this would be the case. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that enforcement pilots will deliver better outcomes than existing measures such as the automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—systems and intelligence-led approaches.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about the APPG report, which talked about ANPR. Of course, we welcome the contribution of the APPG’s report on the issue. I note that the ANPR system is, of course, a valuable tool—as we would all acknowledge—to help the police tackle crime and keep the roads safe. The Government assure your Lordships’ Committee that they keep the effectiveness of police use of ANPR systems under regular review so that it remains a robust tool for identifying vehicles of interest and drivers who break the law to the police. The DVLA and National Police Chiefs’ Council work closely with trading standards, local authorities and other government departments to improve the identification and enforcement of number plate crime.
The danger is that the well-intentioned amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would duplicate existing frameworks, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing guidance. The focus should remain on optimising the use of current enforcement powers and technology rather than introducing a duplicative statutory provision. Having said that, I will arrange for Home Office and Department for Transport officials to meet the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the new year.
I turn to Amendments 350 and 398, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bailey, and discussed with some thought and care by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The Government fully share their—all our—commitment to reduce the numbers of those killed and seriously injured on our roads. Driving under the influence of drink or drugs is unacceptable and illegal. We are determined to combat this behaviour and to ensure that all such drivers are caught and punished. We have a combined approach of tough penalties and rigorous enforcement, along with our highly respected and effective THINK! campaign. This reinforces the social unacceptability of drink-driving, reminding people of the serious consequences such practices have for themselves and others.
I assure my noble friend that the upcoming road safety strategy includes serious consideration of lowering the drink-drive limits, as well as testing of suspects, and penalties. As part of this, we are considering concerns raised by campaigners, parliamentarians and bereaved families whom my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport have met. The Government are listening closely to the concerns of those affected by tragic cases of death or serious injury on our roads and want to put them at the heart of this work.
Amendment 356B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to extend the alcohol ignition interlock programme to drivers convicted of certain drink-driving offences. Obviously, there is a very strong argument for alcolocks, not skipping over the fact that they have a lot of popularity with voters. I could not possibly comment on that in your Lordships’ House. As the noble Lord said, alcohol ignition interlock programmes are widespread in many jurisdictions. I reassure the noble Lord that the road safety strategy will consider the case for the use of alcolocks in dealing with drink-driving offenders.
It is worth considering the current regime in place for higher-risk offenders: those who have already engaged in what may be seen as repeated drink-driving or been involved in those alcohol misuse issues. There is a higher-risk offender—HRO—scheme for those who refuse to provide a breath sample, have had two drink-driving convictions in 10 years or were two and a half times over the legal limit. Currently, the practical consequences of becoming a drink-driver HRO is that the driver’s licence is not automatically reissued upon application once the period of disqualification has ended. Instead, the HRO must apply for a new licence, and the DVLA will issue a licence only after the HRO has proved their medical fitness to drive. Having said that, these alcolocks will be considered in the road safety strategy. I hope that gives the noble Lord some assurance and that he will look out for it and study it carefully.
Amendment 416B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter, related to the confiscation—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Before my noble friend goes on to the issues that will come under the strategy, can he confirm whether, if anything is agreed along any of these lines, separate legislation will be brought in? Our fear otherwise is that this Bill goes, and it is then a long time before any legislation is brought in.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The road safety strategy review is being undertaken by the DfT, so it is a little outside my bailiwick to speak on it. There may well be lots of provisions in the strategy—this is more my speculation than anything else—that do not require primary or secondary legislation. The strategy will be out soon, and we are about halfway through Committee.
My noble friend’s amendment on confiscation of uninsured vehicles was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, who spoke with considerable knowledge of the insurance industry and the costs of free riding in car insurance and those who do not act responsibly. As I have indicated, the police already have powers under Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to seize vehicles that are driven without insurance. This amendment goes further by making confiscation automatic and permanent after 28 days.
Under the existing regulations, the process for reclaiming a seized vehicle is clear and time-bound. Once the vehicle is seized, the registered keeper or driver has seven working days to reclaim it by paying all recovery and storage charges and providing proof of valid insurance. This ensures that enforcement is firm but fair, giving owners a reasonable opportunity to comply. If the vehicle is not reclaimed within the seven-day period, the police may proceed to dispose of it. Disposal can mean sale, destruction or other lawful means after issuing a formal notice of intent. This step ensures transparency, and due process for ownership is effectively transferred. These provisions strike an appropriate balance between enforcement, cost, recovery, and fairness to vehicle owners.
Having said that, my noble friend has indicated that her underlying point is about the inadequacy of the sanctions for driving without insurance, which the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, was discussing as well. My noble friend has pointed to the fact that at £300, the maximum fixed penalty notice for this offence is about half the cost of average annual car insurance. As I have said, we will soon be publishing a new road safety strategy. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this will, among other things, set out our proposals for changes to motoring offences. I invite my noble friend to study the strategy and accompanying consultation documents once they are published.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Clearly, the intention of noble Lords is to bring this forward because the feeling is that the power is not being used very often. Will this road strategy put in place the existing data or encourage its use to its full effect if this amendment is not required?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am at no greater advantage than other Members of your Lordships’ House regarding what will be in the road safety strategy. There is a good reason why these amendments are grouped together: they all raise issues which will be covered in some way by the road safety strategy. As I said to my noble friend Lady Hayter, there could be things in the strategy that do not require changes to the guidance, or action in primary or secondary legislation that allows us to act quickly. However, I would be speaking well beyond my responsibilities in speaking for the DfT, for which I have absolutely no responsibility.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I hope the Minister understands that he speaks for His Majesty’s Government and not the Home Office.
Lord Katz (Lab)
Of course I do—I slightly misspoke there. All I can say is that while I have been slaving away over the Crime and Policing Bill, I have not been slaving away over the road safety strategy. I can provide only so much clarity and guidance on the progress of that piece of work.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
Before the Minister goes on, I think there is a real worry about the current situation on the face of a previous Bill and the insurance that is paid by law-abiding citizens today. I would like some reassurance that that is going to be seriously considered when this comes forward. It is way too far apart today and there is no incentive to buy insurance, which we all desperately need to be bought should anybody get hurt.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord makes his point well. I am sure that it is a point that has been noticed and, indeed, there have been representations made to the DfT in the process of developing the road safety strategy. Once it is published, there will be a consultation and further opportunities for representations by organisations such as the ABI. I am sure that, as part of the process of preparing the new strategy, the DfT will be poring over the Hansard for this evening’s Committee to understand the debate and the issues raised.
Finally, turning to Amendment 416C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, the Government are well aware of tragic instances where police officers have been injured by drivers during traffic stops. I thank him for speaking about and raising the tragic death of PC Harper, which demonstrates the real dangers that our police put themselves in every day of the week, doing something that you would think was quite humdrum and as everyday as attending to a vehicle that they had stopped. We are always right to remember the vital contribution they make to our safety by putting themselves in danger.
This behaviour is unacceptable, and we are determined that all such drivers are caught and punished. We are determined that police officers can do their vital jobs in as safe an environment as possible. As I said in response to a previous amendment, the Government are considering concerns that have been raised by the Police Federation on this issue and will look to address them in the road safety strategy.
In conclusion, I have sympathy for many of the points raised in this debate by noble Lords. We all want to see our roads safer for all road users, as well as the police in their vital role in enforcing our road traffic laws. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, for this to be effective, it needs to come as a package. We need the right laws, the right enforcement and the right awareness and education. Again, I would encourage all noble Lords to examine our forthcoming road safety strategy and respond to the associated consultations. Given the imminence of the strategy, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would be content to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I think all noble Lords can agree that we have had a fabulous debate which we can be proud of, but can the Minister explain why he is considering lowering the blood alcohol level when the Scottish experiment shows that it does not work?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Without going into the detail of the Scottish experiment, I will say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that for the road safety strategy to do a complete job, it is going into the exercise while keeping options on the table. I am not going to prejudge what it is going to say, but it would ill-behove it to rule everything out, just as we are not ruling out the potential measures on alcolocks or those on insurance. I will simply say—I feel a bit like a broken record in responding to this group of amendments—watch this space.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this has been an eye-opener of a debate, not just for me but, I think, for many noble Peers; we have all learned something that we did not know before.
I feel a bit of a fraud doing this little wind up at the end. It really should be the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, after her superb speech and the amendments she spoke to. Let me just rattle through a few comments. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Attlee did not like my noble friend’s amendment. Mind you, I did not like his amendment on random stops much either.
My noble friend Lady Coffey was right. The police should have good reason for stopping someone. I remember a few years ago that my constituents, way up in the wilds of Cumbria, used to complain that when they left the local pub late at night, they would drive a few yards and a police officer hiding in a car around the corner would stop them and say, “We have reason to think you have been drinking, sir”. Was that a random stop or was it done with good reason? The noble Lord himself said that the police do not need a reason to stop someone, so we do not need random stopping.
The points made by my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington were absolutely right. We read those horrible stories about policemen being dragged along, and I hope the gap there can be plugged.
I really liked what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said about interlock schemes. I think I first heard of those on “Tomorrow’s World” 20 years ago and they still have not been implemented. I simply do not understand what the problem is with doing a pilot. If the noble Lord brought that back on Report and it was in order, many of us would be tempted to support him.
I come now to the two big crunch amendments, which were the eye-opener for me. The noble Baroness was so right to talk about uninsured vehicles, and so was my noble friend Lord Ashcombe. I had no idea that the fine was less than half the insurance—that just cannot be right. Although we cannot put increased fines in the Bill, I like the idea of confiscation. Everyone says, “The police have the power to confiscate”, but are they actually doing it? I get the impression that very few vehicles are being confiscated.
We have automatic number plate recognition all over the country. If it is working, why are there tens of thousands of uninsured cars on the road? I say to the police, and perhaps to the Home Office to advise them: get out there and start grabbing those vehicles, getting the people and confiscating their cars. When they get them back, it will be not a £50 administrative fine but a £500 admin fine added to the current penalty to get their vehicle back. That might act as a disincentive for them until the government strategy comes along.
I conclude with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas. The Minister seemed to make a very good case as to why his amendment was not necessary, and he did it in a courteous and nice way. I thank him for agreeing that my noble friend may come to the Home Office and meet the officials there and be briefed on it. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.