Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
In November I made the first ministerial visit to Yemen in six years. I met the President and the Prime Minister to reaffirm the United Kingdom’s unwavering support for a unified and stable Yemen. We support their commitment to reform, and we continue to focus on delivering humanitarian assistance to all those in need in Yemen and, alongside our international partners, using every diplomatic lever to advance peace. The recent escalation of tensions in southern Yemen threatens to undermine those goals. We therefore welcome the calls by Yemen’s President for a dialogue addressing these issues, and Saudi Arabia’s offer to host a conference. We will continue to support efforts to achieve a swift diplomatic resolution.
Abtisam Mohamed
In the context of what the United Nations special envoy has described as a rapidly worsening humanitarian and economic crisis in Yemen, does the Minister welcome the forthcoming southern dialogue conference, led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council? How is the UK, as penholder on Yemen, supporting that process to deliver a tangible road map for a way forward that addresses the aspirations of southern communities?
Mr Falconer
I do welcome Saudi Arabia’s southern dialogue conference. As my hon. Friend has said, it is supported by the Arab League and the GCC, and it is a vital step amid a worsening humanitarian and economic crisis. As UN penholder, the UK is actively supporting the process, through sustained engagement with Saudi leaders, the UN special envoy and regional partners, to help shape a credible road map that reflects southern communities’ aspirations.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
In his statement on 5 January, the Minister referred to the United Arab Emirates’ call then for a ceasefire. What discussions have since taken place with the United Arab Emirates, and is that still its position?
Mr Falconer
We have been in regular dialogue with our allies in the United Arab Emirates, and I understand that its position remains to support a ceasefire. I know that it is taking part in extensive dialogue on these questions, not just with us but with some of its other Gulf partners.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is still dire, because of the winter conditions and a lack of urgently needed aid. Last month we were pleased to learn that UK-funded tents had entered Gaza to provide critical shelter for 12,000 people, and the Government are matching £3 million of donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east humanitarian appeal, but far more still needs to be done. We still need much greater access through crossings and the lifting of barriers to aid in order to deal with this humanitarian crisis.
Anna Dixon
We have all witnessed the unfolding catastrophic humanitarian disaster in Gaza, exacerbated by the collapse of the Gazan health system and the suspension of aid delivery. I am therefore shocked that the Israeli Government plan to prohibit some 37 international non-governmental organisations from operating in Gaza and the west bank, including Médecins Sans Frontières, ActionAid and the Norwegian Refugee Council. What steps have the UK Government taken to prevent this, and what more do they intend to do?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend about how incredibly damaging the deregistration of vital international NGOs is. They do incredible humanitarian work, which includes providing, through thousands of staff, lifesaving services worth hundreds of millions of pounds in Gaza. They simply cannot be removed or replaced, and it is extremely destructive to prevent them from operating. That is why I led a joint statement, on behalf of 10 countries, urging the Israeli Government to allow these essential international NGOs to operate in a sustained and predictable way, and we will pursue this as part of phase 2 of the peace process.
Peter Prinsley
Last year, my surgical colleague Mr Rahbour, of West Suffolk hospital, spent a month at the Nasser hospital in Gaza. When I met him last week, he gave a graphic description of the situation in and around the hospital. He is one of the brave NHS workers of whom we can all be intensely proud. As we have said, access to humanitarian aid is very difficult, and many internationally recognised agencies have lately been banned—as, indeed, I am myself banned. What further representation can we make to resolve this? Surely it is in the interests of all people in Israel and in Palestine for this fragile peace to be preserved.
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to maintain the fragile ceasefire and to make progress towards peace and, ultimately, the two-state solution that is in the interests of the people of Israel and the people of Palestine. I, too, have heard horrendous stories about medical conditions from some of the brave doctors who were operating there, before the ceasefire, in the most difficult and dangerous of conditions. We are very clear that the humanitarian support that still needs to be surged must include medical supplies and healthcare support. Not only is this an issue that we raise continually with the Israeli Government; we are also raising it as part of phase 2 of the peace process.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her answer. Yesterday the Prime Minister made a welcome statement on the importance of sovereignty and the international rules-based order, yet within the state of Palestine, 37 international NGOs will no longer be allowed to deliver humanitarian aid, on the say-so of Israel. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK Government understand and accept that continued humanitarian access into Palestine must be determined by the Palestinians, and that it cannot be undermined either by Israel or by the board of peace? Can she say what concrete actions the Government intend to take to counter Israeli obstructions and give proper effect to the sovereignty of the state of Palestine?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend about the destructive impact of deregistering NGOs. Part of the 20-point plan that President Trump set out, which Israel and all countries signed up to, was about substantially increasing humanitarian aid and support in Gaza. Instead, the current situation takes us backwards. It is significant that the Palestinian National Committee for Gaza has now been set up. I have continually pressed, in all the international discussions, that the committee should be able to take responsibility for significantly increasing humanitarian aid.
Yasmin Qureshi
Even during the ceasefire, Israel is blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza while pushing ahead with illegal settlements in the E1 area, which the UK Government have described as a
“flagrant breach of international law”.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, by these actions, Israel is essentially trying to bury the idea of a state of Palestine? Apart from good words, what concrete action are we going to take to prevent that from happening?
Yvette Cooper
As my hon. Friend knows, the UK took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine in the autumn. We are clear that ensuring there is a two-state solution also means tackling illegal settlement expansion and settler violence. Alongside 26 international partners, we have condemned the E1 settlement plan and the recent steps to further that plan. I urge Israel to listen to the weight of international opinion on this issue, because it needs to be part of delivering the 20-point plan and a just and lasting peace.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State will well know that the terrorist group Hamas refuse to disarm—in fact, they have forced their brutal rule on the Palestinian people. Equally, aid trucks that are desperately needed in Gaza are looted by Hamas terrorists. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make sure that the international aid that we all want to see given to the Palestinians is not looted and diverted to Hamas?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member raises two important issues. We agree that the decommissioning of Hamas weapons is a central and crucial part of the 20-point plan. That is why the three issues that we have continually prioritised are the establishment of the Palestinian National Committee, the increase in humanitarian aid and the establishment of the process for decommissioning Hamas weapons. We have put forward proposals based on our experience in Northern Ireland and our expertise, and I believe that we urgently need to make progress as part of phase 2.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
There are reports that this morning Israeli security forces arrived at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency compound in Sheikh Jarrah, in occupied East Jerusalem. Security guards were forced out of the premises, bulldozers subsequently entered the compound and began to demolish UNRWA buildings, and the demolitions are ongoing. If that is true, it is not only an unprecedented attack against UNRWA and its premises; it also constitutes a serious violation of international law, and of the privileges and immunities of the United Nations. What consequential action will the Foreign Secretary take if these reports are true?
Yvette Cooper
We had issues last month with Israeli authorities entering UNRWA’s compound in East Jerusalem without prior authorisation. UN premises are inviolable under international law, so we have already raised this and condemned it. It is immensely important that everyone recognises the important role that UNRWA plays, and this year the UK has committed £27 million to help it scale up lifesaving aid, including food, water, shelter and medical care.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Pressure on the UK to join the expensive and dodgy-looking Gaza board of peace has been ramped up by President Trump’s messaging overnight. Will the Government politely decline to join the Gaza board of peace while reviewing their position on Chagos, given the US intervention overnight?
Yvette Cooper
That was a slightly contorted question, but the right hon. Member will know that the board of peace proposal was originally in the 20-point Gaza plan. The proposals that have now been put forward are very different from what was previously expected for Gaza, so it is right that further international discussions are under way. All those details are being discussed, and we will see where that ends up. However, I think the critical issue is support for the Palestinian committee, because Gaza should be run by the people of Gaza—by Palestinians—free from Hamas. The crucial thing now is that we need to support it and ensure that Palestinians have not just humanitarian support, but the decommissioning of weapons and support for their long-term future.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The irony, of course, is that we already have a board of peace, and it is called the UN, but President Trump is undermining it at every step. Five days ago, a group of 22 UN experts deemed the ban on international NGOs to be
“part of a systematic assault on humanitarian operations…and another step in the deliberate dismantling of Gaza’s lifeline”.
Twenty-one children have died of extreme cold in recent days, and 7,000 tents have been swept away due to the weather conditions. We need to do more directly, and if these NGOs cannot do it, what are the Government doing to get tents, shelter and heating into Gaza?
Yvette Cooper
Let us be clear that nothing can replace the UN or its charter. The UN is the bedrock of multilateral co-operation and international law. I met the Secretary-General this weekend, while marking its 80th anniversary, to reaffirm our support for the UN and its work. On the humanitarian issue, over 3,000 people have been affected by a new wave of heavy rains and strong winds across the Gaza strip over the last week, with huge concerns about hyperthermia and collapsing shelter structures. That is why I have also discussed with Tom Fletcher, of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, what more we can do to ensure that support gets into Gaza, which has to be a priority for phase 2 of the peace process.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
As my right hon. Friend has said, hundreds of thousands of displaced families in Gaza are living in torn tents and roofless homes, being exposed to the rain and freezing temperatures, with further storms due. What further steps will she take to persuade the current Israeli Government to allow in the materials necessary for more robust shelter, particularly—and immediately—for families with young children?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise that important matter. When we see the really flimsy shelters that families are in, despite the terrible flooding and the winter conditions, we know the impact this is having, including in contributing to disease and further displacement. So we are continuing to urge the Israeli Government to change their restrictions to allow better-quality provisions and construction materials into Gaza, and to make sure we meet those basic humanitarian needs. That commitment was made in the 20-point plan not just by Israel, but by all countries, and we need action to support that.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Given the utterly extraordinary news yesterday that Donald Trump has invited Putin and Netanyahu to sit on the board of peace, does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the board of peace is unfit to contribute to the task of peacebuilding? Additionally, it includes no Palestinians and almost no women. Does she recognise that it would be inappropriate for Britain, or indeed Brits, to participate in it, and what does she suggest as an alternative?
Yvette Cooper
The most important organisation or network for the future of Gaza is the Palestinian committee —the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, made up of Palestinians. Gaza should be run by Palestinians. That is crucial, and that is what we should be supporting to take forward. On the wider question, Putin is not a man of peace and does not belong in any organisation with the word “peace” in the name.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The House needs the full facts regarding aid entering Gaza and why the Government are not more engaged with the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to support the disarming of Hamas and secure the immediate release of the remaining hostage? Following White House announcements on the board of peace, including the involvement of Tony Blair, can she confirm what UK input there has been and whether any UK Ministers will be involved, and give a clear assurance that the UK would reject President Putin being on the board, given his illegal invasion of Ukraine and alliance with Iran?
Yvette Cooper
I have actually answered every single one of the right hon. Lady’s points already, if she had listened. We have been one of the leading countries in driving forward proposals for the decommissioning of Hamas weapons. We are working with other countries on that and will continue to do so because we think it is a priority. On the humanitarian work, work has been done by the CMCC, but it goes nowhere near far enough. We are seeing deteriorating conditions in many areas because of the winter conditions, and the removal of non-governmental organisations simply goes backwards. On the board of peace, it is different from what was proposed, and that is why international discussions are under way, and we will see where they end up. But let us be clear that it is the Palestinian committee and the Palestinian people who need to lead the running of Gaza going forward.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The composition of Donald Trump’s board of peace looks increasingly like a rogues’ gallery, with President Putin now having been invited to join. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have been left out of that board entirely, and it is increasingly clear that this is not about peace at all. I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary, which she has not yet answered. Can she tell the House whether Government Ministers have spoken with Tony Blair about his role, and will she categorically condemn these current plans and call instead for the United Nations to lead peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts in Gaza, with Palestinians at the heart of this?
Yvette Cooper
We strongly support the role of the United Nations. Many of these points were set out as part of a UN Security Council resolution, which had widespread support. We think it is important to have the underpinnings of the UN and international law more widely, and to maintain the international consensus that we need to move to the next phase. The proposals that have been put forward are different from what was described, and are not focused on Gaza. The focus now for Gaza has to be on the Palestinian committee and on key practical issues such as the surging of humanitarian aid and the decommissioning of Hamas weapons. Our focus needs to be on the practical next steps, and we will work with everyone to ensure that happens.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
As I set out in the House yesterday, we continue to support the people of Greenland and to make it clear that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes alone. We are working to increase the support for security across the Arctic region, which is why I visited Norway and Finland this week.
Graham Leadbitter
Yesterday, the Prime Minister attempted to justify the hesitant approach that is being taken to Greenland, the US and the EU as being in the national interest, yet there was nothing in the national interest about Brexit, a false-hope deal that has left us far away from our European friends, desperately clinging to a US Administration who do not care about our national interests. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the UK is nothing but a cork in the ocean, bobbing around at this moment of international crisis, neither here nor there—and all because of a disastrous, isolationist, self-sabotaging Brexit?
Yvette Cooper
The UK works with our NATO allies, some of whom are part of the EU and some of whom—like us, and like Norway, where some of our closest partnerships are—are not. This is about strengthening our Arctic security, because the Arctic is the gateway through which the Russian northern fleet can threaten the UK, Europe, the US and Canada. Arctic security is a transatlantic security issue.
Callum Anderson
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement yesterday. I welcome the renewed recognition of the Arctic’s strategic importance to Europe’s collective security, and of the need for NATO to develop a more credible deterrence posture. Will she provide a further update to the House on how the Government are using their diplomatic influence in NATO to drive a more coherent, long-term strategy for Arctic security, rather than relying on individual national responses?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We have proposed a stronger role for NATO on Arctic security. Just as NATO has a successful Baltic Sentry and an Eastern Sentry, we are arguing for an Arctic sentry that co-ordinates operations and intelligence for countries right across the Arctic, and also countries like the UK, which are heavily affected by Arctic security, even though we are not part of Arctic security. That is why we are substantially increasing our presence in northern Norway and working with Norway on new, groundbreaking frigates.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
With his threats against Greenland and, now, against her partners, including the UK, Donald Trump has driven a presidential motorcade through NATO and the entire system of post-war security. I am pleased that the Prime Minister yesterday made his objections to Trump clear, but words are not enough. We must show President Trump that his actions have consequences, and that we will act in concert with our allies, as we are much stronger when we stand together. Yesterday, the Prime Minister ruled out the idea of preparing retaliatory tariffs for use only in the event that the President carries out his threats on 1 February. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should take no options off the table when dealing with a corrupt bully such as President Trump?
Yvette Cooper
The UK Prime Minister will always act in our national interests. That means pursuing Britain’s security, prosperity and values. That is what he has done at every stage, and it is exactly why he was so firm with the President about our support for the sovereignty of Greenland. We are working continually with our international allies. We are co-operating closely with partners right across Europe to respond in a strong and firm way, in order to prevent a trade war that will cause damage to UK and US industry, and to build instead the collective partnership on security that is in all our interests.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
There is no place for forced labour in our global economy, especially when the victims are so often women, children and persecuted minority groups. We are working through a range of multilateral bodies, including the G7, the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, to eradicate forced labour from supply chains. We are reviewing the effectiveness of our rules on responsible business conduct to ensure that the UK continues to set the global standard on the elimination of forced labour.
Mr Quigley
I thank the Minister for his response. However, the UK’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has warned that without stronger action, we risk falling behind the EU and the US, and even becoming a dumping ground for goods produced with forced labour. Will the Government commit to introducing legislation that sends a clear and unequivocal message that the UK stands firmly against Uyghur forced labour, and will not allow such products into our market?
Chris Elmore
We are clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain. We are committed to promoting and protecting human rights, including in Xinjiang, and we continue to work with international partners to hold China to account for its human rights violations. The Government’s review of responsible business conduct is considering a range of policy options to tackle forced labour.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
As the Energy Secretary insists that we move as quickly as possible to renewables, may I ask the Minister what steps he has in place to ensure that the materials—90% of them are processed materials—used in renewables are made without slave labour and human rights abuses?
Chris Elmore
We of course support voluntary human rights due diligence by businesses, as recommended in the UN’s “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”. As I mentioned in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), in the Government’s review on responsible business conduct, those will be some of the options that we take forward.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We work closely with our international partners to deter and disrupt those responsible for malicious cyber-activity. To date, 42 international partners have supported UK activity to expose cyber-threats, and 74 countries are members of the counter ransomware initiative, led by the UK. In addition, 27 counties have publicly endorsed the UK and France’s Pall Mall code of practice, which aims to tackle the proliferation of cyber-intrusion tools.
Uma Kumaran
The Minister will remember that when the Russia-backed cyber-crime network Lockbit was smashed in 2024, it was the direct result of intensive collaboration between the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. They worked together to defend Europe from Russia’s hybrid attacks, which seek to weaken our role in the world. Is that not a reminder that we are all safer, on both sides of the Atlantic, when we work together, and that we should never forget where the real threats to our national security come from?
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. Indeed, they echo what we heard this morning from the Speaker of the US House of Representatives about working together as close allies and across NATO. It is good to welcome guests in Parliament today from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, too.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. As is evidenced by the 2024 Lockbit and 2025 Media Land sanctions packages, the UK works closely with key partners, and remains committed to using all available tools to defend against cyber-threats. Our co-ordination with Australia, the United States and other allies demonstrates to adversaries that we will not tolerate assaults on our public and private institutions and our democracies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive responses. On ransomware and what we are trying to do with technology, Northern Ireland leads the way on cyber-security, as does south-east England, but the technology is always advancing. The Minister has responsibility for ensuring that we are protected, but at the same time, we need to ensure that our technology moves forward, so that we can equal or outdo our enemies. Can the Minister give us an assurance that that will happen, and that Northern Ireland will be part of it?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member rightly extols the virtues and skills of the excellent workforce in Northern Ireland and across the UK on these issues. I have had the pleasure of meeting people from a number of cyber-security companies. We are doing all that we can to increase the skills chain, and to ensure that we stay steps ahead of our adversaries. We will not tolerate activity that hits consumers and individuals in the UK and risks our national security. We will work with others to defend this country.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Iran is a cyber-menace that is committing digital warfare against democracies around the world and its own people. Most recently, it has cut its own citizens off from the internet to hide the scale of its atrocities. Do the Government have any plans to use their cyber-capabilities to take on Tehran in its moment of weakness, and how they will prevent Tehran from evading tariffs by using cryptocurrency?
Stephen Doughty
It was perhaps an unexpected elevation, but I welcome the shadow Minister to his new role, and thank him for his important question on a very serious matter: the threat from our adversaries. He is right to point out Iran, but there are many others who are attempting to damage our national security and hit consumers and individuals in the UK. He will understand that I will not go into operational details on any matter relating to our cyber-defences, but he can be assured that we keep the activities of our adversaries closely in mind, and we are doing all we can to defend this country against all threats, wherever they come from.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Chagos archipelago and marine protected area is one of the world’s most important marine environments, and as has rightly been recognised by Members across the House, both the UK and Mauritius are committed to its protection. I can confirm that no commercial fishing will be allowed, but low levels of artisanal fishing will be permitted for the sustenance of Chagossian communities, which is compatible with nature conservation. We are working closely with Mauritius to ensure that adequate patrolling capabilities will be maintained after the marine protected area enters into force.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for his response. A recent Yale University report ranked Mauritius last out of 131 states for stringency in relation to its marine protected areas, and a woeful 173th out of 180 for the protection of biodiversity. Mauritius has even admitted that it does not have the capacity to patrol the area, and that it is open to commercial fishing. I recognise the response that the Minister gave, but Britain has kept the Chagos marine environment pristine for 50 years. Why do the Government not want to secure that legacy in law?
Stephen Doughty
With the greatest of respect, because I know that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue with sincerity, I was just very clear. It was on 3 November that Mauritius announced the creation of the Chagos archipelago marine protected area, and it has confirmed that no commercial fishing will be allowed in any part of the MPA. We are working very closely with Mauritius on patrolling and protecting the environment. These are important issues, and I assure him that we are absolutely seized of them.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that Five Eyes partners, including the United States, backed the Chagos surrender Bill, but today the American President has publicly opposed it, rightly citing the very concerns that we Conservative Members have raised about the malign influence of China and Russia, and their benefiting directly from the surrender of the Chagos islands. Is President Trump right? Given that Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill will cost £35 billion, compromise our national security and betray the rights of the Chagossian community, when will the Government finally see sense and scrap this shameful treaty?
Stephen Doughty
Again, the right hon. Lady has made wild claims about costs. What she says is simply not the case. We have been absolutely clear that the UK will never compromise our national security. As we have made clear repeatedly, the agreement that we have struck is vital to protecting our national security and that of our allies, and to guaranteeing the long-term future of a base that is crucial for the UK and the United States. Our deal secures the operation of the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia for generations. It has backing from across the Five Eyes, as well as from other international partners. I remind the right hon. Lady that, in May, the US Secretary of State said,
“The Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia.”
We will of course have discussions with the US Administration in coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal, and of how it secures the base, and I am surprised that these comments have been made in the context of difficult conversations about Greenland. The right hon. Lady joins us in standing for its sovereignty and right to self-determination, so I urge her to be a little more reflective in her comments.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
One of the Foreign Office’s most serious and important duties is standing up for British nationals who have been wrongly detained overseas, and supporting the families here at home who are working desperately for their release. We are committed to strengthening our efforts, including through the appointment of a dedicated envoy for complex detention cases. We expect to confirm that appointment in the near future.
Douglas McAllister
Exactly 3,000 days ago, my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal was imprisoned in India, and 3,000 days later, he remains arbitrarily detained. He faces the death penalty on trumped-up charges, having been brutally tortured to make a confession. While in opposition, our Prime Minister rightly recognised my constituent’s detention as arbitrary. We need to do more than just raise his case with Indian counterparts. My constituent was acquitted in March last year of all charges, but now faces essentially eight duplicate cases based on the same evidence. Does the Foreign Secretary or the Minister agree that this is clearly double jeopardy, as recognised under Indian, international and UK law, and will the Government make that clear to Indian counterparts?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his persistence, and for the force of his advocacy for his constituents. Despite progress in Mr Johal’s legal proceedings, eight of the cases against him remain outstanding, as my hon. Friend said. We continue to raise concerns about Mr Johal’s prolonged detention with the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity, and to emphasise the need for a prompt, full and just resolution of Mr Johal’s cases in India’s independent legal system.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Sadly, Jagtar Singh Johal’s case is not the only instance in the world of human rights violations against British citizens, and one of our biggest allies has just said that peace is no longer a priority for it. Given that the world is such a dangerous place, and given the threat to the human rights of British citizens abroad, does the Minister agree that the time has come to make consular assistance a legal right for British citizens across the globe?
Mr Falconer
We are committed to introducing a right to consular assistance. We will return to this House with more detail about what form that will take.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We have consistently called on all parties in Palestine to comply with their international humanitarian law obligations. Where this Government have had concerns about Israel’s commitment to those obligations, we have taken decisive action. That has included stopping exports to the Israel Defence Forces that might be used in Gaza, suspending negotiations with Israel on a new free trade agreement, and last month voting in favour of the UN resolution that welcomed the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on Israel’s obligation to allow lifesaving humanitarian assistance to reach Palestinian civilians.
Ian Lavery
In July 2024, the ICJ ruled that the Israeli occupation and settlements were illegal, and must be ended and dismantled. Then, in September 2024, the UN General Assembly gave Israel 12 months to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—a deadline that has now lapsed by more than four months. Why, after a year and a half, have the Government still not published their response to the ICJ advisory opinion? Is there something that we do not know, but perhaps should?
Mr Falconer
In that period, the UK has made a range of significant determinations in relation to our policy in the middle east. Of course, we continue to consider the Court’s advisory opinion on Israel’s occupation carefully. There is lots in that advisory opinion with which we agree, and which is, indeed, already Government policy. We agree that settlements are illegal, and we have already taken strong action against them. Since this Government came into office, we have introduced three packages of sanctions related to violence against communities in the west bank, and we continue to keep these matters under review.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Since the recent ceasefire came into effect, over 450 Palestinians have been killed by Israel. UNICEF reports that over 100 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza since 10 October. Israeli airstrikes are ongoing, and the mental and physical torture and violence continue unabated. Will the Minister tell the children still alive in Gaza what action the UK Government will take to force Israel to comply with international law and allow essential humanitarian aid into Gaza, and to make the ceasefire a real one and stop the killing?
Mr Falconer
I know how deeply so many of our constituents and, indeed, Members of this House feel about these issues, and how often they raise them. We will continue to take action in the way that the Foreign Secretary set out this morning. It is vital that the ceasefire holds, and that we make progress in the three areas set out already, and that is the priority for Ministers.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
We are committed to international development, but we must modernise our approach to reflect the world we live in and the threats that our country faces, while maintaining economic stability at home. We are committed to meeting the overseas development aid budgets that have been set out, but with less money, we must focus on having greater impact. Every pound must deliver for the UK taxpayer and the people we support. We will sharpen our focus on humanitarian issues, health, climate and nature, and that will be underpinned by a focus on economic development.
Olly Glover
The United States Government have cut funding for research and development on lifesaving health solutions that help the world’s poorest people. In that context, the UK has the opportunity to embrace world-leading scientists who are no longer welcome elsewhere. Will the Government seize the opportunity to both continue progress on life expectancy in the global south and boost the UK’s economy by increasing their spending on global health research and development?
Chris Elmore
I cannot comment on the US’s decision; it is a matter for its Administration. As I have mentioned, one of the focuses of our ODA support will be on health. We have announced to the House additional funding for tackling life-limiting conditions, particularly on the continent of Africa, so the lifesaving work around health carries on.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The conflict in Sudan is affecting millions of people, including thousands of women affected by horrific sexual violence. I have been hearing from aid workers on the ground who are working with those women. Will the Minister assure the House that, despite aid budget cuts, support for the women victims of sexual violence in the conflict in Sudan will not be cut?
Chris Elmore
I know what a hugely important issue this is to all Members across the House. I can confirm that additional funding has been allocated in relation to the Sudan conflict. We are, of course, calling for the violence to end, particularly the violence that is targeted at women and girls. I assure my hon. Friend that part of this continuing funding is for trying to tackle the extreme levels of sexual violence that women are experiencing in Sudan.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
As the Minister will know, part of the official development assistance budget goes to investment in businesses creating employment in the poorest parts of the world, such as British International Investment, which is now undoubtedly the best development finance institution in the world. Will the Minister continue to ensure that BII receives injections of capital so that it can go on doing that brilliant work and earning a decent return for the British taxpayer?
Chris Elmore
I am pleased to say that the international development Minister in the other place, Baroness Chapman, is due to meet the group imminently. We will continue that work, including through my conversations with nations in the ODA context, on how we provide more support for business as one of the changes to ODA moving forward.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I hate to disagree with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), who I respect greatly, but in an era when we have less money I wonder whether we should focus on reaching the poorest people the most. There are other models, including the International Finance Facility for Education and the International Finance Facility for Immunisation, that offer ways to leverage much more money. By putting in a small amount, we can leverage up to four times more. Will Ministers, including a Treasury Minister, meet me to discuss such proposals and consider innovative forms of development finance in an era of less ODA?
Chris Elmore
I am, of course, more than happy to meet my hon. Friend, as diaries allow.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
The UK continues to support the Ukrainian people in the face of unrelenting Russian aggression, which includes the targeting of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and civilians. On Friday, we were proud to mark the anniversary of the 100-year partnership that we agreed with Ukraine last year, and we will continue to provide military and economic support, as well as support for Ukraine’s energy security.
Kirith Entwistle
The Bolton branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain is situated in my constituency and helps families to settle and keep community ties strong. As the UK marks the first anniversary of the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership, what more is the Foreign Secretary doing, working across Government, to ensure that Ukrainians in the UK are provided with the support they need to rebuild their lives?
Yvette Cooper
The 100-year partnership is about people-to-people links and the long-term connections between the UK and Ukraine.
If I can just take a personal moment on this, Mr Speaker, I can report that one of the teenagers who came to stay with us in Castleford at the very beginning of the Ukraine war, and who has since returned to Kyiv, has continued her training to be an international-standard ballroom dancer and is back in the UK with her partner this week in the run-up to an international competition. I wish them both the very best.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure the entire House endorses what the Foreign Secretary has just said.
In a week when the Government are sadly letting down Hongkongers in London, Chagossians in exile and Northern Ireland veterans in retirement, can we absolutely rely upon continued support for Ukraine’s gallant resistance to atrocious Russian imperialism?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member should know better than to ask a question like that. As he knows, the UK has been continually strong in our support for Ukraine, for the people of Ukraine and for Ukraine’s continued military resistance. For too long, Russia has underestimated not only the people of Ukraine but Ukraine’s friends. That is why the UK, through the coalition of the willing, has been leading support for Ukraine.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary will have heard President Zelensky’s warnings last week about the supply of air defence missiles—we must heed them. Will the Government make more weapons available, scale up production immediately or broker new military aid packages with our allies to ensure a constant supply of missiles?
Yvette Cooper
The UK is working very closely with our partners, through NATO and also more broadly, to ensure that Ukraine has the military support it needs, including weapons and equipment, and support for its energy infrastructure and intelligence gathering, where the UK plays an important role. We have set forward commitments alongside the French Government, and have that forward lean on the ability to support Ukraine if a peace agreement is reached backed by security guarantees. The UK is very much leading the military and wider support for Ukraine.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
In a few weeks’ time, we will reach the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine war. Extreme efforts have been made over recent months to pursue a just and lasting peace, but still we have seen no sign that Russia is willing to make peace. In the early hours of today, Russia attacked Ukraine with 34 missiles and 339 drones. That follows four previous nights in which Russia fired 537 drones at Ukrainian cities, largely targeting energy infrastructure. Ukraine’s energy system is experiencing its most acute crisis of the war, and Kyiv residents are currently receiving three hours of power, followed by 10-hour outages. On 16 January, as we marked the first anniversary of the 100-year partnership, I announced a further £20 million of UK support for vital energy repairs. Our commitment to supporting Ukraine is unwavering.
Dan Carden
I am grateful for that update. The brutal Iranian regime is dying and a new Iran is being born. We can assist that process, in the Iranian people’s interests and ours, by banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. If the Foreign Secretary requires a new legislative instrument for a proscription mechanism for state and state-linked bodies, will she bring that to the House? Will the Foreign Office prepare for the day after, convening Opposition parties to cohere them and mobilise expertise to decide on a future democratic—
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that as Home Secretary I commissioned a review of the legislation which recommended changes, because existing legislation is drawn up around terrorism, and we need to be able to deal with state-backed threats. I assure him that both I and the Home Secretary take the threats from Iran extremely seriously.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Government have just given planning permission to the new Chinese super-hub embassy—the document is 240 pages; there it is for us to read—while Jimmy Lai, a British national, continues to be imprisoned in appalling conditions on bogus political charges under the disgraceful Hong Kong national security law. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is unacceptable for China to be rewarded with this spy hub in the heart of London while Jimmy languishes in prison?
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Foreign Secretary will know that we have made the strongest of criticisms of the decision on Jimmy Lai. We continue to pursue that issue with the Chinese Government and to stress the urgent need for him to be released immediately on humanitarian grounds. She has raised the issue of the independent planning decision, and she will know the independent planning processes that need to be gone through. I understand that the Security Minister will be making a statement to the House on this topic shortly. All I would point out to her is that diplomatic consent was given by her hero Boris Johnson. She had many years as Home Secretary to pursue any concerns she had.
Priti Patel
In the light of the right hon. Lady’s remarks and the fact that Jimmy Lai’s sentencing is expected soon, does she agree that when the Prime Minister goes to kowtow to Beijing and comes back with no movement on Jimmy Lai’s release, that trip should be regarded as a failure of British diplomacy?
Yvette Cooper
We believe that it is exactly because we have deep concerns about the issues around Jimmy Lai and the need for his urgent humanitarian release, but also because of wider security issues, that we should engage with the Chinese Government. Refusing to engage with the Chinese Government, when we have such serious issues and concerns, would be irresponsible.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
As the House will be aware, we have supported a number of sick and injured children to leave Gaza. I am very proud of our work in this area. We work closely across Government, including with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and with local authorities, to ensure that children and families arriving in the UK receive the help and support they need. In relation to future plans, I am sure I will return to the House in due course.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Mr Falconer
As the Foreign Secretary set out earlier, the board of peace was part of the 20-point plan, which we welcomed, and there was a UN Security Council resolution, which also enshrines the progress made in the talks. Of course we want to see the ceasefire hold in Gaza. We are fully engaged with our American and other counterparts on these questions, but as the Foreign Secretary has set out already, we are discussing the way ahead with our allies.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
We are deeply concerned about the escalating settler attacks and the fact that they have reached new heights, with more attacks last year than any year since the United Nations began recording such incidents. We need the Government of Israel to abide by their obligations around settlements and settler violence, but we also need to ensure that we pursue this as part of the broader peace plan process—the 20-point plan process—to build the greatest possible co-ordination around delivering not just peace for Gaza, but a two-state solution.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Yvette Cooper
This Government are responsible for the biggest increase in defence investment since the cold war, because we recognise the importance of defending our national security. I would also say to the hon. Member that Ukraine’s security is our security. The threat from Russia affects us all.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his continued advocacy on these issues. The 20-point plan clearly outlined the need to open the Rafah crossing, and indeed other crossings. There have been discussions between various partners, but we continue to press the Israelis to open all the crossings now.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
With the greatest respect, the hon. Member knows that this Government have strengthened our relationships with the EU: we have a security and defence partnership; we are securing a sanitary and phytosanitary deal; and we are rejoining Erasmus+. Those are all things that will make a tangible difference for people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, and we are very proud of them.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
I gather that that sentiment was also expressed by the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, who has been with us in Parliament over the last few days. I think there are many people on both sides of the Atlantic, across Europe and north America, who recognise the vital importance of our NATO alliance to keeping all of us safe.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Mr Falconer
Many across the House will be aware of the fast-moving situation in north-east Syria, which is of concern to the British Government. We are calling for de-escalation, and we want a halt to the advance into the north-east. We continue to focus on the humanitarian situation in Syria. Over 16.5 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, and we are delivering up to £104 million of assistance this year.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Mr Falconer
The UK is active in seeking justice and accountability for Sri Lanka’s Tamil community. Indeed, we lead in the UN Human Rights Council on the resolution on Sri Lanka. Last year, we sanctioned Sri Lankans for human rights violations in the civil war, and we have made clear to the Sri Lankan Government the importance of improved human rights for all in Sri Lanka, as well as reconciliation. Let me take the opportunity to wish the Tamil community a happy Thai Pongal.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Despite the Minister’s assertion that the Government are holding the Israeli Government to account, I would like to remind them that a tender has just been issued by the Israeli Government for a further illegal construction of more than 3,000 homes in the E1 project in the west bank, which will completely cut the west bank in half. Will the Government now comply with the ICJ’s opinion that third states like ours have a duty to bring Israel’s illegal occupation to an end by imposing sanctions on Israeli Ministers in their professional capacity and to prohibit UK companies from involvement with illegal settlements?
Mr Falconer
The Foreign Secretary and I have set out the position in relation to settlements over the course of this session, but I want to be clear: we have been the strongest that we can in condemning the increase in both violence by settlers and settlements themselves. I have from this Dispatch Box announced sanctions on Israeli Ministers, including Mr Smotrich and Mr Ben-Gvir.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I proudly declare that I will be visiting the Falkland Islands as a guest of their Government next month. What can the UK Government do to alleviate EU tariffs of between 6% and 18% on their fishing exports, so that the Falklands Government have more money to spend on health, education and their treasured environment?
Mr Falconer
We remain strong defenders of the Falkland Islands as part of our global great British family. I was pleased to speak with the new Legislative Assembly just the other day. It was, of course, the Brexit deal that the previous Government negotiated that left the Falklands out when it comes to tariffs, but we continue to work closely with them on a range of trade and tariff issues and have done so successfully in relation to the United States.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Israeli occupation of the west bank has resulted in almost 1,000 deaths over the past year and a half. We have seen the loss of villages, the loss of life and the continued enabling of settler violence against ordinary Palestinian people in their villages, and this morning there are reports that the Israel Defence Forces are now demolishing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency headquarters in Jerusalem. When are the British Government going to do something serious, with sanctions against Israel for its continued illegal occupation of the west bank?
Mr Falconer
I answered the substance of the right hon. Gentleman’s question when I replied to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). We are aware of the reports in relation to the UNRWA headquarters in east Jerusalem and, as the Foreign Secretary has set out already, we are taking them very seriously indeed.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Over 900 doctors have been killed by the Iranian regime since 1979. A leading medical union warns that Iran’s state health system is near collapse and medicines are increasingly scarce, leaving children vulnerable for lack of basic care. Does my right hon. Friend agree that urgent international action is needed to hold the regime to account, particularly for the devastating impact on paediatric care?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the deep humanitarian concerns arising from the lack of adequate healthcare in Iran. Her point comes after what we have seen in recent weeks: the most brutal of killings by the Iranian regime and the deep concern about the safety of protesters. I can report to the House that we have secured a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, which will take place on 23 January and will provide an opportunity to raise exactly these issues.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
When President Trump was frustrated with President Zelensky last year, he withdrew intelligence sharing with Ukraine for a short period. Will the Foreign Secretary, who oversees GCHQ and MI6, assure the House and my constituents that should such a threat that intelligence sharing with the United Kingdom be withdrawn, even for a temporary period, develop from the White House at some point, she and her counterparts will remind the US President that the Five Eyes partnership also keeps Americans safe every single day of the week?
Yvette Cooper
I first had visits to Washington about the strength of the Five Eyes partnership, including meetings with the CIA and others, more than 25 years ago. Our Five Eyes partnership runs back many generations; it is deep and important, and it continues to take the threat from Russia in Ukraine incredibly seriously.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
With two out of three FCDO-funded programmes dedicated to disability inclusion coming to an end this year, what targets will the Government set to ensure that their remaining programming will prioritise and can be accessed by disabled people, 80% of whom live in the global south? Will the Minister offer some assurances that there will be sufficient capacity within the FCDO to support disabled people across the globe?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
The UK has long promoted global disability rights through our global programme to support disability inclusion in health, education and employment, plus access to innovative assistive technologies. In addition to our work to mainstream disability inclusion across the FCDO’s priorities, the UK is co-chair of the Global Action on Disability Network that strengthens international co-ordination on disability rights and accelerates that progress, including in the global south.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Iranian regime is killing protesters in their thousands, and the communication blackout is enabling abuses to happen away from public view. The Minister said yesterday:
“They must restore internet access.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 48.]
What are the Government doing with partners, so that we can hear the voices of those freedom fighters?
Mr Falconer
As I said to the House yesterday, we treat the internet blackout in Iran as a breach of the human rights of the Iranian people. We continue to work on this issue with our partners for the reasons that my ministerial colleagues have set out, but I will not give further commentary on operational business.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Allies do not threaten each other, either militarily or economically, so the whole House will be troubled by comments made by the Trump Administration in the past couple of days. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to communicate with our NATO allies and the Trump Administration how unacceptable those comments are, and what are we doing to ensure the integrity of our NATO alliance?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member will know that the Prime Minister has spoken to the President and I have spoken to Secretary of State Rubio. As I set out in my statement yesterday, tariff threats are no way to treat allies. It is also important now that we strengthen our international co-operation on issues like Arctic security, while respecting sovereignty and collective security, and that means putting the sovereignty of Greenland at its heart.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Israel is the only country in the world that automatically and systematically prosecutes children in military courts, trying between 500 and 700 Palestinian children in that way each year. According to Save the Children, those children are at serious risk of contagious disease, hunger and abuse. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government are doing all that they can to put pressure on the Israeli Government to end this practice?
Mr Falconer
We are deeply concerned about the detention of Palestinian children by the Israeli military and by the allegations that my hon. Friend refers to. The UK calls for all reports to be fully investigated. The arrest and detention of children must follow due process, in line with international juvenile justice standards, and we call on all parties to the conflict to grant the International Committee of the Red Cross immediate and unfettered access.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Will the Foreign Secretary explain why, if she rightly supports the self-determination of the Greenlandic people as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, she does not support the self-determination of the Chagossian people to remain a British overseas territory?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member likes to call himself a patriot. He has just joined the party that is the weakest on Russia—a country that threatens our country—and led by a leader who has continued to question the role of Russia in beginning the Ukraine war, the role of NATO and even in the Salisbury killings. He should look a little bit inwards before he tries to make points in here.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Given the scale of the planned FCDO budget reductions and significant staffing cuts, what assessment has been made of which policy areas will be deprioritised as a result of those measures? What redundancy mitigation steps are being taken in line with the 2016 civil service protocols and how those changes are expected to impact both UK personnel serving overseas and country-based staff?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that we have been doing extensive work to ensure that the Foreign Office is focused on the key priorities and on delivering for the national interest. She will also know that there was a quite significant expansion in the staffing, including the UK-based staffing, of the Foreign Office over the previous five years. It is right that we ensure the Foreign Office is most focused on the national security issues and prosperity issues as well as many of the issues that she and her Committee are concerned about around international development. We will continue to provide information to her Committee on this matter.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
A 14-year-old child, the son of my constituent Mr Greaves, has been detained by the French state for 440 days. He is a British citizen with no dual nationality. He has received no schooling and, most concerning of all, has not received even a single welfare visit by the British consulate, despite having been chased many times. Will the Foreign Secretary intervene personally in this case and meet with me to be able to secure a welfare visit?
Stephen Doughty
I am happy to meet with the hon. Gentleman to discuss the case.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, Uganda held elections. There were wide-ranging accounts of people being prevented from going to polling stations and of ballot stuffing. In one polling station, more votes were cast than there were electors. There is now widespread violence, and the son of the so-called President of Uganda has threatened to murder the leader of the opposition, Bobi Wine, who lost the election. What can the Foreign Secretary tell me about the veracity of the elections? What is she doing to protect British citizens in Uganda and to ensure the safety of members of the National Unity Platform?
Chris Elmore
We have consistently advocated for peaceful and credible elections, and we encourage any disputes to be addressed through peaceful and legal means. In relation to the opposition leader, we have engaged across the political spectrum to advocate for peaceful elections, including for the opposition candidates to be able to campaign freely and safely, and we continue to do so, including through our high commission.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In answer to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary said that the future of Greenland should be determined by Greenlanders and Danes, yet Members across this House are just finding out that any opportunity to give Chagossians a referendum has been stripped from this afternoon’s discussions on the Chagos Bill. Why does the Foreign Secretary think that the Chagossians do not deserve the same rights that she considers to be so fundamental to Greenlanders?
Stephen Doughty
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are going to be discussing those issues this afternoon; we will have ample time to discuss the amendments down for consideration. He also knows that we have engaged extensively with Chagossian communities.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the International Criminal Court’s deputy chief prosector said that atrocities in Sudan would be repeated from town to town unless impunity for belligerents ended. What measures have the UK Government been taking to make it clear to the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement North, as well as to the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces, that they must protect civilians and let aid through?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue, because the continuing humanitarian crisis and horrendous violence in Sudan are deeply troubling, and I worry that they are not getting sufficient international attention. This weekend, I discussed extensively with the UN Secretary-General what further action can be taken and what concerted pressure can be put on any country that has any influence on the warring parties. We urgently need a ceasefire, but we also need an end to the horrendous and brutal violence, particularly the sexual violence towards women.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Through his new folly over Greenland, President Trump is increasingly bringing the UK closer to Europe. At Denmark’s request, would the UK allow European forces to use the UK’s command infrastructure for operations in and around Greenland?
Stephen Doughty
As the hon. Lady knows, we already work very closely with Denmark in NATO. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has made clear our desire for an Arctic sentry programme, and we work with other partners in the High North through the joint expeditionary force, so we already work very closely together.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Last week, I met a mother from my constituency who told me a terrible story. In October, her daughters were taken by their father, supposedly for a day out at the fair, but they never came home. It seems he has abducted them and taken them out of the country, either to Afghanistan or to Pakistan. Can the Minister set out what the Government can do about these kinds of abductions, and will he meet me to discuss how we get these little girls home?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
According to Open Doors’ world watch list, which was released last week, Yemen is now the third most dangerous country in the world to be a Christian. Since January, over 50 Yemeni Christians have been arrested and imprisoned, facing intimidation, interrogation and the risk of torture. Will the Minister explain why freedom of religion and belief has not been made a clear prerequisite for continued UK aid, with robust monitoring on the ground?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful for an opportunity to comment on aid into Yemen. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, there are significant restrictions on aid into the north of Yemen, where the Houthis are in control. It is rather easier to get aid into the south of Yemen, but given the events referred to earlier, doing so remains complex. We continue to prioritise freedom of religious belief, including through our excellent envoy, who is a Member of this House. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss these issues further.
Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
I would like to make a statement on the next steps this Government will take to keep children safe online and give them the childhood they deserve.
Last week, I said in this House that artificial intelligence and technology have huge potential to create jobs and growth, to diagnose and treat disease, to transform our public services, and so much more besides. However, this Government know that we will only seize this potential if the benefits of technology are felt by all, not just a few at the top, and above all, if people know that they and their children are safe online. We have already made significant progress on this crucial issue; the Online Safety Act 2023 introduced one of the most robust systems globally, with groundbreaking steps to tackle illegal content and activity and to protect children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. We have long known, though, that there is more to do.
My first act as Secretary of State was to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence, so that platforms must take proactive steps to stop users seeing this material in the first place, and swiftly to take it down if it appears. We have also made intimate image abuse and cyber-flashing priority offences. We have introduced an offence in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise artificial intelligence models that have been optimised to create child sexual abuse material.
Eight days ago, in response to the abhorrent and illegal spreading of sexualised deepfake images of women and children without their consent by Grok, I said that we would uphold British values and British laws and that we would fast-track legislation, making it an offence to create non-consensual intimate images. I also said that I would make that a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023. Since then, I am pleased to say that X has announced it will ban the generation of intimate images of real people. That will be carefully monitored, but I and the Government have welcomed the announcement.
The story does not end there, though. I know that up and down the country, parents are grappling with how much screen time their children should have, when they should give them a phone, what on earth they are seeing online, and the impact all that is having. Yesterday, I met bereaved families who have suffered the most unimaginable tragedy as a result of what their children have experienced online. It was one of the most devastating discussions I have ever taken part in, and I pay tribute to their courage and dignity.
I know that many parents are deeply worried about a whole range of other impacts on their children, such as the consequences for their mental health, their concentration and sleep, their sense of self-esteem, and their ability to learn and to explore the online world without fear. We are determined to help parents, children and young people to deal with these issues with a lasting solution that gives children the childhood they deserve, enhances their wellbeing and prepares them for the future.
Last year, the Government said in response to the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill—a private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is now the Minister for Children and Families—that there would have to be further action on these issues. Since I was appointed to this role, I have been urgently considering this matter, because keeping children safe online is a top priority for the Government and for me personally.
Today I can tell the House that we will bring forward a swift three-month consultation on further measures to keep children safe online. That will include the option of banning social media for children under 16 and raising the digital age of consent, to stop companies using children’s data without their or their parents’ consent. The consultation will include a range of other options, too, such as: whether there should be curfews overnight or breaks to stop excessive use or doomscrolling; how we ensure more rigorous enforcement of existing laws around age verification; and action to address concerns about the use of virtual private networks to get around important protections.
We will consult parents, the organisations representing children and bereaved parents, technology companies and, crucially, children and young people themselves, because their views and voices must be heard. We will look closely at the experience in Australia, which, as many people know, has just introduced a ban on social media for under-16s. We will make sure that the consultation is evidence-led, with input from independent experts.
We are prepared to act to deal with the serious concerns that parents, teachers, doctors and others have about children’s screen time in schools and at home. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary announced that for the first time ever we are developing screen time guidance for children under five, which will be available from April. Today, I can confirm that we will also develop evidence-based screen time guidance for parents of children aged five to 16. While we have already been clear that mobile phones have no place in our schools, the Government will take further action as part of our determination to safeguard children and support their wellbeing. Today, we have published updated guidance on the use of mobile phones in schools, and we have asked Ofsted to include that in its inspections, because we want there to be no doubt in the minds of school staff, parents and young people that phones should not be used in schools.
I know these issues are important for Members of Parliament, teachers and the medical profession, many children’s organisations, young people themselves and, above all, parents across the country. Many people, including in this House, are strongly in favour of a ban on social media for the under-16s as the best and clearest way forward to protect children and stop acute and chronic online harms. They want action now, but others take a different view, saying that they worry about letting online platforms off the hook and that a ban would simply push harms further underground and, above all, stop children using the positives of social media, such as connecting with like-minded people, finding those who love in the same way and love the same things, and getting peer support and trusted advice. There are clearly risks in all these different approaches, which is why I believe that a proper consultation and promoting a national conversation, especially with the public, is the right and responsible way forward.
I want to make one thing crystal clear: the question is not about whether the Government will take further action—we will act robustly, as we did with Grok. The question now is about the next steps and acting effectively, together with children and families. That is what our consultation will deliver, because we are determined to ensure that technology enriches children’s lives, rather than harms them. We want to give children the childhood they deserve and prepare them for the future. I commend this statement to the House.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. What does an ailing Prime Minister do to demonstrate firm and decisive leadership? He launches a consultation, with a variety of options. What does he do when the Conservative party, the House of Lords, trade unions and more than 60 of his own Labour MPs line up against him on a tricky issue? Rather than take a clear position on a social media ban for children and getting phones out of schools, as the Conservative leader has done, this Prime Minister finds an unkempt meadow with some lengthy grass in it, and he boots the tricky issue right in. The House does not just need to take my word for it. One senior Labour MP has said that this consultation will “take too long”. Another said, referring to a social media ban,
“The immediate reaction is that this is just a way of kicking it into the long grass.”
There is a straightforward question that Ministers must answer today: is the Government’s apparent change of heart on a social media ban for real? Is this consultation a way of elegantly managing yet another U-turn, or is it simply a device to get the Prime Minister through the parliamentary week, while the position remains unchanged? If it is progress, it can be celebrated, but let us not forget that until very recently, the Prime Minister said that he was personally opposed to a social media ban for children. In December, the Culture Secretary confirmed that she is against one. The Business Secretary is opposed. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said on the media this very morning that the Government do not take a view. In fact, the only senior Labour figure we know who is clearly in favour of a ban is Andy Burnham. That is some leadership.
What is the Secretary of State’s personal view, and what is her message to Labour MPs who would like to vote for a ban this week? Each of those rebel MPs will be asking themselves, “After the Prime Minister has Grand Old Duke of York-ed me up and down so many hills, can I really trust him to see this through?” That is especially so given that this same proposal was tabled previously, and Labour voted it down, just as it voted down our amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on a phone ban in schools. It is just like when they were told not to support their own colleague, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), when he had a private Member’s Bill on this issue. Knowing where the Secretary of State personally stands on a ban—not where she stands on a consultation and not what she thinks about having a variety of options—may help ease the minds of Labour MPs.
What of the timeline? Does a three-month consultation mean that legislation to introduce a social media ban will be ready in time for the King’s Speech? If not, and if MPs do not vote for a ban this week, they will not have another chance to do so for 18 months. The opportunity to change things is now. How many on the Government Benches will take that chance?
The Government must have a great deal of the evidence that they need. The Secretary of State’s predecessor commissioned a University of Cambridge review of children’s wellbeing in relation to smartphone use, messaging and social media, which was due to report in December. Can the Secretary of State tell us what the report said? The urgency is obvious. Everyone, especially parents, can see what social media is doing to children. It is not just exposure to extreme or explicit content, although of course that matters. The Online Safety Act 2023, which we introduced, is already addressing illegal material and age-gating, and that work is ongoing. However, the harm goes wider. Social media has created an anxious generation hooked by products designed to be addictive, displacing real-world activity and undermining attention, emotional regulation and mental health. Schools and families deal daily with the consequences: cyber-bullying, social anxiety and fractured concentration.
China’s version of TikTok, Douyin, limits children to an hour a day and promotes educational content, but western platforms do the opposite: engagement loops are optimised for emotional arousal. We welcome scrutiny of those algorithms and steps to stop children’s data being exploited, but there is a simpler option, which is to keep children off these platforms altogether while allowing adults the freedom that follows. Conservatives believe in parental responsibility: we believe in freedom for adults, but we also believe in protecting children. We believe in policing age, not policing speech. It is not to strip parents of their roles and responsibilities to recognise that the online world can be a discombobulating nightmare to supervise. It is not to be a modern-day Mary Whitehouse to worry deeply about children being exposed to images and topics that they are simply not equipped to deal with.
This consultation also includes a rethink on phones in schools. I see that the Education Secretary is present; for months she told us that it was a gimmick and unnecessary, although most secondary school pupils say that phones are still used extensively. By when will phones be banned in schools, and how quickly will Ofsted enforce that? Will it be enforcing against guidance or against the law, because guidance is simply not enough? We must be up front in saying that the challenges of implementing any social media ban are real. We support the Government as they navigate those challenges because we want this to work, but can the Secretary of State make it clear that digital ID will not be a requirement to pass age verification on social media sites?
The truth is that the internet grew as a pioneer society, with consequences that we are all reckoning with. It now needs to be retrofitted with very clear rules for children. They need to be protected. Other countries are taking the approach of a social media ban; will this Government in the UK do the same?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady has talked about leadership. May I remind the House that last week, when the Prime Minister and I showed strong and firm leadership on X and Grok, she claimed that the issues were a legal grey area—which they are not—and compared our stance to that of the mullahs of Iran, which would be laughable if it were not so offensive.
The hon. Lady asked whether we had published the research by Professor Orben. Yes, we have: we have published it today, and we are going further with some—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the Secretary of State, and this private conversation between the two Front Benches is not helpful.
Liz Kendall
If the hon. Lady does not like hearing me repeat her words back to her, she should not say them.
As I have said, we published that research today, and we have gone further with some short, sharp trials in respect of different interventions and the impact that they may have, because I think that that is very important. The evidence is evolving and we need to move faster in that regard, but it will not cause delay in our action.
The hon. Lady mentioned Ofsted. Perhaps she does not understand that the chief inspector of Ofsted welcomed the new guidance today, which is an important step forward.
Mr Speaker
Order. I want no more of this, and I genuinely mean that, from someone who is meant to be looking after education. I think we all need to set an example.
Liz Kendall
You have taken the words right out of my mouth, Mr Speaker.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about my personal position. I believe it is right and responsible to act swiftly, but to do so by carrying out a proper consultation. Let me tell the House what my position is: I will act, I will get results, and I will deliver for the British people.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I welcome the consultation. We know that technology has changed childhood, we believe that it has changed child socialisation and we think that it may have changed brain development, perhaps even motor neurone skills, but there is little concrete evidence beyond the individual terrible stories and, of course, the profits of the big tech platforms. That is why my Committee will soon be launching a digital childhood inquiry to examine these issues, hopefully in time to respond to the consultation.
May I, however, urge the Secretary of State not to assume that a ban will be the answer to the challenges that technology poses? We need to make tech work for all of us now. May I ask her to review her Department’s refusal to accept the recommendations of my Committee’s inquiry into social media and algorithms, particularly with regard to platform responsibility, user control, digital advertising and social media business models?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful and sensible question, and I welcome her Committee’s review, because those are hugely important matters. We should see this as being not only about social media, but about the use of phones and the issues affecting children in the digital world in which we now live. She will know, because I gave evidence to her Committee, that I am constantly reviewing our position on all the important points that she and the Committee raised in its last report, and that, in particular, the Minister for Digital Government and Data, who is also the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts, is looking into the impact that advertising, social media and digital platforms can have. That is a firm commitment from the Government.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Last year, I carried out a “safer screens” tour in my constituency, hearing directly from young people, because the Liberal Democrats consider children and young people to be at the heart of this issue. Teenagers shared concerns about extreme content pushed by algorithms, but also about being glued to their screens alongside their younger siblings. One said, “It’s as addictive as a drug, and I feel the negative impacts every day.” Another pleaded, “Help—I just can’t stop.” Last week, more than 1,700 parents emailed me calling for a social media ban. One mother said that the social media used by her two boys “fills me with dread.” Another highlighted the way in which
“anxiety, reduced attention, online bullying, and exposure to harmful content are becoming common topics among families.”
Parents, teachers, experts and young people themselves are crying out for action, which is why the Liberal Democrats have long raised this as a public health issue. We pushed for the digital age of data consent to be raised to 16, and for the tackling of addictive algorithms. We voted to ban phones in schools, and called for health warnings. Now the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the other place to ban harmful social media for under-16s, based on film-style age ratings extending to 18. We would reset the default age for social media to 16 now, with strong age assurance, because enough is enough.
This world-pioneering approach brings age-appropriate standards to online safety. We are learning from Australia, and preparing for today’s reality. Our risk-based approach, supported by more than 40 charities and experts including the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation and the Internet Watch Foundation, will stop new platforms slipping through the net while addressing harmful games and AI chatbots, and protecting educational sites such Wikipedia and safe family connections. Crucially, it does not let social media companies off the hook.
We have had age-appropriate safety standards offline, for toys and films, for decades. After 20 years of social media platforms clearly prioritising profit over children, building addictive algorithms that keep children and adults hooked, it is time to take action. We do not need consultation—we need that action now—but at least in this consultation we must look into how, not if, we will implement a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. I urge the Government to consider such a ban, with swift timelines, to address this growing public health crisis, and to act on our proposals now. Our children’s future is not something to be played with.
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady explains very well the views of children, young people and parents who are grappling with these issues. I disagree with her: I think we need a short, sharp consultation because there are different views, but we definitely want to act. I am very interested in the idea of age classification, and I would be more than happy to talk to her about that. We all see how this issue affects our own children, and we need to help them cope at different ages. I am sure that many hon. Members will raise different options, and I am more than happy to discuss those with them.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the launch of the consultation and the Government’s commitment to an evidence-based approach. The evidence is clear that mobile phones have no place in schools. Many schools have managed to implement a ban, but those that have not done so, or which have only implemented a less successful version of a ban, often speak about the challenging nature of the dialogue with parents and children as they seek to implement a ban. They say that having a statutory ban, which would require them to ban phones by law, would help. Why is a statutory ban not being announced today, and can the Secretary of State confirm that it is not off the table?
Liz Kendall
My schools say very similar things, and I know the Education Secretary has heard my hon. Friend’s question. Different models are set out in the guidance. For us, the outcome is absolutely clear: there is no place for phones in schools. I am sure that we will hear more views about that, but this is an important next step.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The evidence will never be perfect on this subject, because this is an effect that is happening right around the world at the same time—there is no control group. Countries are now acting—it is not only Australia; other countries are moving in this direction as well—and I welcome today’s announcement. The Secretary of State will need to make definitional decisions, so it is fair enough to have a consultation to get to the definition of “social media” and to work out what counts as an addictive, compulsive design feature, although I am not sure that that was in her statement. It is fine to have a 12-week consultation, but I am troubled by the possibility that the period after the consultation will stretch, as it sometimes does, in an open-ended way and we will not get the action we need. Will she commit to a deadline after the close of the consultation?
Liz Kendall
I have said before that patience is not my greatest virtue. I do not intend for the period before we publish the consultation or afterwards to be long in any way, shape or form. I want to have a clear position before the summer.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I welcome the leadership that the Secretary of State is showing on this issue. In Bury North, parental appetite for a ban on mobile phones is real, but so are the practical considerations when parents rightly want to track the location of their children, have a form of emergency contact and be able to reach their children safely. Does she agree that the existence of this anxiety is not about the technology itself, but about the design for use? Social media platforms are shaping our children’s childhoods, with excessive screen time and endless feeds absorbing the equivalent of a full-time job’s worth of hours of our young people’s lives every week. Will the Government’s approach focus on shaping healthier digital environments and rewarding first-mover tech companies that lead on safer design, rather than simply leaving the burden on families?
Liz Kendall
We absolutely want to focus on children’s health and wellbeing online, and it is really important that we see more competition in this sector, with different options being available for children and young people. I hope that by having a consultation, we will get the debate going and get that action going, because it is extremely difficult for parents to manage this situation. We all share their worries as Members of Parliament, but also as parents ourselves, and we are determined to get this right and to act swiftly.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
These arguments are very well rehearsed, and this announcement is long overdue. Last year we did a survey in my Gosport constituency, and 80% of parents agreed that social media is making bullying worse for their children. Last week the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from child psychologists about children’s TV and video content. Among the many things they told us, they explained the learning from Australia: it is critical to plan for whatever gap is created. If we reduce screen time for young people, there must be safe places for them to go and activities on which they can spend their time. What is the Secretary of State doing on a cross-Government basis to make sure that these issues are tackled as well?
Liz Kendall
I will read that evidence—I am sorry that I have not yet done so, but I absolutely will. The hon. Lady is right: if children are going to spend less time online, what will they do in the real world? That is why our new youth strategy involved the biggest ever consultation of young people. They said that they wanted something to do, somewhere to go and someone to care. That is why we are backing a new generation of youth clubs and youth workers, to ensure that young people have the chance for dance, drama, music and sport, both in and out of school, in order find their spark. This is about providing a better future for our children. We can only do that across Government, and that is the action we are taking.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The last time I was in the Chair for a statement on this issue, we ran out of time. It would be really helpful if colleagues ensured that their questions are short.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation highlight that evidence to support social media bans remains very uncertain and warn that blanket restrictions could unintentionally cause harm by pushing young people towards unregulated platforms, remove trusted online spaces, undermine digital literacy and, indeed, create a cliff edge at the age of 16. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must take a calm, evidence-based approach to this complex issue and ensure that children’s voices are central to the consultation?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I say this not just as a constituency MP with correspondence from hundreds of parents in my inbox, but as a mum: a review, however short, kicks the can down the road, even though we have the legislative vehicle for change in the other place right now. Will the Secretary of State please talk to our Lords counterparts and ask them to support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which takes a harms-based approach?
Liz Kendall
I have no intention of kicking any can down the road, but I do think that listening to different views is the right and responsible approach. It is perhaps old-fashioned in politics these days to try to find common ground and to listen respectfully to what people have to say. That does not mean that we will not lead and act, but I do think it is vital that those views are heard. I have no intention of dragging this out; I want swift action and next steps. We will have to disagree on the consultation, but I am more than happy to discuss with the hon. Lady and her colleagues any views that they have about the way forward.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. When I trained as a physics teacher, I saw both the enrichment that tech can provide, with easy access to calculators and apps to enhance learning, and the disruption, with endless notifications, distractions and cyber-bullying incidents. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the consultation harnesses the opportunities that tech provides while protecting kids at risk?
Liz Kendall
It is partly about having the consultation, in conjunction with the wider action that we are taking. Next week will be the anniversary of the AI opportunities action plan, and we will set out how much we have already achieved, but the next step is to seize the benefits of those technologies. This country is and should continue to be a world leader in AI and science, and hon. Members will hear more from me about this next week.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Families in my constituency are deeply concerned about the impact of social media on their children’s wellbeing. Just last week a headteacher told me that schools need the Government to act, and young people themselves describe the real damage that social media is doing to their mental health. The Conservative party has shown leadership by calling for clear age limits, because we recognise that protecting childhood is about setting responsible boundaries. Parents are asking for action now, so why are the Government not making a clear commitment today?
Liz Kendall
We have given clear support through all the steps we have taken on making the encouragement of self-harm and suicide a priority offence, as is cyber-flashing. We have taken action on nudification apps, updated the guidance for school and made sure that Ofsted will carry out inspections on that. I understand that the hon. Lady is strongly of the opinion that we should act now. I believe that a short, sharp consultation is the right way forward, because families and children really need that support. At the weekend, over 40 organisations signed a letter saying why they think a ban is the wrong approach. I think it is right to listen to them, because we have to lead, but we also have to listen and try to bring people with you.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As one of the Back Benchers pushing the Government in this direction, I feel that the Secretary of State is taking the right approach in looking at the evidence and having a broad consultation to make sure that we get this right. However, what we can do to ensure that the voices of children and young people and parents in Bishop Auckland are included in the consultation?
Liz Kendall
What I will certainly be doing in my Leicester West constituency is holding events in schools with parents and organisations that represent children and families, and we can get cracking on that now and during the consultation. I want to hear Members’ views, so that we can make sure we get the questions in the consultation right and then take that out into the country. About 10 years ago, when I was in opposition and a member of the Science and Technology Committee, we had an inquiry into keeping kids safe online. I did a big thing with my local schools, and it was really interesting because at that time young people said they wanted to be online for some of the benefits, but already saw the problems—the bullying, the harassment and what was happening to younger children. Children are savvy, and this issue has been going on for a long time. We are determined to set the right path for the future, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be helping us get that right.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
We should not underestimate the complexity of this issue or the potential for unintended consequences from a complete ban. There is early evidence that some unintended consequences are already occurring in Australia. Parents are rightly worried and they are demanding action. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to listen to those parents, young people themselves and the many organisations and individual experts in the field, many of whom oppose a full ban, to reach not only a considered position, but a robust and enforceable one? Does she also agree that enforcement of the Online Safety Act has not been remotely strong enough, and that, notwithstanding this consultation, existing enforcement must be better funded and ramped up?
Liz Kendall
We certainly intend to learn from Australia’s experience and evidence of the ban there—I hope that I and the Minister for online safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), will be visiting soon. I do listen to the concerns raised by organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Internet Watch Foundation and the Molly Rose Foundation about the unintended consequences of a ban, and I intend to look at all those points of view seriously. However, as I have said to the House earlier, the question is not whether we act, but how. On age verification, I am extremely interested in what more we can do to enforce the existing law, and we will be gathering evidence on those points.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for this statement, acknowledging the real harm that social media is causing for children. As a former Schools Minister, I know how welcome these announcements will be for teachers and parents, who are contacting us in droves. However, as she knows, time is of the essence. All the time we spend contemplating is time that children still remain vulnerable to those algorithms and this addiction. Will she give the reassurance today that not only will this consultation be swift, but the delivery of its outcomes will be swift, and—she has just said this—that there will be real action to enforce the regulations already in place that should be protecting children today?
Liz Kendall
I have no desire to hang about, because this is happening to children and young people now—and because my hon. Friend would have my guts for garters if I did not act swiftly.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I realise that the Secretary of State has been sent out to manage a growing political problem—[Interruption]—honestly. She is speaking in stentorian terms to try to inspire some kind of confidence, but if colleagues look at the statement, they will see that there is nothing of substance in it at all. That is disappointing, given that in a private Member’s Bill only last year—I was a sponsor of the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is now on the Government Front Bench—promises were made that are not even delivered by this statement.
In particular on schools—since I have to ask a question—could the Secretary of State acknowledge an inherent conflict? She says that the Government are clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, but she is going to update the guidance on how they should be used in schools. Could she at the very least confirm that that guidance is going to tighten their use in school, and that there is no possibility of any loosening of the current situation?
Liz Kendall
If the right hon. Member had read the guidance that has been published, he would know that this is about how schools can introduce such a ban effectively. I would say that the statement goes further than the private Member’s Bill he recommends. Last but by no means least, I have been focused on and working on this issue since 2016, as I have said, so if he does not mind, I will diplomatically reject that comment.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I really welcome the Secretary of State’s leadership and commitment. I run a work experience programme, “Your Voice, Your Future”, which encourages young people to get involved in politics and government. Some of the participants produced a powerful campaign called “Rise above the rumours”, which was all about how the rapid spread of misinformation online is harming young people’s mental health and fuelling division. Can the Secretary of State say how young people in my constituency and across the country can get involved?
Liz Kendall
“Rise above the rumours” is quite a good tagline. My hon. Friend will probably hold events with her schools—primaries and secondaries—and get children to have a full debate, put forward their views and maybe even vote on what they want, and if she does so, I will definitely look at the results.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I have had almost 1,800 emails from constituents urging for something to be done about this. I declare an interest as the mother of four young adults and teenagers. Local headteachers and campaigners tell us repeatedly about the mental health issues and harmful algorithms, but the tech companies must be held to account. If the Secretary of State is serious about urgency and prioritisation, speed is of the essence. Today, the Online Safety Act Network, supported by 42 civil society groups, has asked for urgent amendments to the Online Safety Act 2023. Has she looked at that?
Liz Kendall
Yes, I have, and I am determined to act swiftly, but there are different views on this issue. The hon. Member will feel very strongly, as do those in her constituency who have contacted her, but the truth is that there are different views that must be heard and listened to, but we will act swiftly.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the action on mobile phones in schools. Harmful interactions can take place in online games and on instant messaging platforms, and we need to be alive to the risk of driving use to less well-regulated spaces and into virtual private networks. I am also concerned that opaque feed algorithms, which reinforce our worst prejudices and recommend harmful content, can have mental health impacts on adults as well as children. Can she assure me that her review will look at this broader issue, and will she ensure that young people’s voices are at the heart of the consultation?
Liz Kendall
I will absolutely look at those issues and make sure that young people’s views and voices are at the heart of this. It is interesting that, when we look at the Australians’ experience, we see that they had to define what social media is and what it covers. That has not been as straightforward as some might have thought, and I think it is really important that we look at it closely. The OSA does not have a definition of social media, so that is one thing we need to consider.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Secretary of State has made reference to the interaction of whatever she may consult on with the operation of the current law. Following on from the comments of the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), will the Secretary of State confirm that even if the Government pursue a ban on social media for the under-16s, they will not seek to dilute the child safety duties under the Online Safety Act?
Liz Kendall
I think it is really important that those duties are upheld and implemented. As I have said, I am very interested in highly effective age assurance measures, which are already required for some of the most serious issues, including pornography, and whether they should be extended to other areas.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I recently met Youthline, a fantastic mental health charity for young people in my constituency, and Berkshire Women’s Aid to talk about the effects of social media on young people’s mental health and their ability to form healthy relationships. Will my right hon. Friend commit to listening to the views of such organisations, as well as to Bracknell parents and children, as she looks at the results of the consultation?
Liz Kendall
Yes, and I urge my hon. Friend to send us details of those opinions so that we can ensure they are heard loud and clear.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the Government have no intention of introducing criminal sanctions against parents or guardians of children who access social media through parental accounts?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady has got this wrong, but her party wants to scrap the Online Safety Act 2023, and that says everything about Reform.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The Children’s Commissioner spoke to a group of 15 and 16-year-olds in 2024 and found that three quarters of them had been sent a beheading video. It is possible that a great number of children are protecting us from what they see online, instead of us protecting them. Can I emphasise strongly the importance of speaking to a large range of children from different backgrounds about this? Sadly, they do not always feel able to make us aware of everything that they are exposed to online.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, which is making sure that young people trust us and feel confident in raising these matters. It is our job to make sure that nobody is frightened to say what is happening to them. We will not get this right unless we talk to people of all ages and from all backgrounds, in all parts of the country. Hon. Members know that they have a vital job to play in their constituency. As Secretary of State, I am responsible for the entire United Kingdom, so I urge hon. Members, for all the politics and show in this House, to engage locally, because then we will get this right.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is quite clear that social media is causing a health and wellbeing crisis among young people. Parents are absolutely terrified about the content that their children are viewing and the amount of time that they are spending online. Just a couple of months ago, 14 and 15-year-olds in my constituency told me about the profound pressure that they feel to be on social media. They feel a compulsion to use it, but they do not want to. Will the Government get off the pot and announce a ban? Perfection really is the enemy of the good here. The evidence is plain to see. We need action, not words.
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman knows what I think about why we have to do a consultation, so I disagree with him on that, but he is right to say that we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a point about the evidence. I discovered 10 years ago, before so much had changed online, that young people know that some of this stuff is bad; they do not want to do it, but they cannot help themselves. If we were all honest with our ourselves, we would know that we behave like that sometimes, too.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Earlier this month, I hosted in Parliament a performance by students from Kent of “Generation FOMO”, a powerful verbatim play that looks at young people’s real experiences of using social media. It highlighted the impact that social media use can have on mental health, and how it leads to an increase in anxiety and depression. I therefore welcome the consultation. Can it also look into the ability of tech firms to develop loopholes that would destroy the impact of any ban?
Liz Kendall
I want to hear the views and the voices of the good people of Kent on this, whether that means having a separate meeting with my hon. Friend, or his sending me that information, which I am more than happy to look at.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I recently visited the Fulham boys school, which, 18 months ago, introduced a complete ban on smartphones in school. That school and Kingsbridge community college in my constituency both talk about the transformative effect that a ban has had. The most compelling evidence for me is this: where a secondary school completely bans smartphones, children at the feeder primary schools are under less peer pressure to buy phones, so the age at which those children get a phone is rising to 12, 13 or 14. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that she has not dismissed the idea of supporting headteachers by banning, through legislation, smartphones in secondary schools in England and Wales?
Liz Kendall
I have set out the Government’s position on this. I know that the hon. Lady wants us to go further, and I hear what she says. This is a really important point. Several friends have told me that their children feel totally left out at school if they do not have a phone, and the peer pressure to have one seeps down to younger siblings and other children, so the hon. Lady is right to talk about the route through. We want to make things as simple as possible for schools, teachers, parents and young people, and to make it clear that there is no place for phones in school.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I have recently been asking my constituents what they think about a ban on phones in schools, as well as for their thoughts about social media for under-16s. It was clear that, regardless of their politics, they all wanted to have their views heard. They were so grateful to be asked, instead of having something imposed on them. Will the Secretary of State join me in South Derbyshire for the consultation meetings that I hope to have, so that my constituents feel that they are being heard by the decision maker right at the top?
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Last week, as the Secretary of State will recall, some of us were loudly heckled for suggesting that X was beginning to give way on Grok. Now we know that that was true, so events are moving fast. Can the Secretary of State at least assure us that she will immediately—during the consultation and anything that follows on from it—instruct the civil servants who would have to prepare for a practical ban to get on with the task provisionally, so that no time is wasted?
Liz Kendall
Deeds, not words—I have always believed that. I want to prepare for all options, because when we make a decision, we want to implement it as soon as possible.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s consultation on smartphone use and social media. Raising the minimum age is the right step towards protecting our children, as we know that social media has led to devastating consequences. We also know that excessive screen time is linked to myopia and dry eye disease. When the Secretary of State brings forward guidance, will it take account of the risks for sight loss?
Liz Kendall
My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is leading on the guidance on screen time. I will definitely raise that issue with her. My primary schools are extremely worried about screen time. For children under 5, there are also implications for language development, fine motor skills and communication confidence. All those issues are important, but I will definitely raise the point about the impact on people’s eyes with my right hon. Friend.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Over the past year, I have spoken to hundreds of children in schools across my constituency as part of my safer screens tour. It has been very distressing to hear from them about the material that they have been exposed to, and to hear that social media companies have not come back to them when they have reported this harmful content. If the Secretary of State agrees that there should be a ban on children accessing harmful social media platforms, will the default age for accessing them be 16?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have set out that we will consult on the age of 16, but I remind the House that the Online Safety Act has very strong provisions against illegal content for people of all ages and harmful content for children. We need to make sure that it is effectively enforced now, whatever decision is made through the consultation.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of this consultation. Parents and carers, families, schools and children themselves are looking for help and leadership on the issue of keeping children safe in the digital world. Will she assure me that the consultation will cover two things? First, will it cover the concept of misinformation? Claims about misinformation are levelled at social media providers. Secondly, will it consider all options for dealing with the addictive nature of social media, and algorithmically personalised feeds?
Liz Kendall
This is very much about keeping children safe online. I have said that we will look at raising the digital age of consent, the positive impact that could have on how companies use algorithms, and the many related issues. I am of course happy to discuss matters further with my hon. Friend, but the consultation is absolutely focused on children.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Many young people watching us will be thinking that issues of addiction and online harm are not simply age-related. This debate reflects, I fear, many parents’ and carers’ lack of confidence in the ability of the Online Safety Act and Ofcom to deal with rapid technological change. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with Ofcom about the powers and further action that it could take now, in particular on artificial intelligence chatbots?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend will know that I have already said that I have looked seriously at the issue of AI chatbots. Those that use live search and those that share user-to-user content are covered by the Online Safety Act, but where the chatbot has an interaction with an individual without live search or user-to-user content, that is not covered by the Act, and I am considering how we fill those gaps. I have said that if further action is needed, we will take it. Ofcom will understand that the expectation—from not just Members but the public—that there will be swift and effective enforcement is paramount.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and place on record my thanks and gratitude to Rosalind McClean and Charlotte Carson from a local campaign group on smartphone-free childhoods. She is right to bring forward a consultation and engage with young people, but my parliamentary colleagues in the other place will tomorrow, if proceedings allow, support an amendment that would lead to a ban for under-16s. In the consultation, is she proposing a social media ban for under-16s, simply asking for views on the age at which a ban should be set, or giving options?
Liz Kendall
We are including the option of a ban for those under 16; that will be clear. We will propose raising the digital age of consent and we will look at the other issues I listed in my statement. I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s party’s approach in the other place. We want the consultation to happen. His party will have strong opinions, but we think that this is the right and responsible way forward. We will do this as swiftly as possible.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I place on record my appreciation of the Secretary of State for standing up to the richest man in the world. Whether it is standing up and acting, or the statement on online harm made weeks ago by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), this Government are taking the protection of children seriously. In Bolton South and Walkden, parents see the effect of social media on children. Will the Secretary of State stick to her intention to consult fully, especially with children under the age of 16?
Liz Kendall
The Government as a whole are determined to stick up for British values and British law. I am proud that we did that last week, and we will continue to do so. I absolutely commit to ensuring that the views of children and young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as well as across the country, are heard loud and clear.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Secretary of State has demonstrated her commitment and interest in this issue at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, and we thank her for that. However, with the greatest respect, if social media had just arrived in our sitting rooms two weeks ago, a consultation might be necessary, but the canon of evidence about the demonstrable harms being done to our young is now very clear; that is what we have all read in our inboxes in recent days. The consultation will not throw up anything that we do not already know. Still less will it find a unanimity of view. There will always be differences of view on whether to ban. To govern is to choose. Can I urge the Government to choose to act swiftly, and to use the legislative vehicle in the other place to act now, because too many of our young people are on a precipice?
Liz Kendall
To govern is indeed to choose, and we showed our determination to do so last week. We will choose on this issue, but I want people’s views to be heard. Sometimes, we need to try to bring people together. The hon. Gentleman is right that we will never get everyone to agree on anything, but making sure that people are heard is really important. Maybe that is old fashioned, but I believe that it is right. Then we will act, lead and decide.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I welcome the steps to protect our children on social media platforms. It is very difficult to see how that can be achieved effectively without further detailed checks and balances on users and, essentially, the tech companies themselves. Social media governance is like the wild west; it is like cyber-anarchy at this moment in time, with bots, fake accounts and goodness knows whatever undermining our fantastic society. What will my right hon. Friend do to tackle the problem of digital lawlessness?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have taken steps; the Online Safety Act is a really important step forward. Ever since that became law we have taken further action on cyber-flashing, nudification apps, and sites that promote self-harm and suicide. I am very interested in looking at highly effective age-assurance measures. They are already in use for most of the serious harms for children, whether pornography, suicide or self-harm. It will be part of the consultation to see what more we can do, because we want to ensure that the laws of this land are upheld.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Just to help Members, I will be calling this statement to an end at 2 o’clock, because we have a lot of business afterwards.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Anna is a child development doctor in my constituency. Every day, she sees children who have been harmed by excessive screen time. The Secretary of State says that she wishes to come to a clear position before the summer. When we come to that clear position, how urgently will change happen? How long will Anna keep on seeing children damaged by too much screen time?
Liz Kendall
We will act as swiftly as possible. I am extremely keen to hear from medical professionals—I received a letter from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges on this issue—and we will be engaging with them deeply to ensure we get this right and act as swiftly as possible.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I am one of few Members here today, and potentially the only woman, who had social media as a part of their childhood under the age of 16. That is why I am so shocked that the Conservatives can come here today and demand such urgency, when they left my generation to view harmful content for a decade. Social media has defined my life and being literate in it has shaped my career for the good at times, but it also meant that there was a language barrier between me and trusted adults—a language barrier that I fear will only worsen and widen under a blanket ban. I urge colleagues across the House, when talking about an entire generation, to bring them with us and not to send a message that it is simply easier to remove young people from social media than it is to remove the harmful content on it. Will the Secretary of State assure me that my generation and the generation that followed will be at the heart of this consultation?
Liz Kendall
Once again, my hon. Friend shows the courage of her convictions and the experience she brings to this House. I know her life in fashion has been crucially shaped by the online world, which does provide opportunities for young people, so maybe I will ask her whether she can ensure that the Government hear from people like her in her generation, so that we can take their views deeply into account. We want to prevent harms and we will take action to do that, but we need to hear from young people for whom social media has given them a chance and a future.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I have heard from literally hundreds of parents and teachers in the Scottish Borders who want social media to be banned for under-16s. We all know that these apps are addictive and are causing serious mental health challenges for our young people. I am now getting messages from parents who have heard what the Secretary of State has said and fear that she is simply kicking the issue into the long grass. Why will the Government not take action now?
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is taking exactly the right approach. This place is littered with legislation that turns out not to be as good as it should have been, and then it does not get amended—and late amendments are not a good thing either. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) highlighted some of the important health impacts. Will the Secretary of State proactively seek information from health specialists, including psychologists such as Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, who is very expert in the teenage brain?
Liz Kendall
Yes, we absolutely want independent experts to feed in their views. My career started out in the world of public health at the King’s Fund, and thinking about this issue in a public health framework is extremely important.
As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) just said, people want action. I know that and have said loudly and clearly that I want to hear the views of all parents and families. I will listen to those views, but I also want to take evidence, including from—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters that I do not care. I do not think that my actions over the past 10 years have ever shown that that is the case. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member’s actual question was.
As I was saying, I want to hear from all those involved, including from—[Interruption.] There are many chuntering from the Conservative Benches. I have already said that I want every single MP in this House to feed through to us the views of their constituents. I want to hear from those in the medical and other professions, because it is important that we do this properly and get this right.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I know that parents, grandparents and, indeed, young people across Ceredigion Preseli will welcome action to tackle the harms of social media and mobile phone use. Given that education, which will be so important in implementing these measures, is a devolved responsibility in Wales, will the Secretary of State seek early discussions with the Welsh Government to ensure that any outcomes of the consultation are implemented equally across the United Kingdom?
Liz Kendall
I recognise those points and want to work closely with the Welsh Government on all these issues.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is clear that social media harms our children. I am firmly of the belief that when a child is being harmed, it is the Government’s duty to act. I support a ban, but even the most cursory engagement with Hartlepool residents shows me very clearly that there is a range of views among parents on this issue. Can the Secretary of State fathom what possibly could be the objection to listening to parents?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
We have censorship for films, which is not necessarily for violent or sexual content and sometimes for psychological content. Policing such things could be difficult. Following the consultation, it will take time to put together a report. What concerns us is when and how action could be taken, because the King’s Speech will have passed. If the right hon. Lady concludes that there has to be a social media ban for under-16s, what mechanism could be put in place in such a short time?
Liz Kendall
The right hon. Member knows that the mechanism will depend on the policy that we put forward. I want to do this properly and thoroughly so that when we take a decision, it will work and not have unintended consequences. I want us to have thought through all of that so that we have a policy that lasts. It is really important that we get this right. There are strong, different views across the House. It is good that many hon. Members have their own strong opinions; it is what this place is all about. I am trying to take the country forward and build consensus, but we will never get everybody to agree. Leadership is required, and that is what we will deliver.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s launching of a national conversation about the impact of screens and tech on our children. As part of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into children’s TV and video content, we have heard evidence that not all screen time is equal. Content that is meant for engagement can be beneficial for a child’s development, but content that is designed for attention, such as fast-paced images bombarding children, can be harmful. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the consultation looks at the quality and purpose of the content that our children are consuming on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube and at what more can be done to ensure that platforms support the right type of content for our kids?
Liz Kendall
Absolutely. I was at Braunstone community primary school in my constituency not long ago, where I was shown the incredible power of AI to help teachers with lesson planning. One teacher told me that using it meant that he could free up 30 days a year to be present for his kids in school and his family at home. Teachers were also using AI tutors to help narrow the disadvantage gap between rich and poor kids. We need to look at the quality of screen time, so my hon. Friend’s point is very well made.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
After more than a year of raising the issue in this House, illegal drugs including spice are still being brazenly sold to children online. If that is not harm, I do not know what is. What are the Government doing to ensure that all powers under the Online Safety Act are being used by Ofcom to stop this appalling harm to children? If the legislation we have cannot deal with it, will the Secretary of State consider including in her consultation how we might stop this pernicious trade?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Member raises an extremely important issue. I have put on record my determination for Ofcom to use the powers it has to act swiftly; I have made that very clear in private and publicly. I am more than happy to hear what more the hon. Lady thinks could be done.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
As a signatory to a letter calling for an Australia-style model that places responsibilities on tech firms to block under-16s from social media, I welcome the Government’s consultation. Families in Bedford and Kempston are very clear that platforms are harming our children now. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is committed to a rapid consultation, but will she also commit to a clear timetable for bold action before more young lives are damaged?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have said repeatedly in this House that we need to do the right and responsible thing, which is to consult. I do not want to hang around. I want to work out the very best and effective way forward, and I want proposals that will hold and last.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
In meaningful consultations, the Government set out what they are minded to do and set out a model. This consultation does not define social media or set out an enforcement model. It does not say anything about how age verification should be done. If they do not set out their model and what they intend to do, how at the end of the consultation will they have a practical guide or model to implement? They will not. If we are to follow this up with another consultation, I fear that parents and grandparents in Beverley and Holderness will be deeply disappointed with the dithering and delay displayed by the Secretary of State today.
Liz Kendall
The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is a statement, not the publication of the consultation. I very much look forward to his views when it is published.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Leading doctors have warned that social media has become a public health emergency that casts long shadows over our children’s minds. From self-harm to sleepless nights, distorted self-images and sexualised images, and the addictive nature of social media, the damage runs deep. Does my right hon. Friend agree that protecting young people’s wellbeing must come before digital profit and convenience? Will she commission research into the long-term side effects of social media, including on cognitive and motor development, in order to shape policy not just now but in 10 years’ time?
Liz Kendall
I think I mentioned earlier the letter I received from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which I believe is taking forward further work on this issue. Clinicians gave personal testimony about the horrific cases that they have treated in primary, secondary and community settings. I know that they will want to work closely with us on this. I thank my hon. Friend for her question.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I really welcome this statement. It coincides with the early-day motion published today in my name calling for children under 16 to be banned from social media that is deliberately designed to be addictive and is driven by profit. We have heard from Members across the House about the harms, which I will not repeat. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that any future consultation and subsequent legislation is based on the foundations of health and safety by design, and when can we expect the legislation to come into force?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Member is right; we want to ensure that this is about not only safety but enhancing the wellbeing of children, looking particularly at issues of mental health and anxiety. That will absolutely be at the heart of the consultation and any future proposals.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is 20 years since I co-authored the first code of practice on new forms of content on mobile. In the intervening 20 years, we have seen the proliferation of over-the-top services that bypass the network-level filters that we introduced as part of that code of practice. However, social media does not neatly fall into a categorisation of either age-inappropriate or harmful, so will the Secretary of State please commit to working with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which is working already to gather evidence on the harm to ensure that our conclusions from this consultation are evidence led?
Several hon. Members rose—
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I am so happy that the Government are finally waking up to this issue and how serious it is, and that there is a cross-party consensus on the need to ban social media for under-16s. Social media platforms are designed to be addictive; we all know that. Most adults cannot control themselves, so how can we expect our children to? Enforcement will be the key issue, so would the Secretary of State please give her views on what she thinks enforcement could look like and on what she has already learned from our Australian friends, who are leading the charge on this with legislation?
Liz Kendall
I hope that the action we took last week on Grok shows that the enforcement of existing laws is absolutely paramount. We will definitely be learning from the experience in Australia, not just about how the policy was developed and the definition of social media there, but about enforcement. I am more than happy to report back to the House on that.
Many colleagues have been unable to get on this statement, and I am sure that there are others who want to feed in their views. I really do want to hear from colleagues. We will certainly be organising events in the House for colleagues to come together, and they can also contact the Department to put forward the views of their constituents. That is my job: I am a member of this Labour Government but also the Secretary of State for the country. I believe that, when we get this right, it will be a legacy of which we can be proud.
Sarah Pochin
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my perfectly reasonable question, the Secretary of State said I had “got this wrong”. She did not explain in what way exactly I had got it wrong. Does she not agree that all Members in this Chamber—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. When the hon. Lady makes a point of order, she should address it to the Chair, not to the Secretary of State. The issue she has raised is not a point of order and it is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure she can follow it up with the Secretary of State outside the Chamber or in writing.
Chinese Embassy
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I would like to make a statement on the national security considerations of China’s proposal to build a new embassy at the Royal Mint Court in Tower Hamlets. I know that Members will by now be well aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has approved China’s planning application. Some right hon. Members have been briefed by my security officials, and some Members will have seen the statement from the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well as the letter from the director general of MI5 and the director of GCHQ.
The decision made by the Secretary of State for Housing was an independent, quasi-judicial planning one. It concludes a process that began in 2018 when the then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, gave formal diplomatic consent for China to use the Royal Mint site for its new embassy, subject to planning permission, and welcomed it as China’s largest overseas investment. Given the potential for legal proceedings, it would not be appropriate to give a commentary on the grounds for the decision. In its decision, MHCLG notes that
“the package of security measures proposed would be proportionate to the proposed use of the site”
and that
“no bodies with responsibility for national security, including HO and FCDO, have raised concerns or objected to the proposal on the basis of the proximity of the cables or other underground infrastructure.”
I know that some Members have raised concerns regarding the security implications of the new embassy, and it is on that issue that I want to update the House. National security is the first duty of any Government, and that is why the intelligence and security agencies have been absolutely integral to this process. The ISC, which is the Committee entrusted and empowered by this House to scrutinise the Government’s most sensitive information, has today released its judgment on the security implications. I thank it for its work, and I am reassured by the depth of its scrutiny throughout this process. In its statement, the ISC concluded,
“On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.”
I can confirm today that the Home Office has received a letter from the director of GCHQ and director general of MI5 that makes it clear that
“as with any foreign embassy on UK soil, it is not realistic to expect to be able wholly to eliminate each and every potential risk…However, the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.”
They judge that
“the package of mitigations deals acceptably with a wide range of sensitive national security issues, including cabling.”
Indeed, they note that the consolidation has “clear security advantages”.
Our security services have over a century of experience of managing security matters relating to foreign embassies on UK soil. This Government, and the last, have been aware of the potential for a new embassy at this site since the Chinese Government completed the purchase in 2018. The issues that continue to be raised in media reports are not new to the Government or the intelligence community, and an extensive range of measures have been developed to protect national security. We have acted to increase the resilience of cables in the area through an extensive series of measures to protect sensitive data, and I can confirm that, contrary to reporting, the Government had seen the unredacted plans for the embassy and the Government have agreed with China that the publicly accessible forecourt on the embassy grounds will not have diplomatic immunity, managing the risk to the public.
Based on all that, and given our extensive work on this matter, I am content that any risks are being appropriately managed, but let me be clear: the build also brings clear national security advantages. Following extensive negotiations led by this Government, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate their seven current sites in London into one site. That is why, following deep scrutiny by security officials, the Government have been able to conclude that we can manage the security concerns related to the embassy.
Although there are those who have, and who will no doubt continue to have, concerns about the embassy, it is a fundamental and normal part of international relations that countries agree to establish embassies in each other’s capitals. While some would stick their heads in the sand and ignore the obvious need to engage, this Government are engaging with China confidently and pragmatically, recognising the complexity of the world as it is and challenging where we need to, because for our security, our economy and our climate, China matters. To be clear, this is not a question of balancing economic and security considerations; we do not trade off security for economic access.
Of course we recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions to the transnational repression of Hongkongers and China’s support for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is why I announced a package in November to protect our national security, which set out the range of work the Government are taking forward to strengthen the security of our democracy against the threat from foreign interference and espionage. It is also why, for example, in December 2025 the UK sanctioned two China-based companies that have carried out cyber-attacks against the UK and its allies; why we have completed work to remove Chinese-made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites; why the UK has sanctioned 50 Chinese companies under the Russia sanctions regulations as part of our efforts to take action against entities operating in third countries over economic and military support for Russia; and why I will be hosting a closed event in February with vice-chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference from a range of states and to signpost our plans to further increase the sector’s resilience.
Taking a robust approach to our national security also includes engaging with China. Under the previous Government, engagement with China had ground to a halt. That made us no safer; indeed, it is only through engagement that we can directly challenge China on its malicious activity. By taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to co-operate in other areas, including in pursuit of safe economic opportunities in the UK’s interest, and in areas such as organised immigration crime, narcotics trafficking, and serious and organised crime. This is what our allies do and this is what we are doing: delivering for the public, putting more money in their pockets and keeping them safe through hard-headed, risk-based engagement with the world’s most consequential powers.
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for the ongoing attention that they give to protecting the UK’s national security. China has posed, and will continue to pose, threats to our national security. However, following detailed consideration of all possible risks around the new embassy by expert officials across Government, I am assured that the UK’s national security is protected. Let me assure this House and the country: upholding national security is the first duty of Government and we will continue to take all measures necessary to defeat these threats. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let us be in no doubt about the threat that China poses: MI5 has warned that Chinese intelligence is actively trying to disrupt our democracy; bounties have been placed on the heads of Hong Kong campaigners; Members of this House have been directly spied on by China; China actively supports Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine; and China is infiltrating universities and businesses to acquire sensitive technology, as well as stealing it directly. Yet this Government have failed again and again to take the action needed.
This Government failed to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. This Government failed to properly support the case against two men accused of spying for China on MPs in this House. And now this Government have shamefully approved plans for a Chinese super-embassy. Despite everything China has done on our soil, China has been rewarded with exactly what it wants: a super-embassy that will be a base for espionage, not just in the UK but likely across Europe as well.
The Government have capitulated to Chinese demands. The Prime Minister himself said to President Xi at the G20 in November 2024,
“You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone and we have since taken action by calling in that application.”
In other words, the Prime Minister did precisely what President Xi told him to do and then he faithfully reported back afterwards.
The decision has serious implications. Last week, The Telegraph published plans showing 208 secret rooms and a hidden chamber just 1 metre from critical data cables. Our economy depends on those cables, so what assurance can the Minister give that those cables will be secure from Chinese interference?
In paragraph 97 of his decision notice, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who made the decision, admits that he had not even seen unredacted plans before making his decision. How can he possibly have assessed the risk, as the decision maker, without having seen those plans? He also admits in paragraph 13 that he did not follow our suggestion to hold section 321 closed hearings to take evidence. Once again, how can the Secretary of State possibly have taken the decision in an informed way without having personally assessed the risk? It gets worse, because paragraph 8.63 onwards of the inspector’s report admits that China can legally refuse to allow UK authorities to inspect the building during or after construction—so we are going to have no idea what is being built in there in any event.
The Minister referred to the ISC. He said that someone in Government has seen unredacted plans, although we know that that was not the decision maker, the Secretary of State. Has the ISC seen those unredacted plans? It has been suggested to me that it has not. The ISC says that the risks can be mitigated, but mere mitigation is not enough. Mitigation entails only a partial exclusion of risk, and nothing is said about how to manage future developments in China’s capabilities—developments that we cannot anticipate today. The Minister for some reason forgot to quote this, but the ISC also says that the Government process was not robust enough. It says that it lacked clarity on national security, that the key reports lacked the necessary detail and that the Government do not have the “dexterity” required to handle China. Does the Minister accept those elements of the ISC report?
Others share those concerns. A US Government source was recently quoted as saying that the UK had “downplayed” the risks. Last week, the White House was reported to be “deeply concerned”, and the chair of the US House of Representatives China committee says that he opposes the plans on the grounds that Americans’ data may be “at risk”. Does the Minister agree with our American allies?
It is clear that this decision is timed to be shortly before a planned trip by the Prime Minister to China. He apparently intends to seek some kind of economic deal with China to fix the mess he and the Chancellor have created here, with jobs down and unemployment up since the election. From its timing and from President Xi’s clear demands, this planning consent appears to be linked to the Prime Minister’s imminent visit and to the economic deal. It seems clear to me that the Government are trading national security for economic links, and that this is a shameless capitulation to China’s demands.
China is spying on us. It is subverting our democracy, it is repressing people on our soil and it is stealing our technology. Is the truth not this? In those circumstances, giving them what they want is simply the wrong thing to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I call the Minister, I gently remind shadow Ministers and spokesmen that there is a time limit, which the right hon. Gentleman exceeded somewhat.
Dan Jarvis
I listened carefully to what the shadow Home Secretary had to say. There was a glaring gap in his analysis: he did not seem to want to say anything about the level of challenge that we inherited from the previous Government in the laydown of the diplomatic estate. He did not want to accept that, as with other countries, there is a degree of risk that has to be managed. I explained that very carefully and made sure that he had the opportunity to come in this morning for a briefing. I was also at pains to stress in my opening remarks that although, of course, balanced views have to be taken about these things, there are national security advantages to the proposals that have been agreed. I know that he and other Conservative Members do not want to agree with that, but I think it is important that we debate—
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman says it is nonsense. He is entitled to his opinion, as are this Government. I hope that he takes the opportunity to look carefully at what the director general of MI5 and the director of GCHQ have to say. I also say to him and to some, but not all, Conservative Members that this is a moment when I would have hoped we could discuss these things in a sensible and reasonable way. That is how we should approach matters relating to national security.
I do not think it would be such a bad thing to hear a bit of humility from some Conservative Members, not least because the attack that we heard from the shadow Home Secretary and which other hon. Members have already engaged in might have landed a bit fairer and a bit truer if they had not spent 14 years in government flitting between hot and cold, neither consistent nor credible on what is, after all, one of the most complex geopolitical challenges that we face. The Conservatives went from golden age to ice age, and from welcoming China with open arms to choosing to disengage almost entirely with the world’s largest nation, which, along with Hong Kong, is our second-largest trading partner. It is convenient for some Conservative Members to forget that it was Boris Johnson, as Conservative Foreign Secretary in 2018, who granted consent for the Royal Mint site to be used as diplomatic premises. He said he was proud to
“welcome the fact this is China’s largest overseas diplomatic investment.”
That was a Conservative Foreign Secretary. In recent times, we have seen Conservative MPs U-turn on the original position of their Government and take a different approach.
This Government will ensure that the approach we take is underpinned by consistent and pragmatic engagement with China, but we will do so a way that absolutely ensures our national security. The House will have heard the important contributions that have been made by the ISC, and the conclusion that it has drawn. The House and the country will have heard the comments from the directors general. These are important contributions. Nobody should underestimate how seriously the Government have taken this matter. We have engaged with it incredibly closely. The intelligence and security agencies have been involved in the process from the outset. I can give an assurance to those who have doubts that we will, of course, continue to monitor this process carefully, but we believe that this is the right judgment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I respectfully say to the Minister that that was an incredibly long answer—indeed, longer even than the question. Perhaps questions and responses need to be briefer.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
Many of my constituents will continue to have serious concerns about the proposed new embassy in my constituency. These include concerns about China’s human rights record, espionage and, in particular, local disruption. A development of this scale would cause significant disruption for local residents, especially those in Royal Mint Court, who now face considerable uncertainty, including privacy concerns and the fear of losing their homes. What assurances can the Government provide to my constituents, particularly those residents, regarding their concerns? Can the Minister also say more about the national security concerns and how they will be satisfactorily mitigated?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is an assiduous Member of the House and represents her constituents incredibly seriously. She will understand that, for obvious reasons, there are limits to what I can say about the specific measures and mitigations that will be put in place, but I am grateful to her for entirely understandably raising the concerns that some of her constituents have expressed. I assure her that we will want to work closely with her to minimise any disruption to local residents, and of course I would be happy to discuss these matters with her further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the time his officials took to brief me earlier today.
The Government’s decision to approve plans for the Chinese mega-embassy represents far more than a planning matter. It shows that Ministers have learned very little from the evidence exposed in recent months of Chinese spying efforts to infiltrate British politics and this House. Throughout this stunted process, the Liberal Democrats have consistently called these plans out for what they are: a mistake. The Government know that the decision they have made today will further amplify China’s surveillance efforts here in the UK, endangering the security of our data. Planning conditions are meaningless without proper enforcement. Given the unprecedented security concerns surrounding this site, how will the Government ensure that planning conditions are rigorously monitored and enforced, particularly in regard to the underground cables that the current plans come dangerously close to?
No amount of planning conditions can address the fundamental problem. The embassy does not clean Chinese officials of their human rights abuses. It is shocking that China has placed bounties on the heads of democracy activists from Hong Kong who live in the UK. That type of interference and intimidation in our country is totally unacceptable, so in the light of this decision, will the Government include all Chinese officials, Hong Kong special administrative region officials and Chinese Communist party-linked organisations on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Beyond the security and diplomatic concerns, there are fundamental questions about our democratic freedoms. The previous Conservative Government attacked our fundamental right to protest, and this Labour Government have continued to erode those freedoms. As a democratic society, we must protect the right to protest peacefully, including near embassies and including for Hongkongers living in the UK. Will the Government continue to guarantee the right to protest, even as this embassy moves ahead?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, not least because she came along in good faith this morning and attended the briefing at our invitation. I hope she found it helpful. I am acutely conscious that there are technical details that the House will understand I am not able to get into, and that is why we took the opportunity to brief the hon. Lady and other right hon. Members this morning. I am afraid that I do not agree with her analysis of our understanding of the threat. I referred earlier to the significant number of measures that we have taken in recent times to protect our national security.
The hon. Lady also asked me about the cables, so let me take this opportunity to update her and the House on that specific point. The allegations that have been much discussed in the media are not new to us or to the security agencies. Our intelligence services have scrutinised the plans, and an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security, including putting in place additional resilience measures to protect sensitive data—
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
What does that mean?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member asks me what that means. I hope he will understand that it would be unwise of me to get into the technical detail of the mitigations that we are seeking to put in place. Surely he understands that the Security Minister is not able to get into the guts and the detail of precisely what we are going to do—[Interruption.] If he is just patient for—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am simply not going to have this. There is too much chuntering, and indeed yelling, across the Chamber from a sedentary position. The Minister might like to focus on responding to the question that was asked by the Lib Dem spokesperson, not to heckling from the rest of the Chamber.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members have made points about transparency, and it is important that I take this opportunity to give as much detail as I can, but it is important for the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) to understand that, as Security Minister, I cannot get into the detail of precisely what we are going to do, for what I thought would have been fairly obvious reasons.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) that the Government have been aware of the potential new embassy proposal since 2018. Our security services have been involved throughout that process, and an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect our national security. I can give her the assurance that she seeks that an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect our national security.
The hon. Lady also—quite unfairly, I have to say—criticised the Government’s belief in the right to protest. I do not think that that is a fair critique. The Government take very seriously the right of people to protest in our country. It is a cornerstone of our democracy and the Government will always ensure that people have the ability to protest in a peaceful way.
The hon. Lady asked, entirely reasonably, about the foreign influence registration scheme. I am waiting for Conservative Members to ask me about that as well. She will know that FIRS is still a new scheme. It came into force relatively recently, on 1 July, and more effectively on 1 October. She will understand that any decision with regard to FIRS will be brought to Parliament in the usual way.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, which is of course complex and raises significant issues that are shared on both sides of the House. He has referred to the issue of national security, and I fully appreciate that he is unable to talk about the mitigations that have been put in place. I am grateful that he has re-emphasised that point a number of times. As part of the evergreen nature of assessing the risks that we face, both during the building of the embassy, if it continues, and beyond, is he able to assure the House that, wherever possible, he will keep this place updated about any change in the risk assessments and that, if a more detailed analysis is required, the ISC will be fully apprised of that?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to say that these are complex decisions, and right to make the point that there are significant restrictions on what can be said in this Chamber. I can give him the assurances that he seeks. Ultimately, of course, it is for the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide what lines of inquiry it wants to proceed with, but we have given it close assurances of the work being done, and it has had access to material, so that it can take its own view. I make a commitment to him and to the vice-chair of the Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), that we will continue to engage with the Committee in a constructive way, and that when we feel that it is necessary or appropriate to update the House further, we will of course do that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House would expect, the Intelligence and Security Committee has investigated the security implications of this proposal, and specifically whether the intelligence community had sufficient opportunity to feed in any security concerns, and whether Ministers had the necessary information on which to base a decision. I want to quote directly from our conclusions, which represent the Committee’s unanimous view:
“On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.”
I will say, though, that we have been concerned solely with the national security perspective, not with the other arguments for or against a new embassy.
It has proved more difficult than it should have been to get straightforward answers to our basic questions. The process in Government does not seem to be effectively co-ordinated, or as robust as would have been expected. In particular, there was a lack of clarity about the role that national security considerations play in planning decisions. We will take those matters up further with the Government, as I know the Minister would expect.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and to all members of his Committee. Parliament entrusts the ISC with holding Government to account, and the ISC is able to do that in a way that other right hon. and hon. Members cannot. He made two key points. First, he shared the Committee’s analysis of the concerns expressed about national security. I hope that Members in all parts of the House listen carefully to what he says, and look carefully at the judgment that his Committee arrived at. Secondly, he made an important point about process, which I take seriously. I have no doubt that quite a lot can be learned from the process, and I am happy to talk with him and his Committee to identify the lessons that should be learned, and to ensure that we do things better next time.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I place on the record that I support completely what the deputy Chair of the ISC, of which I am also a member, just said. The process issue needs looking at urgently, and the deputy Chair was clear about the problems we faced. An important letter today from the GCHQ and MI5 heads to the Foreign and Home Secretaries says clearly:
“the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.”
Would the Minister like to comment on that?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I reiterate the points I made about process. I have a huge amount of respect for the Committee. I had the pleasure—that is how I will describe it—of appearing in front of the Committee not so long ago. I do not think it is a state secret to say that the Committee gave me a pretty tough grilling, and that is absolutely how it should be. The point he made about process is important, as is his point about the letter from the director generals. It is a rare occurrence for the director generals to make public comments. They are both extremely professional, and I have the pleasure of working with them regularly. They are both people of great integrity, and the House and the country should listen very carefully to what they have to say. They have made the point that, collectively, our security services have 100 years of experience in dealing with the challenges from foreign embassies. That is not to be remotely complacent about the nature of the threat that we face, because clearly it is very different from what it was in the past.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I do not think I am breaking the Official Secrets Act if I gently point out that when I used to chair the Intelligence and Security Committee, I repeatedly deprecated the use of the word “mitigation”, because it covers such a wide range of sins, but leaving aside security considerations just this once, does the Minister accept, as he should, that this is a colossal propaganda win for totalitarian, communist China? Is there any argument that was used in favour of China getting this embassy that would not have carried exactly the same weight if totalitarian, imperialist Russia had wanted to buy this building? Would the Government have stopped Russia from doing it, and if they would have done, on what grounds?
Dan Jarvis
I genuinely am, because I respect the wisdom of someone who has served in this House for many years. The right hon. Lady questions my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman. I can give her an assurance that I have a huge amount of respect—
Dan Jarvis
I am answering the question. I have a huge amount of respect for Members who have served for a long time, and particularly those who have chaired the ISC. We need to find a mechanism to ensure that Members like the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) have access to some of this information, so that they can make informed comments in this House. I take his point, although I do not agree with it, about mitigations. He understands that there are limits to what I can say on the mitigations. On his substantive point, I do not agree with him that this is a win for China, not least because I could not have been clearer about the importance of the consolidation of the estate. The Government have reached an agreement with China that the existing diplomatic footprint in London will be reduced in size from seven diplomatic sites to one. I am not sure that that constitutes a particularly big win in my book—
Dan Jarvis
Well, it is a statement of truth, and I think it undermines the right hon. Gentleman’s argument.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Even if we accept that the national security concerns about this new embassy have been mitigated, as evidenced by the letters from the security agencies today, and even if we accept that consolidating the seven properties that China owns into one gives us a security advantage, that is still cold comfort to the Hongkongers whom I represent in Leeds South West and Morley. They still have to live with transnational repression. In the case of Chloe Cheung, she still has to live with a £100,000 bounty on her head. Of course, they now have to live in fear that this new embassy might become their prison. What assurances can the Minister give Hongkongers in my constituency and, indeed, the UK that they will be protected from the ever-lengthening arm of the Chinese Communist party?
Dan Jarvis
I do not accept the basis of the argument that my hon. Friend has made. He would be well advised to place more emphasis on the point about consolidation, because I am confident that that will deliver meaningful operational benefits; that has been agreed by the security experts. Let me find what I hope is an important point of consensus: I am absolutely clear about how unacceptable it is for China, or any other nation for that matter, to seek to persecute individuals who are resident in the United Kingdom. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. That is why the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, has completed an extensive piece of work looking at transnational repression.
A number of actions have come from that piece of work, which have been routed right across Government. We take this incredibly seriously; I have met a number of people who have been the victim of TNR. It is completely unacceptable for China or anyone else to persecute people in this country. However, I ask my hon. Friend to consider the fact that we are talking about a proposal that will deliver an embassy for China at some point in the future. The Government and I have to deal with the level of threat as it is. Given the point about consolidation, I am confident that this is a proposal that we will be able to make work in the national interests of our country and all the people who live here.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
While I associate myself with the wider security concerns, will the Minister forgive me if I raise a narrow point? He knows what I am going to ask, because I have asked this twice already and not had an answer. The correspondence between the Government and the Chinese reveals that the medieval monastery on the site—an important monastery called Eastminster, rather than Westminster, where we are now—will remain on inviolable Chinese territory. Any UK citizens visiting it will have to be frisked, and will effectively be in China. What reassurance can the Minister give to those who have bounties on their head—the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) mentioned them—or to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has been sanctioned by the Chinese state? What further reassurances can the Minister give that UK citizens visiting their own heritage will not be in danger when going on to the site?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Father of the House, who has consistently made this point; this is at least the third time that I have heard him raise it. I hope that he heard the point I made earlier—I looked at him purposefully—about the question that he asks, but let me take this opportunity to say that the bounties are completely unacceptable behaviour, and the Government will not stand for it. The point that he raised is one that I have looked at very carefully, and I responded to it earlier, in my statement.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I have been sceptical about this new embassy, but I take the points made today by Members on the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well as the response from GCHQ and MI5. I have also listened to my constituents, including the Bracknell Forest Hong Kong community, who tell me that they are concerned about the ongoing transnational repression that they are experiencing. My hon. Friend has talked a lot about the work that the Government have already done. Will he commit to continuing to engage with the Hong Kong community, so that we can continue to adapt our response to the emerging threats that they experience?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has consistently raised points on behalf of his constituents, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. Let me say to him and the House that we condemn the Hong Kong police’s efforts to coerce, intimidate, harass and harm those living in the UK and overseas. These acts of repression will not be tolerated in our country. Along with other ministerial colleagues, I have taken the opportunity to raise these concerns directly with the Chinese authorities, reaffirming that the extraterritorial application of Hong Kong’s national security law is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the UK. I can give him the assurances that he seeks, and I am very happy to discuss this matter with him further.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Hongkongers and other Chinese dissidents in the UK will be rightly concerned about this news. I want to make it completely clear that the Liberal Democrats have serious concerns that this project will enhance China’s ability to conduct transnational repression against Britons and Hongkongers on British soil. What is the timeline for closing the seven existing Chinese consulate buildings, once Royal Mint Court is opened? Will the Government publish the 2018 note verbale confirming that the embassy was contingent on planning approval, ensuring that the Government did not prejudge the application? Finally, paragraph 62 of the Secretary of State’s permission letter states that
“lawful embassy use of the site”
would give no cause for worry about interference with the sensitive cabling that runs adjacent to the secret basement rooms. After China’s proven record of unlawful espionage against MPs and British institutions, does the Minister agree that this is a catastrophic misjudgment, and that we have no hope of our laws being observed by the Chinese Communist party?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. When questions run to two pages and take a minute, perhaps Members might think about cutting them down slightly.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman has expressed an opinion, and he is entirely within his rights to do that, but I hope he understands that I am also entirely within my rights to point out that his opinion is not backed up by the intelligence services or the security agencies, which have looked incredibly carefully at the detail of the proposal. He states baldly that the proposed embassy site will deliver additional capability to China, but I again make the point about consolidation, and about the security advantages that we think will accrue from this proposal. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that I will not get into the timeline today, not least because I have to be incredibly careful about what I say, given the likelihood of further legal proceedings, but I am very happy to discuss these matters further with him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I want first to make it clear that I do not agree with this decision. It will have a chilling effect on Tibetans, Hongkongers and Uyghurs, and other Chinese people who merely dissent from the regime in Beijing. I have three questions about the application. First, what guarantees do the Government have that the seven other sites will be closed and disposed of? Will the new site be built by British construction companies hiring workers in the usual way, or by Chinese construction companies bringing in their own labour? What forms of building inspection control will be present during and after the construction?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend has a long and proud track record in this area, and I listen carefully to what he has to say. He will forgive me if I disagree with his analysis of the chilling effect of this decision, not least given the points about consolidation and the security advantage. He has asked about the seven sites. Let me give him and the House an absolute assurance that that is part of the deal agreed with China. The deal is that the seven diplomatic sites forming the existing diplomatic footprint in London will be consolidated in the individual site.
In terms of the precise details about construction and other activities, my hon. Friend will understand that there are agreed procedures for these kinds of activities. I think a point was made earlier about the relationship with the United States and the concerns that they might have expressed—which I do not recognise—but it is useful to note that China built a new embassy in the United States not so long ago, so this is not a particularly uncommon occurrence. However, I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will keep a close eye on the points he makes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I raise these issues as a sanctioned individual. Not only am I sanctioned, but my whole family is sanctioned, I have been trolled by operatives from the security service of China, and I am under constant watch by them, all the way through. On the basis of that, I simply ask him this. When the Secretary of State issued his letter, he said—this was quoted earlier—that the concern about cables should not present a problem for “a lawful embassy use”. Nothing about the Chinese is lawful here in the United Kingdom. Is it lawful for them to attack Hongkongers who have fled here? Is it lawful for pop-up police stations to go on pulling people in? Is it lawful for them to place bounties on people’s heads? Is it lawful for them to be asking British citizens living next door to Hongkongers to bring them into the embassy, so they may collect their bounty? These are all unlawful acts. The truth is that this Chinese embassy, with its 200 extra staff, will increase that. In every place where China has put more people in its embassy, transnational repression has increased. Does the Minister not agree with that?
Dan Jarvis
Try though I might, there was never going to be a scenario where I would be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman today in what I have been able to say. He and I have had exchanges on these matters on many occasions. It is completely intolerable and unacceptable that he and members of his family have been sanctioned, and he knows the Government’s position on that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of law. UK law is sacrosanct, and where anyone—whoever they might be—falls short of it, they will be held to account by this Government. He made a specific point about the potential for an increase in staff. Again, there are clear procedures that rest with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: where a foreign nation seeks to bring additional staff resource into a country, that all has to go through the normal diplomatic channels and has to be agreed by the Foreign Secretary.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not support these proposals. I understand that he has strong views, which I have a lot of respect for, but I hope he can respect the fact that we have engaged seriously with this proposal. The security services have been involved from the outset. Ultimately, Government have to take a view. We have taken the view that the national security implications can be mitigated. We have also taken the view—and I know that some Opposition Members do not agree with it—that there could well be some security advantages as a consequence of these proposals. I undertake to keep him and other Members up to date, and if he wishes to discuss it outside this Chamber, I would be happy to do that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government are happy with rewarding and emboldening a nation that has one of the worst human rights records, that conducts espionage on these islands and in our Parliament, that has imprisoned a UK national—Jimmy Lai—on trumped-up charges, that has committed crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs and that is the single most important enabler of Russia’s illegal war machine against Ukraine and its civilian population, which we as parliamentarians have stood united against?
Dan Jarvis
I am sorry to say that I do not agree with the framing of the hon. Gentleman’s question. While he is entirely right to raise specific concerns, this is not about rewarding China.
Dan Jarvis
It is not. It is about the importance of engaging confidently and pragmatically, in a way that will enable us to take opportunities where they present themselves and where it is in our national security. As I made clear in my earlier remarks, that is not just about economic co-operation; there are other areas where we need to co-operate with China. I referenced three in my opening comments: organised immigration crime, serious organised crime and narcotics trafficking. Those are important areas where we need to work with China. Ultimately, the most important thing is that we safeguard our national security. That is why we have worked incredibly hard to look carefully at the detail of this proposal and to make sure we have the right mitigations in place.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will the Minister explain how, by giving China the embassy it wants, the Government are demonstrating that they are holding China responsible for—in his words—“unacceptable behaviour” that they will not stand for?
Dan Jarvis
In part, it is because of the reduction in the diplomatic estate from seven sites to one.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
So the Chinese communist regime sanctions Members of this House, spies on Members of this House and carries out more cyber-attacks than any other country. The Minister admits that they are a national security threat, yet the Government think it is a good idea to kowtow to the Beijing bullies and allow this mega-embassy. If the decision is in the national economic interest, could the Minister confirm that some British steel might be used in this Chinese embassy? Can he guarantee that it is in the national security interests of British citizens?
Dan Jarvis
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting the clip that he no doubt will be posting on social media in the not-too-distant future; that is up to him. He seems to operate in a world that is quite selective in the decisions it seeks to make. I looked over to him earlier when I referenced the requirement for co-operation on areas such as organised immigration crime. I do not know whether he thinks that is a good thing. I do not know whether he or his party have a policy about whether, given the concerns that are shared across this House, we should be engaging with China on matters relating to immigration. He will understand, I hope, that as part of the work to stop the small boat crossings in the channel, it is necessary to engage with our near neighbours, but it is also necessary to engage internationally. I am not clear whether he thinks that is a good thing, and I am not clear whether he thinks we should engage with China on those matters.
What I am clear about is that this Government will engage pragmatically, do the right thing and secure the economic opportunities, but fundamentally, we will always make sure that we underpin our national security. The hon. Gentleman’s point about British steel is a fair one. This Government will always want to support UK-based manufacturers and UK-based industry. To end on a point of consensus, let us always look for opportunities to buy British.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am hopeful that we can find consensus that questions and answers need to be shorter. I intend to keep the Minister here until all Members have been satisfied this afternoon, but we do need to speed up.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
There is a pattern of behaviour here: the failure to act meaningfully over Jimmy Lai, the mysterious collapse of the Chinese spy case and now this abject national humiliation. Let’s call this what it is: this is appeasement of communist China for economic gain. We tried that in the 1930s, and look where it got us. Why are this Labour Government kowtowing to China—a communist regime that imprisons 1 million Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps for having the temerity to believe in God?
Dan Jarvis
In one sense, I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a pattern of behaviour; he is right about that. The pattern of behaviour is doing the right thing and making sure that we safeguard our national security.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman might roll his eyes, but he was a Minister in the previous Government, and he has served in this House for a number of years. He knows that under his Conservative Government there was a complete lack of consistency with regard to our policy on China. This is a significant geostrategic challenge. In the end, Government have to make decisions and have a clear-eyed policy. Anyone who thinks that we should not be engaging with China is naive.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman uses language that I think is inappropriate, unhelpful and inaccurate. I have made the point about consolidation, about the national security advantages and about this Government’s commitment to securing our national interests. Let me say one final thing. He is right to raise the case of Jimmy Lai. He knows the Government’s clear commitment that Jimmy Lai should be released immediately.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that the approval of this Chinese mega-embassy makes the British people safer?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced from his own time in government, and he will know that difficult decisions have to be made. It is my judgment that, ultimately, this is the right way to proceed and that we have to engage with China for the reasons I have explained. Ultimately, nothing—nothing—will prevent this Government from ensuring our national security. That is why we have progressed this proposal incredibly carefully and made sure we have the right mitigations in place.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Last week, I made it clear that any hostile intelligence service would struggle to find a better location for espionage than the now approved Chinese mega-embassy. What assessment has been made of the risk that this site could be used for surveillance, intimidation or coercion of critics of the oppressive communist regime who are living in the UK? How do Government justify a decision that is both shameful and reckless in its disregard for national security?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the points the hon. Lady has made, but of course, we are already dealing with those challenges. Some Members seem to think that we do not have to mitigate and manage those risks at the moment. We do. There are those who think—and it is an entirely reasonable position if people want to take it—that the situation could get worse with the agreement of this embassy. As I have tried to explain, because of the mitigations we have put in place and the consolidation of the diplomatic estate, there are clear national security advantages as a consequence of this proposal. She does not perhaps agree now, but I hope she understands that the Government take these matters incredibly seriously and will do everything they can to safeguard our national security.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
China is notoriously transactional in its international relations, so what do we get in return?
Dan Jarvis
I always listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, not least because I seem to remember that he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Prime Minister, Lord Cameron, whose Government had quite a different relationship with China from the one we have now. He will remember that very well, as do I. While I am grateful for his advice, I hope he has borne in mind the points I made about the consistency of the previous Government, including the one he served in.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
In the light of what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you see this as short question and I hope that I get a short answer.
Does the Minister know if the security services have any concerns at all about the proposed new Chinese super-embassy—yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Lady has seen the letter that has been published today by the director general—
Dan Jarvis
I do not know how much time the right hon. Lady spends thinking about matters relating to national security or understands the nature of the—
Dan Jarvis
Not at all—I am seeking to explain to her that this Government, like the last Government, manage a range of national security risks. That would be the case whatever decision was taken around this proposal.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I am going to ask again: does this make the British public safer—yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
Fundamentally, Government are there to make the British people safer. For the reasons that I have explained, I am confident that this is the right decision from a national security perspective.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Is not the plain truth that this was a predetermined political decision from the moment that the political decision was taken to call it in, when the Government were faced with due process because the council had refused the planning application? After all that has gone on, does this not simply bring the whole planning process into disrepute? London’s Labour group has condemned the decision, so is not one of its members right when he says:
“wrong embassy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time”?
Dan Jarvis
I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman’s analysis. I have been crystal clear that people are entitled to their opinions and will have different views. What sensible members of the public will be interested in is what the security professionals—the security agencies, the intelligence services, those people who really understand the nature of the risk and the threat—have said and what they think, and I have been clear about what they think and about the way in which we have approached the process, which I believe will deliver national security benefits for our country.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Let me point out that when the previous Conservative Government proclaimed a “golden era” of relations with China—when David Cameron welcomed President Xi for a state visit in 2015, as Theresa May was championing Huawei for our 5G infrastructure—the security services supported their then Prime Minister; or they were brought into line, which I expect is what happens under these circumstances. Can we ensure that we are not using the security services for propaganda purposes? I predict that in the fullness of history, we will look back at this decision with great regret.
Dan Jarvis
I know that the hon. Gentleman gives a lot of thought and dedication to these matters. He reflected on the engagement that had taken place under the previous Government, under former Prime Minister David Cameron. The hon. Gentleman will understand, because he thinks about these things very carefully, that there is obviously a need to engage with China. President Trump will be visiting China in the next couple of months. President Macron has been, I think, three times over the past years. Prime Minister Carney has been there recently. Serious, grown-up people understand the need to have engagement and to work closely with countries like China. Sensible people will get that and will also understand that sometimes that involves tough choices. This Government do not shy away from making the tough choices. I accept the challenge that the hon. Gentleman offers—that the decision will be judged over the long term—but I think that this is the right thing to do and I am pleased that the security services agree.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister says that China continues to pose a risk, and yet the Government today welcome this Trojan horse of an embassy into the heart of our capital. Consolidation helps China, not us, and planning conditions deal with the establishment but not the actual, real use inside the building in years to come. This has been asked many times before, but I ask again: are the British people safer as a result of this embassy—yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis with regard to consolidation. This Government will always work to ensure that the British public are safer—that is our job, our abiding mission and the first responsibility of Government. I am confident that the decision that has been taken, with the mitigations in place, will deliver good national security outcomes for our country.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Government’s decision to approve China’s spy embassy is utterly wrong and puts national security at risk. Now that the embassy has been approved, if—or rather when—we get evidence that China is using the embassy for surveillance, torture or other inappropriate means, will the Government guarantee to close that embassy?
Dan Jarvis
As with any embassy, either in this country or around the world—let us not be naive about the fact that Britain has embassies right around the world—the Vienna convention lays down the way in which different Governments should behave with regard to the conduct of their diplomatic presences. We take our responsibilities under the Vienna convention very seriously, and we expect every other country, including China, to do the same.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister will be pleased to know that I am not going to ask him about the FIRS, but he quoted extensively from the weighty tome of the planning approval letter. It says that the Secretary of State
“notes that no bodies with responsibility for national security, including HO and FCDO, have raised concerns”,
but he did not mention that it goes on to say that the Secretary of State
“considers that the lack of objection from these bodies on this issue carries significant weight”.
Given that extensive measures had to be put in place to protect sensitive data, will he explain why neither the Home Office not the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office put in any objections to the proximity of the data cables and their vulnerabilities? On the issue of the consolidation of the consular buildings, last week the Government informed me that they had no record of how many properties within London or within the UK are owned by the Chinese state, so how will they keep track on other buildings that are used unofficially by the Chinese state?
Dan Jarvis
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not asked me about the FIRS—I have a very good response for him that I will not be able to give now. He is not quite right to say that I quoted extensively from the planning document. I did not—I referenced it only very fleetingly and then explained why that was the case. His key point is about the points that have been brought forward by the Home Office and the Foreign Office. No specific objections were raised by both those Departments because they had both satisfied themselves that the mitigations could be put in place to safeguard against the risk that might be faced. That is the reason.
Point of Order
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In written parliamentary question 99967, I asked the Department of Health and Social Care to publish training modules and guidance related to first cousin marriage and genetic risk. The Minister replied that these materials existed, but would not be published to this House or more widely. In written parliamentary question 102870, I asked the Minister if he would place those training modules in the Library of the House of Commons, and the Minister said there were no plans to do so. This is astonishing since that answer came after a freedom of information request to NHS England, which had already placed those very documents in the public domain. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how a Minister might come to this House and explain why, yet again, Parliament has been denied information that was in fact releasable, as you have warned against on many occasions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his point of order. He will know that, as Chair, I am not responsible for the answers that Ministers give to written parliamentary questions, although he might also know that the Procedure Committee is currently holding an inquiry into this very issue. I encourage him to provide evidence and to raise his concerns with that Committee.
Glaucoma Care (England)
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the detection, treatment and monitoring of glaucoma by optometrists in England; to make provision about the full integration of optometry and ophthalmology services for the purpose of glaucoma care in England; and for connected purposes.
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a practising NHS optometrist. I also thank the Minister for Care for coming to the Chamber for this valuable debate.
As a practising optometrist of many years, one of the heartaches of the role is this: during a routine examination, I can detect a condition that will forever change the life of the person who is sitting in my chair, and the patient is blissfully unaware of it. That is exactly what glaucoma does—it changes lives quietly, and often without warning. Glaucoma is known as the thief of sight, and for a very good reason. It damages the optic nerve at the back of the eye, with each nerve fibre representing a different point in the visual field. Because the loss begins in the peripheral vision, people often do not realise that anything is wrong until it is too late.
If Members would like a glimpse of what an advanced glaucoma sufferer sees, may I ask them to cover one eye completely and, with the other eye, to look through an aperture created by their hands and touch their fingertips to their palms? As the condition progresses, the aperture gets smaller and smaller and smaller, until eventually nothing is left. Imagine trying to navigate a busy high street, to cross a road or simply to move safely around one’s own home.
This is not simply theoretical; let me give the House two brief but very real examples from my experience. I saw a woman who on two separate occasions was hit by a car from the side while driving her own car, before she finally came in for an eye test. She was unaware that there was a problem, because she could see number plates and road signs perfectly. What she could not see was the side of her vision eroding.
Another heartbreaking experience when a pensioner came to me with a handbag packed with what looked like her life savings. Cash in hand, she explained that she would spend whatever it took if I could just give her a pair of glasses that would allow her to see her two loves: her love of painting and her grandchildren. Unfortunately, no amount of money would be able to restore her sight, because glaucoma, as well as being silent, is usually irreversible.
Glaucoma is the leading cause of preventable blindness in the UK. Over 700,000 people are affected by it, and, even more concerningly, more than half of them are undiagnosed. That is 350,000 people walking and driving around, not knowing. It could be any one of us, or someone we love or work with. Indeed, a former Liberal Democrat Member of this House, Paul Tyler, was not diagnosed until a routine eye test.
In its early stages, glaucoma rarely has symptoms, and there are rarely any warning signs—just a silent, slow theft. By the time it is noticed, the damage is usually permanent, and the loss has far-reaching consequences. People lose not only their sight, but their independence and their ability to drive, read, cook and even leave their house. Falls increase and isolation grows, and then come the emotional and mental health impacts: fear, depression and the loss of identity.
Furthermore, with an ageing population, we face a growing crisis. Glaucoma cases are expected to rise dramatically in the coming decades, with a growth rate that outstrips the ageing population. A study from 2017 suggests that over the next 20 years, glaucoma cases will rise by 44%. That is hundreds of thousands more people who will need care, follow-up and support, and I fear that data will prove to be an underestimate.
Let me be blunt. Patients are losing their sight not because care does not exist, but because the pathway is broken and the follow-up is delayed. I recently saw a patient who was referred to the hospital and diagnosed with glaucoma. That bit was absolutely fine—the initial appointment happened—but the follow-up was postponed and then they missed an appointment. This meant that, by the time they came to see me again a year later, they had lost a significant amount of their visual field, to such an extent that even their central vision—their acuity—was affected. That anecdotal example corroborates the findings of major chains such as Specsavers. The problem is that current waiting list data provides a measure only of first appointments, not of the ongoing care that is vital to chronic conditions like glaucoma. We need published data on follow-up waiting times, because that is where sight is being lost.
Here is the reality. Hospital ophthalmology is one of the largest out-patient specialities in the NHS, with 8.9 million appointments a year in England between 2023 and 2024. It is estimated that glaucoma care accounts for about 20% of all hospital eye service appointments, with around 1 million visits annually across England alone. In 2024-25, it was reported that 600,000 people were on a hospital waiting list for an ophthalmology appointment. However, the ongoing care, such as the need for regular planned follow-ups for glaucoma patients, is often overlooked, with the numbers not hitting the headlines like those waiting for an initial assessment or surgery. NHS hospitals cannot carry this load alone.
Thankfully, this is where the Government’s own NHS 10-year plan—in particular its ambition to shift care out of hospitals and into the community, and its focus on prevention, not sickness—closely aligns with the transformation needed in glaucoma care. There are over 14,000 qualified optometrists in England, providing more than 13 million NHS-funded eye tests. They are trained, regulated and ready to help. Community glaucoma services, led by appropriately qualified optometrists with the approved equipment, have already demonstrated the ability to reduce hospital appointment referrals by up to 71%. If implemented nationally alongside an optometry-based glaucoma monitoring service, it may be possible to release 300,000 hospital appointments every year. That is not a one-time saving; glaucoma is a chronic condition, and these are recurring appointments for people who are living with the condition, not cured of it. Making full use of the skills and capacity already in primary care takes significant pressure off hospital services, enabling them to focus on tasks that can be managed only in a hospital. This could save the NHS an estimated £12 million annually.
At present, 10 integrated care boards have no glaucoma case-finding or referral management services. Many patients in those areas who are referred to hospital could instead be retained in primary care optometry with appropriate commissioning, rather than being added to the existing waiting lists. Even more concerningly, 21 ICBs—half of them—do not commission a glaucoma monitoring service in the community and rely simply on the hospital eye service to follow up glaucoma patients for the rest of their lives. That is where the sight loss occurs, as the hospitals simply do not have the required capacity. This is a postcode lottery that punishes the vulnerable, especially when people from black and Asian communities are up to four times more likely to develop glaucoma and often have the least access to timely care.
Unlike in Wales and Scotland, where a “shared care” service for glaucoma is commissioned by every health board, optometry-led and properly integrated between primary care optometry and ophthalmology, often the approach of NHS commissioners in England is hospital-led. The recent draft “Getting It Right First Time” model, developed with minimal input from primary care optometry, risks reinforcing England’s hospital-led approach and undermining the Government’s own ambition to shift care from hospitals to the community.
We also see worrying behaviour at ICB level, with several ICBs removing the limited community glaucoma services that they had in place to make short-term savings. That is extremely myopic. Given the ongoing financial pressures on ICBs, we do not expect individual ICBs to make significant progress in commissioning optometry-led glaucoma pathways that fully integrate optometry and ophthalmology without clear direction from the Government.
The total cost of visual impairment in the UK is estimated to be £26.5 billion, and it is set to rise to £33.5 billion by 2032. Glaucoma alone accounts for £750 million. That is not just a cost to the NHS, but a cost of lost productivity, informal care and diminished quality of life. This is a silent epidemic, but it is not inevitable.
What am I asking for? What can be done to begin to tackle this silent epidemic? Fundamentally, I am asking for a national direction from the Department of Health and Social Care to ICBs that they should commission a uniform primary care glaucoma service that utilises qualified high street optician practices. Only by doing so will we end the postcode lottery in glaucoma care.
We already know what works, we already have the workforce, and we already have the technology. We now need clear direction and political will.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Shockat Adam, Marsha De Cordova, Jim Shannon, Brian Leishman, Jeremy Corbyn, Ayoub Khan, Iqbal Mohamed, Mr Adnan Hussain, Paulette Hamilton, Mark Pritchard and Adrian Ramsay present the Bill.
Shockat Adam accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 369).
Sentencing Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Sentencing Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16 September 2025 (Sentencing Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 7, 1 to 6 and 8 to 15.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Sentencing Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 127 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 19
Court transcripts of sentencing remarks
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 7.
Lords amendments 1 to 6 and 8 to 15.
Jake Richards
I begin by putting on record the Government’s welcoming of the new shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), to his job. We look forward to working with him; he is somebody of some intellectual heft, and in any event, he is in the lucky position of having extraordinarily small shoes to fill. Of course there will be policy disagreements, as there should be, but my hope is that the new shadow Justice Secretary treads more carefully on issues relating to the independence of our judiciary and respecting our legal profession—perhaps there will be fewer vitriolic social media videos and more thoughtful analysis.
As for the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—or, as he likes to call himself, the “new sheriff in town”—we welcome that the inevitable has now happened, confirming the fact that Reform is little more than a backwater for failed Tory politicians with an ego. I spent five minutes—five minutes that I will never get back—reading the memo that the former shadow Justice Secretary left lying about. It says,
“Use humour—one of your best skills—don’t be afraid to be self-effacing or have a laugh.”
It certainly got us laughing. His memo also contains the memorable line,
“Don't ‘think’. You ‘know’ things to be true! Get out of the habit of saying ‘think’”.
I happen to think that he should get into the habit of thinking a little more.
The right hon. Member for Newark says that he has joined Reform to be “part of a team”. We are still unclear whether he will remain speaking on justice issues, and he is not in his new place today. Over the weekend, it was said that there would be a mini-reshuffle at Reform—a rather depressing game of musical chairs. Whether its justice spokesperson remains the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), or whether the right hon. Member for Newark takes over, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has a go, or the hon. Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) or for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) join in, the story is the same: failed former Tories who cannot be trusted with our justice system, let alone our country.
The Sentencing Bill will make sure that we are never again in the position that this Government inherited, with prisons at risk of running out of places entirely, leaving us with nowhere to put dangerous offenders; police without the capacity to make arrests; courts unable to hold trials; and a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times. That is why this Bill is vital. It does not kick the can down the road, and it does not shy away from making tough decisions to keep the public safe. Instead, it will end the cycle of crisis once and for all.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is making a powerful speech. He will recognise that the Bill is of huge concern to residents in my constituency, because many victims of crime who are waiting for justice to be served are waiting years for the person responsible to face trial. Does the Minister agree that it is really important that this Government get on top of the backlog and get people in front of courts as quickly as possible?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is a fine champion of this agenda and for his constituents in Harlow, and as he knows, the Bill does more than just fix the crisis we inherited; it will confront reoffending and keep our communities safe.
As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out during the very first debate on the Bill in this House, it takes us back to the fundamental purpose of sentencing, which is punishment that works. Punishment must work for victims, who deserve to see perpetrators face retribution; it must work for society, which wants criminals to return less dangerous, not more; and it must work to prevent crime. We want better citizens, not better criminals—that is what will deliver safer streets and protection from crime. The Bill will restore victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system. I reiterate that nothing is worse for victims than prisons running out of places and crimes going without punishment, which is the situation we inherited when we came into government in the summer of 2024.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister has outlined very clearly what the Government, and he in particular, are trying to achieve. There is a perception among the general public—this is certainly indicated in the press and the media—that the Government are going to be a bit soft on those who carry out crimes, but I am very much in favour of rehabilitation, as I think is the Minister. Can he please outline what will be done to enable those who leave prison to be rehabilitated and to ensure that they do not reoffend? The rising number of those who reoffend is incredibly worrying.
Jake Richards
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Over the course of this speech, I will set out what the Government are doing more generally to increase rehabilitation and crack down on reoffending. The hon. Gentleman states that there is a suggestion that this Bill is somehow soft on crime. I say gently to him that by the end of this Parliament, there will be more offenders in prison than ever before, so I completely reject that assertion.
I want to briefly pay tribute to the campaigners who have informed large parts of this piece of legislation and the amendments we are discussing. We are introducing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders instead of the movement of victims. The new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that victims can move freely elsewhere. This was campaigned for by Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation. Once again, I pay tribute to them and all those who have campaigned for this crucial change.
Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which will enable probation services to identify abusers early, track patterns of behaviour and put safeguards in place. I must pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, and in particular to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his tireless campaigning and willingness to work across parties to deliver this crucial change, which I know all Opposition parties support.
More generally, it is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of the independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary, David Gauke. [Hon. Members: “Great man.”] “Great man”, the Conservatives say, but they are voting against every single one of his proposals. I take this opportunity to thank him again for all his work—it was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work.
We are determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible—there is an urgency to this process. I remind the House that alongside this legislation, the Government are building prison places at a faster rate than ever before. In our first year, we opened nearly 2,500 new places, and we are on track to add 14,000 by 2031. In the next four years alone, we will spend £4.7 billion on prison building, but we cannot simply build our way out of the crisis we inherited from the Conservatives. The pressures on the system demand that we reform sentencing, but I remind the House that nothing in the Bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes who are serving extended determinate sentences or life sentences.
The Bill delivers vital reforms to our probation services. We are rebuilding the service that the last Government decimated, increasing investment by up to £700 million by 2028-29—a 45% increase. We are also recruiting; in our first year, we hired 1,000 trainee probation officers, and we are on track to hire 1,300 more this year. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all the hard-working probation officers in our country. They deserve full credit for what they do, and it has been important for us to find the extra resources to put into this service, to grow the numbers and the support available.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
In government, the Conservative party oversaw a disastrous privatisation of probation, which ended in a £500 million bail-out by taxpayers. Our Probation Service plays a critical role in the rehabilitation of offenders and in keeping our communities safe, so can the Minister further set out how the Bill will ensure that our probation systems are strengthened and fit for purpose?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Can the Minister perhaps restrict himself to the amendments?
Jake Richards
I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I will come on to the issue that she raises shortly.
While we cannot support Lords amendment 7 as drafted, we fully support the intention behind it of promoting transparency and improving the experience of victims. We agree that robust processes are required to ensure the accuracy of transcripts, but placing a statutory duty on the judiciary to approve the release of all Crown court transcripts could significantly increase workload and undermine efforts to drive down the Crown court backlog.
However, I am delighted to say that we have tabled a Government amendment that will expand the provision of Crown court sentencing remarks. They will be provided to all victims who request them, free of charge. This new clause puts victims firmly at the centre of the process. The new clause delivers a major step forward for transparency, enabling victims to digest sentencing remarks outside the pressures of a courtroom setting, and without charge.
The details on timeframes and processes will be set out in due course, but I can confirm to the House that our intention is to specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. That timeframe will support applications made under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I can assure the House that we are considering the Opposition’s amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would extend that deadline to 56 days, extremely carefully.
I am grateful to Members for their engagement on this issue. This change represents a profound step forward for victims, and for transparency in our justice system. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) have been campaigning on this issue for some time. They deserve great credit, particularly the hon. Member for Richmond Park. For the first time, every victim whose case is heard in the Crown court will have this important right of access, free of charge.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
A comment often made to me and my colleagues when I was policing was that as soon as I left the police station in full uniform, I was a sitting target, every single day. Does the Minister agree that the proposal for mandatory whole life sentences for those who murder police officers, prison officers and probation officers sends a clear and unequivocal message that those offenders will be met with the harshest and most serious penalties on offer to the courts?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his service, his contribution, and his support for Lords amendment 1. As I said when I had the great privilege of meeting Lenny’s parents last week with the shadow Justice Minister and Lord Timpson in the other place, this is not just about the technical mischief that the amendment solves; thankfully, these cases are few and far between. This is about sending the signal to the brilliant prison and probation officers that the work they do is respected by people in this place and the country at large. I hope that this small change goes some way to doing that. Indeed, since we have announced this change, I have met prison officers who have intimated their gratitude to Lenny Scott’s parents, and to this place for hopefully making this change, and that is welcome.
Lords amendments 2 to 5 relate to the Sentencing Council. Through the amendments, we have sought to clarify what is expected from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice when they are considering any requests from the Sentencing Council for approval of its business plans and sentencing guidelines. Broadly speaking, the amendments do three things. First, if the Lord Chancellor decided not to approve a business plan, amendment 2 would require them to notify the council. It also requires them to lay a document before Parliament as soon as is practicable, stating the reasons for that decision. Amendments 3 and 4 make similar provisions under different guises.
Secondly, we want to make it clear that a very high bar must be met for any guidelines to be rejected, so amendments 4 and 5 provide that guidelines can be rejected only when that is necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Finally, we have set out in the Bill that any approval requests from the council are to be considered as soon as practicable. Taken together, the amendments represent a significant step by the Government to ensure that these approval processes are surrounded by clear safeguards, transparency and accountability.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
While the Lords have endeavoured to amend the Bill in a number of areas, part 4, which allows foreign national offenders to be deported at any time during their sentence, are important to Northern Ireland. Because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, an assessment has been made that there is a risk that these offenders will not be removed in Northern Ireland, leaving us with a two-tier system in which foreign criminals in Northern Ireland benefit from additional EU-derived human rights protections, rather than being sent home. Will the Minister meet me and a number of my colleagues to discuss this important issue to Northern Ireland?
Jake Richards
This issue was raised, I think on Second Reading and on Report, by one of the hon. Member’s colleagues. The legal advice we have received simply states that there is no discrepancy in Northern Ireland. I am happy to have a conversation with her and any other colleagues on that. It is clearly only right that these provisions apply to Northern Ireland, too.
The Government are committed to greater transparency on prison and probation capacity, and to current and future Governments being held to account. We have demonstrated that by publishing the first annual statement on prison capacity, in December 2024; the 2025 edition will follow shortly. Lords amendment 6 delivers on that promise by making it a statutory requirement to lay a statement on prison capacity before Parliament each year. Legislating on this duty ensures transparency in the long term, and delivers on the Government’s commitment to do so. Never again will we be in the position that this Government inherited after the previous Government overlooked prison capacity for 14 years, leading to the crisis with which we had to deal.
The Government have also accepted Lords amendment 12, which removes the clause that would have introduced a power to publish the names and photographs of those subject to an unpaid work requirement. The purpose of the clause was to increase the visibility of community pay-back, and to ensure that the public could clearly see justice being delivered. We remain committed to ensuring that local communities can see the benefits of community pay-back in their area. However, we have listened carefully to those in both Houses who have raised issues relating to this measure, and, perhaps more important, to the concerns raised by our brilliant probation and prison staff on the ground, and following careful consideration we do not think it appropriate to proceed any further. We are confident that unpaid work, bolstered by wider provisions in the Bill, will continue to be tough and visible without the addition of this measure.
We are pleased to have made further progress on sentences of imprisonment for public protection. We want to do everything we can to enable those who are still serving such sentences to progress to the end of them, but we are not willing to undermine public protection. The amendments made in the Bill strike that careful balance. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 made significant changes to the IPP licence period: the qualifying period for referral to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination was reduced from 10 years after first release to three years for those serving IPP sentences, and two years for those serving detention for public protection sentences who were convicted when they were under 18.
It is over a year since the first of those measures came into force. The licences of 1,700 people were terminated automatically on 1 November 2024, and a further 600 became eligible for referral to the Parole Board on 1 February last year. We have now gone further by giving those serving IPP sentences an earlier opportunity for licence termination, and providing an additional opportunity for license termination to those serving IPP and DPP sentences thereafter. Those serving IPP sentences will be considered for licence termination two years after release, rather than the current three years. That provides suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community, while ensuring that our communities are best protected from harm.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome the amendments that deal with IPP sentences. This is a matter of concern to many Members on both sides of the House. Can the Minister assure us that following the changes to IPP licence termination, these sentences will continue to provide for community rehabilitation, while protecting communities from harm? Will the Minister also commit to continuing to work to resolve the remaining challenges relating to such sentences?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend, a member of the Justice Committee, always makes thoughtful contributions on justice issues, but in particular on IPP. A balance must be struck between public safety and ensuring rehabilitation. The Government think that the Bill has gone some way to doing that, but there is always room for further review and assessment as we proceed, and Lord Timpson, who is leading on this piece of work for the Government, will continue to engage with the Justice Committee on the issue.
I am very grateful for the improvements that have been made to the Bill during its passage in the House of Lords. I hope, particularly given the undertakings that I have given on the provision of sentencing transcripts, that all parties will be able to support the Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 7. They represent a major step forward for transparency and for victims.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
There is no doubt that our justice system faces significant challenges. I have always acknowledged that, and during recent debates on a wide range of issues, from sentencing to prison capacity to probation to jury trials, there has been cross-party acknowledgement that for decades, under a number of Governments of different colours, not enough investment or political priority has been given to our justice system. That, however, should not and must not serve as an excuse for this Government to make changes to our justice system that damage it and fail to address the challenges before us. There are alterations that elements of the Ministry of Justice have always wanted to make. We should not let them use the excuse of the current challenges to finally slip them through the net. That is what we see happening in the Bill, in relation to the proposals on jury trials and, even more clearly, in relation to measures that are to the detriment of victims.
I welcome elements of this Bill, and I will discuss some examples. The Minister mentioned the restriction zones and the domestic abuse markers, but these measures are overwhelmingly outweighed by the fact that at the heart of the Bill is a catastrophic blow to victims’ search for justice: it will let thousands of rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier. The Minister mentioned the independent sentencing review; I remind Members that it gave absolutely no consideration whatsoever to what victims and the public think of the proposals on sentencing. The report is an insult to victims and their families, as many have told me directly.
During the Commons stages of the Bill, every party other than Labour joined the Conservatives in voting against these dangerous proposals, including the Liberal Democrats. In fact, a number of Labour MPs bravely abstained. It should be a matter of deep shame for Liberal Democrat Members that they have since joined Labour in voting to let rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier, especially as they have previously articulated why this is wrong. It is a complete betrayal of victims of serious crime and their families.
This is likely to be my final opportunity to say that I am confident that Labour MPs will come to regret these elements of the Bill, and will find it difficult to explain themselves when victims see perpetrators of crimes such as rape, child sex offences and child grooming leave prison—sometimes having served only a third of their sentence—because of MPs’ support for these measures. I will do whatever I can to ensure that victims know who made those choices, although so many alternatives were available to them. However, I have to accept that this Government’s majority, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, has for now ended the campaign against this change, so we should consider the Lords amendments that are before the House today.
As I know that the public greatly value constructive cross-party working, I will begin with an important issue on which we were able to secure Government support. Lords amendment 1 would ensure that when a police officer, prison officer or probation officer, including a former officer, is murdered because of their service, a whole life order is the starting point for sentencing. This proposal originated from the Opposition, and I am grateful to the Government for accepting the principle, following my meetings and campaigning with Paula and Neil Scott, whose son Lenny, a former prison officer, was murdered because he refused a bribe from an inmate.
Parliament has long been clear that those putting themselves in direct danger by confronting and standing up to the most dangerous people in our society should have the greatest possible protection from our law: a whole life order. We had previously legislated to that effect through the introduction of a mandatory whole life order for those who murder police and prison officers who are undertaking their duties, but the case of Lenny Scott highlighted a gap in the law. Lenny was brutally murdered, years after his service as a prison officer, in revenge for handing in a phone that he found in a prison cell search. He had moved into a new phase of his life, and was enjoying work, the gym, and time with his children and the rest of his family, but he was shot in a car park late at night, simply for doing his job. Lenny’s mum told me that she knew something was wrong when Lenny did not come home that evening. She even went out in the middle of the night to look for him, only to have the police arrive at her door at 1 am with the devastating news.
It has been a true privilege to work with Paula, and with Lenny’s dad, Neil. I extend my sincere thanks to Lord Timpson in the other place, and to the Minister, for taking the time to meet them both, and for agreeing to work with them further to see what else we might do to improve protections for our prison officers. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it was clear from the meeting what decent, moral people they are, which explains the sort of person that Lenny was. I am also very grateful to Lord Timpson for bringing fresh thinking to this area by including probation officers in the measure. They too must work closely with dangerous, violent offenders, and sometimes stand up to them to protect the public. They face the same dangers, so they should get the same protections.
Although our wider focus must always be on preventing crime and protecting the public, it is right that clear gaps in the law should be addressed when they arise. The Opposition therefore support Lords amendment 1 in lieu of our amendment, and I know that Lenny’s parents, family and friends have been delighted to see its progress in the House. In my time working with victims on campaigns, I have learned the pitfalls of naming a law after an individual case—there are always others who might warrant the remembrance of their experiences in the naming of a law—but Lenny’s family have every right to call this measure “Lenny’s Law”.
I will now consider amendments that attempt to deliver much-needed reform, but which are simply insufficient. Lords amendments 2 to 5 all concern the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council. Between them, they provide guidelines for specific scenarios in which the Lord Chancellor does not approve the Sentencing Council’s business plan; conditions for withdrawing consent to the Sentencing Council’s issuing of sentencing guidelines; and conditions for withholding consent to a request from the Sentencing Council to issue allocation guidelines, if it is necessary withhold that consent in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. We saw in the debacle of two-tier sentencing just how far the Sentencing Council has strayed, and these measures will not fundamentally correct that. The official Opposition have made it clear—I will restate it—that our firm policy position is that we would abolish the Sentencing Council, restore power to elected Ministers who are directly accountable to the public, and give Parliament a role when it comes to sentencing guidelines.
The functions of the Sentencing Council in delivering consistency through sentencing are well recognised, and it is not our intention to do away with the functions that will be restored to the Lord Chancellor’s Office, but we believe it is for the Justice Secretary to be responsible for our sentencing guidelines, not a group of unelected individuals with no direct accountability to the public and limited accountability of any kind. Consultation with the public is not the same as accountability to the public, and we are clear that Parliament should have the power to act. Therefore, while these amendments are not a point of contention in the Bill’s progress and we will not divide the House on them, I raise them to point out that they would not be part of a Bill introduced by a Conservative Government, as we would abolish the Sentencing Council entirely and fully restore accountability.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
This Bill delivers the long-term, joined-up, sustainable reform that our criminal justice system desperately needs. I will comment on amendments 1 to 7 and 14, which will strengthen the Bill. We inherited a system on the brink, with prisons close to running out of places, courts paralysed by backlogs, police forced to operate with one hand tied behind their backs, trust broken and fear raised—a breakdown of law and order that left communities such as mine in Portsmouth paying the price.
In Portsmouth and across the country, the justice system is struggling under the weight of an unprecedented backlog. Crown courts in England and Wales now have between 77,000 and 78,000 outstanding cases waiting to be heard. Ten of thousands are open for a year or more, and some defendants are waiting for up to four years before trial dates are even available. Those delays mean that victims in my city and beyond are denied timely justice, eroding confidence in our courts. The Sentencing Bill and wider reforms are a crucial step towards tackling the backlogs, speeding up justice and ensuring that offences are addressed without further delay.
The Conservatives talk tough on crime, but their record tells a very different story. They increased sentencing lengths without building the capacity to support them, and in 14 years added just 500 prison places. When the system finally broke, they released tens of thousands—[Interruption.] They released 10,000 offenders early, largely in secret, shattering public confidence in justice. This Government are working hard to fix their mess. We believe in prisons. Many offenders must go there and some for a very long time. We have already opened 2,500 places and we are on track for achieving 4,000 by 2031—the biggest expansion since Victorian times.
We also have to be honest about the challenge. We cannot just build our way out of a Tory prison crisis. We owe it to the British public to reduce crime and the number of victims. That is why the Bill reforms sentencing, so that punishments can cut crime and rehabilitation can help reduce crime and the number of victims. That includes tough, credible and visible punishments in our community. Offenders will be closely monitored through tagging, restrictions on where they can go, and strict conditions that curb their freedom. Courts will be able to impose no-go zones, banning offenders from entering specific areas such as town centres, retail zones, building sites or industrial estates where they have previously offended. Those are not soft options. They are enforceable restrictions backed by modern technology with real consequences if they are breached. This approach is vital for crimes that devastate working people.
I would particularly like to mention the horrendous, life-changing crime of tool theft. In Portsmouth and across the country, tradespeople have told me this story time and time again. When tools are stolen, it is not just about the property they lose; it is about income lost, jobs cancelled, damage to reputation and families pushed into financial stress overnight. In some cases, it has led to our tradespeople taking their own lives. I have campaigned relentlessly on this issue, working closely with tradespeople, industry bodies, police, insurers and retailers. Together, we made the case that tool theft must be treated as a serious and repeated crime. As a result of that work, the Bill and these amendments will deliver real change for victims. Repeat tool offenders will now face tougher sentences in court and in our communities.
Amanda Martin
We are clearing up the mess left by the Tories. People are still waiting for their day in court. It is not okay for a crime to be committed and for there not even to be a sentence for four or five years. If the shadow Minister would like to intervene again, I will give way.
Amanda Martin
They will be serving longer than under the Conservatives, who did not care about tradespeople or construction crime. Repeat tool theft offenders will now face tougher sentencing because of a Labour Government, including tagging on release, strict movement restrictions, robust unpaid work and no-go areas that stop them returning to the places where they targeted working people. This is about disrupting criminal behaviour, protecting livelihoods and showing that Labour is the only party that stands squarely with those who work hard and play by the rules.
Chris Vince
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for her personal work to tackle the huge issue of tool theft, which has had a huge impact on tradespeople in my constituency of Harlow. Does she agree with me that, as she said, it is not just about the person themselves but their family and their livelihood? Being a victim of such crimes also has a huge impact on mental health, so I thank her for her work.
Amanda Martin
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and for the work that he has done in Harlow. I repeat that to my knowledge there was not a Government before us who even cared about tradespeople.
In addition, we are investing up to £700 million more in community punishment and increasing probation funding by 45%. That means better supervision, faster enforcement, and a system that is credible both to offenders and the public, and looks to reduce repeated crimes for victims.
I welcome a number of Government amendments that further strengthen the Bill. As the daughter of a retired police officer—I note my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) is also in his place; his dad was a retired probation officer—I have family and friends still serving in the force and as prison officers. I welcome Lords amendments 1 and 14, which broaden whole-life orders. Murder is the most heinous crime a person can commit, and the amendments ensure that those who murder police officers, prison officers or probation officers, including where the crime is motivated by their current or former duties, face the full force of the law. These crimes strike at the very heart of the rule of law and it is right that sentencing reflects that.
I also welcome Lords amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, which strengthen transparency and accountability around the Sentencing Council. The amendments set a very high bar for rejecting sentencing guidance, ensuring Parliament is informed where decisions are taken, and helping to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Crucially, they sit alongside the reforms that reflect legislation I fought for in my Theft of Tools of Trade (Sentencing) Bill, to ensure that sentencing properly takes account of the full circumstances and the impact on victims. That principle is vital: justice must never lose sight of the harm done to victims and communities when crimes are committed.
Lords amendment 6 is another important step forward. By placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on prison capacity, the Government are ending the culture of secrecy we inherited and ensuring proper accountability to Parliament and the public.
I strongly welcome the Government’s amendments in lieu to Lords amendment 7, which will ensure victims can access transcripts of sentencing remarks free of charge. This is a meaningful improvement for victims, an important move towards a more transparent and humane justice system, and another step in the right direction of putting victims at the heart of our justice system.
The Bill ends the chaos we inherited. It restores confidence in justice and it delivers punishment that works for communities such as Portsmouth now and into the future. I am proud to have worked hard on developing the Bill and I am proud to support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank Members of both Chambers for their contribution and their continued work, in particular the prisons Minister for engaging collaboratively with Liberal Democrats in the other place and for making concessions both in the legislation and at the Dispatch Box.
We are pleased to see Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 7, which introduce the provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks to victims. It has been a long-standing campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) to see the provision of all court transcripts, and victims gaining access to an improved level of transparency and accountability is a great first step.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I just want to take this opportunity to say my personal thanks to the Minister and everybody involved in bringing the legislation to this stage. I pay tribute once again to my constituent Juliana Terlizzi, who came to see me when she was charged £7,000 for the transcript of the trial that saw her rapist sent to prison. The amendment in lieu is a huge step forward for victims of all kinds, and I am really pleased to see it in the legislation. I want to put on record my huge thanks to everyone for that.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that the heart of this amendment are victims and their ability to understand what has come in the sentencing remarks. So much happens in a court trial, whether it means reliving past trauma or confronting a perpetrator, and listening to proceedings can feel like a foreign language for many. Others, who choose not to attend the sentencing hearing, have no knowledge of what was said. That is why having consistent free access to transcripts is vital. It provides an opportunity to process the events of court proceedings afterwards or to read them for the first time. For many, this can provide closure and an opportunity to move on, but it is also the route for appealing a sentence if they believe it to have been unduly lenient.
Providing victims with court transcripts free of charge would markedly improve experiences for victims and survivors, but I do have some questions regarding the Government’s amendment in lieu. Could the Minister provide some clarity as to whether the term “victim” is applied as per the definition used by the victims code and whether, in the case that a victim is unable to personally request sentencing remarks—such as victims without capacity or victims who are children—immediate family members of victims are included within the provision?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The victims code lays out that if a victim is deceased, the immediate family—parents or siblings—would be included. That is why I asked that question of the Minister.
Subsection (3)(c) of the amendment in lieu allows the Secretary of State to provide exceptions to the requirement to provide a transcript of sentencing remarks. What sort of exceptions do the Government anticipate, and as per subsection (3)(d), what sort of information may be omitted from a transcript? If the Secretary of State does not plan to use sweeping powers to except or omit, why are such provisions included in the amendment? The previous Government ran a very limited pilot of free court transcripts. Will this Government publish a detailed review of that pilot?
We believe that this provision could and should go much further, and as per the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and Baroness Brinton in the other place, we have tabled an amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would mean that all transcripts are provided free of charge, including judicial summaries and bail decisions.
The Lady Chief Justice recently spoke to the Justice Committee about a pilot with HM Courts and Tribunals Service on the use of AI for transcripts, especially in the asylum and immigration courts. She described it as a “great success”, so I would be keen to understand if the Government will work with the Liberal Democrats to progress this work. We do appreciate the growing cross-party support on this issue and the work of all in the other place to achieve this important first step today.
We also welcome the Government committing to a statutory annual report into the state of prison capacity and, importantly, the Probation Service. This is an important mechanism for oversight that will improve long-term assessments of the health of our justice system. We were very happy to see the Government accept our amendment to remove clause 35 from the Bill, which did nothing to address the crisis in our justice system and was totally at odds with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We welcome the amendments tabled by the Government to strengthen protections in relation to the Lord Chancellor’s approval of sentencing guidelines.
We have been supportive of many of the provisions in the Bill aimed at addressing some of the key failings in our crumbling justice system. Our courts, prisons and the Probation Service are all at breaking point, and without urgent intervention they are at risk of failing completely. The Bill offered an opportunity to ease some of the pressures our system faces, where currently the needs of victims, offenders and the system more widely are too often ignored. We also need to ensure that our prison system is one of rehabilitation—one that ends the cycle of reoffending and reduces long-term pressures. All of the Liberal Democrats’ work on this Bill has been in that vein, in order to get the legislation into a better place to achieve those aims.
To conclude, we realise the mess that our justice system finds itself in. We have always aimed to work collaboratively and productively in a cross-party way to ensure that we can begin to turn the tide on this crisis, and we will continue to do so. We need a sustainable solution, which includes cutting reoffending, tackling the court backlog to reduce the number of people in prison on remand, and properly resourcing our Probation Service, which will no doubt feel the impact of this legislation most acutely. The Bill contains a number of proposals that Lib Dems have campaigned for as part of the wider package of reform, but it still could go much further to ensure that it is fit for purpose to protect victims and safeguard our justice system for the future.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that the Bill will deliver long-term and sustainable reform to our criminal justice system and make sure that we never again end up in the position where dangerous offenders are not being locked up, the police do not have the capacity to make arrests and courts are not able to hold trials. It was a breakdown in law and order like nothing we have seen in modern times, because the last Government increased sentence lengths without reckoning with the consequences of doing so, adding just 500 places during their time in office. That was a dereliction of duty beyond comprehension and something that must not be forgotten in the context of this Bill.
Our prisons were brought to the point of crisis; frankly, they only survived until the 2024 general election because, on the quiet, the last Government released 10,000 offenders early, completely undermining public confidence in our justice system. [Interruption.] Well, it’s true. The shadow Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), is shaking his head. I was working in the Prison Service—I know what went down. I know exactly what happened. While the Bill was born out of necessity, it includes absolutely transformational reforms that Governments of all colours should have introduced in years past.
It is not that we are not being tough on crime—in fact, it is quite the opposite, because as the Minister has laid out, there will be more people in prison at the end of this Parliament than ever before—but, as has been outlined today, anyone who thinks we can simply build our way out of this crisis is not living in the real world and is not serious about public policy. It is welcome that we are deporting more foreign national offenders and bearing down on the court backlog to reduce remand prisoners. All of that is necessary but not sufficient, which is why this Bill is very welcome.
I want to speak specifically about amendments 1 and 14 and the broadening of whole-life orders. When I was a prison officer, I found it incredibly frustrating how little acknowledgment was given by wider society to the serious assaults and injuries that staff often had to suffer. I will take this issue up with the Minister another time, as I know it does not relate directly to the amendments, but I do think it is important that there is public recognition of how dangerous the job can be, including for probation officers. I pay tribute to Lenny Scott’s family, who have worked tirelessly to advocate for this welcome change. I hope that every Member of Parliament from across the House will support those amendments, which send the clear message that this House backs our police, probation and prison staff, given the particular dangers they face, and that we support them today and every day.
Although the Bill may have been born out of necessity—and, frankly, emergency—at the start of this Government’s time in office, I am proud that it is a Labour Government who are introducing the reform that our justice system has long needed. I am proud to support the Government amendments today.
Jake Richards
Today is a pivotal day. Subject to agreement from this House and from the other place, the Bill will complete all its stages and shortly become law. I want to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin). Although I was the Minister to take the Bill through the House, his painstaking work in developing the policy was fundamental and he deserves great credit.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); at every opportunity, including this debate, she rightly raises her campaign to clamp down on tool theft and she is a fine champion for her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). She brings huge experience to debates on these issues. We are taking measures to give prison staff further protections, but I am happy to speak with her about what more the Government can do.
We have aired the debate on the Sentencing Council before. The Conservative position was developed by the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).
Jake Richards
The hon. Member says, “It was a team effort.” I am not sure about that. The Conservatives’ position is an example of real constitutional vandalism. It has never been the case that this Bill would threaten the independence of the judiciary. Our amendments, and the proposal set out in this legislation, ensure that there is a democratic lock around sentencing and that there is a role for this place, but that the Sentencing Council remains independent. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
I welcome the degree of consensus on transcripts. The Conservative position on this amendment, at the back end of last week and then early this week, seems to have changed a few times. Our amendment in lieu strikes the right balance. If anyone could seek a free transcript of sentencing remarks, we might be in the position where our court staff, who have a big job in getting a grip of the backlog, spend all their time issuing transcripts.
Let me turn to the issues raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). We have to look into the question of what happens with transcripts when victims are either children, deceased or where there is a lack of capacity. It may be that the victims code does that already for us, but we have to get it right and we will ensure we do so as the policy is developed. She mentioned her concerns about exceptions and omissions and asked me to ponder on examples when those exceptions could be engaged. Of course, this may be relevant when there are issues of national security or public safety, but one would hope that such circumstances would be extremely exceptional. It is important, though, that those provisions are in the Bill.
We believe that our amendments will allow for more openness. They are ambitious but also realistic, considering where the technology is at the moment and the pressures on our court system. Do we want to go further when we can? Absolutely. We believe in the fundamental principle of transparency and openness in our justice system, and where we can, we will.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I apologise that I was not here for the Minister’s opening speech; I was chairing the Justice Committee. I do not think that matters, though, because I agree with him on the amendments. They strengthen the Bill considerably. They bring more openness and transparency, and we welcome all the recommendations here, whether in relation to the Sentencing Council, to the prison capacity report, to the transcripts through the amendments in lieu, or to IPP prisoners. They are all welcome improvements on the Bill. We think that they need to go further in some areas, particularly in relation to IPP prisoners, but this is a good step along the way.
Jake Richards
I always welcome an intervention from the Chair of the Justice Committee. As I said following an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), the work on IPPs is an ongoing process led by Lord Timpson in the other place. I know that he is always happy to engage with hon. Members from the Select Committee.
I conclude my remarks by stating firmly that the Bill will solve the mess that this Government inherited and begin to make sure that our prison system is fit for the future. I once again thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. Their expertise strengthens it in many important respects.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.
Sally Jameson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise for inadvertently making an error. At the start of my speech on the Sentencing Bill, I forgot to declare that I remain a member of the Prison Officers Association, following my time in the Prison Service. I hope that the record can be corrected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. Her comments are now on the record and the record is corrected.
Holocaust Memorial Bill (Allocation of Time)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Holocaust Memorial Bill:
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(3) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(4) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(5) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(6) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(7) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(8) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Holocaust Memorial Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I inform the House that the Lords amendment does not engage Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 2
Learning Centre purpose
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
I am grateful to Members of both the Commons and the Lords who have so diligently scrutinised the Bill throughout its passage. I thank the noble Lord Khan of Burnley for taking the Bill through the other place and for being so thorough in his approach.
Before I address the Lords amendment, I would like to take a moment to remind the House why we introduced the Bill in the first place. There is a long-standing cross- party commitment to establish a new national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We do this to mark a profound and dark moment in our history, to remember the sheer loss of humanity and to continue to learn the lessons day after day, generation after generation. This simple three-clause Bill was introduced in February 2023 to enable us to make progress in delivering that.
The Bill does two things: first, it authorises expenditure on the construction, operation, maintenance or improvement of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre; and secondly, it seeks to remove a statutory obstacle to its being built next door in Victoria Tower Gardens, should it receive planning consent. The Bill does not provide the Government with planning powers to build the memorial and learning centre; those are being sought through the separate statutory planning process.
On the face of it, Lords amendment 1 looks uncontroversial, and I have no doubt that it is well intentioned. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment. In short, the amendment seeks to deal with matters that are not part of this Bill and are more properly dealt with elsewhere. Following debates in the other place, there have been constructive discussions with those leading support for the amendment to consider how best to proceed. In the light of those discussions, I want to assure this House that the Government’s aim in establishing a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre, in line with the cross-party consensus since 2015, is to increase understanding of the Holocaust and of antisemitism. There must be no question of the learning centre deviating from that purpose.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I declare a sort of interest, in that many members of my family were murdered in the Holocaust. I understand the meaning of the term “Holocaust” to be the Nazis’ mass extermination of the Jews during their period in power, both in their own country and in the countries they occupied. I have not followed the progress of the Bill as closely as I should have done, but I get the impression that there is some move away from keeping it specific to that terrible crime, towards widening it to cover massacres in general and other terrible racial crimes. I think the intention behind the Bill and the museum was that it should be about the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their associates. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the situation?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I can confirm that that is the case, and I will be very clear and explicit about both the intention and what we will do to enshrine that intention.
The learning centre will provide a solid, clear historical account of the Holocaust, leaving no visitors in any doubt about the unprecedented crimes perpetrated against Jewish people. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading curator, supported by Martin Winstone, the Holocaust historian and educator, and by an academic advisory group. With their help, we will ensure that the content is robust, truthful and fearless. It will stand as a vital rebuttal to Holocaust denial and distortion in all its forms.
Delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is being supported by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation. We value the work of the foundation, which has been steadfast in its determination to build the memorial and to create a learning centre in which the story of the Holocaust is told powerfully, unflinchingly and honestly. We aim to make sure that the body responsible for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre has the independence and permanence that the Holocaust Commission sought. We will provide the operating body with governing documents that are clear and specific, leaving no doubt that the learning centre has been established to provide education about the Holocaust and about antisemitism.
We will also ensure that there are appropriate processes for the appointment of governing body members, and provide support so that they have a clear understanding of their role. The governing body will be permitted to hold fundraising and commemorative events and public lectures, as long as they are appropriate to the intent and purpose of the learning centre. It will be for the trustees to determine what activities are consistent with the aims of the memorial and learning centre.
I hope that I have shown that there is no disagreement between the Government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centre focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. No additional clauses are needed in the Bill to achieve what we all want to see. Moreover, there are inevitable risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly what the learning centre is permitted to do.
The better way to proceed is to put in place clear and robust governance arrangements for the learning centre, and to place on the trustees the responsibility for ensuring that the facts of the Holocaust and the long history of antisemitism are explained clearly and honestly, for this and future generations. Our aim must now be to pass this Bill and to move ahead as quickly as possible to establish the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Bill returns to the House at an important time of year. Next week, we mark Holocaust Memorial Day, when communities across the country will pause to remember the 6 million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered during the Holocaust.
As a former Home Secretary, I have seen at first hand the strength and dignity with which Jewish communities have preserved the memory of the Holocaust. When I was Foreign Secretary, I saw that also in Israel and in other countries. The people who preserve that memory do so not only to honour those who were murdered, but to educate future generations. That act of remembrance is a service to the whole country, and it shows that education is essential if the memory of the Holocaust is to endure, and if we are to confront antisemitism wherever and whenever it appears.
This Bill has taken much longer to progress than any of us would have wished. I am therefore pleased that the Government have chosen to take it forward. The primary purpose of the Bill is clear and narrow in scope. It is about the Holocaust, ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust are learned and that history is preserved for future generations. On that point, there is strong and genuine cross-party agreement in both Houses. I thank the Minister for meeting me and listening carefully to the concerns raised by the Conservatives. Those discussions have been constructive, and I welcome the seriousness with which they have been approached.
There has been contention during the passage of this Bill. Strong views have been expressed about the location, the security and the design of the memorial. Those debates reflect the importance of this project and the desire to ensure that it is done properly. However, the issue before us today is the purpose of the learning centre. Conservative and Cross-Bench peers have been clear in expressing their concern. They have sought assurance that the learning centre will exist for one purpose only: to provide education about the Holocaust and about antisemitism.
I welcome the assurances that the Government have now provided, in particular the commitment that the learning centre will be focused exclusively on the Holocaust and on antisemitism, and that there must be no question of its drifting from that mission or that purpose in future years. I also welcome the commitment that the governing documents of the future operations body will make that purpose clear.
Those assurances matter. This memorial is intended to last for generations, and it must have a clear mission that future trustees and future Governments cannot dilute or reinterpret. In the light of those assurances, we will not press this matter to a Division. That reflects the progress that has been made through constructive discussions in both this House and the other place.
Let me make one final point clear. Those assurances must be carried through, and the good faith of those who have entered into the conversations needs to be rewarded. I recognise that concerns about the design have been raised throughout the passage of the Bill both directly with me and with the Government. While those matters fall outside the scope of the legislation before us, I hope that Ministers have listened to those concerns and will ensure that they are communicated more widely to those involved in the construction of the education centre.
If this House is to create a lasting national Holocaust memorial, it must be clear in its purpose and faithful to its promise.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State for their speeches in opening this important debate. I absolutely welcome this Bill and its aim to create a lasting memorial to the 6 million people who lost their lives in what was probably the most devastating event in recent history, to those who survived and carry the scars with them, and to their families. I recognise what my hon. Friend the Minister has said about the Bill and Lords amendment 1, and in particular about the need to move the Bill forward at pace.
I am attending a Holocaust Memorial Day event in Harlow at the weekend. The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2026 is “Bridging Generations”. The reason why this Bill is so important is that we need to recognise that the responsibility of remembrance cannot just end with survivors. When we came together in this House last year to recognise the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war, we all recognised that it would be one of the last significant anniversaries for which veterans of that terrible conflict would be with us.
We must recognise that, as we move forward, those who survived the terrible events of the Holocaust will no longer be with us, but we must carry their flame and continue to remember. We must build a bridge between memory and action, between history and hope for the future, and education about the Holocaust and antisemitism is hugely important for that reason. Like many right hon. and hon. Members across the House, I have visited Auschwitz and seen the horrors of the Holocaust, but what we perhaps do not see so often are the events that led to it; I think about Kristallnacht and the ghettos.
It has been a real pleasure to meet on a fairly regular basis with my local rabbi in Harlow, Rabbi Irit, to talk about how the Jewish community in Harlow is doing. I am pleased to hear that the Jewish community in my constituency has not experienced antisemitism, but we must always be mindful. I pay particular tribute to Rabbi Irit for the work that she has done with faith groups from across my constituency. For personal reasons, I was sadly unable to attend this year’s interfaith service that she ran at Harlow synagogue, but I look forward to attending it next year.
It is an opportunity for the Christian, Muslim and Hindu communities to come together and show that we are as one in fighting the scourge of antisemitism and other forms of racism. I look forward to standing with Rabbi Irit and other religious leaders in Harlow at the weekend to recognise Holocaust Memorial Day. We must never forget the evils of the Holocaust, and I am really pleased that this Government are taking that mission very seriously. This Bill is a huge part of that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
As the Holocaust begins to fade from living memory, it becomes ever more vital that the next generations continue to be properly educated about it, and that the victims are commemorated with dignity and care. The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, “Bridging Generations”, reminds us that remembrance of the Holocaust does not end with the survivors; the responsibility now passes to all of us. We must engage with the past, so that its lessons are not lost in the future. The work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust encourages us to honour the legacy of all who were murdered in genocides, including those who have no family left to remember them. We remember them not through bloodlines, but through education and memorial. A Holocaust memorial and education centre in the heart of London would be a powerful, permanent commitment to that responsibility.
Six million Jews, along with millions of others—Roma, disabled people and LGBTQ+ individuals—were murdered in the Holocaust. That shows where hatred can lead. The genocides since show that we have not learned enough. Last year, hate crimes increased across our country, fuelled by political extremism. When we say, “Never again”, it cannot be empty words; it must be our commitment to stand united against hatred.
Alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), I have met the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Community Security Trust and the Antisemitism Policy Trust to discuss the alarming rise in antisemitism and how we must respond to it. The Liberal Democrats believe that no one should feel scared or anxious when going to their place of worship. That is why, in our manifesto, we pledged funding for protective security measures for places that are vulnerable to hate crimes and terror attacks. While we are devastated that this is necessary, we are pleased that the Government have increased protections for synagogues, and ask that they continue to work hand in hand with those organisations for the safety and security of all Jews in the United Kingdom.
This memorial presents a vital opportunity to challenge antisemitism through education. We recognise the work that the House of Lords has done to safeguard its educational purpose, but we must ensure that robust security measures are in place, so that people can visit the memorial safely and without fear. It is also key that we deliver the memorial in a timely manner. The Conservative Government committed to this project following the findings of the Holocaust Commission in 2015; it is unacceptable that 11 years later, construction has yet to begin. In 2023, Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg said,
“I was 84 when Prime Minister David Cameron first promised us survivors a national Holocaust Memorial in close proximity to the Houses of Parliament.”
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
One of my constituents, Kitty Hart-Moxon, helped to set up the Holocaust Educational Trust. She will be 100 this year. My hon. Friend has spoken about bridging the gap; Kitty is handing over that work to Peter and Moira in her family, who will keep that going. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a wonderful tribute to her to ensure that she can see this memorial and how important it is to the people of Great Britain?
Marie Goldman
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Manfred Goldberg went on to say,
“Last month I celebrated my 93rd birthday and I pray to be able to attend the opening of this important project.”
Tragically, Manfred passed away on 6 November last year, at the age of 95. My thoughts are with his family. He was an extraordinary man who gave so much to Holocaust remembrance and education in the United Kingdom. As a nation, we must continue that legacy and ensure that this memorial and education centre are built through proper process, with careful planning, strong security and quick delivery. In doing so, we will be commemorating the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust, honouring survivors, and creating a space that truly educates future generations, and that stands as a lasting commitment to remembrance.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There is universal recognition of the gravity of the Holocaust. It is widely and wisely regarded as the greatest crime in human history, which is precisely why this memorial should proceed only on the basis of broad consensus. No one wishes to create division around Holocaust commemoration, yet there is demonstrably no consensus in the Jewish and local community about the learning centre, or how it should be used. That was evidenced by the 2018 letter in The Times, signed by eight Jewish peers, expressing deep reservations about the current proposal.
The decision to site the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens was made with good intentions—the proximity to Parliament was in recognition of the importance of the Holocaust—but it was taken without prior consultation or proper investigation, and it was opposed by the local council. Subsequent scrutiny has revealed serious flaws in the choice of site, and we cannot have a discussion of what the learning centre will be used for without understanding that. I have taken part in several debates on the subject, including the previous one, in which Sir Peter Bottomley, the former Father of the House, spoke. That was on the day the general election was called. No satisfactory answers have ever been given.
The plans are for a substantial underground structure on ancient marshland beside the Thames. The water table is known to rise sharply after heavy rainfall. Significant flooding occurred on the site within recent memory. Do we want to have to wet vac our Holocaust memorial every few years? We have had no answers on that point. Victoria Tower Gardens is a public park, protected by statute. It is maintained by the Royal Parks, which has never supported a memorial on the site. The chairman of the Royal Parks warned that it risked damaging one of the area’s few open green spaces and set a dangerous precedent. Statutory protections dating back to a 1900 Act of Parliament are being undermined with little debate.
The park can realistically accommodate only a modest memorial without destroying its character. The current design would fundamentally alter the park. There would be an 80-metre ramp and a wide moat dividing the space, and large areas of grass would be replaced with paving. Rightly, the intention is for large numbers of visitors, particularly schoolchildren, to attend the national Holocaust memorial. No credible plans exist to manage coach traffic, drop-off points or parking, so the pressures on Millbank would be compounded. Local opposition is well documented, including from the Thorney Island Society. For residents and regular users, the park would largely cease to function as a neighbourhood green space; ordinary activities would become inappropriate in such a situation. Victoria Tower Gardens may also be needed to support the ongoing restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Reducing flexibility now risks increasing costs and constraining future options.
Let us talk about the purpose of this memorial. I have been to Holocaust memorials. The most impactful Holocaust memorial internationally is the Washington model, which I visited. That Holocaust Memorial Museum is immensely successful, because it prioritises education through a dedicated museum that confronts the scale and the reality of the crimes. The most meaningful memorial we can offer is sustained education, to ensure that young people understand the Holocaust fully, and that its memory is never diminished. Had the learning centre been established years ago at the Imperial War Museum, as we have constantly suggested, and as the Imperial War Museum wants, hundreds of thousands of visitors could already have benefited from it, and there would have been no delay.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Leigh
I will finish, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The House of Lords has wisely passed an amendment clarifying that
“The sole purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the Holocaust and antisemitism.”
It is a mystery to me why the Government oppose that, and why they have imposed strict time limits on debate. This much-desired memorial should be the result of clear consensus, not imposed in a way that stifles discussion. I am suspicious of why the Government are opposing this wise amendment from the House of Lords.
One of the reasons why an underground learning centre is inappropriate is that it is not a proper museum. I have been to the memorials in Israel and in Washington. They are huge structures, where people are taken through the whole process. We cannot understand the Holocaust unless we understand its beginnings, and how people came to be filled with such horrible hatred. This is basically just a bunker. It is totally inappropriate. It is also a security risk: there will have to be armed guards and railings. Just imagine the terrible nature of any appalling atrocity, perhaps a terrorist atrocity, that might be committed there. It is simply an inappropriate location. I do not know, but I suspect that the reason why the Government are resisting the amendment is that they are worried that this bunker—this totally inappropriate underground structure, which is not a proper museum—might become a target.
Dr Arthur
It is not that the Government are not giving way. The Government are showing leadership by negotiating with other parties to find consensus in this Chamber, and that is something we should celebrate. I am ashamed that, 81 years after the end of the second world war, we still do not have a national memorial. The Father of the House is talking about more debate, more time-wasting, and more Holocaust survivors dying before we even start work. Does he not recognise the need for this memorial? It makes absolute sense to place it next to the home of democracy in the UK, to celebrate what we did well during the war in terms of protecting the Jews, but also to mark what we got wrong.
Sir Edward Leigh
The point is that we—it is not just me, by the way, but a large part of the Jewish community—want a proper museum of the type that exists in Washington, and this, I am afraid, is not a proper museum. It is a small underground structure in an inappropriate place, difficult to secure. If this Government and the previous Government had proceeded with consensus, and had wanted to build an aesthetic memorial that paid proper tribute to the people who died, this could all have been passed years ago. The whole debate has been about the underground learning centre, not the memorial. Everyone accepts that there should be a memorial. Everyone wants a proper museum, but this is not a proper museum, and I am curious about why the Government are resisting the perfectly sensible amendment from the House of Lords. There is a real danger that in order to allay security concerns, the whole purpose of this learning centre may drift from the Holocaust, which would be extremely regrettable. I am sorry if I have irritated the hon. Gentleman, but this is a debate, and we are all entitled to express a point of view.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I welcome the spirit of the amendment; I welcome the Bill, of course; I welcome the assurances that the Minister gave; and notwithstanding some differences of opinion, I welcome the civility of the debate, which is exactly what is needed when discussing such a sensitive issue.
I speak today not only to the House, but to those who will be gathering back home in Eastbourne on Holocaust Memorial Day 2026, 27 January. On behalf of our town —and those far beyond it—I pay huge tribute to a remarkable Eastbourne resident and Holocaust survivor, Dorit Oliver-Wolff, whose tireless Holocaust education work ensures that future generations never forget. She is a leading light, whether she is facilitating events such as Holocaust Memorial Day in Eastbourne, making school visits, or sharing her experiences through her book, “Yellow Star to Pop Star”—she is a published author. She also shared her story with masses of Channel 4 viewers when she appeared on “First Dates” in 2021, and told us more about her experiences. We thank Dorit so much for her advocacy, her service and her fabulousness.
Dorit’s example serves as a testament to the need for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre that is the subject of this Bill. Education is our most powerful defence against hatred’s return, and the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day—“For a Better Future”—carries such profound weight. In that spirit, we remember the 6 million Jewish lives stolen and all victims of Nazi persecution. We honour their memory by confronting hatred wherever it emerges, including in the face of genocide in our world today, but sadly that confrontation requires vigilance.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Since the horrific attacks of 7 October 2023, we have seen a sharp and sustained increase in antisemitic abuse in Britain. Last year, a report commissioned by the Board of Deputies of British Jews found widespread failures to address anti-Jewish discrimination across public life, including in the NHS, education, the arts and policing. This matters today and is not a problem of the past. The Community Security Trust recorded over 3,500 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2024—one of the highest totals on record.
I understand that some will try to tie what is happening here in the UK to Israel’s actions in Gaza. People may hold strong views about that conflict, but we must be absolutely clear: British Jews are not responsible for the actions of any Government overseas. They are simply trying to live their lives, regardless of their faith or community identity. They should never be blamed, targeted or held accountable for events beyond their control. That is why remembrance must go hand in hand with education. Holocaust survivors are fewer each year, as we have heard, and we cannot rely on living testimony alone. We need strong, honest education about the Holocaust, about antisemitism, and about how quickly lies and conspiracy theories can spread, especially online.
The truth is that hatred is often fuelled by misinformation and a lack of understanding. Today conspiracy theories travel faster than ever, amplified by social media and algorithms that drive people towards ever more extreme content. Given the ease with which hate can spread online, a memorial linked to a learning centre—one that helps people to understand the Holocaust and confront antisemitism—has real value.
As we approach Holocaust Memorial Day, I hope the House can send a clear message: we remember, we educate, and we will stand against antisemitism and prejudice, in all its forms, wherever it is found.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I rise briefly because I agree with both the tenor of the debate and the tone in which colleagues across the House have quite rightly highlighted the sheer horror of the Holocaust, the importance of remembering its sheer scale and the challenges particularly, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) highlighted, in the context of rising antisemitism, and as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) mentioned, in having fewer survivors with lived experience here to share their stories.
I want to address two points raised by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). First, he raised a point that I surmise was on security, and I say to him that I simply do not know where the best site would be from a security perspective. It may be that somewhere between Parliament, which is obviously heavily secured, and MI5 would be an appropriate location for a site that will always carry security risks. It may be that other sites are better, and I defer to those with far more expertise than me.
I note that the current Father of the House—like the previous Father of the House— has spoken about his concerns with the design of the memorial, which I think reflects the fact that he is a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but I always have a slight concern. We obviously all agree on the principle, because it is important, and as the Member for Chelmsford said, after 11 years there is a need to make progress. I am not calling for delay—I certainly am not—because this is important, and we need to get on with it and to deliver it. However, it is fair to say that when the House is agreed on an issue, there is a danger that that issue is not sufficiently scrutinised.
As I have said, the current Father of the House, like the previous Father of the House, has raised concerns. He speaks as a former Chair of the PAC; I currently chair the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is not responsible for restoration and renewal—the House will come on to debate that—but I have already seen very serious concerns emerging around the challenges of the programme. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have huge experience of the programme. Indeed, the programme has been repeatedly delayed and seen significant cost overruns. The design before us includes a significant proportion of construction underground in a very constrained site. I think the Minister opened the debate extremely well and I agreed with much of what she said, but it seemed to me that she is giving the trustees quite a lot of discretion, so I simply want to say how important it is, on this programme, that there is very real transparency about some of the challenges that I fear will emerge with the design, the construction, the risk of cost overruns, the constraints and the compromises.
Can I bring that alive with one example? This site was constrained, and Parliament, as is its right, chose to vote to remove that constraint. On the R and R programme, I am told that the children’s education centre has to move because of an identical constraint. I suspect that the interaction of this programme with the R and R programme will come before the House in due course and raise some challenges. Indeed, the House has not even decided about such matters as what will happen to the education centre under the R and R programme.
The importance of remembering the unbelievable horror of the Holocaust cannot be overstated—
Steve Barclay
If the hon. Member will let me, I would like to finish.
When all in the House agree on something, the question is whether the designs have been sufficiently scrutinised. Therefore, my plea to the Minister is to make a commitment to transparency and to communicating the pressures, which I foresee will emerge, in a very timely way.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
With the leave of the House, I rise to thank hon. Members of all parties for their contribution to this important debate. I appreciate that although the Government’s commitment to establish a new national Holocaust memorial and learning centre has cross-party support, there are strongly held views in many quarters about how that vision is made a reality, and we are committed to listening and to engaging as we move forward.
I would like to start by thanking the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) for the work that his party did to initiate this important scheme and the Bill, and for maintaining cross-party consensus and working constructively with us to find solutions to move forward. He was right to focus our minds on the purpose of the Bill and the key mission of the learning centre.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was right to remind us of the need for pace and urgency. This process was initiated in 2015; it has taken far too long to get to this point. As he pointed out, as we delay and take time, the hope and ambition that the last survivors could see the construction of this memorial and learning centre moves further out of sight. We are determined to move at pace with construction, should we get the support of the House, to conclude it while the last remaining survivors are still here.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) gave a powerful contribution highlighting the reason for the Bill and the need constantly to remember, so that “never again” is not a hollow slogan or empty words. She was right that we are having this debate in the context of a rising tide of hate and division across our country. The collective task before us is to make sure that we move, deliver, remember and learn for this generation and future generations.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is timely to remind us all that if we held a minute’s silence for every person killed in the Holocaust, we would be silent for 11 and a half years. It is right and proper that we have a national memorial. Can the Minister reassure the House? Antisemitism is not confined to history; it is happening daily. Whether it be attacks at football matches or in our streets, around us our Jewish friends face hostility simply for being Jews. As this centre remembers the Holocaust, will it also deal with the antisemitism prevalent in our society today? Will those Jewish friends feel confident that they will not be attacked when they go to the centre?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We are seeing increased antisemitism. We see case after case in all our communities. I spend a lot of time talking to the Jewish community and our faith leaders. I hear the fear, anxiety and worry. The Government are absolutely committed to responding to that and to making sure that we take action so that our Jewish friends in this country feel safe and feel that they can live their lives without fear of attack or prejudice. That is a collective ambition across the House, and one that we have to work day in and day out to deliver. Remembering, and remembering where this can take us, is part of that journey, which is why the Bill and the memorial centre are absolutely key.
I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for paying tribute to his constituent Dorit Oliver-Wolff, her legacy and her impact. There are so many survivors who have made such a huge contribution and have continued to give and continued to remind us. I hope that, collectively, we deliver this Bill for them and deliver the construction of this site.
The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is right to point out that there have been issues about the location. There have been large debates about this. I gently point out that there has been extensive consultation throughout the planning process; 4,500 responses were submitted to the planning application and a planning inquiry was held publicly. We have consulted, and we have heard and listened. The issue of the location is increasingly settled, but we will continue to work with the community and the council to get the design right. Critically, we will protect the garden, as the site will take up only 7.5% of the area of Victoria Tower Gardens. We will do a huge amount of work to make sure that the memorial centre is aligned and consistent with that public park. Critically, we are doing work to enhance the park, including the playground.
Let me end by reflecting on the contribution from the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and his plea for transparency, which we hear. There is consensus and we want to maintain that consensus. That requires us to continue listening and engaging, and to keep the House updated. Any construction has difficulties going through planning but also delivery. Our commitment is that, because all Members have worked together to get to this point, we will continue to update the House.
I close by underlining the Government’s determination to ensure that the learning centre remains firmly focused on education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. We will ensure that that determination is embedded in the future governance arrangements for the memorial and learning centre, so that there can be no dilution of or digression from that intent. We do that, as Members across the House have highlighted eloquently and passionately, to ensure that we remember that dark moment and learn the lessons of history so that it can never happen again. I hope we can now move ahead as quickly as possible to establish the Holocaust memorial and learning centre with the consent and the support of Members across the House.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment 1;
That Miatta Fahnbulleh, Deirdre Costigan, Laura Kyrke-Smith, Mark Sewards, Peter Prinsley, Sir James Cleverly and Zöe Franklin be members of the Committee;
That Miatta Fahnbulleh be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9 September 2025 (Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on the Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 4.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Question agreed to.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 344 / Noes: 182 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 347 / Noes: 185 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 347 / Noes: 184 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before we move to consideration of the Lords amendments, I can confirm that Lords amendments 2, 3 and 6 engage Commons financial privilege. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)).
Clause 1
Commencement of Treaty and main provisions of this Act
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 4.
Stephen Doughty
National security must always be the first priority of any Government, and that is all the more important during these uncertain times. This Government have always and will always act to ensure the safety and security of the British people. That is precisely why we have agreed the Diego Garcia military base deal and why we need to pass the Bill, so the treaty can come into effect. The deal secures the vital military asset for future generations. It allows the base to continue to operate as it has done for decades to come, protecting UK national security and regional stability, and that of our allies.
As part of this agreement, the Government have negotiated robust and extensive provisions to protect the base that will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base or interfering with the vital protection the base gives to both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I will make progress and then I will take some interventions—certainly from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell).
The UK will never compromise on our national security, and as we have repeatedly made clear, the agreement we struck is vital for protecting it; it guarantees the long-term future of a base that is vital for the United Kingdom and the United States and our allies, and which had been under threat. Crucially, the deal secures the operations of the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia for generations. It has been publicly welcomed by key allies, including our Five Eyes partners, and key international partners including India, Japan and South Korea.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Minister has prayed in aid the support of the United States of America and the wider Five Eyes community. This morning the President of the United States dropped what could be described as a depth charge on that and made very clear what he thinks. What are the House and the Government to read of what the Minister says was the American position on the Bill and what it appears that its commander-in-chief is saying today?
Stephen Doughty
We engage with the United States—our closest defence and security partner—on a range of issues, including this one, every single day, and we continue to do so. The hon. Member asks an important question. The United States and President Trump welcomed this deal in the spring, and when we discussed in detail why the agreement was needed, the strong protections that it includes and the vital security it provides for Diego Garcia, the Administration endorsed the agreement as a “monumental achievement” following a thorough inter-agency process in the United States. The hon. Member will know how serious that is.
In May the United States Secretary of State said,
“The Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia”.
We will of course have discussions with the Administration in the coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal and how it secures the base for the United Kingdom and the United States. We will continue those discussions on many levels.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Following the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), does the Minister realise that the President of the United States, following his perspicacious comments last night, has had a chance to examine the deal in full? Does he therefore understand why the last Conservative Government, of which I was a part—indeed, doing the job the Minister is doing now—would never ever have got this deal?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said in this House many times, the last Government—the right hon. Gentleman knows this, as he was part of that Government—started this deal because they recognised that there was a serious challenge to the operation of the base, which is critical for our national security. [Interruption.] No, we have heard that claim made multiple times, but it is clear from the record of the Government of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), that they continued those negotiations right into the run-up to the general election in 2024. They engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations because they recognised, as did we, the very serious risks to the operation of that base.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I will happily give way to the former Cabinet Office Minister.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The Minister makes an important point. The key thing about the negotiations is that they were predicated on the United States’ concern about the continuing operation of the base in the context of concerns around international law. The position set out by the President of the United States last night is that he is not concerned about this—in fact, he is concerned about the deal the other way around. Moreover, I do not think that any of us would think that there is a concern around international law vis-à-vis the President of the United States. We are talking about two material changes. Surely in the face of these material changes, now is the time to pause and reconsider the implementation of the treaty. The circumstances have changed.
Stephen Doughty
The circumstances have not changed. Again, we see this collective amnesia on behalf of former Cabinet Ministers on the other side, who, I remind the right hon. Member, engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations. They did that because they knew of the very serious security and operational reasons affecting the base. I refer him to the Secretary of War, who said at the time:
“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s very important deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident that the base is protected for many years ahead.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I have taken a number of interventions, so I will move on.
The deal had to be done because the base was under threat. Courts had already begun making decisions that weakened our position, and without the deal, as I have said many times, we faced the prospect of further wide-ranging litigation that could have rendered the base inoperable. Let me be clear, as I have been on many occasions: this is not just about the legal position; it is about the operation of the base.
Without a treaty and a secure footing, legally binding provisional measures could have been imposed within weeks that would have undermined base operations. Our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference, to ensure access to the base by air and sea and to patrol the area around the base would have been eroded, and everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors could have been affected. That would have driven costs through the roof, deterred future investment and degraded the facility, and our adversaries would have jumped at the chance to disrupt the base—for example, by establishing outposts on the outer islands—with a guise of legality on their side. It is for all those reasons that the previous Government, many of whose former Cabinet Ministers are sitting on the Opposition Benches, undertook 11 rounds of detailed negotiations. It is also why they made critical concessions on the principles of sovereignty and direct payment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I have taken a number of interventions, so I would like to make some progress. I will happily take further interventions later.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard him in this Chamber a number of times say that the United States supported this deal. The President of the United States clearly does not support it any more. I would have thought that that was the case for a pause, but I would also have thought that something else that has changed was the case for a pause: the resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also asked for the Bill not to go forward. Does the Minister not think that those two things together mean that we should pause?
Stephen Doughty
We will not pause in defending our national security interests and those of our allies. We will do the right things to keep our national security and the operations of the base working as they have done for many decades. Despite the claims from the Opposition Benches, I reiterate that it is a matter of public record that, on February 2024, the former Prime Minister spoke with his Mauritian counterpart to confirm his commitment to negotiations, which continued until the general election. It was simply not credible to try to hang on, hope for the best and endanger an asset that is vital to our national security. The reality is that the previous Government failed to secure a deal. They failed to secure protections for the outer islands, for example. When it came to a matter of critical security, they did not deliver, so I am proud that we have secured a deal that is able to do those very things.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way; every time he comes to the House, he is most courteous. He mentioned the example of the former Prime Minister, but the former Prime Minister stated very clearly that the negotiations had to result in a “mutually beneficial” agreement. That did not happen, and therefore the Government ended those negotiations. Today, this Government are expecting us to vote on Third Reading for a deal that our greatest ally—an ally that the Minister has advocated for through this whole process—has turned its back on. How can he expect the House to do that when the circumstances have fundamentally changed?
Stephen Doughty
I have explained the comments of the US Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the US Government, as well as the President’s previous comments. This is about our Five Eyes partners as well; it is about Canada, Australia, New Zealand and our other key partners. They all understand the critical national security capabilities that the base provides. It is also about Japan and the Republic of Korea. The deal has also been welcomed by a number of our other overseas territories. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would discount their views, but we are not willing to do that. We are willing to deliver national security and the capabilities that our Five Eyes partners need.
Let me turn to the issue referenced in the Lords amendments. I want to answer the many genuine questions that have been asked by a number of hon. and right hon. Members on behalf of the Chagossians. We have secured a deal that protects the interests of the Chagossians. I know that there are a number of Members of this House who rightly care deeply about this issue and have done so for many years, but I am afraid to say that there are others who have picked up the mantle for pure political game playing and who fail to recognise that there is a genuine range of opinions within Chagossian communities; there are some who oppose this deal and there are many who support it, and that simply has not been recognised by many. We deeply regret—I reiterate this—the way in which Chagossians have been treated by successive Governments in the past. That is why we are committed to a future relationship that is built on trust.
The treaty provides the only viable path to resettlement on the outer islands of the archipelago. We know that that is a matter of critical importance to many Chagossians. Following the Government’s efforts, Mauritius has confirmed that all Chagossians who were born on the archipelago and their children will be eligible for Mauritian citizenship and for participation in a future resettlement programme, regardless of where they live. The Bill also preserves current British and British overseas territory citizenship, and the pathway to British citizenship for Chagossians, meaning that they will be able to hold both British nationality and Mauritian citizenship. In fact, as of April 2025, 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also have Mauritian citizenship.
Stephen Doughty
I give way on this issue to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).
Sir John Hayes
On that point, the Minister will be aware that the matter was debated at length in the Lords. Indeed, one of the amendments that we are considering deals precisely with the entitlements of the Chagossians. They were not involved in the negotiations at any stage, and they have made that clear. Why on earth would the Minister reject the Lords amendment, which simply says that they should have a defining say in their own future?
Stephen Doughty
With respect—Madam Deputy Speaker, you can correct me if I am wrong—it is a decision in relation to the engagement of financial privilege and the Standing Orders that means that those amendments are not for debate and will be disagreed with. That has been made clear by the Chair.
Working with Mauritius, we have also agreed the parameters for the operation of a Chagossian trust fund. On 12 December, the Mauritian Government approved legislation to establish the trust fund. That confirms, again, in response to many reasonable opinions expressed both in the other place and by those on the Opposition Benches—
Sir John Hayes
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chair made it clear at the outset that the amendments that deal with matters of finance were inappropriate to be considered here, for obvious reasons. I understood, however, that the amendments that we were debating, including those that reference the Chagossians, do not concern finance in particular. Can you clarify the matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before me read out the statement, and I will do so again for clarity. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not yet been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.
We cannot keep having the same discussion again and again. This is a very substantial debate and many people hope to speak, so let us proceed as fast as we can.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you for clarifying that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In parallel with the other measures, we have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK Government support to their communities and we are in the process of enhancing that group, as Baroness Chapman committed to do in the other place. Thanks to the work we have done and the reasonable concerns raised across the House, the Chagossian trust fund will be operated for Chagossians by Chagossians. There will be a Chagossian majority on the board, which will include a UK-based representative and a Chagossian chair. Those reasonable concerns have been raised in the course of the debates and we are trying to address them.
Stephen Doughty
I need to make progress, as Madam Deputy Speaker has asked me to be conscious of time. I will come back for further interventions.
Before moving on to discuss the specific amendments, I express my thanks to the noble Lords for their tireless efforts and to the many noble peers who scrutinised and supported the Bill. Lords amendment 4 was tabled by the Government, and I thank Lord Lansley for his helpful conversation and collaboration on the topic. The amendment will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to the delegated power in clause 6. With that amendment, all instruments made using that power will be subject to the negative procedure. Previously, no parliamentary procedure applied unless the power was used to amend, repeal or revoke Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments made under them. The amendment makes it clear that the Government are prepared to work with those who engage in genuine, constructive dialogue, rather than those who rely on political point scoring, to achieve meaningful compromise.
Turning to the other amendments made in the other place, I make it clear that the Government are thankful for all the scrutiny and are willing to engage with challenge. However, the other amendments are either already provided for or not necessary, or they simply make political points and play games with our national security, so we cannot accept them.
Lords amendment 1 would amend clause 1 to prevent the Bill and the treaty from entering into force until the Government had sought to renegotiate the termination clauses to include the base becoming unusable due to environmental degradation. That is unnecessary and I shall set out why. First, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the United States, which has invested heavily in the base. In line with the United States’ wishes, the previous Conservative Government agreed to limit termination to two grounds, both of which are in UK control, and this Government have secured that—
Graham Stuart
The Minister mentions the United States’ wishes, and he appears to be presenting the case that the United States remains in the position that it was in previously, despite what President Trump said last night. The Deputy Prime Minister said in February:
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward”.
Last night, President Trump said that he did not like the deal. Is it still going forward, or is the Minister suggesting that President Trump did not mean what he said last night?
Stephen Doughty
I have already answered that point. As I said, discussions will continue with the US Administration in the coming days, as they have done throughout the process. We will remind them of the strength of this deal, allay concerns and, of course, emphasise how it secures the base for both the United Kingdom and the United States. We work together on these matters. As the Speaker of the House of Representatives set out this morning, it is important that we work together on all matters of national security.
Stephen Doughty
Let me make some progress on the issue of termination.
As I have said, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the US. The Government have secured that procedure.
Secondly, I reassure the House that, given the importance of the base, we are taking necessary steps to protect it from environmental damage. Working with the United States, again in partnership, we already have extensive measures in place, such as the coastal erosion programme, and scientific studies show that natural land loss over the past 50 years has been less than 1%. That said, we recognise the concerns of Lord Craig and Lord Houghton, and I would like to reassure them and Members of this House that the international law of treaties allows for the termination of a treaty when it becomes impossible for a treaty to be performed as a result of
“the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty”.
Baroness Chapman set out the legal position clearly in the other place.
For further reassurance, since that debate we have consulted Mauritius to verify that it shares our assessment. I am happy to update the House that this has been confirmed in writing to the Government. Mauritius is clear on the point, both as a matter of international law and in its domestic law. We welcome that confirmation by Mauritius and trust that it will assure Members in this House and in the other place who share this concern that such an amendment is unnecessary.
Stephen Doughty
I give way to the former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Sir Julian Lewis
The Minister seems to be putting an awful lot of faith in the good intent and reliability of the Mauritian Government. They are a close ally of China, which, he might remember, gave us cast-iron guarantees about the future of the Hongkongers once the lease on Hong Kong was given up. I gently remind him that the 2024 Labour manifesto, entitled “Change”, stated:
“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”
Can he look the Chagossians in the Gallery in the eye and tell them that that is what the Government are now doing?
Stephen Doughty
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and his role, and we have had many good conversations, but it is extremely unhelpful to, and unwanted by, residents in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands that this false comparison keeps being made—
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely, and we stand by that commitment to defend the Falklands and Gibraltar. That is exactly what we have been doing and will continue to do. I gently say that I fully recognise and respect the fact that there are many Chagossian groups who disagree with this deal as well as many who agree with it. Unfortunately, some of the comments in this place have represented only one side of that argument. It is our duty as a Government to listen to all those groups and to engage appropriately with them.
Lords Amendments 5 and 6 both relate to the costs of the treaty—
Stephen Doughty
I am not going to take any more interventions at the moment. I need to make some progress.
Lords amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to publish the total real-terms costs of payments made under the treaty, including the methodology used by the Government Actuary’s Department and the Treasury. I confess that it brings me some satisfaction to learn that the Opposition have eventually accepted the importance of quoting financial figures for a 99-year treaty in real terms. They have always known that it is misleading to ignore the impact of inflation—a pound today is not worth the same as a pound in 99 years’ time—and now at long last they seem to have seen the light. Let us see whether, in today’s debate, we can do away with the deliberately and misleadingly inflated figures that have been bandied about again by the shadow Foreign Secretary during questions today, and start discussing the financial elements of the treaty with accuracy and transparency.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I will carry on, and then I will take the intervention from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who has raised these issues before.
For all the good intentions, I am afraid that Lords amendment 5 is unnecessary. We have been clear about the costs of the deal from the moment of signature. We published full details of the financial arrangements the very same day the treaty was signed, including in the financial exchange of letters and the explanatory memorandum laid before Parliament. If Opposition Members are having difficulty finding where that is, it is on pages 9 and 10 of the explanatory memorandum. The documents set out the payment schedule and the confirmed amounts at that time.
The methodology is clear: the average annual payment has been calculated using forecast inflation figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility. We used the forecast GDP deflator, which is published regularly. That generated the real value of the payments, which is the valueusb adjusted for inflation to create a fair comparison with other costs. Members will recall that this equates to less than a quarter of 1% of the Defence budget and compares favourably to the cost of comparable overseas facilities. I have mentioned the facility that France pays for in Djibouti. This is an immensely more valuable facility. It is priceless for our defence capabilities and those of our allies.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that the deal provides certainty and full operational use of the base for 99 years?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely, I can confirm that the deal secures the base for us and our allies. It secures the crucial capabilities that benefit ourselves, the United States and, indeed, all our allies.
I am happy to further canter through the calculations. The net present value was established by discounting the real value of the sums due to be paid over the duration of the treaty using the social time preference rate, as set out in the Green Book. That adjusts for social time preference, which is a reflection of the value society attaches to present, as opposed to future, consumption. That has been used in the UK by Governments of all flavours since 2003.
Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced a review of the social time preference rate shortly before Christmas. That follows a review of the Green Book last year. I do not know how that review will conclude, but I know that the Government used the correct methodology when the figures were published, and were clear and transparent in doing so, and we will continue to do so whichever way the review comes out.
Esther McVey
This evening, the Minister is trying to convince us to vote for this Chagos deal. The President of the United States says that the Government are handing over the island “FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER”, so can he give us some reasons?
Stephen Doughty
With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Lady, I do not think she has been present in many of the other debates on this issue—she popped up here today to make these points. I have been clear and answered the question already, so I will not do so again.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way and for his detailed explanation of how the calculations have been made. The Government Actuary’s Department clearly stated that this deal would cost £34.7 billion. That figure was then confirmed by his colleague, the Minister for the Middle East, who said that all the figures had been ratified by the Government Actuary’s Department, but his colleague sitting next to him, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, told me that that figure was inaccurate. Will the Minister therefore clarify how much this deal costs?
Stephen Doughty
We set out the costs clearly at the time, as I have done for the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber a number of times. What I will confirm is that they have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department. The House of Commons Library has been through them and reached the same conclusion. The Office for Statistics Regulation has welcomed the Government’s approach and said that it is in line with intelligent transparency, and the Office for Budget Responsibility also confirmed separately to it that the discount rates were correct. I have given the hon. Gentleman four good reasons and the costs. However much Opposition Members bandy about the costs, it is simply unhelpful.
I will move on to the other amendments. Lords amendment 6 would introduce an ongoing estimates and supply scrutiny process for expenditure under the treaty, including parliamentary approval for future payments and supplementary estimates. The agreement has undergone intense scrutiny, and the treaty provides robust mechanisms for dispute resolution under article 14. It is normal practice for payments under treaties to be made under the prerogative power and charged on the Consolidated Fund under the authority of the Supply Acts. Furthermore, the amendment would infringe on the financial privilege of the Commons and affect the Commons’ arrangements for authorising expenditure. These are long-standing practices that members of the former Government will know. The same applied under them, and it applies under this Government, too.
Finally, subsection (4) would infringe on the prerogative power to make and unmake treaties. It is not wise to impose any immovable requirements about a hypothetical set of circumstances that might arise in the future. This provision risks requiring the Government to breach the UK’s obligations under a treaty. It is clearly preferable for all options to be open to a future Government, so that they can deal with whatever the future may bring and act in the UK’s best interests, taking into account all the circumstances.
I am conscious of your exhortations about time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. The previous Government recognised that there was a problem. They engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations, but failed to reach a deal that was in our interests and those of the United States. We secured this deal. It protects the base, and the interests of the United States and our Five Eyes partners.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, for the benefit of the House, and to provide a fuller response to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), it is Lords amendments 2 and 3, which relate to the referendum, that will be disagreed to under Standing Order No. 78(3). The expenditure necessary for a referendum has not been authorised by this House. Lords amendments 5 and 6 are within the scope of the debate. Although amendment 6 engages the financial privilege of this House, it does not in itself involve any expenditure. I hope that helps colleagues.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I only want to clarify that point slightly. Those amendments are mentioned on the Order Paper, but cannot be voted on because of financial privilege, yet they are on the Order Paper, so surely they can be debated and discussed, without us having a vote at the end. Otherwise, they should not have been put on the Order Paper.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The advice I am getting from the Clerk is that that is incorrect because the amendments were disagreed to in the Lords, so we must continue with the debate in hand, as on the Order Paper.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill is back, and this House has its last chance to act in the national interest, defend the rights of the Chagossian community and protect the money of hard-pressed British taxpayers, who are being expected to foot a colossal bill of £35 billion, which is being given to a foreign Government to—guess what?—cut their taxes, while our taxes rise.
I put on record the thanks of Conservative Members to the other place for their scrutiny, and their diligence in once again holding this Government to account. When Labour plotted to deny this House a debate and a vote on the surrender treaty during the 21-day process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, it was Conservatives in the House of Lords who forced a debate and a vote. When Labour limited the time for this House to give the Bill the line-by-line scrutiny it needed, it was the House of Lords that stepped in and made time available. When this Labour Government ignored and neglected the views of the Chagossian community, it was the House of Lords and the International Relations and Defence Committee that came to the rescue and organised a survey, giving important insights into Chagossians’ concerns about the Government of Mauritius and the future of their ancestral home. When Labour refused to accept any amendments to modify and improve this £35 billion surrender Bill, it was the House of Lords that made important changes, which we are debating today.
Let me be clear: this is a Bill that the Conservatives have fought against at every single stage. We will not accept this deal to surrender British sovereignty; it is a deal that we will continue to oppose and challenge Ministers on. Every vote today is a vote to kill this Bill. We will keep on voting against this Bill and opposing it until the Government—and, one would hope, the Prime Minister—see sense, withdraw it and tear up the treaty. We are not the only ones vociferously opposing this, because we now know that the President of the United States is against it; he says that it is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that China and Russia will
“have noticed this act of total weakness.”
Esther McVey
I asked the Minister what the reasons were for the Government signing away the Chagos islands. He could not give any reasons. The President of the United States says that the Government are giving the islands away “for no reason whatsoever”, so can my right hon. Friend give us any reason to sign off this deal today?
Priti Patel
Let me remind my right hon. Friend exactly what the President of the United States said. He has said that this is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that
“There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”
The previous Foreign Secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, is on the record as saying:
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward… they’ve got to be happy with the deal or there is no deal”,
so why has Labour continued to press this Bill?
In the light of the President’s comments, can the Minister tell us what will happen to the status of the 1966 exchange of notes between the UK and the United States, which states clearly that the British Indian Ocean Territory
“shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty”?
What is the impact on that agreement? Is it being changed?
Simon Hoare
When I and other colleagues intervened on the Minister, we seemed to get a rather la-la land answer about the Government’s response to what the President of the United States has said. In terms, the Minister said, “I’ll go and have a word with him and put him straight.” Well, good luck with that! The Government, having prayed in aid for so long the unalloyed support of the United States, have now lost it. Is my right hon. Friend as confused as I am to see that they are pretending that the incident never happened? It is like the “Bobby in the shower” moment in “Dallas”.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Opposition are completely against this deal, and the President of the United States has said that it is going ahead “for no reason whatsoever”. It seems to me that the Government are still on hold to the President of the United States.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I am too young to have seen that scene in “Dallas”, so that went slightly over my head. Does the right hon. Member agree that we cannot read too much into a social media post? After all, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said about the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick):
“Jenrick is a fraud. I’ve always thought so”,
and
“Don’t believe a word that he says”.
Is it not true that we cannot always stick with the same mindset on social media?
Priti Patel
Let me say, for the benefit of everyone in this House, that the United States of America is our strongest ally when it comes to the national security of our country, and rightly so. When the President of the United States raises concerns, we should listen to them, and I would like to think that this Government will act on them.
Let me turn to the details of Lords amendment 5, which would introduce new provisions on transparency about the costs that British taxpayers are being forced to pay. It is vital that this House sees the full costs, as Labour has never acknowledged or accepted the financial costs and burdens of this Bill for the taxpayer. As the House knows, the Conservative party had to force the information out of the Government through freedom of information requests. Labour Ministers have had the bare-faced cheek to come here and give us their valuation of £3.5 billion, whereas the Government Actuary’s Department tells us that it is £35 billion.
In most areas of Government spending, Labour likes to brag about how much is being spent—welfare is a familiar theme that it likes to go on about—but on this issue, it is using a valuation technique to downplay the amount. We have heard the Prime Minister claim that this is
“how the OBR counts the cost”.
However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said:
“The OBR does not hold any information on the costs or financial impacts of the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. We can confirm that we have not been contacted by HM Treasury, MoD or the Governments Actuary’s Department”,
so what is the truth? This amendment would help to bring about more openness and transparency on the costs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservative party on this amendment, which is crucial. The key is whether the British Government have fully briefed the US about the risks to the Pelindaba treaty that will result from Diego Garcia becoming sovereign to Mauritius, because if they have, President Trump will be very glad to comment on that. Does she agree that the thing to do now might be to contact President Trump?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is right that that treaty relates to nuclear weapons coming on to the base at Diego Garcia. That is why our emphasis must be on the strength of the relationship between our two countries when it comes to our national security—this House will not disagree on that—but it is deeply concerning that the President of the United States has explicitly expressed his disapproval of this entire process and this giveaway. To address the hon. Member’s point about the nuclear treaty, we should absolutely be engaging with our closest ally, the United States of America.
Stuart Anderson
It is not as if the President of the United States has not expressed disapproval; he says it is an “act of great stupidity” to do this deal. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is ironic that the Secretary of State for Defence made the first statement to the House on the subject last May, but with less than 12 hours to go until what could have been the final stage of the Bill, the President has absolutely trashed the deal?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right, and what he says speaks to it being complete nonsense for the Government to have proceeded with the Bill. It is an act of gross self-harm and, to quote the President of the United Sates, an “act of great stupidity” that will have significant consequences for this Government.
Sir Julian Lewis
Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Minister, who is, shall we say, a flexible friend in the cause of the Government’s policies, has been relying on the fact that, in the past, other Members of Donald Trump’s Government in America have been saying supportive things about the Bill? Would she like to cast a wager with the Minister, as I would, that 24 hours after Donald Trump changed his tune, the Government will change their tune in exactly the same direction?
Priti Patel
If the Government wish to U-turn and scrap the Bill, we would welcome that and support it; there is no question about that.
I turn to amendment 1. It is not just when it comes to money, which is addressed in amendment 5, that the Government’s claims lack any credibility; amendment 1, which deals with the surrender of British sovereignty, leaves us weaker and, as we have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends, will compromise the long-term operations of the base.
We are required to give notice to the Government of Mauritius about a range of activities taking place on the base. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, and if that applies to Diego Garcia, it would prohibit the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons there. This is very serious. While the Prime Minister has claimed that China, Russia and Iran oppose the surrender, we know that they back it; they publicly endorse it, and they will seek to gain from this lack of sovereignty.
These points are all relevant to amendment 1, as it requires the Government to renegotiate article 11 of the treaty, so that payments cease should the use of the base for military purposes became impossible. Obviously, we hope that that scenario does not materialise, as we believe that Diego Garcia is a vital cornerstone of our national security and defence, and should remain so. However, as the treaty stands, if we stop using the base, the UK is still bound to make pretty significant payments over the 99-year lease period; it is a huge cost. Amendment 1 is therefore a vital point of contingency.
We would like the whole agreement binned, but we believe that it is reasonable and practical for the Government to accept this change. When he sums up, will the Minister explain why he is not prepared to consider the amendment, and to renegotiate parts of the treaty?
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend, like me, feel some sympathy for the Minister? He has rested his whole case on the support of the United States of America. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the Bill would not go ahead if the American President did not support it. We all remember the great mystery about who shot J.R., but there is no mystery about who shot the Minister’s fox—it was the President of the United States last night, and the Minister’s whole case has crumbled.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is spot on. This is the critical moment when the Government should tear up the Bill and scrap this disaster. It should not proceed at all.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend noticed, like me, that all the military veterans in the Government and on the Labour Benches—with one notable exception—seem to have abandoned their post today? I have counted about nine veterans on our Benches. If more veterans had been on the Labour Benches, perhaps they could have told the Front Benchers about the forlorn hope. The forlorn hope were the people who were sent out either to defend the indefensible or to go on suicidal attack missions. They were in search of either promotion or pardons for sins of the past. Does she agree that the Front Benchers have been sent out here to defend the indefensible?
Stephen Doughty
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct the record? The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) says that there are not any veterans. I have served this country as an Army reservist, and I am very proud to have done so. We have many other Labour Members who have served and are veterans; they absolutely defend the national security of this country and have done so at many different stages. That comment is not accurate and needs to be corrected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank—[Interruption.] Order. I can make a decision; I do not need any help. That was not exactly a point of order, Minister. It was much more of an intervention, which may have been taken by the Member who was about to rise to her feet. However, the Minister has got his point on the record. We need to move at a pace; otherwise, we will not get speakers in.
Priti Patel
Although Lords amendments 2 and 3 have not been selected, I will briefly comment on them for members of the Chagossian community watching this debate. Owing to the actions of the Conservatives in the House of Lords, the Government were forced to slow down the ratification process for a brief moment while a survey was undertaken in the other place by the International Relations and Defence Committee. That was very important, because something like 3,000 respondents gave a view. They gave a very clear statement as to the direction of travel on the Chagos Islands—their ancestral home—and they want them to remain British.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Priti Patel
I will very briefly give way—this will be the last intervention I take.
David Simmonds
If this is such a good deal, why does my right hon. Friend think that one of my local authorities is having to house hundreds of Chagossians who are fleeing to the UK to escape its consequences?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am aware that his local authority is under a range of pressures from Chagossians who are basically fleeing to the United Kingdom. They have raised many serious concerns about the Government of Mauritius and expressed a clear wish for the Chagossian community to be respected, engaged, stood up for absolutely and to have their voices listened to.
The Chagossian community has been treated appallingly. There is a sense of betrayal of the community, and that is absolutely wrong. Although we cannot vote on Lords amendments 2 and 3 today, it is still in the gift of the Government to see sense and take action to facilitate the Chagossians’ right of self-determination. That is absolutely vital.
This entire surrender Bill is wrong, which is why we on the Conservative Benches will keep on opposing it. I have said this before, and I will say it again: to all the Labour MPs who have been whipped and commanded to enter the Division Lobby to back the surrender Bill and support the Government’s plan to remove the Lords amendments, I say, “You are being used to service the interests of your Prime Minister, rather than your country and your constituents. You are being forced to vote through paying billions to a foreign Government who are allied with our enemies and growing closer to them, while your councils and schools see their budgets squeezed and cut. You are being forced to be complicit in the betrayal of the Chagossian community, but tonight you have the chance to do the right thing and join us in the Division Lobby.”
The Conservative party will continue to stand up for our national interest, British taxpayers and the Chagossian community. That is why we will keep opposing Labour’s £35 billion Chagos surrender Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Back-Bench Members are on a five-minute speaking limit. That will drop further as the debate continues.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
In answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), there is more than one veteran on the Labour Benches. I wonder what the veterans from the Conservative party who went through 11 rounds of negotiations under the previous Government were saying; they clearly supported this decision at that point, and there were clear reasons for doing so.
This is not an exercise in process; it is about whether this House chooses to protect on firm, enforceable terms an overseas base that is fundamental to British security and our closest alliances. Diego Garcia is a critical asset for the UK and our allies. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile state activity, and enables the rapid deployment of UK and US forces across regions that matter deeply to our national interest. Those opposing the Bill need to be clear about what they are opposing. They are opposing a treaty that secures the base for 99 years with full operational freedom, one that is backed by our allies and was negotiated substantially under the previous Government.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman be supporting Lords amendment 1, given that he has just specified that the base needs to be used for military purposes? If that use becomes impossible, because the islands go under water, for example—which is a real risk—would he want to carry on paying for the deal?
Alex Ballinger
I will not be supporting Lords amendment 1, because it would require renegotiation. We already have a joint commission to deal with issues that arise, and international treaty law would provide routes to termination if we were in that sort of situation, so the amendment is not necessary at all. I will come back to this question later in my speech.
If we refused to comply, others—international organisations and partners—would not ignore any provisional measures that were put in place, undermining the practical operation of the base. That is the same reason that negotiations were started under the last Government, and the treaty contains safeguards that are not decorative, but operationally vital. The UK will control installations and the electromagnetic spectrum; we will control a buffer zone of 24 nautical miles, within which nothing can be built without UK consent; and there will be a strict ban on any foreign military or security presence on the outer islands. Those are precisely the kinds of protections that make the base secure, usable and resilient against interference.
As we are in the Chamber today to consider the Lords amendments, I will go through each in turn. Lords amendment 1 would require renegotiation so that the UK can stop payments if it cannot use the base. On the surface, as others have mentioned, this may sound prudent, but it is a recipe for uncertainty and delay at the very moment that we need clarity. The treaty already establishes a joint commission to deal with issues as they arise, and international treaty law provides routes to termination if an indispensable object for execution permanently disappears. The amendment adds risk, not security, undermining confidence in the treaty framework that we need to keep the base operational.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 were rejected by Mr Speaker. Lords amendment 4 deals with the procedure for orders under clause 6 of the Bill. It is a Government amendment; responding to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it provides appropriate parliamentary procedure. It strengthens scrutiny and is a sensible refinement to how the Bill operates, and this House should support it.
Lords amendment 5, which deals with the publication of the total costs and methodology, is duplicative. The Government published full details of the financial arrangements on the day that the treaty was signed, including the relevant explanatory material. The methodology is clear: it uses the Office for Budget Responsibility’s inflation forecasts to calculate the average annual figures, and those figures have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department. The House of Commons Library reached the same conclusion, and the Office for Statistics Regulation has welcomed this approach. The amendment is not about transparency; it is about rerunning an argument we have had time and again in this House, including through I do not know how many urgent questions.
Lords amendment 6 deals with Commons votes to cease payments if Mauritius breaches the treaty. This would require additional parliamentary steps on anticipated expenditure.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the costs of the deal. Can he just set them out for the House? I do not think anyone has done so in today’s debate so far, and he is speaking with such expertise. It would be great to hear from him exactly what this deal is costing.
Alex Ballinger
I will happily outline that to the House. The Minister has already outlined it: it is approximately 0.25% of the defence budget, which is tiny in comparison to the base in Djibouti that the French operate. If we compare it with the operation of an aircraft carrier or something of that size, it is very good value for money.
Lords amendment 6 would cut across long-standing constitutional practice on treaty payments, and would infringe Commons financial privilege and established arrangements for authorising expenditure. More importantly, it would send a damaging signal that the UK is building an exit ramp into primary legislation, weakening our hand and injecting instability into the very agreement designed to secure the base. The treaty already contains robust dispute resolution mechanisms, which is the right way to deal with such issues.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Oh, stop giving him extra time! He is not going to trouble the scorer, is he?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue?
Alex Ballinger
Yes, I will continue.
The strategic logic is straightforward. Diego Garcia’s location, infrastructure and operational utility are indispensable.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
On the security of the base, does my hon. Friend recall the visit to Washington DC that I think we both went on last year as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee? We spoke to many American interlocutors, including State Department officials. Over the course of an entire week in the US capital, not a single US interlocutor disagreed with or opposed the deal before us.
Alex Ballinger
My hon. Friend makes a good point. This treaty has been through the interagency process in America and has support across the system. Colleagues may have mentioned the President changing his position, but the US system is much wider than that, and I do not think we should we should base our long-term strategic and security interests on Truth Social posts.
This House should reject Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6, support the Government’s sensible procedural amendment 4, and pass this Bill in a way that protects national security, rather than gambling with it.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—never has a point of order been greeted with such joy from the Chair—you have rightly pointed out, as has Mr Speaker, the Lords amendments that engage Commons financial privilege. We guard that privilege jealously and exercise it with caution. How is the House supposed to exercise that financial privilege in an informed way when, despite several probes to the Minister to come up with a figure for what this deal will cost the public purse, those right hon. and hon Members attending the debate this afternoon have not been given that figure? We have had a lot of theory about how a figure had been arrived at, but no figure. How do we exercise—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Hoare, I am worried that the longer you speak, the longer you will disappoint other colleagues who are hoping to contribute later in the debate, and I would not want to ruin your reputation on that front. This feels like a continuation of the debate. The Minister may or may not wish to respond to that point during his closing speech, but my job is to make sure that as many Members as possible who have sat through this debate get to put their voice on the record.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Please forgive my slightly croaky tones today, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr Pinkerton
I will do my best, having received that cue from you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This Bill returns to us from the other place with amendments that raise serious questions about the governance, cost and durability of the treaty concerning the future of Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago. For decades, decisions about the Chagos islands were taken without the consent of the Chagossian people. That was the defining feature of the injustice that they have experienced. My concern, shared by many across this House and others in this place, is that unless the Government properly consider the Lords amendments, Parliament risks giving statutory effect to a framework that lacks the safeguards necessary for accountability, legitimacy and long-term sustainability. That is precisely what the Lords amendments seek to address.
In the things that they have proposed, the Government have acknowledged the historic wrongdoing to the Chagossian people. They have recognised the right of return in principle and proposed a £40 million trust fund to address the harms caused by forced displacement. The framework before us today provides limited assurance, however, that the Chagossian people will have any meaningful agency over the decisions and structures that will shape their future. That matters, because legitimacy is not derived from intergovernmental agreement alone. It rests on whether those affected can participate meaningfully in decisions taken about their homeland.
At the core of the United Nations charter lies the principle of self-determination. Article 1.2 could not be clearer. One of the purposes of the United Nations is:
“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples”.
We reasonably expected to have the opportunity to vote to reaffirm our commitment to the UN charter and, crucially, our commitment to the right of Chagossians as a distinct, albeit displaced people to self-determine their future. It is therefore deeply regrettable that Members across this House have been denied that opportunity today.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am very sorry about his throat. I suspect that he, like me, is keen for Greenlanders to have the right of self-determination. Time and again, we have sat through the speeches of Ministers who have harped on about the need to defend their right to a say in what happens to them. Will the hon. Gentleman compare and contrast that with the situation faced by the Chagossians, and explain why the Danes can put into law the right for their people to have a say in their future but we are about to rule it out for people to whom we owe a duty of care?
Dr Pinkerton
If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for two minutes, I will get to precisely that point.
It is shameful that a meaningful referendum was not the starting point of this Government’s approach, which left Opposition parties to insist on it through amendments. It is equally shameful that this principle has today been rejected on the grounds of cost. What price do the Government place on self-determination? Among Chagossians, this will be received for what it is: justice layered upon injustice.
This Government, and Governments before them, have routinely defended our overseas territories in the international arena on the basis of the self-determining rights of their citizens. Today, this Government rightly defend Greenland on that same basis, asserting the right of Greenlanders to determine their own future. It is therefore with deep regret that I speak in support of that right and of that principle as expressed through Lords amendments 2 and 3, knowing that we will have no opportunity to vote in favour of those amendments when a Division is called.
In respect of accountability and oversight, Lords amendments 5 and 6 would reinforce Parliament’s role in scrutinising the financial commitments of this agreement. They would ensure that the House is not asked to authorise long-term expenditure without clarity on its scale, duration and assumptions. The amendments would require transparency in the way in which costs are calculated, and ensure that Parliament retains control over future payments. That is not obstruction; it is a proper exercise of parliamentary responsibility, and one owed to future Administrations and to the public. The amendments would also give the Government a mechanism to terminate the deal and all future payments to Mauritius should Mauritius fail to honour its obligations.
In May, the Prime Minister said that the deal would cost up to £3.4 billion over 99 years. However, freedom of information disclosures suggest an initial estimate closer to £34.7 billion, a figure that we have already heard today. That disparity risks further undermining trust in this Government, and confidence in their wider approach to public spending. At a time when families across Britain face cost of living pressures, Parliament is entitled—indeed expected—to demand clarity before committing taxpayers to potentially vast long-term liabilities that will endure well beyond any of our lifetimes.
In respect of security and durability, Lords amendment 1 addresses the strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and would ensure that the United Kingdom is not locked into ongoing payments should the military use of the base become impossible. Given the rapidly shifting nature of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States, particularly under its current President, the amendment is essential to ensure that we are not bound into a long-term lease without a similarly long-term tenant. No one in this House or the other place disputes the strategic importance of Diego Garcia to our national security, and to global security more broadly. The amendment reflects that reality, and raises legitimate questions about the long-term viability of this deal.
Let me now return briefly to Lords amendments 5 and 6, which together form a coherent and, in my view, proportionate package. They would reinforce parliamentary oversight, protect the public purse, and hold the Government’s financial commitments to account. The other place has not sought to frustrate the Bill; it has asked whether Parliament is prepared to proceed without sufficient safeguards on cost, governance and legitimacy concerns.
I again place on record my disappointment that Lords amendments 2 and 3 were not selected for today’s debate. They would have provided the Chagossian people with a referendum, allowing them a direct and meaningful say over their future—something that remains conspicuously absent despite repeated assurances about consultation.
The Chagossians are not, and should not be, diplomatic collateral. They are not a note in the marginalia of an agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. They are a people who have been treated badly by our country and are now deserving of agency, dignity and justice. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to accept Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6. More than that, however, we urge the Government to pause, to reflect on the changing geopolitical circumstances in which we find ourselves, and to think again about whether this is the right approach for us, for the Chagossian people, and for our future security.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
It has been said that some hon. and right hon. Members have come to the debate on Chagos late in the day. That is right. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been banging on about Chagos for decades, and I admire him for doing so. I first became concerned when I saw how much it would cost the United Kingdom to pay for something that we own. As a litmus test, I asked myself whether I could explain to my constituents why we are going to pay an island nation that has no direct connection with Diego Garcia.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Fundamentally, I spoke about Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands for many years because of the injustice that was done and the islanders’ right of return. The whole point has been to gain the right of return, which has been won through this Bill for the outer islands and, in a limited form, for Diego Garcia itself.
Graham Stringer
That is at the heart of what has gone wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about it for a long time. The Chagossians were treated as itinerant workers in the 1960s, so they did not get the basic rights that people got in other British protectorates. They were discriminated against, and we are discriminating against them again by giving Mauritius the power to determine what goes on. The only solution to the central issue is not a survey, which the House of Lords is doing in good faith; it is to have a referendum, which has been ruled out of order today, for good reasons in procedural terms. We should give the Chagossians a say in a referendum on whether they want to return or not. Otherwise, it is all speculation.
I do not think the Minister explained why we should not take notice of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. That is fundamental, because the Committee goes back to the 1960s decision, and it sees what happened then, and what is being perpetuated now, as racial discrimination, and we and the Mauritians are perpetuating that. My hon. Friend the Minister did not really respond to that point, just as he did not really address what has changed. I have listened to many of his statements in this House, when he has said in good faith that the United States supports us. Regardless of whether it did so in the past—it probably did—it certainly does not support us now. Those are two reasons for pausing and thinking again: becoming compliant with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and talking to the United States, because it has changed its position.
The amendments before us would not affect the core of the Bill, because that was dealt with in a very short period of time on Second Reading, on Report and in Committee, but they are important in as much as they ask for information. We are going to pay for something that we did not used to have to pay for. It will have consequences for our ability to look after our defence interests in the Indian ocean, and we do not know how much it will cost. Amending the Bill to give us an exact figure for those costs is important. Lords amendment 1 is also important if for some reason Mauritius changes its view or the islands disappear under water. I do not have the opportunity this evening to vote for what I would like to vote for, but I will vote for the amendments that the Lords have put before us.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I rise because in the previous debate we had on this, a question was posed to Ministers, and it has been asked again now: what are the reasons for this Bill? First, Ministers rested on one idea, which was all about how we had somehow received a binding judgment from the International Court of Justice, and this was therefore important because we had to stand by that. I remember it became clearer and clearer during that debate, particularly for some Members, that this simply was not correct. There is no binding judgment; it is an advisory judgment, because we have an opt-out for all matters to do with Commonwealth Governments. That is very clear, and it has been said by many judges and other learned legal people.
Some of my right hon. Friends, one of whom I see on the Front Bench, have raised other reasons in these debates. Beyond the ICJ judgment, we were told there were other issues, and that somehow if we did not do this we would face challenges under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and by the International Telecommunication Union, which stands steadily. What is most interesting about all this is that, when pressed throughout, bit by bit Ministers’ arguments fell apart. These issues are very detailed, so I will not go into them now, but they will have to be raised in much more detail later.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do not think I will get any extra time, so I am not sure it is such a good idea, to be honest. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to give me some extra time, I will give way.
Dr Arthur
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know this subject is very important to him. He has carefully explained why he does not think the Government have to act, but he has not explained why his Government were negotiating a deal if they did not have to act, at great cost and with a great consumption of time.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It does not really matter to me who is in government because I am in opposition. I was opposed to this then, so if the hon. Member does not mind, I am not going to try to defend any of that. I can tell him that I was far more opposed to it than many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches are now. I hope I have now expunged any dishonour on my part.
On the two critical areas—UNCLOS and the ITU—we discovered that certain articles exempted us from any legal challenge in any way, and therefore they were not binding. I say that because today is a matter of intense sadness. As the Minister knows, I am a massive admirer of him for his steadiness and determination, often on unpopular matters. However, I have to say to him on Lords amendments 2 and 3, and the Liberal Democrats say the same, that this is a matter of sophistry. If we believe in free speech and free debate, and if we believe in voting on what we believe or what we oppose, I genuinely ask why we cannot do so on Lords amendments 2 and 3.
Sitting in the Gallery are people who will be utterly depressed by the idea that this Chamber has shut itself out from debating the rights of the Chagossians and to vote on those rights today. I know it was clever to get that done, and I know the Speaker’s Office was under pressure to do that, but I simply say that this is not right. It is not right that this House cannot decide on those rights, particularly given that the UN committee mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) has made it very clear that the Government should stay this legislation, because of its fears with regard to race relations.
I simply say that this is a sad moment for this House, because this horribly flimsy piece of legislation completely casts away any rationale. Then this morning we heard from the President of the United States, who was previously prayed in aid in all this; it was said that we should somehow motor through this because he was in favour of it, and if the American Government are in favour of it, we should stand with them. A previous Foreign Secretary said that if America did not want it and did not agree with it, we would not do it, but here we are rushing through with it.
Why are we rushing? Why do we not stay this Bill, wait to hear exactly what America thinks about it and make a decision about whether we carry on? Surely, that would make more sense and be more rational. Through all of this, I just do not get what the unpalatable haste is all about—to dismiss the Chagossians, to dismiss the logic and the reasons why we have to do this, and to head towards paying billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for no reason at all. I think somebody else said that today.
Meanwhile, China is looking at this and laughing, as are Russia, Iran and all the other nasty states. Honestly, this is a bad day. This is badly done. It is a bad day for us and for the concepts of dispute, debate and liberty. We should hang our heads in shame, because the House of Lords is better at debating things than we are, and it has much better rights.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The time limit on speeches is now four minutes.
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) has said much of what I was going to say, thankfully, so I will try to be brief. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), made a set of arguments predicated on the case for national security. It is therefore important to take on the question of how secure we are. Look at the economic security that this Government inherited: 15 years of slow, weak growth, the lowest business investment in the G7, and wages that had grown at a consistent 2% a year flatlining. Look at the impacts of the Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservatives: in early 2025, the UK’s GDP was between 6% and 8% lower than it would have been without Brexit, and we lost between £180 billion and £240 billion of output. This is important, because it relates to the credibility of the Opposition when they make their case on the basis of national security.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Hayes, this debate is about the issue in hand, not the credibility of the Opposition. Let us get to the point quickly.
Tom Hayes
Moving forward three pages—those pages were a condensed history of how our country was left completely insecure by the Opposition—to look at Diego Garcia, it is a critical UK asset for national security. We all agree on that in the House. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile states and enables rapid deployment of US and UK forces worldwide. That is, in large part, why the US Administration have backed what this Government have been pushing forward. Recent operations against high-value ISIS targets show its vital role in keeping global trade routes and the British people safe.
With this deal, we have full operational freedom. We have control of installations, communications, logistics and land use with strict safeguards, a UK-controlled electromagnetic spectrum, a 24 nautical mile buffer zone and a ban on foreign military presence on the outer islands. In the interests of giving a briefer speech, I am going to put down the two pages that further explain the way in which the treaty reinforces the UK’s relationship with the Chagos islands and supports our national security.
We have talked about this issue at great length. There have been many urgent questions, statements and debates in the House. The Opposition talk about the importance of national security. This country is facing some of the gravest threats to our national security. We are repelling Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation daily. Our security services are having to fight against Russian spying and sabotage of our infrastructure.
Dr Luke Evans
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure which amendments are being addressed. There are at least five on the amendment paper to be talked about. I just wondered if Russia is relevant to any of those amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Dr Luke Evans, you need to stop using points of order to continue debates. No doubt Mr Hayes is going to get right to the point and then conclude very quickly.
Tom Hayes
I always listen to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). As I said at the outset, I support all of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen, who went into great detail about the amendments. The point I am bringing us back to is that Conservative Members need to put country before petty party politics. They are acting in a childish way and they are overexcited about this debate. This treaty protects our national interest. It safeguards British interests. The Opposition have a cheek, when they were responsible for at least 85% of the negotiations that led to this debate.
I will close with this. In this House, we speak through the Chair, because doing so tempers debate. When I speak with schoolchildren about the House, they remark upon the fact that we are in an old building, and that shows our continuity over many years of history. In this place, we make decisions in a sombre, sober way. We do not make them in the same way as the President of the United States did last night, in the form of a rash tweet. Let us not take that social media post at face value. Let us do the reasonable thing and debate this matter properly.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Some “very tiny islands”. That is how this Government’s National Security Adviser described Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands. I am afraid that that contempt is consistent with how they continue to treat those people. The former Foreign Secretary never once met Chagossians. There is no evidence that the current Foreign Secretary has ever met Chagossians. I am afraid that the Minister at the Dispatch Box met Chagossians only on 30 September and 3 October, after the deal was done, and refused to discuss the deal with them—unless he is saying that those who are here today are lying. By contrast—before anyone starts to heckle—I have had many meetings with representatives of the Chagossian community and organised roundtables with them.
We urgently need Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6 on financial oversight of this £34.7 billion bill the British people are about to have to foot. The clawback option is the bare minimum the Government should accept for the eventuality that Mauritius breaks the conditions of this appalling deal, because it is quite likely that we will see mistreatment of the Chagossian people. It is also important that the clawback is there because we will need to review and understand the surge of Chagossians who came to the UK after the deal was announced. The Government tried to dismiss it, and claimed that the increase had nothing to do with the deal. That is wrong and we will continue to see that.
This is a bad deal. The agreement is legally illiterate: there was an ICJ opinion, not a ruling. It is historically illiterate, because the Chagos islands have never belonged to Mauritius. This is a bad deal, ceding territory not to those hailing from those islands, but to a country that has consistently mistreated Chagossians and legislated to criminalise their views. The Bill cements the shameful treatment of the Chagossian people into law.
Anyone who votes against the clawback tonight should be ashamed of themselves, because they should want to put in place the minimum protections for the people of the Chagos islands—those people who have come this evening to hear us debate, because their voices have not been heard in this Chamber and they have been denied by a Government who would not meet them, a Government who have no interest in supporting them, and a Government who tonight will vote against the only protections that might make sure that their voice is heard.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I align myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger).
In South East Cornwall, we may be geographically removed from Diego Garcia, but we are closely connected to the realities of our national defence. Torpoint has the third highest number of veterans of any community, with over 14% of people having served. Residents across the area have written to me about the importance of this issue. His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport is the largest naval base in western Europe and a key part of our national defence capability, so we are an area that understands the importance of national defence and its complexities. We know that it requires long-term thinking and joint working with multiple allies, each of whom understandably has its own national interests in mind.
Does the Minister agree that this matter is about not just international law, but securing Britain’s ability to defend itself, including control over key capabilities such as berthing submarines, electromagnetic defence and force mobility? Given that 85% of the Chagos negotiations took place under the Conservatives, does the Minister know why the Tories started negotiations when they were in government if they did not think there was a threat to the crucial base?
As well as defence, South East Cornwall has deep ties to our marine environment, with many local livelihoods dependent on the sea. Our local economy relies on a healthy and resilient marine environment, so it is important to recognise the role of that environment. The Chagos marine protected area was established in 2010. Through the Blue Belt programme, the UK has continued to play a leading role in enhancing marine protection across the overseas territories. For Members who may not be aware, this is a brilliant programme that works with local communities to understand biodiversity, manage impacts and build a deeper understanding between people and nature. The marine protected area is home to extraordinary marine life. Research has shown that it contributes to climate resilience at a global scale.
Mauritius has committed to protecting that marine environment, which I welcome. However, as an island state located miles from the base, I have concerns about the practicalities of monitoring and enforcing protections against harmful activity. What provisions in the Bill and the treaty will safeguard the existing marine protected area and ensure that effective enforcement remains in place to prevent harm to the ecosystem and the species that depend on it?
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
This Government’s handover of the Chagos islands is nothing short of a disgrace. British taxpayers are being asked to stump up billions of pounds to pay for the privilege of giving away something we own—a strategically vital territory—to a close ally of the Chinese Communist party. And why? All because of an entirely advisory opinion issued by politicised judges in the International Court of Justice.
People across the country are rightly asking why on earth any British Government would agree to a deal that diminishes our strategic capabilities and costs us billions in the process, particularly when the Government are already putting the squeeze on people’s finances in so many ways. The Government’s arguments for doing so were already thin, and they become even thinner when we consider the amendments before us today.
Katie Lam
The question that we are voting on today is the deal that the Government have agreed to. It is an appalling deal, and it should be opposed.
The Government’s arguments for putting the deal forward become even thinner when we look at the amendments and how the Government have responded to them both here and in the other place. If, as the Government claim, the deal will make us safer, why not support Lords amendment 1, which would ensure that payments are made to the Mauritian Government only if our armed forces retain access to the Diego Garcia base? We have already heard that the Government will not support Lords amendments 2 and 3, but if, as the Government claim, the costs of the deal are proportionate, why not support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which would provide much-needed transparency about why taxpayers are being asked to stump up so much for the privilege of handing away territory? We hear no such support for those amendments, so the Chagos handover cannot really be about our security, the Chagossians or self-determination.
So what is it about? The truth is that this so-called deal is motivated entirely by ideology. We have heard from the Government’s Attorney General that “almost every aspect” of the British empire was “deeply racist”, echoing the language used by the Mauritians at the International Court of Justice. Of course, when Britain has done something seriously wrong, we should be honest about that, but in the case of the Chagos islands, there was no original British sin. Mauritius never had sovereignty over the Chagos islands, and practically no Mauritians have ever lived there. The islands have been under British sovereignty since 1814, before which they were occupied by the French. Before that, they were uninhabited. This is no decolonisation; it is a surrender.
Our history is complex. It contains cruelties, yes, but also enormous contributions to human health, wealth and flourishing around the world. The darkest moments in our history were hardly unique, yet many of the most virtuous moments in that history were truly exceptional. I believe that we should be proud of the contributions that our country has made to the world. However, the Government’s position on the amendments lays bare the truth: they simply do not agree. Instead, they believe that it is their responsibility to go around the world flagellating themselves and righting imagined wrongs on behalf of and at the expense of the British taxpayer. To their minds, this country is indelibly stained by the actions of those who came before us. The Chagos surrender is one such example, but it is not the only one, and I fear it will not be the last. To attempt to right the wrongs, real or imagined, of the distant past by squeezing the taxpayers of today is divisive madness.
If the Government ever want the British people to believe that they are motivated by anything other than deep shame about our history, they would do well to accept the amendments before us today or—far better—to scrap this deal entirely. The British people are owed a Government who stand up for their interests today, not punish them for the imagined sins of our ancestors.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This is a sad day for the United Kingdom. The Government have not been prepared to stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, they seem to be willing to surrender when any challenge is made to its interests.
Let us look at some of the arguments that the Minister has made against the amendments. First, the Minister said that nothing has changed since the Bill was originally brought to the House, but of course we have seen that the American attitude has changed. The United Nations says that we are not giving the protections to the people we should be giving them to—in fact, we are more interested in the rights of the Danes who live in Greenland than the Chagossian population. The UN has actually said that we should stay this. So there have been changes, and the changes have been substantial.
The second argument we heard is that the base was under threat and we therefore had to make changes. I noticed what the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) said about the marine protected area and the environmental requirements on the Mauritian Government, but there is no legal requirement in this treaty for the Mauritian Government to protect the marine protected area. Indeed, they have made it quite clear that fishing will be allowed in the marine protected area. What is the danger there? It is of course that Chinese ships can come into the area, and we know that in the South China sea, the Chinese have used commercial ships as their eyes and ears, so the base is under threat as a result of this change.
Alex Ballinger
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the 24-nautical mile exclusion zone that the Government negotiated in the treaty? It will prevent many of the things that he referred to.
Sammy Wilson
It is not just a question of ensuring that the 24-nautical-mile exclusion zone prevents spying and everything else; the area would still be left environmentally damaged, and there would still be a threat to the military base.
Thirdly, the Government have refused even to consider the Lords amendment about cost. At a time when we are looking for every penny, so that we can supply the citizens of this country with the services that they require, the Government are turning their nose up at an amendment that would ensure that if the base cannot be used, we will no longer pay for it. The Minister has talked about the cost. He has told us all the mechanisms by which the cost has been calculated, but he has not actually told us what the cost is. Is it £3 billion? Is it £10 billion? Is it £37 billion? The difference between those figures is significant to our constituents.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The £35 billion figure has been cited the most today. This is taxpayers’ money that should be funding schools, hospitals and other much-needed infrastructure. The deal is not only a shameful surrender of national sovereignty but a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Sammy Wilson
Most people listening to this debate, even if they do not know a great deal about the Chagos islands and the base, will understand that we have handed over the islands when there was no necessity to do so, only to use taxpayers’ money to lease them back. That is one of the scandals of the treaty.
The Minister talked about building a relationship of trust with the Chagos islanders. What way is this to build trust? The Government have refused to give them a say on whether this treaty reflects their interests and deals with their concerns and the despicable way in which they have been treated in the past. The cost is wrong. The way in which we are treating the people who are affected by the treaty is wrong. The Government’s position on the long-term security of the base is wrong. This is a bad deal for the United Kingdom, and we should be ashamed that the Government’s majority is being used to push the deal through when it is so clear that it is full of flaws and problems for our future.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Bill goes to the very heart of our national security, the safety of the British people, our global reach and our operational effectiveness in two of the most volatile and unpredictable regions of the world: the Indo-Pacific and the middle east. It also raises serious questions about the cost of this deal to the British taxpayer, which amounts to £34.7 billion.
Even in the short time since the Bill was first brought to the House, the world has become even more unstable, yet the Government remain content to press ahead with the Bill. I struggle to see how it makes us safer, considering the requirement “to expeditiously inform” Mauritius of operational activity, and considering that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty. The implications of the Bill for the basing of nuclear weapons, which are vital to our security and to our deterrence, and which have been deployed to Diego Garcia in the past, should concern every Member of the House. We need further clarity and assurance from the Government on that point.
That brings me to the £28 billion shortfall in the defence budget that the Chief of the Defence Staff recently presented to the Prime Minister. It does not take a mathematician to see the point that I am making; indeed, the maths is so basic that I suggest that even the Chancellor could work it out.
Aphra Brandreth
I will make progress, because we are nearly out of time. Instead of pursuing the Bill, the Government could withdraw it, and redirect the vast sums involved towards addressing that shortfall and genuinely strengthening our national security.
Several hon. Members rose—
Aphra Brandreth
We are short of time. Ultimately, the Lords amendment is about accountability to Parliament and to the electorate. There is no mandate for the Bill. If the Government choose to force it through using their majority, they must, at the very least, be accountable for the cost.
British Chagossians are the forgotten people of this Bill. They may have been forgotten by the Government, but they have not been forgotten by Conservative Members. We continue to oppose the Bill with them firmly in our minds. The Prime Minister has rightly stated that Greenland’s sovereignty and right to self-determination rest with the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The question is simple: why is that same right not afforded to the British Chagossians?
The Bill has profound implications for our national security and public expenditure. The amendments tabled by Opposition peers are there for a reason: not for political gain, but to make a bad Bill slightly less damaging, to introduce safeguards, to offer some reassurance to the British taxpayer, and to ensure that the voices of the British Chagossian people are finally heard.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Time is tight, and interventions should be taken with caution. I call Sir John Hayes.
Sir John Hayes
I am immensely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The best laws begin as Bills that metamorphosise during their passage and are improved through scrutiny. However, that depends on Ministers listening and learning. The amendments before us from the House of Lords are measured and reasonable. They are not wrecking amendments, but attempts to save the Government from their worst instincts. They provide greater scrutiny, greater parliamentary oversight and more checks and balances, yet they are rejected by the Government.
I will not speak, in the brief time available, about the cost of the deal, although it is wholly unpalatable that we should give away a treasured possession and then rent it back from a foreign place. I will not speak about the strategic cost of doing just that, although I will draw on Lord West’s remarks. That former Labour security Minister, who sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee with me, said:
“surrendering sovereignty over the Chagos Islands would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger.”
That is wholly unwise.
I will speak, however, about the interests of the Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, who were uninvolved in the negotiations from the outset, whose voice has not been heard, and whose future has been disregarded. That seems to me to be wholly unethical.
This is unwise, unpalatable, unwelcome, unethical, and fundamentally wrong. The Lords amendments would make some improvement to something that is woeful. I implore the Government to accept the amendments. More than that, I implore them to abandon this sorry mission, which is not in the national interest, and certainly not in the interests of the Chagos islanders.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
If it were possible, one could almost feel sorry for the Minister. This is the Minister who, during previous stages of the Bill, batted away every criticism by telling us, “Oh, but the Americans support this deal.” He gleefully told us that they were our strongest and most important ally, and if they were enthusiastic and supportive of the Bill, what was the problem? Today, the emperor has no clothes.
The President of the United States has talked about the great stupidity of this deal. He describes a country giving away its own sovereignty as
“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.
Today the Minister has been forced into some indelicate gymnastics, as he tries to deal with the fact that the peg on which he hung all his defences has snapped out of place.
The Minister’s gymnastics have been equally on display when it comes to dealing with his party’s manifesto. Contrary to what he says, it is very clear that when the manifesto declares that Labour will always
“defend… sovereignty and right to self-determination”,
it is referring not only to Gibraltar and the Falklands, but to all British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It says
“including the Falklands and Gibraltar”,
but not “exclusively the Falklands and Gibraltar”.
Jim Allister
I do not think that there is time for the hon. Member to remedy his speech at this stage.
The Minister is hoisted on the petard of his own manifesto, of which he is in blatant breach. He can hardly look the people of the Chagos islands in the eye, as he denies them what his manifesto promised them. They are the people who are hurting here. They are at the heart of this. They have not been treated well over decades by this nation, and now we are betraying them by denying them the right to any determination of their future. That is shameful. It is something that this House should be running away from, rather than embracing. I say to the Government: it is not too late to do the right thing. It is time they did, and I trust that they will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Andrew Rosindell.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
This has been fundamental to everything I have ever stood for in this House as a Member of Parliament. This Bill did not have its origins in this Government; these were originally the proposals of the previous Conservative Government. No Government have ever given the right of self-determination to the Chagossian people. Shamefully, we have treated them differently from all the other overseas territories. We sent a taskforce to rescue the Falkland Islands. Margaret Thatcher would never have given one inch of British territory away to a foreign country, let alone have paid billions of pounds to do so. This is a shameful day for our country. We are giving away the King’s islands. Rescuing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do; betraying the Chagossian people is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
My former party went along with this for years, ignoring everything I ever said to every Foreign Minister and every Foreign Secretary. Over and over again, I raised this issue, and warned that it would lead to this catastrophe. I was ignored, and now we see the betrayal of the Chagossian people, our national security is being threatened, and we are paying billions for it. I say to all colleagues on both sides of this House—including those in my new party, but particularly those in my old party —that this is a humiliation for this country, and a betrayal of the loyal British people sitting in the Gallery today who should have the right of self-determination. I am ashamed of what this Parliament is voting on today. I will speak up for the rights, democracy and self-determination of all the British people in all the overseas territories.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Francois, the speech has finished. We now come to the Minister for the wind-up.
Stephen Doughty
With the leave of the House, I will close the debate. Hon. and right hon. Members have raised important questions and points during the debate. Once again, I must reiterate that for those who engage in genuine and constructive debate, the Government are willing to find compromise where that is reasonable and proper, and that debate is welcome, as it has been in the other place.
The deal sits at the cornerstone of the defence and security of both the United Kingdom and the United States. It plays a crucial role in defending our interests, our countries and our people and ensures that we remain equipped to face an increasingly complex and dangerous world.
I have to challenge one of the points that has been made repeatedly and falsely throughout the debate. We have heard the same nonsense that this deal puts the base at threat from Chinese interference. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. There appear to be many side conversations taking place. If Members wish to leave the Chamber, they can do so. Otherwise, we should focus on what the Minister is saying.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was referring to the claims about Chinese interference. I doubt that those on the Opposition Benches have actually seen or read the op-ed by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius on 14 January criticising the Chagos deal, which again very much underlines the point that I have been repeatedly making.
Just last week, the United States military signed a new contract worth $85 million for base operating support services. Before the treaty was signed, it had been rolling over previous contracts due to the uncertainty, but because of the certainty provided by this deal, it has now entered into a new long-term contract, which delivers strength and certainty for the United States, the United Kingdom and our allies, because national security is the priority for all of us.
While securing our national security, we have taken steps throughout the Bill to ensure that we have the measures in place, including the full control of Diego Garcia; the 24-mile nautical buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without our consent, meaning that we can protect our interests; a rigorous process to prevent activities on the wider islands—some over 100 nautical miles away—from disrupting base operations; a strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military, without UK consent; and a binding obligation to ensure that the base is never undermined. These are robust provisions, and they defend the national security of ourselves and our allies, including the United States.
Many important points have been raised about the Chagossian community. I absolutely acknowledge and respect the Chagossians who are here today. I also acknowledge and respect that there are many views within the Chagossian community. I was disappointed by the tone of the remarks from the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who I have good engagement with. I can tell her that I met Chagossians on 30 September 2024 and 3 October 2024. On 22 May 2025, she claimed that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), had not met the Chagossians; in fact, he met them with me. On 2 September 2025, I was at the first meeting of the Chagossian contact group. Officials regularly engage with Chagossians. Indeed, I engaged with Chagossians long before I took this position as a Minister and did so in opposition, along with many hon. and right hon. Members, to listen to the range of views.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
No, I will not give way. I am conscious of time—I need to respond to the points made.
Of course, many groups support the deal, including the Chagos Refugees Group, the Chagos Islanders Movement and the Seychelles Chagossian committee.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), made many criticisms. We have heard and been through them a number of times. I remind her that, of course, it was her party that started the negotiations in the first place. She supported this when she was in government. The Conservatives have demonstrated absolute naked opportunism, ignoring the national security issues and jumping on the political bandwagon. They talk about defence and national security, but in 14 disastrous years in office their party hollowed out our armed forces. Our Government are investing at levels not seen since the cold war, and 85% of the negotiation rounds took place—
Graham Stuart
I fear the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. The only public statement by the Chinese Government on this subject was on 29 May last year when they welcomed the Chagos deal.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order. Can we prevent the debate from continuing in points of order? If colleagues wish to intervene, they can try to do so, and it is up to the Minister whether he wishes to respond to those interventions. We can keep going until 7.18 pm when the time will cut off.
Stephen Doughty
I was referring to an article published on 14 January by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius.
The former Government had access to the same legal advice, the same security briefings and the same threat assessments as we do now, including on threats to the operations of this crucial base, and senior figures raised no objections in Parliament, filed no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. It is only after leaving government that they have done so. That is not principled opposition; it is opportunistic.
Many questions were raised about the finances. I must be clear that the higher figure of £34.7 billion that was released by the Government Actuary’s Department was a nominal amount and was not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate, so it is deeply misleading to cite that figure, given the changing value of money over time. A pound today is not worth the same as a pound tomorrow. Quite frankly, I am baffled at hearing these complaints about the finances, given the billions that the Conservatives wasted on defective personal protective equipment, the festival of Brexit and who knows what else.
There were some very sensible and I think legitimate questions raised about the costs. The Government have always sought to be transparent on these matters. We set out the forecasts at the time of publication, and the documents that we published at the time of the treaty set out that the net present value of the treaty was £3.4 billion, calculated using the Green Book methodology —I have set that out on many occasions before. Of course, I would expect forecasts to change over time, given the changes in the OBR’s forecast inflation rate and other matters. We were transparent then, and of course we will continue that transparency in the usual ways before the House. Indeed, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, no less, has confirmed that the use of a discount rate to give NPV is a standard concept in finance, and that it is reasonable for the Government to use an inflation assumption and a discounting rate to give an NPV of the cost. If we use its suggestion of 2.9%, the annual payments would be £96 million on average, which is £5 million less in today’s money than the Government’s forecast at the time of the treaty’s publication.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am not going to pursue the Minister down that line—I did that last time—but I do want to ask a simple question. This morning, we had a very clear statement from the President of the United States. The Deputy Prime Minister was also clear previously when he said that if America says no, then this does not go ahead. Are his counsels in any way discussing or thinking about waiting to find out whether that view from the President today is clear and for good? In other words, will they then stop this Bill?
Stephen Doughty
That is a very reasonable question from the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, we engage with the United States as our closest defence and security partner every single day. Conversations are ongoing. We are always engaging with them on these matters, and I am sure we will continue to do so over the coming days. I have set out the clear position that the United States set out on many occasions—this went through a detailed inter-agency process—and of course we will continue conversations with the United States, as we have done before.
I was rather baffled by the complaint of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is not now in his place—[Interruption.] Ah, he is at the Bar of the House. It was his Government who established the citizenship route for Chagossians, which rightly gives them the right to come here, and local authorities can engage in the usual way with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about their needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) raised the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This is very important, so let me be clear: it does speak on behalf of the United Nations or member states. Indeed, the UN Secretary-General and the African Union chairperson both welcomed the agreement, so it is simply not the case that those concerns were raised by the United Nations, and it is important that the record be corrected.
There were concerns about the reasons. I was clear about the operational impacts on the base of not securing this deal, which include overflight clearances, securing contractors, declining investment and degraded facility. We would also be unable to prevent—this is a crucial point that Members have reasonably raised—China or other nations from setting up installations on the outer islands or carrying out joint exercises. I have set out the legal reasons for that on many occasions, which include the litigation that could be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK, including under annexe VII of the UN convention on the law of the sea. A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding.
The shadow Foreign Secretary raised the Pelindaba treaty. The United Kingdom and Mauritius are satisfied that their existing international obligations are compatible with the agreement, and we are very clear that we comply with our obligations under international law.
Mr Francois
I refer the Minister to article 298 of the UNCLOS treaty, which means we have a complete opt-out on military bases, but may I take him back to costs? The Government Actuary’s Department, whose whole raison d’être is to calculate long-term spending commitments, stood up the £35 billion figure—in fact, it said it might be more. Who should the House believe—people whose whole life’s work is to calculate long-term costs, or this Minister?
Stephen Doughty
I regret the right hon. Gentleman’s tone. I have respect for him normally, but if he had been listening a moment ago, he would have heard me explain this exact point. It is a nominal amount. It is not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. The value of money changes over time; £1 today is not worth the same as £1 tomorrow. This is very clear. I set out the multiple ways in which this has been verified, and it is even agreed by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.
We have discussed these issues at great length in this House on many occasions. Let me be clear: this deal secures this base for the national security of the United Kingdom and the United States, and it secures it for our allies. It is vital, and this is an important point to end on. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South asked why this matters to our constituents. It matters because the capabilities on this base matter for the national security of this country, our allies and our citizens in preventing terrorism and the activities of adversaries with hostile intent towards us, the United States and our allies. It secures this base into the future, and we urge the House to reject the Lords amendments and agree with Lords amendment 4.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As the House was informed earlier, Mr Speaker is satisfied that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would impose a charge on public revenue that has not been authorised by a money resolution in this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, Lords amendments 2 and 3 are therefore deemed to be disagreed to.
After Clause 5
Cost of the Treaty
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.—(Stephen Doughty.)
Business without Debate
5G Connectivity: Telford and West Midlands
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
It is good to see the Minister in his place. He is a man with great knowledge of, and passion for, this agenda, and I know he will take it forward in Telford, west midlands and further afield. I also want to place on record my gratitude to the Department for how helpful and proactive it has been with me since I raised this issue both in this House and outside of it. I am also grateful for the opportunity to raise in Parliament something I have been talking about for some time, but which my constituents have been putting up with for even longer: 5G connectivity in Telford and across our region—or the lack of it.
Debates on this subject often focus on connectivity in rural areas, and rightly so, but I want to start out by reminding anyone who is unaware that, despite our beautiful nature and green spaces, Telford is no village. It is a town with more than 185,000 people. Our borough is predicted to reach 200,000 people by 2032; that represents12.5% growth from 2018. We are just a half an hour drive from Wolverhampton and 40 minutes from our second city, Birmingham, but despite our size, population and proximity to major cities, we have very patchy 5G connections. In fact, constituents tells me that getting a 4G reception is often a challenge.
Telford is a cultural and economic hub, bustling with industry. I cannot tell people to come and employ people in our great town, or to visit our wonderful world heritage site, when connectivity in whole areas across our town are, frankly, in the dark ages. This problem feels all the more sharp because we are in the heart of a region—the west midlands—which, according to the West Midlands combined authority, has the best 5G in the country. The combined authority is doing excellent work, led by Mayor Richard Parker. He is harnessing technology to reduce congestion and pollution, and to improve the local economy and the services it offers. Telford is run by a forward-thinking council that would be very keen to innovate in similar ways, if we were only given the opportunity.
Constituents have been raising this issue in conversations with me for a very long time, but I wanted to get some numbers so I ran a survey of my constituents. The results were stark: almost 100% of respondents told me that they have no 5G connection whatsoever. For many, that was the experience in their homes, their workplaces and even in our town centre. One constituent, Bill, told me that his connection both at home and work has got worse in the last five years. Another, Joanne, said her signal with O2 has deteriorated even in the last few months, although O2 denies this. Two other constituents, Waz and Phil, both said they had changed providers multiple times but found them to be “all the same”. One former constituent, Peter, who now lives in Europe, told me that the contrast between us and our international partners is “shocking”. I could go on with the results of my survey, but if the Minister would like to hear directly from my constituents he is very welcome to visit them, or I can share the survey results with him.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and a really good point, which applies equally to urban and rural areas. Mobile network operators do not have minimum standards of coverage and quality of signal. At some places where there was good coverage before, that now no longer appears to be the case because the signal quality is so poor. Does he agree that we need to look at a way to ensure mobile network operators provide a good quality signal to everyone?
Shaun Davies
I agree with my Shropshire neighbour. This is a rural issue and an urban one. A mobile signal is very much like a utility; people expect it to work for both their personal life and their work-related life.
Telford and Wrekin council kindly shared with me a report containing research by the River Severn Partnership. Between 2024 and 2025, it found a “significant difference” between what Ofcom estimated 5G coverage to be and real-world experience. The survey found that 28% of Telford postcodes did not have a good phone signal, but Ofcom claims there is not a single postcode in Telford where the signal is poor. Again, that is in direct contrast to the lived experiences of our residents. This goes to the heart of the problem and it is exactly what our residents are saying: what Ofcom and the Government say just does not live up to the real-life experiences.
In an answer to a written question last January, the then Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), told me that 99% of all premises in my constituency have 5G available. I am not in any way attributing blame to that Minister, because I know that the Government get their data from Ofcom, which in turn gets its data from the network providers, and those network providers told me in a meeting this week that their data is provided through computer generation and analytics. The real-life experiences of residents are not taken into consideration.
The Local Government Association—an organisation with which I am very familiar—authored a report with the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities. That report was very validating for my constituents. It said that residents who make complaints are not imagining things, and the association took the same issue with Ofcom’s data, confirming that
“while Ofcom’s regulatory oversight has supported progress in expanding digital infrastructure, significant concerns remain about the accuracy of coverage data. The current system relies heavily on operator-supplied modelling, which often fails to reflect the lived experiences of residents.”
I want to make it clear that there are two sides to this problem, but they are connected. We need better reporting of 5G coverage, although obviously my constituents care more about improving the coverage itself. The path to better 5G infrastructure in my constituency and other constituencies across the west midlands requires an acknowledgment that there is a problem in the first place.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has made some excellent points. Tettenhall in my constituency is a significantly populated suburb of Wolverhampton, where residents face similar problems to those highlighted by my hon. Friend. Constituents say that they have little or no signal and they struggle to make contact with family and friends. The other day, a constituent told me that he had difficulty contacting the emergency services because there was no mobile phone connectivity.
My hon. Friend is right to say that very often the problem is considered to be in rural areas but that more densely populated areas, such as Tettenhall, have similar problems. Does my hon. Friend agree that in this day and age we need to ensure that there is connectivity everywhere?
Shaun Davies
I completely agree. My hon. Friend makes the excellent point that this issue is not just about economic growth and access to public services, though that is important; it is also about access to lifesaving services in an emergency.
In case I have come across too negative, at this point I would like to acknowledge the progress that is being or will be made. I recently had the chance to meet officials and Baroness Lloyd who is a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Skills, who informed me about Ofcom’s reporting tool—a map that enables my constituents to show Ofcom where they are not getting 5G signal—but I gently point out to the Minister that the expectation cannot simply be on our residents to report problems, when network providers are making millions in profit.
I have written to Ofcom and providers, including O2, EE, 3 and BT. I found them all to be responsive, and I met some of them this week and will do so again. It is so important that we seek action. Although what they say sounds great in principle, I hope that providers will forgive me and my constituents for saying that we will believe it when we see it, because ultimately the test is whether, in 2026, people can connect to a 4G or 5G signal.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling speech. I should declare that in a previous role, I advised a mobile phone company on communications. There have been occasions in the past when mobile phone companies and other digital companies have made very grand promises about things like video calling, as happened when they rolled out 3G, and then 4G and then 5G, but unfortunately those promises have not always matched the expectations of the public, who watch the adverts and buy the devices. Does my hon. Friend agree that while companies are going to great lengths to improve services, we must implore them to match the reality of their service provision with the things that they are advertising and promising?
I want to emphasise that I am not asking the Government and the providers for charity; I am asking for an opportunity for us to contribute. Telford is a wonderful town, Shropshire is a wonderful county and the west midlands is a fantastic region, and those consumers are a market opportunity for this ever-growing network. If we want Telford to continue to grow as we have done for the past 60 years, we need to be in the 21st century, and when it comes to 5G, we simply are not. Businesses need to know that they can operate; people need to know that they can work from home and access online GP appointments; and, crucially for a town that is impacted by flooding, especially around the famous world heritage site at Ironbridge gorge, we must be sure that we can contact the emergency services in a crisis. That resilience and connectivity must be there. Telford has so much to offer the Government, the private sector and anyone who wants to live, visit or invest in our town. In return, we need modern 5G infrastructure.
I have both a national and a local ask of the Minister. Nationally, I echo the call of the digital communities all-party parliamentary group, which is chaired by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for an independent review of the UK’s digital connectivity framework and the integrity of the data in reporting. It is frustrating for me and my constituents to be hit with the “computer says no” answer when sharing our lived experience of something that is a real problem to so many people. The Ofcom reporting tool is welcome, but I ask the Minister to go further, so that we are not just starting with an inaccurate map and making individual residents responsible for correcting it.
My local ask is this: will the Minister visit Telford with his officials and see for himself what my constituents and I are dealing with? Will he help me to convene the relevant providers and lend his voice to my call for better 5G, or at least 4G, connection, so that my constituents can rely on it to access public services and to make our economy grow, both in Telford and the wider region?
I know that digital connectivity is a priority for the Government, and I welcome the steps that they are taking, including through project gigabit, to revolutionise our infrastructure. Bill, Peter, Waz, Phil and Joanne, as well as hundreds of other constituents, have contacted me about this issue. Will the Minister reassure them, as well as the hundreds of thousands across this country who are affected by this issue, that they will be connected to a world-class network that provides them with access to digital services?
This Government’s priorities are clear: economic growth, reforming public services and change. I say this to the Minister: this is a grand opportunity for me to demonstrate to my constituents that the economy mission is being met and that the mission relating to access to reformed public services can be met. Every one of my constituents who has a phone in their pocket will feel change and be benefited through this measure. I thank the House for allowing me time to explore this issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
First and foremost, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) for securing this Adjournment debate. Throughout his entire tenure as the local MP, he has been a relentless champion for the people of Telford on the question of 5G and mobile coverage. He has listened closely to those he represents in person and through surveys. He has represented their voices in the media and to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Digital Economy in the other place, and he has done that again in this debate with both an impressive speech and a deep understanding of Telford.
Mobile coverage is an extremely important topic, which is reflected in the amount of interest shown across from the House in any parliamentary activity on the subject. Access to high-quality, reliable and secure mobile connectivity is critical for people to participate effectively in the modern digital economy. It is essential for day-to-day life in many cases. Whether it is to run a business online, to access essential public services, to manage finances online, to contact GP surgeries or to stay in touch with loved ones, we all need reliable mobile connectivity.
The Government have an ambition for all populated areas to have access to higher-quality stand-alone 5G by 2030. That of course includes Telford and areas right across the west midlands. It is true that Ofcom currently reports that stand-alone 5G is available outside of only 1% of premises across my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is clearly unacceptable. I am also conscious that the picture has slightly updated in recent months, and I will take the opportunity to shine some light on that. The published coverage stats were last collected in July last year, and there has been some improvement in the picture since then. We expect that the figure will further increase significantly in the next report published by Ofcom as reporting catches up with network roll-out.
Mobile network operators are investing significantly to improve coverage and I know that progress continues at pace. I have been assured that that is leading to coverage improvements in many areas, including Telford. The operators’ significant investment plans are public. VodafoneThree has committed £11 billion as a result of the merger, BT has an ambition to deliver stand-alone 5G to 99% of the UK population by the end of financial year 2030, and Virgin Media O2, as part of its mobile transformation plan, committed £700 million of further investment in its mobile network nationwide.
In preparation for this debate, officials have engaged with the operators to understand their specific coverage improvement plans in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the west midlands. BT has confirmed that, in line with its announcement of October of last year, 99% of residents across the Telford constituency can now access stand-alone 5G. I will come to points of dissatisfaction between that claim and the wider experience of people in Telford imminently.
VodafoneThree has confirmed that stand-alone 5G coverage will increase in the Telford constituency to 100% by its first reporting milestone in 2028, in line with its merger commitments. Virgin Media O2 has made strides to improve mobile coverage across the west midlands, including boosting 4G and 5G capacity across Coventry and deploying stand-alone 5G small cells in Birmingham city centre in 2024. That feedback from operators starts to show the significant progress being made in rolling out stand-alone 5G across Telford and the west midlands region. I encourage all Members to contact the operators if they too would like to understand plans for their constituency.
I am deeply sorry to hear of the difficulties that my hon. Friend reports about the reliability of services in the region. I recognise that in our modern economy and way of life, services need to be reliable for everyone in all parts of the country. Communications providers have legal obligations to ensure that their services are appropriately resilient, as overseen by Ofcom, and I recommend that if customers are having continuing difficulties, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, they can contact their provider and, in the instance of serious and repeated failures, also report to Ofcom.
At this point, may I raise the particular issue that my hon. Friend has highlighted about the discrepancy between people’s lived experience and the reported data? It is an experience familiar to me, both from my constituency and more widely, and Government recognise that there are discrepancies in cases between the lived experience of people and the level of coverage that Ofcom reports.
The launch of our Map Your Mobile tool in June last year was a positive step forward, but the work of our Government does not stop there. We have restated in our proposed statement of strategic priorities for Ofcom the importance of continuing to improve the reporting of mobile coverage, for example, by building on the launch of the tool through the exploration of measured and crowdsourced data. Alongside that, I also point out that the Streetwave coverage checker is a tool available on the River Severn Partnership website which has also been funded by Government and the 5G Innovation Regions project. I am conscious that that, in particular, includes my hon. Friend’s constituency in Telford.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about flooding in his local area. I know he has brought that up with the Department. There are potential safety risks arising when flooding is combined with a lack of mobile signal, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. Clearly, it is right to raise the risk to public safety so that it can be looked into and addressed accordingly. In relation to mobile signal, I hope that some of the information provided starts to give him some reassurance on what is available in the local area and what is planned for the future. I am happy to work with him and colleagues from both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency so that the matters that he has raised can be investigated by the correct authorities.
As I know my hon. Friend will be aware, satellite services can provide another new means of connecting residents in otherwise hard-to-reach areas. I am pleased that the rapid advance of low Earth orbit technology for satellites means that the performance of services is also increasing through that measure. As well as satellite services offering home broadband that are already on the market, Vodafone and O2 have both announced that direct-to-mobile device services will launch and be available to consumers this year.
To help operators achieve their ambitious roll-out plans, we continue to work closely with them to identify and remove barriers to deployment where it is practical to do so. That includes implementing the remaining provisions of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 and launching a call for evidence to see where planning rules can be relaxed to support the deployment of mobile infrastructure. Alongside that work at national level, we have also provided funding to both the west midlands and Shropshire as part of our 5G Innovation Regions programme to increase the uptake of 5G services and to drive investment in networks.
I know that we need to do more to ensure investment in high-quality mobile connectivity. That is why we are undertaking a full mobile market review. We want to understand better the factors impacting investment in widespread high-quality mobile connectivity and what more the Government can do to support it over the long term. We will soon be publishing a call for evidence to support our assessment and we encourage all relevant parties to engage with this process. I also encourage all Members of the House to be champions of digital infrastructure deployment. It is only through working in our constituencies, with constituents and with the local planning authority, that we can together champion digital connectivity.
Finally, I would like to repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford for securing this debate on such an important topic, and to all Members who have intervened and contributed to the debate today. It would, of course, be remiss of me not to end on a note of acceptance of his kind invitation. I will be very happy, either directly or through my hon. Friend in the other place, to visit him and to support his hard work for the people of Telford.
Helen Morgan
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I just highlight that I did not declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, which I should have done?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Fantastic; that is now on the record. I shall just remind the Minister that he is also more than welcome to come to my constituency of Sussex Weald to deal with any 5G connectivity questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Carer’s Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Carer’s Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. The draft order was laid before the House on 8 December, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate it. As with all the Scotland Act orders we have considered since the start of this Parliament, this one is the result of collaborative working between the UK and Scottish Governments.
The order will be made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 which, following an Act of the Scottish Parliament, provides the power for consequential provisions to be made in respect of the law relating to reserved matters or the laws elsewhere in the UK. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action, and I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through 12 orders since the Government came to power in July 2024.
The Scotland Act 2016 devolved responsibility for certain social security benefits, and employment support, to the Scottish Parliament. This included carer’s allowance, which the Scottish Government replaced with the carer support payment in 2023. This order was introduced to make provisions in consequence of further changes that the Scottish Government have made to their carer support payment. The Scottish Government requested the order, and the UK Government worked collaboratively with them on the draft, showcasing devolution in action.
The order makes amendments to the relevant UK and Northern Ireland legislation as a consequence of the Carer’s Assistance (Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments, Revocation, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2025, which were made on 6 November 2025 and will come into force, in respect of the provisions relevant to this order, on 15 March 2026.
The Scottish Government’s regulations introduce additional support—the carer additional person payment—for those who receive carer support payment and care for more than one person; extend support for carers from eight to 12 weeks after the death of the person they care for; and introduce a new Scottish carer supplement which, for most carers, will replace the carer’s allowance supplement that is currently paid under section 81 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. The order will ensure that the Scottish Government’s changes to the carer support payment are reflected in reserved benefits.
In summary, the order makes consequential amendments to UK legislation to reflect the introduction of changes to the carer support payment in Scotland. It is an example of devolution in action, it is about the UK Government working with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland, and it reflects the continued strong co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Christopher.
The consequential modifications are uncontroversial in and of themselves, serving only to substitute wording across existing legislation and update previous regulations to reflect the change in the definition of carer support payments. As the Minister set out, the order amends the defined terms in social security legislation to reflect the introduction of carer support payments, as introduced in the Carer’s Assistance (Carer Support Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 and the Carer’s Assistance (Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments, Revocation, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2025, as provided for by the Scottish Government’s Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018.
Although the order itself is technical and necessary, and we will not stand in its way, I would like to speak to the wider context of the instrument. The order follows the introduction of the 2023 regulations, an instrument of the Scottish Parliament that acted to replace the carer’s allowance in Scotland, originally administered under the Department for Work and Pensions, with a new type of benefit that served the same original purpose, administered by Social Security Scotland. The 2023 legislation epitomises the Scottish Government’s bureaucratic tendencies at the expense of Scottish taxpayers.
In the wake of the failed bid for independence in 2014, the Smith commission set out provisions for greater devolution, and the resulting powers for devolution were set out in the Scotland Act 2016. From that flawed experiment, we now know that it matters not how much is given—for the nationalists, it will never be enough. Where devolution serves simply to duplicate work that is already undertaken, more efficiently and at lower cost, by the Department for Work and Pensions, we must ask whether the Scottish equivalent represents value for money for taxpayers or is simply yet another a marketing exercise for those who wish to create more separation between us.
The division of payments for carers into a parallel system creates a new level of bureaucracy and adds complication in the system that we think is quite unnecessary. Those who are already in receipt of carer’s allowance would have to reapply for the carer support payment if they relocated to Scotland. This creates barriers within the United Kingdom, just as NHS Scotland, which is unable to share data and records with NHS England, prevents seamless care across the United Kingdom.
We do not wish to stand in the way of this statutory instrument, which seeks to make technical adjustments to existing legislation as a result of the 2023 and 2025 regulations. However, I wish to put on the record the official Opposition’s frustration with the Scottish Government’s endless duplication, waste and inefficiency, which is costing Scottish taxpayers dear.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher.
The SI updates UK social security law to reflect changes made by the Scottish Government to carer benefits, and accounts for updates to the carer support payment, which replaces the carer’s allowance in Scotland, and two new Scottish carer payments: the carer additional person payment and the Scottish carer supplement. The extension of support for carers from eight to 12 weeks after the death of the person they care for is welcome, and the changes ensure that the Scottish benefits interact correctly with the UK-wide reserved benefits. On that basis, the Liberal Democrats are supportive.
Kirsty McNeill
I thank Members for their contributions. I not only thank the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine for his support for the technical nature of the change, but note and share his view that the Scottish Government are indeed incredibly careless with taxpayers’ money. I would go further and say, on behalf of the Labour Government, that they are addicted to wasting money. That point is noted and is a point of agreement between us. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire for her party’s support for the changes.
This instrument demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland. I commend the draft order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025.
This statutory instrument delivers a comprehensive regime for the regulation of cryptoassets within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 framework, meaning that cryptoassets will be regulated under the same architecture as other financial services. Coupled with the rules being prepared by the Financial Conduct Authority, the regime will protect consumers and give technology and financial services firms the certainty they need to invest and grow in the UK. There is a general trend towards more people investing in cryptoassets in the UK; as they become more intertwined with traditional financial services, it is critical that we offer appropriate protection and get our approach to regulation right.
Previous intervention in this space has focused on addressing the most urgent risks first, namely money laundering and misleading financial promotions. However, as it stands, most cryptoasset activities are not subject to broader financial services regulation covering matters such as conduct and prudential requirements. Consumers and industry have long called for clear and comprehensive oversight of cryptoassets in the UK, and the Treasury first consulted on these proposals in 2023 under the previous Government. In October 2024, this Government committed to implementing a regime largely in line with the consultation proposals. The instrument before us today delivers on that commitment.
The instrument amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 to do two principal things: first, to define the categories of cryptoasset that will be in scope of the regime; secondly, to define the new activities that will be regulated. Generally, firms undertaking those activities in the UK or for UK consumers must be authorised by the FCA or risk committing a criminal offence. The new activities are: issuing qualifying stablecoin in the UK; safeguarding qualifying cryptoassets and relevant specified investment cryptoassets; operating a qualifying cryptoasset trading platform; dealing in qualifying cryptoassets as principal or agent, or arranging deals in qualifying cryptoassets; and qualifying cryptoasset staking.
The instrument also uses the new designated activities regime to create frameworks governing public offers of qualifying cryptoassets and their admission to trading on relevant platforms and to tackle market abuse in relation to such cryptoassets. As people will have spotted, it also makes consequential amendments to various pieces of legislation to ensure that the regime can operate effectively and to ensure consistency between the cryptoasset regulatory framework and the rules that apply to traditional financial services. The provisions will take effect from 25 October 2027, which will allow the FCA to consult and finalise rules this year, and give at least 12 months for firms to apply for authorisation and the FCA to process applications ahead of the enforcement date.
In conclusion, as I have set out, this regime will raise standards, strengthen consumer protection, help to tackle market abuse and support the responsible growth of the UK’s cryptoasset sector by providing clear and consistent rules. It brings cryptoassets within the robust Financial Services and Markets Act framework while ensuring that the sector has the space and flexibility to innovate. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting this instrument.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I start by welcoming the general thrust of this incredibly important legislation. The Minister and I have sparred a number of times in the past, and so far we have managed to keep it to under five minutes; I must now apologise to the Committee, as I might take a little longer. As the Minister said, work on this piece of legislation was started under the previous Government, and it is absolutely vital for the City of London to maintain its presence as a global financial leader.
The City of London has been innovative and thought-leading for a few hundred years now. Jonathan’s Coffee House was the first to advertise share prices, from which the London Stock Exchange grew, setting the model for equity ownership the world over; similarly, Lloyd’s Coffee House created the insurance market that we see today. As new technology comes forward, it is vital that the City of London, or the UK’s financial services sector, not just adopts this new technology but leads on it, and leads on it with the intelligence and experience that we have gained over the previous centuries of legislating in this area.
As we move forward in the age of new technology, we need to legislate. This SI is possibly the best example of how we can embrace that change. Indeed, the short time that we have been given to debate this piece of legislation belies its importance and the months of consulting that lie behind it. While the Opposition are absolutely behind the thrust of the SI, we believe that it is slightly flawed in its drafting. It appears to draw together two separate things: in very simple terms, it appears to confuse cryptoassets with stablecoins.
Cryptoassets—bitcoin and the like—are commodities in the same way as a bond, a share or other commodities. They are items that are bought and sold with a view to their value changing. However, a stablecoin is an asset fully backed by a fiat currency, and thus a proxy of that underlying fiat currency. A stablecoin is part of the payment system and should be regulated as such.
I am someone who understands the principles of this legislation, but sometimes it is important to have the help of people who really get the law. I am grateful to a couple of people who have helped me to put this argument forward today, in particular Mike Ringer, who is the founder of ReStabilise, but more importantly Professor Sarah Green, who was a law commissioner for commercial and common law at the Law Commission of England and Wales from 2020 to 2024. She was responsible for the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023 and the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025.
As I have discussed, this draft legislation establishes the regulatory parameter for cryptoassets in the UK, including stablecoins. As such, what we are discussing is crucial for the delivery of HM Treasury’s often repeated policy intention for the UK to become a global hub for digital assets and blockchain technologies—something that we are 100% behind. That means that a properly drafted Bill is mission critical.
The ability of the UK to become a global leader in the digital economy, and to retain its position as a leading international financial centre, depends on the ability of this piece of legislation to set out clearly, decisively and unambiguously how it will distinguish between different types of cryptoassets. Without strong, decisive and nuanced categories, the potential for effective regulation, and therefore optimum growth, will be lost. This is not an opportunity to be squandered, yet the current drafting threatens to do just that.
The Government’s policy note that accompanied the original draft SI, published in April last year, states:
“This is a draft SI and should not be treated as final. It is being published for technical checks, such as any significant errors or oversights in the legal drafting that would mean that the provisions in this SI would not achieve the desired outcomes explained in this note, or that could lead to other significant unintended consequences.”
My goal today is to explain why an oversight in the current drafting means that the SI’s provisions do not achieve their stated aim.
Let me explain. A critical component of the successful development of digital asset markets is an effective form of digital settlement asset—that is, digital cash. There are three forms of digital cash: first, there are central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs; secondly, there are tokenised commercial bank deposits; and thirdly, there are regulated stablecoins. If the UK is to establish itself as a global hub for digital assets, it is essential that all of those can be used interchangeably with traditional fiat money, or state-backed money. For that to happen, each form needs to be regulated in a way that recognises its particular nature and function.
In the case of stablecoins, that will be achieved by regulating issuers under the new regulatory regime brought in by this legislation, which will be introduced and supervised by the Financial Conduct Authority. Also, in the case of sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins, issuers will be subject to dual regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England.
In its consultation paper on its proposed regulatory regime for sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins, published in November last year, the Bank of England confirmed that the use of regulated stablecoins could lead to faster, cheaper retail and wholesale payments, with greater functionality, both at home and across borders. It therefore wants to support such a role for stablecoins as part of a “multi-money” system alongside commercial bank money, including tokenised bank deposits, so in effect they would be part of the payments system itself.
Similarly, we know that as the world progresses, capital markets, foreign exchange and asset management will increasingly be settled through digitalised blockchain technologies. For the UK to maintain its leading global position in those markets and others, it is vital that we take a leading role in adopting blockchain technologies in the payments system. Used in this way, stablecoins will bring immense benefits in terms of speed, lower costs and programmability. In other words, they are the key to growth both in our economy and in our financial services industry.
However, importantly, without a proper treatment of stablecoins that recognises the way in which the assets actually function in practice, the UK risks not only missing out on positive growth benefits but, crucially, losing ground to other jurisdictions. That ground will be difficult to recover because market provision will already have been established elsewhere, where providers can be certain of their legislative position. We will be trying to catch up where other jurisdictions will have made progress and secured their lead. With the current wording of the SI, that important lead, which provides much economic benefit to the winner, will not be here in the UK.
The SI does not achieve what I hope we all agree we want, which is the UK to lead the way in cryptoassets, including stablecoins and the wider payments opportunity that distributive ledger technology—DLT—provides. However, the solution is simple, straightforward and easily achieved. Essentially, market participants should be able to use regulated stablecoins and tokenised commercial bank deposits in place of traditional fiat currency for the purposes I have mentioned—to make payments, settle capital markets and foreign exchange transactions, and for collateral and corporate treasury management. But crucially, they must do that without suddenly needing to apply for additional licences from the Financial Conduct Authority. If that is the effect of the SI, these new forms of money will not be used because of the unnecessary regulatory hurdle put in the way of market participants. As a result, the development of digital assets and blockchain technologies in the UK could simply grind to a halt. That will take all its growth potential with it, as well as the chance of the UK remaining the pre-eminent force in the financial world.
Unfortunately, the likely need for those additional licences is precisely the effect of the wording in the draft regulations, despite the fact that it appears to run counter to the Government’s often stated, and highly laudable, policy intention. There appears to be a simple drafting error that could be easily rectified. There is currently no defined distinction for the majority of the new regulated activities between “qualifying stablecoins” specifically and “qualifying cryptoassets” generally, which has a number of cascading and adverse effects. The most adverse is that, under the current wording, stablecoins, including those regulated by the FCA and the Bank of England, are treated in the same way as unbacked cryptoassets such as bitcoin. Given that the risk profile of those assets is starkly different from that of a fiat-pegged stablecoin, which is, crucially, simply another form of regulated money, that makes no sense. Lumping unbacked assets together with stablecoins for regulatory purposes is rather like buying a car instead of a horse, but still tying the car to a post in case it runs off. Of course, both need securing, but in ways that recognise the fundamental difference between the two.
From a practical perspective, applying the new “dealing” and “arranging” activities to regulated stablecoins has the effect of potentially requiring market participants who are seeking to use or facilitate the use of regulated stablecoins for the purposes I have mentioned to apply for new licences from the FCA, purely because they are using regulated stablecoins instead of traditional fiat money. In that world, market participants simply will not use them, and the principal benefit and advantage of stablecoins may never be realised.
The Government appear to have attempted to address the issue in the case of payments, by copying across the legacy purpose-based sale of goods and services exemption from the traditional regulatory regime, which disapplies the new “dealing” and “arranging” activities for the use of stablecoins to buy or sell goods. That does not, however, achieve the aim of exempting all those who are crucial to the stablecoin payments process. Significantly, it is not clear that it covers those who exchange fiat money for stablecoins and stablecoins for fiat money. The payments process stands and falls by the ability of users to convert the fiat currency into stablecoins and back again, yet the exemption as currently drafted is likely to deter market participants from providing those essential services because it is not clear that it applies to them.
It would be far clearer and simpler to have an exemption drafted in a way that is bespoke to stablecoins, rather than attempting to shoehorn them into a legacy definition that was not drafted with the stablecoin payment process in mind. Alternatively, an existing statutory definition could be used that accommodates the full range of payment activities, such as referring to the use of stablecoins and providing “payment services” in the way that the Payment Services Regulations 2017 do.
Equally as important is the fact that there is, in the current draft, no similar purpose-based exemption for the use of stablecoins in capital markets or foreign exchange transactions, nor in asset or corporate treasury management. Again, those would be straightforward to introduce and should be entirely uncontroversial from a policy perspective. To allow that in the legislation would provide immense benefits to the City.
A failure to make those simple and textually minor clarificatory changes would not only make it very difficult for the UK to become a global hub for digital assets and blockchain technologies, but would risk the UK losing its position as a leading international financial centre. This piece of legislation is intended to be ground-moving in terms of seizing an opportunity for our financial services industry, and it would be tragic if it were reduced to a minor tremor for the sake of simple loose drafting. Those concerns go into great detail, but we need to address them to ensure that we do not mess up a golden opportunity to get this right.
One or two other concerns have been raised with me, but I think we can talk about them at a different time. The principle behind this is something that fundamentally we are 100% behind. It is a very good policy, and it is really important that we get this right, but issues have been raised by legal experts who are cleverer than me—but probably not cleverer than the Minister, who I think started at Slaughter and May. Obviously, we are very keen to work with the Government to get this right; I was hopeful that the Minister would agree to meet me and some experts in this area to look at the drafting of this legislation to see if that is possible. We will support it if she is happy to do that, and then we can move forward, get something together and hopefully get this right. It is important that we get this right, but I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts.
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to the whole Committee for their consideration of this matter—in particular the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). I share his vital commitment to continuous innovation in financial services. I would argue that what has made London and our financial services hub as world-leading as we are is our continuous embracing of innovation—he went quite some way back with coffee shops. I also share his view that the next stage of innovation, which is critical to embrace, concerns stablecoin, digital assets and tokenisation much more broadly. It is fair to say that we are coming at this from the same place.
With regard to stablecoin specifically, we wholeheartedly agree on the potential of stablecoin to play a really significant role in both retail and wholesale payments. The shadow Economic Secretary rightly refers to qualifying stablecoins as a definition being a subset of qualifying cryptoassets. He also recognises that this SI aims to bring the issuance of stablecoin within the FCA’s perimeter, which I distinguish from using stablecoin as a method of payment. Again, I think we are on the same page in relation to that.
There is a deliberate carve-out for stablecoin payment activities in this SI, because we have carved out any transaction for the purposes of the supply of goods or services. The intention is to deal with the use of stablecoins as a method of payment in the context of the upcoming payments strategy. An awful lot of work will be done on that over the course of this year, because, as the shadow EST rightly refers to, the UK is a leader in payments innovation, and stablecoin is a key piece of that.
There are other pieces of the stablecoin picture; as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bank is currently consulting on a systemic stablecoin. Quite what will constitute “systemic” is yet to be defined, so that remains an area in which the industry is, understandably, looking for answers. As I said, the Bank’s consultation is open, and the FCA is also consulting on the detailed rules that will underpin this regime.
I note, and very much welcome, the shadow EST’s support in principle for these measures. It is critical that we make sure that every single i is dotted and every t is crossed. We all want this to go right, and I certainly do not want there to be anything that subsequently becomes an issue. I am not sure that there is at this point but, as I say, while I note his support in principle, I would nevertheless be more than happy to talk to him at a mutually convenient time, and for him to bring in the experts that he referred to. We can then hopefully persuade him that this is completely kosher as it is, or he can tell us why he does not think that that is the case. That is a meeting that I am more than happy to have.
I am grateful to members of the Committee for their consideration of this SI, and I hope they will join me in supporting these measures.
Question put and agreed to.
Railways Bill (First sitting)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members, please, to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the timetable and the time available, however, I hope to take those matters formally, without debate. Time Witness Until no later than 10.10 am Network Rail; Office for Rail and Road; DfT Operator Ltd Until no later than 10.35 am Keith Williams; Richard Brown Until no later than 11.25 am Transport Focus; Transport for All; Campaign for Better Transport; London Travel Watch Until no later than 2.40 pm First Rail; Rail Freight Group; ALLRAIL Until no later than 3.05 pm Trainline; Independent Rail Retailers Until no later than 3.30 pm Transport Scotland; Welsh Government Until no later than 4.10 pm Angel Trains; Railway Industry Association; Siemens Mobility UK Until no later than 5 pm Urban Transport Group; The Mayor of Greater Manchester; The Mayor of West Yorkshire Until no later than 5.20 pm Richard Bowker Until no later than 5.40 pm The Department for Transport
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 20 January) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 January;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 January;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 27 January;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 January;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 February;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 February;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 February;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 February;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Tuesday 20 January in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 11; Schedule 1; Clause 12; Schedule 2; Clauses 13 to 86; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clause 87; Schedule 3; Clauses 88 to 93; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 12 February.—(Keir Mather.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee
shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Keir Mather.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee
shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Keir Mather.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start to hear from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
The Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household (Nesil Caliskan)
As outlined in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a member of the trade unions Unison and GMB.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
As it says in my entry in the register, I am a member of the unions ASLEF, Unison and GMB.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
As it says in the register, I am a member of GMB, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and Community union.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
As outlined in my entry in the register of interests, I am a member of GMB and USDAW. I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
As per my entry in the register of interests, I am a member of Unite the union.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
As per the register of interests, I am a member of Unite the union and vice-chair of the APPG on rail.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am also a member of Unite the union.
Examination of Witnesses
Jeremy Westlake, John Larkinson and Alex Hynes gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Jeremy Westlake: I am Jeremy Westlake, chief executive of Network Rail.
Alex Hynes: Good morning. I am Alex Hynes, chief executive of DfT Operator Ltd.
John Larkinson: I am John Larkinson, chief executive of the Office of Rail and Road.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Q
John Larkinson: May I add one thing to that? When an appeal comes to us, there are various things that we can do. For any appeal, we can in effect send the decision back to Great British Railways and ask it to reconsider. In doing that, we could also in effect direct it to look at particular issues. That is the first thing that we could do. On our ability—I think this is probably what you are coming to—to substitute a decision, or in effect to require a different decision, that is extremely narrow indeed. That comes back to the judicial review principles.
In my mind, that is because the bar is set very high. It comes back to the broad intent of the Bill, which is to make GBR a directing mind and to give considerable power to GBR. Alongside that, the intent of the Bill is in effect to empower GBR to learn from its mistakes: things are put back to it and it gets a chance to reconsider. What the Bill does not want, however, is for someone else like us to say, “No, the decision should have been this.” It comes from the intent of the Bill, I think.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: A second look? We can look at whether GBR has followed its processes.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: Judicial review principles are things like irrationality and illegality—it is very, very narrow.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: Absolutely, yes.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: They are very narrow, yes.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: Using words like “strong” is quite difficult in the context of it being an appeals process that is designed to fit with the underlying model, which is a directing mind for GBR. Therefore, as you correctly say, our ability to override a GBR decision is very narrow indeed. I agree with your description—it is a very narrow role.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Larkinson: That fits again with the idea that things go back to GBR to reconsider; it is all put back in GBR’s court. That is the fundamental design, as I understand it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Q
Jeremy Westlake: I will kick off by bringing us back to the duty that GBR, along with the Secretary of State and the ORR, will have to make best use of the network. Network capacity is constrained, so we have published an access and use consultation document setting out how this would work in practice. First, capacity allocation must be set out so that the market can see what capacity exists and what it might be used for, and to reserve capacity for those uses. Clause 63 then deals with how GBR will prioritise its services. The first duty is to allocate capacity for best use. Clause 63 kicks in later to define how GBR will actually do that. You define best use first.
Keir Mather
Q
Jeremy Westlake: First of all, the Bill contains a provision for rail freight growth. That is set out already by Government, and I think the Transport Committee and the rail Minister have set out how that will still be a target. We will therefore have a duty to grow rail freight, and rail freight will then fit within the capacity allocation processes. We are actually doing a lot of work, as it stands today, to make sure that we are promoting rail freight growth, including how you might discount the charges for access to the network to encourage new freight flows, or invest in freight infrastructure and the like.
Keir Mather
Q
Jeremy Westlake: First of all, I think it is well set out. When you look at how GBR will fulfil its functions, it will do that with regard to long-term strategies for rail, and I think those will set out various roles as well. Personally, I think the balance is about right; you actually want to have multiple consultations and checks and balances in the system, so I think it works.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Jeremy Westlake: On the first one, about being an effective system operator, in principle, yes. What the Bill intends GBR to have to do will also require it to grow its capabilities in these areas, particularly in how it does capacity allocation. So the Bill has the intent, but GBR will need to develop key capabilities to fulfil it.
Alex Hynes: It is probably worth saying that one of the benefits of the system envisaged by the Bill is that Great British Railways, the ORR and Ministers will work to a set of aligned duties. The creation of alignment across all industry parties is an important part of the Bill, and those duties are essentially the criteria that we will use to make decisions in the future. One of those key duties is to promote the interests of passengers, including disabled passengers, and of course the interests of passengers include affordability—the price paid by passengers. I therefore think that we will see a more coherent decision-making process for the railway. The key policy intent here is the creation of a directing mind—under public ownership—for the railway, and the Bill sets out how we will do that.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Alex Hynes: Not from my perspective. Obviously, the sooner it gets Royal Assent, the sooner we can start creating Great British Railways and delivering the benefits of having a directing mind for the railway.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Jeremy Westlake: First of all, we are very much looking forward to being headquartered in Derby. I have lived in Derby for 17 years and I think it is a wonderful place to have a centre for the rail industry; let me start with that. The work we are doing now is to define the internal organisation structure for Great British Railways, including its operating structures, divisions, integrated business units and network functions. That work needs to conclude before we can come back to you more clearly on the size of the HQ in Derby.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Q
I am interested in your views on how we, as parliamentarians, will hold Great British Railways to account, not only as constituency MPs when the services do not necessarily deliver your aims, but in our scrutiny function as Select Committees. What should we focus on with GBR? How you have described it sounds as complicated as the NHS, and for 20 years I have struggled to figure out how we actually hold that to account. Ultimately, if we are creating a new organisation that has a public benefit, how will politicians hold it to account if the public cannot trust us to be able do that? In the Transport Committee evidence, the implication was that it will be done through the Secretary of State, but if I were the Secretary of State, I would not necessarily want to take responsibility for anything that is not going right with GBR. I am interested in your comments on how we as MPs can hold GBR to account once it has been established.
John Larkinson: I could say something about the role of the ORR in holding it to account. There is a distinction between the role of the Secretary of State and our role. Ultimate accountability is with the Secretary of State. For example, it is the Secretary of State who signs off the GBR business plan, which is a fundamental component of the new system, in my mind. If there were a very strategic problem at Great British Railways—if it were not following its duties or if it were breaking the law—ultimate accountability would be with the Secretary of State.
Within that, some of the accountability comes through us. We have the role of enforcing the GBR licence. In terms of the provision of information coming out of the system, one of our big roles is monitoring everything that GBR does and all its functions. That will be done largely through the monitoring of the business plan. From my perspective, it is crucial that we have the ability to do that as we see fit and to publish information. A crucial role for the regulator is providing that information base and analysis to allow Parliament to scrutinise what GBR is doing more effectively.
Alex Hynes: It is probably worth saying that there are three key mechanisms by which GBR will be held to account. First, it will have to balance its duties in law. Secondly, the business plan will need to be signed off by the Secretary of State and its delivery will be monitored by the ORR. Thirdly, there is the licence.
One thing I would say is that the railways are slightly different from the national health service in so far as we have a revenue line of more than £10 billion per annum. We want Great British Railways to be a commercial organisation that can respond to the market with operational independence at arm’s length from Ministers. However, it is the duties, the business plan and the licence by which GBR will be held to account.
Rebecca Smith
Q
The implication was that the chief executive of those lines is ultimately accountable, so it is up to them to deliver the service for passengers. Obviously, what you are saying about the business plan is very high level, but we are also talking about what happens on the ground with passenger services. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am not sure I would want to be the chief executive of one of those railway lines—you are basically expected to be the fall guy or girl, if it does not go right. How do those individual chief executives play into this triangle of accountability that you have? Why should they be holding that level of responsibility? Should that not be with the Secretary of State or somebody more senior?
Jeremy Westlake: Can I come in on that one? First, the intent of how we are constructing GBR is to introduce much more local empowerment to create an integrated railway that actually consults with the communities that it serves. Whether that is the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or mayoral combined authorities, we want those strategies to be built up from that level, so that you actually have a railway that serves the communities that it is there for.
I actually think that the jobs of running these integrated business units are some of the best that you could have in the railway, because the intent is to have the rest of the organisation supporting them to deliver for passengers and the communities they serve. Actually, if you look at the statutory roles for consultation, and the intent in drawing those input and output requirements to those integrated business unit leaders, I think we will end up with a much better strategy for the railway as a whole.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Alex Hynes: Under the current system, if you want to talk about the delivery of rail services in your area, you have to talk to the relevant train operating company’s managing director and the relevant route director in Network Rail, because there is no one in charge.
These integrated business units are going to be the powerhouse of Great British Railways. We have created three of them already, albeit using a workaround within railway legislation. In Kent, on South Western and Greater Anglia, we have now appointed one person to run track and train to ensure that that person is making joined-up decisions in an integrated way, and in the best interests of passengers and taxpayers.
Also, as an accountability mechanism, it works incredibly well because there is nowhere else to go—that person is the directing mind for their chunk of the railway. Having done one of those jobs myself for seven years in Scotland, it is very effective as an accountability mechanism, and it enables much better decision making, as well as decision making that can be undertaken faster than in the current system, where we have many organisations involved in the running of the railway.
Laurence Turner
Q
Mr Larkinson, in the ORR’s last annual report and accounts, it stated,
“we began engaging with infrastructure managers on how to reduce the administrative burdens we impose”—
in the context of the Bill and rail reform. I do not mean to suggest that “burdens”, as expressed here, are always entirely one-sided, or that the ORR is doing anything other than working within the framework that has been established for it. Can you tell us a bit about what these “burdens” are, and what potential benefits might accrue from their removal?
John Larkinson: That work comes from the Government’s overall review of regulators and the remit that they have given to all regulators to look very carefully at administrative burdens imposed on regulated companies. We are the regulator that that applies to. The target is to reduce the administrative burden by 25% by the end of this Parliament. We are working on that process as set out by the Government and have already put a whole section in our business plan about the work that we are going to do. On that basis, we have had conversations with the companies that we regulate, such as Network Rail, about areas where we might be imposing unnecessary administrative burden, which is something that is always good to come back and look at.
Interestingly, we have had different responses from the different companies that we regulate, including, “We do not see any massive excess of administrative burden.” In the case of Network Rail, we have already identified some areas, such as the amount of data we require and the way that data is transferred around us—areas where things can be made faster and less resource intensive. So yes, we are getting on with it and reporting back. Indeed, I was at the regulators council with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Chancellor reporting back about a week and a half ago.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Larkinson: We have to progress it now, so it is not conditional on the Bill in the slightest—the target is set now. We are getting on with it. It will be different with GBR, because we are dealing with a different organisation, but that is some way into the future. I have probably two years of work to do on this before we get to that point.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Larkinson: At a high level, they are largely non-comparable. The Northern Ireland railway is very small and has a very simple system. I remember the conversation I had with the people there when we first took on that role. Our regulation is proportionate to the size of the system. That means it does not cover safety: it is only an economic regulator. It is very narrow and focuses almost entirely on separation of accounts and issues like that. It really is not comparable.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Larkinson: I think this is the thing: in theory, yes, but in practice there are very few issues that come to us as a result of that role in Northern Ireland.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Larkinson: We have a very specific role there because, effectively, the safety management system has to be revalidated when that transfer is made. It has not been debated much by the board because it is all going extremely smoothly. We have done our role effectively on that: we have hit our deadlines and all has gone according to plan in terms of the transfer of safety responsibilities. I will be saying that again at the board next week.
Laurence Turner
Q
Alex Hynes: Shadow GBR continues to meet very frequently under Laura’s chairship, and it is really helping to drive alignment and convergence between the Department for Transport, DFTO and Network Rail in this pre-GBR state. Whether it is developing a leadership academy for Great British Railways, looking at where the Great British Railways headquarters is going to be, in Derby, or working with the mayoral strategic authorities on how GBR will work in partnership with said organisations, it is helping to drive the alignment of the industry in this pre-GBR state.
On 1 April, about 200 civil servants will TUPE transfer out of the Department for Transport and into DFTO. One of the things that Jeremy and I are doing is trying to get our organisations and teams—of course, there is lots of good will in this area—to work together as though we were GBR, so we can start capturing the benefits of a more integrated railway system in advance of GBR. That is going well. It is Jeremy and I working together that is enabling us, for example, to put integrated leaders in place.
You talked about the public ownership programme, which I agree is going well; I pay tribute to John’s colleagues, who work well on the safety aspects of the transfer. Jeremy and I are working—in fact, we are discussing it this week at shadow GBR—on whether and when we can put integrated leaders in place, once we have brought the businesses into public ownership, to make track and train work together and create a single point of accountability by having one person in charge for certain chunks of the railway.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Q
Alex Hynes: The answer to that question is yes. GBR will be required to take into account places’ local transport plans, and there is a process by which partnerships exist, particularly with mayoral strategic authorities—that obviously does not include everywhere, but does include some places. There is also a right to request mechanism, by which people can request further devolution from GBR to their area. There is very much a place-based focus on devolution, because the whole philosophy of GBR is that, other things being equal, decisions made closer to where rail services are delivered will be better than those made hundreds of miles away.
I also think that the combination of the creation of Great British Railways—a unified, publicly owned railway for the nation—with the Government’s intention to publish an integrated national transport strategy and the changes that are happening in the bus market will very much enable us to join up transport modes in places, so that we can deliver a better service to customers.
The Chair
This will probably be the final question; this session has to end by 10.10 am.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Alex Hynes: GBR must take into account local transport plans.
Jayne Kirkham
Regardless of the type of authority?
Alex Hynes: Correct. Essentially, GBR will have a legal duty to take into account certain things, such as the interests of passengers, including disabled passengers, so GBR will be required by law to take into account what is in the best interests of passengers as it is running its business.
Jeremy Westlake: There are other mechanisms that we use to ensure local engagement, such as the local railway initiatives that we have done in Cornwall and Devon. In terms of engagement with local stakeholders, I will be going down to meet Luke Pollard MP in Plymouth next week. We actually have different mechanisms for different types of railway so that we can ensure that we have taken the accounts of users onboard.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
John Larkinson: I would probably go one step further back than that. I see us playing a very crucial role in establishing the plans in the first place. If GBR is setting up its integrated plan, covering track and train, I would expect there to be a process—indeed, we are already designing it—that builds on the processes today, when we focus very much on Network Rail’s business plans. Normally, there is engagement at a very early stage on the scope of the plans and how they fit with the Secretary of State’s objectives. We would expect, and indeed plan, to be involved in the plans at a further stage back than the monitoring of their delivery, on a forward-looking basis—that is, we will ask whether the plans are likely to be delivered, rather than waiting to see whether they have been delivered or not.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
John Larkinson: Yes.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Jeremy Westlake: First, I would say that friction is quite useful because it drives you to look at where you might want to invest to resolve some of the issues. The whole question of capacity allocation is actually driven by the fact that it is limited. The friction will lead us to develop better investment cases to satisfy demand. I do not see it as problematic, in fact; that process is supposed to drive us to make proposals to Government for investment.
The Chair
We have two minutes and 30 seconds left if anyone wants to creep in and get a response to any further questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Q
Alex Hynes: Yes is the short answer, because the current consumer landscape in rail is fragmented. Transport Focus, the Rail Ombudsman and ORR each have a role. The Bill creates a single watchdog for passengers that has more power and resources. My understanding is that MPs will be able to refer matters to it. Essentially, it puts all the passenger-facing consumer obligations into one organisation and strengthens the accountability that Great British Railways will be subject to in the event that it delivers sub-standard service.
Lilian Greenwood
Q
John Larkinson: From our point of view, some of the things that we do now will transfer over to the passenger watchdog. That is a straight transfer. The Rail Ombudsman is a contract that we let. Effectively, in the future, that contract would move over to the passenger watchdog—that is very clear. When the passenger watchdog finds a problem and wants that problem resolved, and cannot resolve it with GBR, the enforcement role is with us. The Bill effectively aligns enforcement in a number of areas through us, through the licence. That will be done through the licence, so that provides a very clear role when the passenger watchdog wants to move something across. There will be a process to deliver that and we are working with the watchdog on how that will work in practice.
Lilian Greenwood
Q
John Larkinson: When it comes to some decisions that are on the way, there will still have to be a balance—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that we are at the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Keith Williams and Richard Brown gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Richard Brown: My name is Richard Brown. I have 43 years’ experience in the industry, nearly half of which—19 years—was with British Rail before privatisation. I was a director of the InterCity business unit before privatisation. I set up and ran one of the train companies’ privatisation and National Express’s trains division, which had five franchises. I moved on to Eurostar as chief executive and then chairman. I have also been the Government’s special director on the board of Network Rail, and a member of the board of the Department for Transport itself. In 2012, I carried out a review of franchising for the Department.
Keith Williams: My name is Keith Williams. In September 2018, I was appointed independent chair of the Williams rail review. I was appointed largely because of the failure of the system in May 2018. As independent chair, I led the rail review from 2018 to 2023, effectively. It was then the Williams-Shapps review, which came out in 2023.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Keith Williams: When we did the review, the real focus was on passengers, to be honest. I was asked a number of times: “Is it nationalisation or is it privatisation?” I left that to one side because from my perspective, it was the better running of the railway, which is the structure that is now in place. To some degree, during the course of the review, franchising had been seen to be failing, and that was one of the premises of the review at the beginning.
Of course, what happened in the intervening period was that covid came along, and that changed everything, so everything was de facto put back into public ownership. To a large degree, we were agnostic on that. However, if you look at the railway even today, parts of it are run in the private sector and parts of it are run in the public sector. As I see it, public ownership was accelerated through covid and through the end of the franchising, which in my period was due to end in 2029, so it was a long way off. Obviously, that was brought forward because of covid.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Keith Williams: From the Government?
Jerome Mayhew
Yes, from Government rather than GBR being the director.
Keith Williams: No, the way I see it is that, actually, there is a good segregation of functions within the system now that were not there previously. Again, if you look back to 2018, the failure of the system was in part brought because every decision went back to Government. The Secretary of State finished up having total responsibility for the timetable fiasco that happened in 2018. That is when we came to the review. One of the clear things we wanted to do was to get a segregation of functions, which I think the Bill successfully does. It holds good to the review in that respect.
Government are responsible for strategy—and hopefully longer-term strategy than we have seen in the past—then they hand the operation down to the people who can run it in the interests of passengers and customers, with strong regulation, safety and a public ability to react when things go wrong. I think that system is very good. I come from a business background and in some ways it echoes what I see in business: a board sets the strategy and then passes the management down to the CEO and the people who run the business. I am not concerned about backseat driving to that degree.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Richard Brown: Do I think what, sorry?
Jerome Mayhew
Do you think they have the balance right here? How do we drive value for money for taxpayers given those very significant constraints on competition?
Richard Brown: Yes, I do. I think the balance is right. Putting everything together into GBR makes it the single directing mind. It will be up to GBR and its integrated business leaders to strike the balance and deliver better value for money. There is a lot of duplication and friction in the current system, which I think is one of the things that Keith Williams was highlighting in his review.
The accountabilities are very strong with this Bill. GBR is accountable to the Secretary of State, but is also regulated and overseen by the ORR and the passengers’ council, and has a responsibility to mayoral authorities. First and foremost—I think this featured in the previous discussion—the integrated business units and their CEOs, or whatever they are called, will be accountable to their local towns, communities and passengers. There are strong pressures and forces created with this Bill to actually deliver value for money for taxpayers, as well as for passengers.
Keith Williams: Can I add one thing, there? Even in my time on the review, one of the things that started was bringing track and train together again. That allowed cost simplification, but it also enabled GBR to get a full picture of the revenue and costs of running the railway, which previously did not exist. It was surprising to me, on the review, that getting the costs together was an enormous exercise and a bit of guesswork, because the costs were in so many different areas.
Keir Mather
Q
Keith Williams: It is a great question, because that, to me, was fundamental to the better running of an integrated transport system. I was listening to the earlier questions, and the advantages of bringing in the mayors and local authorities are twofold. First, there is deciding what the appropriate mechanism for running transport is in their area. I visited Manchester, where you have light rail, heavy rail and buses, so you need to make a decision as to which you are going to promote. In my opinion, that was better done at a mayoral level than a central level. That is one aspect.
The second aspect is integration. We looked at systems overseas and—guess what?—you find that the bus comes to the station, the train starts and then stops. That did not exist in the UK, and bringing the mayors and local authorities into that decision making was hugely important for running an integrated system.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Richard Brown: I think the Bill talks about a 30-year strategy and the Secretary of State having responsibility for producing that. There will be a degree of evolution, because when you are running an organisation, you need to be the person who is, if you like, giving birth to the strategy, in very close collaboration with your shareholder—if this was a business. The Secretary of State’s strategy will set the long-term objectives about what the Government wish to see the industry do, and then it will be up to GBR to produce the business plans, whether you call them business plans or more detailed strategies, about how it is going to deliver that. I am quite sure that, putting everything together, there are plenty of people in the industry who desperately want to produce a longer-term strategy for rolling stock procurement, electrification and reducing carbon impact, and they are frustrated that it is very difficult to do it now because of the range of parties involved.
Keith Williams: I come from the airline world, and the problem there is that you buy an aeroplane and it lasts for the next 30 years. Rail is very similar: you operate the rolling stock, and that is a long-term decision. I was surprised that decisions were set over five-year periods, because the decisions that you make today partially define the future for a much longer period than five years. Again, a problem of running an airline is that you order the aeroplanes and unfortunately the market declines because of economic factors, commercial factors or whatever. You are therefore taking long-term decisions—that is not wrong—but within those you sometimes have to change direction because of the situation that exists at the time. The classic example of that in rail is franchising: franchising worked while the railway was growing, but once it went ex-growth, franchising came under pressure, and then obviously more pressure when covid arrived.
Sarah Smith
Q
Richard Brown: Yes, I do. There are clear duties placed on the passengers’ council, for instance, to produce standards for accessibility. Those can then be enforced by the ORR or by persuasion with GBR. The improvement of accessibility is mentioned at several points in the Bill as a duty or responsibility or something that is important, and as something to be taken fully into account in planning and developing investment schemes. I think the Bill actually provides greater impetus on that score, but this is a long-term thing. There are railways with platforms and track such that you have to cross over the track to get from one platform to the other, and there has been a long-term programme of investment to try to improve accessibility with things like lifts. This needs to carry on, and ideally at a faster pace.
Keith Williams: One of the disappointing things for me, when I did the review, was that we did not really know what accessibility was. We actually had to do an audit to look at where we had accessibility to begin with, and I would encourage you to keep the pressure on that one. It is one thing to have an audit of what does and does not exist, but the next thing is to prioritise what really needs doing going forward. I think that is part of the longer-term strategy for the railway, which is in governmental hands.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Q
Richard Brown: Unless you have a long-term strategy, you will always be condemned to short-term decision making. If you are running a business, you might have a 10, 15, 20 or even 30-year strategy, and you will need to change and adapt that according to circumstances at the time.
What I think is very important—Mr Williams has highlighted it—is that the railway assets are long-life. The trains have 30, 35 or 40-year lives, and the signalling and track last even longer. If you do not have that long-term strategy for investment and the sorts of things that you are planning to buy, taking account of new technologies, you are condemned to short-term decision making, which, to an unfortunate extent, is too often where we have been.
Edward Argar
Q
Richard Brown: In terms of governance, they have to be accountable to the chief executive of GBR, who has to be accountable to the Secretary of State. You could say that one of the complexities of the Bill is that there are a number of accountabilities. If you are running a regional or local railway, such as Southeastern trains in Kent, particularly given GBR’s responsibility to consult with and take account of local transport plans, you cannot avoid developing a relationship with the towns, communities and mayoral authorities on your route, as well as the passenger groups. If you do not, GBR will move you on to another job, or even get rid of you.
I have run business units like that within British Rail and in privatisation, and I think the local focus is a really important feature. That is why I am really encouraged by what is happening: as each franchise comes to its end, where it can be merged with the local route management of Network Rail, it is being done very quickly. That can happen across the piece when GBR is fully up and running.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Keith Williams: It is a great question. The issue, of course, is cross-border; for example, trains go from London into Wales, and similarly into Scotland. Giving total devolution was something that we looked at. There is so much cross-border traffic that you need to take that into account, so we left the devolved positions largely as they were.
Richard Brown: The Bill is pretty clear in setting out the roles and responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations. In practice, these things will always need to be based on collaboration between the different organisations, which is the way you run a railway. There are inherent tensions between, for example, what the Welsh Government might want in terms of cross-border services and what might actually be affordable and in the interests of passengers, competition for capacity use, and so on. All of that will be within GBR to, not adjudicate, but work its way through, produce solutions and, where there are options, put those to the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government, for instance.
Out of that will possibly come a compromise, because not everybody will get what they want from the railway. There are too many competing people wanting different things from the railway. The great news is that all of that responsibility to co-ordinate and produce a plan for the most effective use of capacity for the different users is put on one body rather than being split between the Department for Transport, ORR and Network Rail, as it is now.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Q
Keith Williams: I encourage you to work with your MD to put forward the best plan, which will then go into GBR’s overall plan and there will be a set of priorities. There are always going to be priorities. In a sense, in the past one of the failures was that that then went to the Secretary of State, who was making most of the decisions, because everyone else was avoiding making a decision, or absolving themselves of doing so, and sometimes the best decisions were not being made. I think there is a much greater likelihood that the priority list will be set by somebody who knows how to run track and train.
Edward Morello
Q
Keith Williams: They will still have to sign it off, but hopefully they will leave it to the people who know what needs doing to do it.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Keith Williams: I think it absolutely does. That was at the heart of the review. Customers’ main complaints were about punctuality and cancellation. Bringing track and train together ought to solve that issue.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Richard Brown: I did not actually say that franchising was broken; I said that it needed to be substantially improved. Frankly, having reread my review before this session, I think the complexity of the review proved too difficult for the Department to manage effectively, and I think it is past its time, so I do not think it is not relevant to the current discussion.
The Chair
Order. We have reached the end of our allocated time. I thank the witnesses for their time today.
Examination of Witnesses
Alex Robertson, Emma Vogelmann, Ben Plowden and Michael Roberts gave evidence.
The Chair
The next panel consists of representatives of Transport Focus, Transport for All, the Campaign for Better Transport and London TravelWatch. Will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record? We will start with Emma, who is joining us by video link.
Emma Vogelmann: Morning, everyone. I am Emma Vogelmann, the co-CEO of the disabled persons organisation Transport for All.
Alex Robertson: I am Alex Robertson, the chief executive of Transport Focus.
Ben Plowden: Good morning. I am Ben Plowden, chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport.
Michael Roberts: Good morning. I am Michael Roberts, chief executive of London TravelWatch, the statutory watchdog for the travelling public in London. I should perhaps add that between 2008 and 2015, I was chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies, otherwise known as ATOC. For the latter two years of that tenure, I was also director general of the Rail Delivery Group, which was an early attempt to bring track and train together.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
“to promote high standards of railway service performance”,
itself defined in clause 18(3):
“‘railway service performance’ includes, in particular, performance in securing each of the following in relation to railway services—
(a) reliability…and
(b) the avoidance or mitigation of passenger overcrowding.”
My question about that definition of service performance, which is very narrow, is for everyone, but I will start with you, Emma. Are you concerned that the focus is primarily on reliability and overcrowding? What about comfort, heating, wi-fi, food, frequency, cost and all the other good stuff—and disability access?
Emma Vogelmann: I completely agree that accessibility really needs to be explicit in the requirements set out in the Bill. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make sure that we are not making the same mistakes of the past in having accessibility not explicitly enforceable and not having it in the Bill as much as possible. Disabled passengers already experience accessibility being deprioritised in the name of efficiency and other considerations. We absolutely agree that it needs to be considered.
Ben Plowden: I certainly echo that point from Emma about accessibility. The broader point is that in the absence of any duty on GBR to grow passenger demand over time, which we might come back to, one can imagine a scenario in which, in meeting those two specific duties on passenger service standards, GBR might be incentivised to improve reliability on a route by reducing service frequency and then to deal with the crowding duty by pricing people off the network.
Jerome Mayhew
That would be rational.
Ben Plowden: It would be perfectly rational, and I understand from media reports that that may indeed be what is happening on the west coast main line. It seems to us that you either need to broaden the number of things that GBR must take into account in terms of passenger service standards and/or introduce a growth duty, which would help deal with some of the other issues.
Michael Roberts: I believe that the impulse should be to try to improve the passenger experience in the round, including all the things that you mentioned, such as accessibility, as Emma said. My personal view is that the place for that to be expressed in detail, potentially through targetry, is through a combination of the long-term rail strategy and the business plans over five years.
Jerome Mayhew
Neither of which we have seen.
Michael Roberts: Correct, and I think the Committee would want the reassurance of understanding what content covering this aspect will be in those documents, as it considers whether the Bill is appropriately written.
Alex Robertson: I agree with a lot of what has been said, particularly the point that accessibility must be a top priority of the railway in the future. How you achieve that is the question we are looking at now. As Michael said, the business plan, the long-term rail strategy and GBR’s duty to consult us and others on those, and to do so transparently, are where you will make sure that the railway focuses on the things that are most important to passengers.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Ben Plowden: The Government’s own documentation acknowledges the benefit that independent ticket retailers have brought to customers in terms of competition, ease of buying tickets and so on. The Government intend managerially to separate GBR’s ticketing and retail operation from its commercial and operational arm. It seems to us that if the Government are not willing to set up a stand-alone ticketing operation, as SNCF has done, it is important to hold GBR to the same standards as the independent operators in terms of how it does fares and ticketing. It will be required to comply with ORR guidance on ticket retailing, but that is simply about how it engages with the other retailers. Clearly, it should operate on the same terms as the independent retailers, and there should be independent regulatory oversight to make sure that GBR does not use its position as the core ticketing provider essentially to crowd out the other suppliers.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Ben Plowden: We would. In particular, it should be subject to the code of practice on retailing that the ORR issues, rather than simply guidance on how it deals with its relationships with the other retailers.
Jerome Mayhew
Does anyone else on the panel disagree with that assertion?
Michael Roberts indicated dissent.
Lilian Greenwood
Q
Alex Robertson: You are right that we are introducing a new duty and that that is extremely important in terms of accessibility. The general point I would make is that it is important that Parliament and the Government set out their intent in the legislation. How that is enacted and delivered will depend on a lot of things that are not in the legislation, such as the culture of the railway and how disabled passengers are engaged in the co-creation and delivery of it. As the passenger watchdog, we are very conscious that we have a duty to make sure that we do that as well. It is a definite step forward, but whether it delivers on the ground for disabled passengers in the way that is intended depends on a lot of things that are yet to come.
Emma Vogelmann: An important consideration is the Transport Committee’s finding that the reason accessibility standards are failing and disabled people are having really negative transport experiences is that there are no statutory obligations. I completely agree that the Bill is a big step forward, but the duties themselves are very vague and do not necessarily at this point look at enforceable rights and corporate actions.
Ben Plowden: It is welcome that there is a duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled people in the Bill. We think there is a case for strengthening that duty so that it aligns with the duty in relation to freight, which is to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers. There should also be an equivalent duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target, as she is required to do in relation to freight, so that, as we picked up on a minute ago, GBR does not end up being incentivised not to grow the network in order to meet its crowding and reliability duties, for example. It seems to us that giving it a statutory incentive to increase passenger use over time would be very helpful to build on the existing duty in the Bill.
Lilian Greenwood
Q
Alex Robertson: Yes, definitely. We are already in dialogue with the ORR about its change in responsibilities and the transfer of functions from it to us. We will put in place an MOU to make sure that works in practice. We are comfortable with it. As you will have heard from the earlier panel, it aligns very well with our general consumer functions, which I think makes sense. Having one single enforcement body on the licence in the new system also makes sense.
Olly Glover
Q
Emma Vogelmann: In the Bill now, the power is very much centralised with the Secretary of State. We feel that there is already a lack of sufficient safeguards in place to make sure that accessibility does not become beholden to political will and the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill as drafted depends too heavily on discretion, future strategies and changeable licences. We want to make sure that the accessibility considerations and requirements are meaningful and enforceable and do not leave disabled people politically vulnerable.
Michael Roberts: For my part, rather reiterating my earlier comments, what is important is the expression of what GBR wants to achieve in accessibility, which is not necessarily to be written on the face of the Bill but should be part of the long-term rail strategy or the business plan. Alongside a duty, however it is expressed in the legislation, there must be some clear milestones and outcomes to which GBR aspires—for example, a milestone for the proportion of stations that should have step-free access by a certain point in time, as the Mayor of London and TfL currently have in the capital, or aspirations for the quality of provision of passenger assistance. There has been a rapid increase in the demand for that sort of service by mobility-impaired passengers, but the level of resource has woefully fallen behind the need. Expressing the stepping stones to a truly more accessible railway in strategic documents needs to go alongside the duty, however it is expressed.
Alex Robertson: I agree with Michael about the important milestones. We need to see real shifts in the ambition on accessibility. One of the other things that has been mentioned is that we will have the ability to set the consumer standards for accessibility. Alongside taking over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman, I want to see a really good, strong set of standards on which we would consult and engage with disabled passengers. If they were not complied with, they would be passed to the ORR for enforcement.
On complaint handling, at the moment, if you have a failed passenger assist, it is possible for some of the train operating companies to refund you only the price of your ticket, and not compensate for the distress and inconvenience that caused you. That is completely wrong. We would be in a position where that could be looked at properly and changed, so we could take an individual’s complaint and get better redress for them, but also use it to identify systemic issues that might be affecting other people as well. It puts us in a stronger position to do all those things.
Ben Plowden: It is not clear to us that the Bill gives GBR a sufficiently strong incentive to increase accessibility over time, in the same way that it does not give an incentive to increase passenger use over time. One issue might be whether you could amend the Bill to require an increase in accessibility over time to be determined through the other documents that the Government and GBR will produce.
Michael Roberts: I want to pick up a point that Transport for All made separately on the public sector equality duty, which GBR will be obliged to fulfil. The observation from Transport for All is that the impact of that duty is felt retrospectively and depends on disabled members of the travelling public challenging a failure in service when they find it. There might be some merit in the industry—GBR, ORR—co-creating a definition of what the exercise of that duty feels like in practice. That should be up front, as part of the strategic documents against which GBR will be held to account, with the passenger watchdog monitoring and the ORR enforcing.
Daniel Francis
Q
Alex Robertson: I will pick up the first point. For us, it is quite a significant increase in our powers and it might be worth setting those out. I will start with the duty on GBR to consult us so that we do not get into a position where we are having to call out something that is not right. That is there in both particular documents and strategies and in decisions made by GBR that might affect passengers. That is an important change. We have the power to request information and require it to be provided to us within a reasonable timeframe. That is a stronger power than we have now, as is the ability to ask for improvement plans.
You highlighted the ability to refer across to ORR. Making sure that works in practice will be important, but the ability is there. One thing we have said that we also need, which we understand the Government will include in the licence, is the ability to call officials in front of us to explain and account for what they have done. We have talked a lot about accountability. There will be ways in which we can work collaboratively and publish information to try to make sure the right thing happens, but a big part of the change we need is GBR being held to account in public, and the powers we have will assist with that.
Michael Roberts: There are two separate dimensions to your line of questioning. First, there is the model where the national watchdog sets standards and monitors compliance, but enforcement ultimately rests with the ORR. I think we are comfortable with that approach. It has been mentioned that the more the watchdog moves into the role of regulator, the more its ability to act as passenger champion and to speak in an unvarnished way on behalf of the passenger is diluted, because as the regulator it has to take into account a broader range of considerations when opining. I think the model is fine. The “but”, or the “if”, depends on how independent one feels that watchdog will be in its ability to point out failures and speak truth to power, and the Committee may want to come back to that later.
Your other point was about how the two watchdogs work together. At one level, I think we are reasonably comfortable. Transport Focus and London TravelWatch have a collaboration agreement whereby we share resources within our respective areas for the common good. It is not quite fit for purpose for the new world. We will need to refresh that and set out how we expect to work together in a world where Transport Focus, or whatever it is called in the future, has a standard-setting role.
Where we have a concern, and where we think the Bill is currently flawed, is with regard to our independent ability to be consulted within key industry processes. I heard the evidence given by the chief executive of the DFTO, and I believe that he was slightly mistaken. Transport Focus—or passengers’ council, to give its formal title—is not the only statutory passenger representative body. We are that body for London, as you will know.
We have responsibility for reviewing the provision of rail services within what is known under statute as the London railway area, which covers approximately 400 stations out of a national total of about 2,500— so getting on for about 20% of the national footprint. Around 70% of all railway journeys start or finish within our remit, yet there are probably four or five places within the Bill where GBR’s duty to consult is with the passengers’ council—for example, on its business plan—but there is no explicit reference to us, despite the fact that we are a statutory body. We think that needs remedying.
Joe Robertson
Q
Ben Plowden: As we heard in the previous panel, the provisions in the Bill for GBR to engage with and to take account of the strategies and interests of communities in the regions and localities are very important, because understanding of anomalies is likely to be much greater closer to where they occur.
Whether the Bill could require the list of people that GBR is required to engage with to be extended—for example, to ferry operators—to make sure that services, including the planning of timetabling and fares or ticketing, were more properly integrated, is an interesting question. I do not know how you would do that in the Bill, but certainly the involvement of mayoral combined authorities and local authorities in this process will help. It is an interesting question whether the Bill could make specific provision for the additional transport providers and operators that GBR would need to engage with to achieve that integration.
Emma Vogelmann: At Transport for All, we very much look at every journey as multimodal—exactly what you were describing. We have found through our research that interchanges, specifically those between modes of transport, are one of the most significant barriers that disabled people experience on any journey. Where in the Bill this could be dealt with is a really interesting question, but as well as integration with other transport modes, such as ferries and so on, we also need to look at the immediate surroundings of stations, where I do think this Bill could have some influence.
We know that disabled people may not use a particular station because, although it is step-free, there is no blue badge parking around the station, meaning that there is no way for them to get safely to it, or there no dropped kerb to allow them to use that station. If we are going to look at journeys as multimodal, we really need to see this as an opportunity, potentially in this Bill, to look at the areas surrounding railway stations themselves.
Alex Robertson: I do not know what could be changed within the scope of the Bill to directly address your issue. It is partly a question of how effectively local transport is integrated, and then how that integrates with national transport.
I did want to mention that we are passenger watchdog not just for rail, but for buses and the strategic road network, and we look at it through the lens that has already been talked about. Emma particularly highlighted that the perspective we would bring is to ensure that, when decisions are made and priorities are set, they are thought about in the round—how they affect people in their door-to-door journeys—and not narrowly in terms of rail.
Joe Robertson
Q
Alex Robertson: We do not.
Michael Roberts: Your question prompts a slightly different line of thought from me. I apologise, because my focus is very much on travel in and around the capital, rather than the Isle of Wight, as important as it is. I have a concern about the extent to which the provisions in the Bill about fair and open access to GBR’s assets—the future of its track and signalling systems, for example—may compromise the degree to which effective integration can happen in the capital. I say that because TfL runs a significant number of services over GBR assets today. The busiest line in the country—the Elizabeth line—is a GBR asset that is run by an operator that is mandated by TfL. The London Overground runs over GBR assets, and so do parts of the London underground; if you are a user of the District line or the Bakerloo line, you are using GBR assets.
The ability of TfL and the operators under its oversight to have fair and open access to those assets is extremely important to the travelling public, in whom I am particularly interested. I know that open access is a broader issue, rather than a London-specific one, but, for the Committee’s deliberations around that, I would flag that it is not immediately clear from a London perspective that the provisions are strong enough to give TfL, for example, the comfort that it will have the degree of access that it wants, to continue providing those services effectively.
Sarah Smith
Q
Ben Plowden: Clearly, in broad terms, GBR will be incentivised to increase passenger demand, not least because of the revenue that would flow from that, as well as its ability to deliver its other duties, such as the public interest duty. It seems odd to us that there is a difference between the way that incentive is expressed for passengers versus freights; there is a very clear requirement in the Bill to promote the use of the network for the carriage of goods and for the Secretary of State to separately set a freight growth target.
We think that, for consistency, and to give a statutory incentive for GBR to grow passenger use alongside its commercial incentives, there should be an equivalent duty to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers, and a separate duty for the Secretary of State to set a growth target for passenger demand over time. The Secretary of State will obviously need to determine that growth target in the light of financial circumstances, network capacity and all the other things that will determine what could realistically be achieved. But, unless there is a statutory incentive for GBR to grow passenger use over time, we think it may find itself perversely and unintentionally, or at least in terms of its other duties, reducing service frequency and crowding people off the network through fares, because of the specific requirements about passenger service standards that we discussed before. I think it would be very helpful in the drafting to provide an equivalence for GBR for passengers so that is like the freightduty.
Sarah Smith
Q
How will we ensure, if we move to co-creation in how we deliver accessibility, as Alex was proposing, that we consider a slightly wider group of people—as much as disabled people are absolutely the priority—to ensure that we deliver inclusive railways? Could that duty help to provide a bit of a framework for that to be considered going forward?
Ben Plowden: Yes. By definition, if you want to increase the volume of travel by rail, you need to make that network meaningfully usable by the broadest segment of the population that you can. That also relates to issues around affordability that we might come back to. If GBR had a legal incentive to increase demand over time, as well as a duty to demonstrably increase accessibility over time, I think that would encourage it to think very broadly about how to get the largest number of people possible using a safer, more accessible, more reliable and more affordable network.
Emma Vogelmann: In terms of true co-production, you are really looking at how to create universal design. That universal design is beneficial to everyone. I want to stress that if accessibility provisions and things that are built in to promote accessibility are done correctly and in consultation with disabled people and other passengers, you will not have that conflict in access needs. Universal design would allow everyone to benefit from those improvements.
Alex Robertson: I agree absolutely with what Emma has said and what we are trying to achieve with this. The question, and this is obviously why you are asking it, is how much you can legislate for that.
We had an experience with Merseyrail developing its new trains in and around Liverpool. You completely need to engage disabled passengers throughout the process, from the specification to the design and implementation, because things that you think are possible at the beginning may lead to trade-offs later on. You want to have people in the room making those decisions with you and balancing the competing the interests of different passengers, and you have to do that throughout. That did lead to—I hope this is reflected by people’s experience in Liverpool—a much better experience for disabled passengers and for the general travelling public. How much you could legislate for that I am not entirely sure, but it will have to be absolutely integral to how GBR goes about its business.
The other advantage you will get through having GBR at the network-wide level is that we know that we have trains of different sizes, platforms of the wrong height—it is a mess across the network. Putting GBR in a position where it can make those decisions, plan long term, and get some consistency to a higher and better standard is what we are hoping for, and I believe we can do that with the changes that are being made.
Michael Roberts: I think at the nub of your line of inquiry is the need for inclusion in its broadest sense. However a duty is expressed around the interests that GBR needs to take into consideration, whether in the Bill or in other statutory documents, I think some consideration ought to be given to, for example, diversity in its widest sense—that is, the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 rather than just necessarily one of those, important as the needs of disabled travellers are. There are needs of other travellers that also need to be taken into consideration.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Emma Vogelmann: Overall transparency and really clear expectations and timelines are absolutely what disabled passengers need. However, there are still grounds for that rate of change to be challenged. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee said that at the current rate of change, it will take another 100 years before all train stations are made step free in the UK. We need to be transparent about that rate of change, but also be prepared to challenge it.
Alex Robertson: We need to be serious about the change: it is a huge change that we need and some of those things will take a long time. The infrastructure cannot be changed overnight. You had a conversation earlier about the need for long-term planning that puts you in a position to do that. You have to be realistic and up front about that and recognise that it draws on public money to do that.
There are other changes, however, that could happen much more quickly. You could get a much clearer signal about the priority given to accessibility, and you could get a change in how effective passenger assistance is delivered. I do not want to suggest that that can change overnight, because it is not straightforward; it is dependent on how you operate the railway and different expectations—for example, of staff members, their systems and so on—but you can make a more rapid change in relation to that.
I mentioned earlier the redress that people receive when passenger assistance fails—and when turn up and go fails. Turn up and go is completely unreliable, which is why people often have to rely on booking passenger assistance, but even that fails about one in five times so those people do not get the full service. You would want to see some pretty rapid progress on those things, and recognise that some of the longer-term changes to infrastructure are not straightforward. However, you would also want to have confidence that there is a sufficiently ambitious plan in place, and that people are going to hold the feet of those who are delivering it to the fire.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Ben Plowden: I would make a slightly broader point, which is the number of other documents and processes that will need to be in place either in parallel with the Bill or subsequent to it being passed—I stopped counting at 19. There is a long-term rail strategy, the GBR business plan, the licence that you have just mentioned, the statement of funds available, and the list goes on.
One of the questions for the Committee is whether it sees some of those documents as part of its scrutiny, and understanding how all the different components of the system that GBR will operate within are going to work, when they are going to materialise and how they will interact with each other. Even though the Government’s intention is to simplify the system, it will still be quite a complex system of delivery, regulation, oversight, investment and so on. A broader understanding of the entire system that the GBR Bill will create is important. Not having had sight of some of those critical documents is part of that uncertainty.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Emma Vogelmann: From our perspective, having accessibility targets and so on that are not built into statutory instruments is not a guarantee of change in accessibility. We have seen accessibility requirements or targets being spread across all transport sectors, and particularly in rail, but the amount of change and enforceability is very low. As much as possible needs to sit in the primary legislation.
Alex Robertson: It is a difficult balancing act as to how much you put in legislation and how much comes later. It is absolutely critical that the GBR business plan properly sets targets for accessibility. One of the things that we touched on earlier is that the licence will give us the power to set the standards in relation to accessibility. We will do that in the way that I talked about, by co-creating them with disabled passengers. We will do it in a way that makes sure they are right.
There is a whole series of things that will need to happen. Ultimately, it is for you all to decide the extent to which you need to see that up front, as opposed to recognising that the direction, intent and duties are clear in legislation, and that the organisations that will be responsible for delivering it are in a position to do that.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Alex Robertson: Absolutely not. The ORR will have a role to play in highlighting progress against that. We would have a role in being consulted—we have to be consulted in the development of the business plan—and our duty to reflect the interests of disabled passengers would be at the forefront of our mind as that happens. Obviously, GBR will be accountable to the Secretary of State for how well that plan is delivered in practice. I have said before that a very important change that we will need to see through the creation of GBR is how GBR is held to account in public. Those targets will be public, and it will have to account for how well it is delivering against them.
Michael Roberts: I have a lot of sympathy with where Emma is coming from. When one thinks about the experiences of disabled travellers, which are regularly reported in the media, you can understand why there is a wish to have as much certainty and traction over whatever commitments are made. Having said that, I think that the arrangement that you have indicated could be made to work. I am mindful that in London, the mayor has a transport strategy. In that, he has set out targets that TfL are delivering against for improvements to the number of step-free tube stations. For example, the strategy includes a target to reduce the difference between the time a journey takes for somebody with reduced mobility and the time it takes for somebody who does not have those impairments.
It comes down to making sure that there are the resources to back up the targetry in the plans, that there is an energetic passenger watchdog ensuring that GBR and the industry more generally are doing what they are expected to under the plans, and that the ORR is ready to enforce if and when necessary.
Edward Argar
Q
The reality is that there will always be tensions between what is desired and what is affordable—that is in the nature of government. Building on what you have already said, how can those tensions be resolved to meet the duties envisaged in the Bill and the aspirations that all parties in this place have for improved accessibility, while recognising that there will always be a funding tension in anything the Government do?
I was a Health Minister and wrestled with such issues when deciding what to put in primary legislation, in secondary legislation and in statutory guidance. I would argue they have greater weight than, for example, a business plan, which is vaguer, less enforceable and less tangible than each of those other layers. You have to strike a balance of proportionality. Where do you think the specific obligations on accessibility would best sit in that hierarchy, from primary legislation in the Bill, which is right up at the top and cast in stone, to a business plan, which is much less enforceable, vaguer and can be changed?
Alex Robertson: That is a good question. You have set out the challenge and the dilemma that is true for this aspect of public services, as it is for many others. I will try to answer it in this way: wherever you put it, it must allow for the consideration of the ambition to significantly—it must be significantly—improve the service that disabled passengers receive, with decisions about funding. If you separate those two, you will get into a position where you have set a target, but it is not realistic and has no plan behind it.
You have to do that and, as I have said before, do it in a way that involves disabled passengers in the decision making. Whatever the scale of the ambition, it is perfectly possible to spend good public money inefficiently and ineffectively, and not on doing what is in the best interests of disabled passengers. It is about doing it right, as well as the amount you do.
Emma Vogelmann: From Transport for All’s perspective, as has been picked up by many others, unless accessibility is enforceable, it is treated as an optional and a nice to have: “We will get to it when we get to it, or when there is a surplus of money,” which of course there rarely is.
We have seen initiatives to make changes in the name of affordability; I am thinking particularly about the proposals to close ticket offices at stations in England a couple of years ago. That was very much an economic argument about staff not being confined to the ticket office, but in practice, for disabled people that meant that the network would become increasingly unusable and a completely unviable mode of transport for some.
I agree with what was said about needing a balance between ambition and the reality of how far those ambitions can go, but we need to be ambitious. We need to make sure that we are not accepting a slower rate of change because it is more economically secure.
Ben Plowden: Going back to a point I made before, I think the Bill should set the strategic intent that accessibility should increase over time, not just that it should be taken into consideration by GBR and the Secretary of State. The Bill should also set out how that increase is delivered. To Alex’s point, that could be done in a number of different ways, such as through service provision, infrastructure investment and so on, that would then be set out in the subordinate documents such as guidance, the licence and the business plan. The intent in the Bill would clearly be that, over time—in a way and at a rate to be determined by those other processes—accessibility would increase, not just be taken into consideration,
Michael Roberts: You have exposed exactly the difficulties in trying to navigate through all these challenges and priorities. At the risk of motherhood and apple pie, I think co-creation with the disabled community is extremely important in trying to find a way of managing these different priorities that carries the confidence that that is being done with the full consideration of the needs of the disabled travelling public.
I also think legislators ought to think, “What are the mistakes that we want to try to avoid next time around?” and then think about what levers can address those mistakes. It is extraordinary that the industry is spending over £1.5 billion building a new station at Old Oak Common, and there is no level boarding for the Elizabeth line, which is the busiest railway in the UK. I am not sure that legislation is going to fix that—that is as much about the quality of decision making within the industry—but thinking about what good looks like and then working back and thinking, “Right. What are the ways in which we can best promote that?” seems like a good way of trying to think around the problem.
Laurence Turner
Q
Alex Robertson: I do not know—I mean, I really do not know. We never got as far as having the Railways Bill in Parliament; we are fundamentally redesigning the railway, and that creates a different framework and a different set of responsibilities. I do not know; I have struggled with that question a little.
Ben Plowden: The Government did say, in their response to the consultation, that there are two reasons why, having considered the possibility of a passenger growth target, they decided not to include one. One reason was that GBR would be sufficiently incentivised through a whole variety of other means to increase passenger demand. The second reason, which I think is less convincing, is that it might lead to infinite growth over time in principle. Clearly and logically, that is possible, but the point is that the Secretary of State would set a growth target that would seek to strike a balance between what is feasible and practical, and what could be afforded in terms of taxpayer investment. It seems to us that neither of those arguments necessarily stands up, and that logically you would want to include a passenger growth target alongside the freight one.
Laurence Turner
Q
Ben Plowden: I see.
Laurence Turner
A discontinuity or a change is that the draft Rail Reform Bill, published at the start of 2024, did not include a statutory freight target. I am interested in your views about the interaction between freight and passenger services, and whether the freight target is in place of a Bill or not.
Alex Robertson: I do not think I have a particular problem with freight—we represent passengers, and we have looked at it from a passenger perspective. I am comfortable that passengers are sufficiently represented in the Bill as it currently stands. That is the easiest, most direct answer I can give you.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Emma Vogelmann: Hopefully. That is my one word answer.
Michael Roberts: Not by itself.
Ben Plowden: In principle, for sure. It is subject to various changes that we have discussed during the course of the session.
Alex Robertson: I agree with Ben.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Nesil Caliskan.)
Railways Bill (Second sitting)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. Does anybody have anything to declare? No. We will now hear oral evidence from First Rail, Rail Freight Group and ALLRAIL. We have until 2.40 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
John Thomas: I am John Thomas, policy director of ALLRAIL.
Maggie Simpson: I am Maggie Simpson, director general of Rail Freight Group.
Steve Montgomery: I am Steve Montgomery, managing director of FirstGroup’s rail division.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Q
Maggie Simpson: We are really concerned about the scope and definition of the appeals function as proposed in the Bill. We know that Great British Railways wishes rail freight to succeed. There are positive provisions for rail freight at the beginning of the Bill, but GBR will be a vertically integrated, incredibly powerful monopoly that, quite rightly, will be very focused on its own trains. This legislation will last for a long time, and the behaviours and actions of people today may not be mirrored in future Administrations or at future times.
Our members—businesses across the country that rely on the railways for their supply chains—are really concerned about ensuring that, if things go wrong, they have an effective right of appeal. The provisions in the Bill set an incredibly high threshold—judicial review standards—for bringing an appeal. Even if it is met, the actions that can be taken are such a high bar that it is very unlikely that a decision would ever be overturned, and future Secretaries of State can by regulation, through the negative procedure, set out even more steps and fees. We are really concerned that that is weak. It is a backstop provision; we would only need to use it if things went wrong, but if it is not any use, it will deter people from investing.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Maggie Simpson: On capacity allocation in particular, as well as the points I have just made about the appeals function, we have a conflict between two clauses in the Bill. The capacity duty in clause 63 sets an incredibly powerful requirement in law for GBR to keep capacity for its own trains and any trains it wants to run in the future. We have sought assurance from the Department for Transport on how that duty and clause 60, on the infrastructure capacity plan, work together. The Department has told us that its intention is for the capacity duty to be subservient to the infrastructure capacity plan, where an assessment is made of the best use of the network, but that is not what the law says. We would like to see it clarified that the value-based assessment of what is the right use of capacity on the network is done first, and that GBR is then able to assure the capacity afterwards.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Thomas: First, I will say that the policy intent is quite clear. One of the DFT’s supporting documents to the Bill is quite clear that one of the definitions of a duty on GBR is for it to be fair and non-discriminatory in its decision making. Network Rail’s recent access and use policy document also made it clear that GBR would have to be fair and non-discriminatory in its decision making. However, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to suggest that.
It is really important that there is something on the face of the Bill to say that GBR needs to be fair, transparent and non-discriminatory in its decision making. I think that would be in the best interests of customers and communities, and it would give our members confidence to continue to invest, rather than just relying on the taxpayer to make investments.
The reason I say no is that there is no such provision on the face of the Bill. Going back to Maggie’s point about appeals, I think it would really help the appeals process if there were provision for GBR to be non-discriminatory in making decisions; otherwise, what are appeals going to be based on? They will be based on GBR’s own policies, and if it can discriminate against other services, what is there to appeal against?
In addition, the ORR will lose its ability to hear appeals on the basis of taking into account the benefits of competition for users. We think that is wrong. We think that an open access appeal could never be successful if that provision were taken away, so we advocate adding it back in. The ORR should have a duty to take account of the benefits of competition. Clearly, it has to take into account other matters, as it does currently, including the funds available to the Secretary of State, but if it does not have the ability to take account of the benefits of competition, how is an open access operator ever going to be successful in any appeal?
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Steve Montgomery: I agree with everything John and Maggie said. The challenge we see as a private sector operator is how you get anybody to invest in the industry with the lack of clarity in the Bill. As John alluded to, there is reference by the DFT in the memorandum of understanding on the Bill, but nothing in the Bill itself. That makes it very difficult to go to a board and say, “Look, we want to invest in these things.” What certainty do you have for the future?
An awful lot has been made of open access as we have gone through this process. It would take up 1% of overall capacity, but it is held out there, in the commentary, as one of the major plays in the Bill. We think that open access brings the opportunity for competition, which we seem to have lost with some of the wording in the Bill. How do we make sure that there are better services for customers? That is what we all want and what GBR is setting out to do, but how do we make sure that we all have a fair chance when bidding? We have talked about the access situation. GBR can decide not to give access, and the ORR has very limited powers to hear an appeal, so where is the confidence for the private sector investment that the industry continues to cry out for?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Q
Maggie Simpson: We have been very clear that we welcome those provisions. We are grateful to the Rail Minister and his team at the DFT, and to your own team, for their commitment to freight. That is really good but, with respect, I have been around a long time and I have seen circumstances in which Secretaries of State and Rail Ministers have not been as keen on freight, or perhaps have been more keen on road freight and less keen on rail freight. We have seen situations arise through different political times and economic circumstances.
When I am looking at the Bill, I am looking at whether it works today, with a Government who are supportive of and promoting freight, and at whether it would it work in the future, with a Government, of whatever colour, who have a different view. We have to look at it through that lens because we legislate for the long term. It is really difficult, because you are saying to people who are trying to help you, “Actually, I don’t like this.” That is an emotional tension—of course it is.
The duties and provisions in the Bill are great— I would not want to be going into GBR without them, and I think they will be powerful—but they are doing a lot of heavy lifting. We are going into a very different cultural environment. GBR will think about its own trains first; it has to for it to succeed—that is kind of the core. We are going into a very different access arrangement and a very different set of parameters, and it is entirely possible that they could go wrong and that we would need the recourse of the appeal function. They might not, but we need to know that it will work if they do. Having a strong appeal function will help it to work, because GBR will know that if things do go wrong we have that recourse in law.
Keir Mather
Q
It is important that we clarify that GBR has to set out what it means by “best use” before we get into questions of the capacity duty. It has to have due regard for freight in the network, open access in the network and the provision of passenger services before the capacity duty is triggered. That means that GBR has to deliver the services it has identified as being necessary to run the railway effectively, but the appeals process is enormously important. Do you think the fact that freight operators would be able to appeal GBR’s interpretation of “best use” in relation to its duties, one of which is to promote the interests of freight, provides a safeguard to ensure that freight is considered when GBR is deciding what constitutes best use of the railway overall?
Maggie Simpson: I think my children would use the phrase “gaslighting”. I have read the Bill many times, and I cannot see in law that the capacity duty is subservient to clause 60 on the infrastructure capacity plan. I understand that that is the intention—I have heard it from the Rail Minister, yourselves and Network Rail, and I get that; there is a lot of work to do on the access and use policy, and we are engaged on that and want it to work—but it is not what the Bill says, and therefore a future Minister or Secretary of State could interpret it very differently and say, “Look, GBR, we don’t like your infrastructure capacity plan, so we’re triggering clause 63—get those freight trains out my way.” I do not expect that from the current Administration, but we need to square off that hole in law, in my opinion. If that is the intention, let us say so.
On how that infrastructure evaluation—that capacity analysis—is taken forward, it is incredibly complex, and I appreciate that most of the detail will be in the access and use policy and not in the Bill. We do not have a problem with the way that clause 60 is worded. We will work with colleagues to try to make sure that that process is effective and those duties matter. Of course, those duties are not relevant in clause 63, because clause 18(4) turns them off. When looking at that capacity duty, a future Secretary of State would not have to have regard to freight, because the Bill explicitly turns it off. That would mean that if we went to an appeal, GBR would be in line with the law in not having thought about freight in using clause 63, because the law would not require it to. We would not be able to prove a judicial review threshold appeal, because the law would say that GBR was okay not to have thought about freight.
Keir Mather
Q
May I ask one final question to Mr Montgomery, as it relates to open access? We have an overall issue with capacity in this country. The Government’s view is that, by running a single, unified approach to the railways, GBR will be able to allocate capacity in a way that is more reasonable, makes more sense and balances those interests around best use. Can you set out briefly how that contrasts with the open access regime as we currently find it? How is capacity on the railways perhaps holding back competitive movements in the open access market as it stands?
Steve Montgomery: The situation with open access and capacity, under the Bill as it is written, is that GBR decides what capacity is available and what capacity it might hold back for future use or performance. As it stands, the railway is not funded in that way, so the opportunity for private sector investment gets lost because, given the way that the Bill is written, people can almost sit on their hands and say, “Well, we’re not going to do anything because we might do something in the future.”
It is for us, in making open access applications, to go and look at where we believe capacity is and then submit an application, as things stand via the regulator—hence our concerns for the future under GBR. If it can turn around and decide, “No, there’s no access” or “We may use that in the future,” why would any future open access application ever get through?
Keir Mather
We can set that out a little later, probably in the evidence that I give, but thank you all very much. I will let other Members ask questions.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Steve Montgomery: The system at the moment is independent. The regulator evaluates, takes all the different evidence from the applicant and from Network Rail on how much capacity is there. It takes all that evidence and does an abstraction test to make sure that an open access application is not abstracting revenue from the existing operators. That independence is there, and it allows the regulator to evaluate that and make its decision. In the last year, it has granted some applications and refused others.
The system works—maybe not to everyone’s satisfaction, but it does work and it is independent. Under GBR, it will be a huge public sector body with no real regulation. Looking at it at the moment, it is difficult to see where that independent regulation is, looking at the industry and holding GBR to account. Capacity is one of the areas we need to look at, and likewise access charges, where that comes into play.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Steve Montgomery: We can modify it, but we need that comfort that it will be evaluated fairly and not have the constraints of GBR putting everything in front of it, saying, “We might use those paths in the future again”. We cannot have that; we need certainty. As I said earlier, we need the opportunity to allow investment in the railway. If private sector investment is coming in while there are paths sitting there not being used, that means that we are not funding the industry up to the capacity that it may have.
John Thomas: There are no protections in the Bill for open access operators. As Keir said, freight is mentioned at least 100 times and there is a freight growth target that GBR must have regard to, but there is nothing on open access. There is an inherent conflict when you have a body that will be granting access to its competitors. We would rather see the Office of Rail and Road still making those decisions. We accept that that is unlikely, because that is not the direction of travel from the Government, so as a minimum we think that a fair and non-discriminatory provision in relation to GBR decisions will help.
We think, as I said earlier, that the provision for ORR to have regard to the benefits of competition in hearing appeals will help. It will not be as sufficient as today. This is not part of the Bill, but we think that the access and use policy ought to carry on with the not primarily abstractive tests. It is not just because of lack of capacity that decisions have been rejected in the past; as Steve said, it is the revenue abstraction test as well. There is nothing to stop GBR increasing test in terms of the level of abstraction that is allowed before not granting access to open access operators. There is a lot to be worked through in the access and use policy to protect open access operators but, as I say, there is nothing whatsoever in the Bill to protect them at the moment.
Maggie Simpson: We recognise that the current system is not perfect, but my members want to understand two things: first, if they are running a train today that their supply chain relies on, that they can reasonably expect to be running that train in the future. Today, the ORR would have a presumption of continuity—forgive me, this is not in the Bill—so if we came to the end of an access contract they would let the trains go into the next one. The infrastructure capacity plan process is different: it throws everything up in the air. People are really worried that they will commit and invest against a service that their supply chain relies on, and then in future something else will be judged to be better value and they will be taken off the network.
Secondly, when people are looking at investments, whether that is a new port or a new terminal—a new interchange might be a £1 billion investment—they need to have a sense that the capacity for the trains coming out of that interchange will be there when they need to use it. The current system has more capacity for that. That is why clause 63 worries people, because they think that that capacity could be taken away from those trains.
John Thomas: Clause 71 is also a real concern for us, because it allows the Secretary of State to establish regulations to amend or even abolish access rights or access contracts. That seems quite a draconian power to us. We have been assured that that is not the intention, and that the intention is to use that power to amend contracts so that they are operable in the new structure. Our view is that the clause should be limited to enable contracts to be operable in the new structure, and not to give the Secretary of State unilateral powers to amend or abolish access contracts or access rights. Again, that will make private sector operators really nervous about future investment. I agree with Maggie: I get no impression that the current Administration would ever use that clause—but, if you are never going to use it, why have it in there?
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Q
Maggie Simpson: My members and I are working collaboratively with Network Rail colleagues and DFT colleagues to try to ensure that those policies and plans are going to be written in the right way. It is fair to say there is a lot of work still to be done, particularly on capacity allocation. On track access charges we feel a little more comfortable with the Bill provisions and that we will get there, but on capacity allocation there is a huge amount of work yet to be done.
Some of that work is practical stuff around the interplay between capacity plans on different routes, regions and sections of network, which could be quite big or quite small, and how we wind a freight train through what could be 10 or 20 different infrastructure capacity plans. There is a lot of work to do. There are great people working on this, so let us hope that they get there.
In terms of how GBR is held to account, that is a macro question for this Committee across a lot of different aspects. There are lots of powers in the Bill that you will have seen going in both directions between GBR, the Secretary of State, the regulator and so on. Our focus is on that appeals function, which I have already spoken about.
Edward Argar
Q
Steve Montgomery: I do not think we have much more to add, other than that, given the way the Bill is written at the moment, how can you be comfortable with what is in the Bill when you cannot see what is in the licence conditions that are going to be set out? As it stands, clause 63 at the moment can override everything. We would need to see how, when you word the Bill in a certain way, and then the licence, we can get more comfortable with it when they write it up in the access conditions.
John Thomas: The licence is a bit of a worry for me, because of all the indications, as we have been discussing, of ORR’s weakened powers. For example, it will not be able to enforce business performance in future. It will be able to advise the Secretary of State, who can then decide whether to take enforcement action or whatever action she deems necessary. That is a far cry from the current licence, which is a much stronger Network Rail network licence. We have not seen it yet, so we cannot really comment, but all the indications are that it would be a much weaker licence for GBR than under Network Rail.
As Maggie said, there has been good communication with DFT and Network Rail on the access and use policy, for example, but what are the checks and balances on GBR to create something that is fair and non-discriminatory? As one example, the charging framework is really good. It is based on the current framework of cost directly incurred plus a mark-up; it says—this is a point of detail—that if the operator can bear it, it needs to revert back to whether the market can bear it. On the whole, the provisions are good, but there are different ways of calculating charges even based on those principles. My worry is this: what is the incentive on GBR not to increase charges to price people off the network in order to support its own services? As long as there is good engagement and GBR, in the future, and Network Rail and DFT now, listen to us, that is all we can do at this point in time.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Q
Maggie Simpson: It is not my business to talk about the passenger railway. We see two things as important in having a freight growth target: first, it is a statement of Government commitment to growth, which is hugely powerful; secondly, and importantly, the people who are going to be running GBR are going to spring out of bed every morning and say, “It’s my job to make my trains run on time,” and the freight growth target makes them say, over their Weetabix, “Yes, and I must make freight run on time as well.” It is the incentive effect of having a growth target.
We have seen that effect really powerfully with the freight growth target that the Scottish Government and Whitehall have set, in that it changes the dynamic and the culture. I think—perhaps you would say I am biased— that people think about the passenger railway all the time, so I do not see that that incentive effect is as necessary—but in terms of other factors, I leave that to others.
John Thomas: May I add to that? I think a passenger growth target is really important. At the moment, the duties for GBR only include improving performance. You can improve performance, as we saw during covid, by cutting the number of services, but that is not necessarily in the best interest of customers. We think a balance between a performance target and a passenger growth target is really important.
Laurence Turner
Q
Maggie Simpson: There are two parts to that question. Certainly, the provisions in the Bill allow for a core contract to be longer, because it removes the cap in law today. For that contract to be meaningful, though, it needs to have some committed capacity in it, because there is no point having a contract to run if you have no paths. That comes back to the access and use policy, the capacity commitments and how they will work out through those capacity plans. We simply do not have the detail on that yet to know whether we will be able to get meaningful, long-term capacity commitments. That is an open point.
Laurence Turner
Q
Maggie Simpson: We very much welcome that clause; it is a broadening of the provision in the current law, which is quite tightly worded. There are some areas where we think it could be particularly powerful, such as incentivising a greater uptick in use of electric traction, where those units exist, and making sure that people are using them wherever they can. We have just seen the first fleet of digitally enabled wagons arrive in service. That is something that can help to reduce track damage, but it is expensive, so helping the introduction of more digital technology would be another area.
We are looking at novel markets for rail freight—moving new fuels, for example, and supporting green energy. Often, it is quite difficult to get new flows up and running in new markets, so incentivising growth through the uptick of those sectors would be another area.
Laurence Turner
Q
Steve Montgomery: Yes. We believe that the Bill does not give enough power to the Secretary of State to put out contracts and devolved parties—whether that is Greater Manchester, Liverpool, and so on—to give them out. The concession model is something that we have continued to support.
Laurence Turner
Q
Steve Montgomery: Yes, you can put it out.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Q
John Thomas: It is really difficult. As I said earlier, all we can glean is that, given the reduced powers that ORR will have, it will be a slimmed-down licence; ORR will not have the power that it currently has to enforce business performance. Until we see it, we cannot really comment on it.
I am a bit surprised that we have not seen a draft of the licence yet. We have seen the access and use policy discussion document, but not a draft of the licence. It has been a long time in the making, so I am surprised that we have not seen it yet. I was told that we might not see it for some time. It is a key part of the overall framework, so until we see it, we cannot really comment on that framework. We are having to—we are having to comment on the Bill—but until we see the licence it is difficult to determine what our position will be.
Joe Robertson
Q
John Thomas: As a minimum, we want to be consulted and to help to shape the licence. Our ability to do that will be affected by what will ultimately be in the Act, but we certainly want to be consulted and help to shape the licence.
The Chair
I am afraid that the next question will probably be the last to this set of witnesses. I call Sarah Smith.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Q
Maggie Simpson: The industry is unnerved by the provisions in the Bill—I have members writing letters across Government to set out their concerns—but business goes on. Keith Williams picked up his biro in 2018; you could have raised a child in the time since then, so of course business has to go on. People are making good investments and, as I said at the beginning of the panel, we are pleased with the support of this Government. What we are looking at in the Bill is whether we have a framework that will enable those investments to happen in five, 10 or 15 years’ time, under a different Administration with, potentially, a different mindset, which might be better or worse—we do not know.
That question has different layers. Are we unnerved now? Yes. Is that stopping investment now? Not everywhere, but possibly in some places; other factors are at play too, of course. Will it start to impact investment? Yes, it will. The first time that GBR says to somebody, “Take your freight train off my network because I want to run this service instead”, if we have no or very limited right to appeal, it will absolutely start to spook the market.
Steve Montgomery: I know your question was about freight, but private sector investment, particularly in passenger rolling stock, is an area you have to look at and ask, “Where’s that coming from?”. We have committed to spend £500 million between buying new trains and maintaining them, and that keeps the supply chain going.
We have potential future orders that we want to place, but we are again getting caught up in the mechanics of whether there will be open access, or whether we will lose our rights at any point under clause 71. All those different things are in play at this moment of time, so where do you get that confidence? The Bill is not strong enough in that area, particularly not for passenger service operators.
Sarah Smith
Q
John Thomas: I am fairly new to the role. We are a Brussels-based organisation and we do have lots of European members. I am not familiar with the Finland example, but the European Union is going in completely the opposite direction from us. They are continuing to liberalise, opening up their markets—in the United States, in Australia, in South America—
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the allocated time for the Committee to ask questions, I am afraid. On behalf of the Committee, I thank witnesses for the evidence they have given this afternoon.
Examination of Witnesses
John Davies and Catriona Meehan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Trainline and Independent Rail Retailers. We have until 3.05 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Catriona Meehan: Good afternoon. My name is Catriona Meehan. I am the director of public affairs at Omio, here today representing Independent Rail Retailers.
John Davies: My name is John Davies, I am vice president of industry relations at Trainline. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
“important to give the right signals from the outset that TPRs will be competing on a level playing field with GBR—to encourage that competition and investment which will benefit passengers directly”.
That is what the CMA says. Mr Davies, do you agree with the position that the CMA has taken? If you do, do you think the Bill as currently drafted gives a level playing field between GBR and independent retailers? If not, why not, and what would you do to fix it?
John Davies: Yes, we agree with the view that the CMA has expressed on giving the right signals from the outset for how the reformed rail industry should work as far as retail is concerned. They also highlighted the risk of this structure giving rise to the actual or perceived risk that GBR will self-preference its own retail operation. There is relatively little about the structure of the reformed rail industry in the Bill, but I think the relevant point is that the creation of GBR will bring together online retailing in a single website and app. This creates a conflict of interest, because GBR will define and operate the future retail market, it will set its economic terms and it will also compete in it.
It is not just the CMA that has recognised these challenges and risks. The Government’s own Railways Bill impact assessment registered this point in terms of the competitiveness of the ticket retailing market—it could be questioned by potential investors who might be concerned that GBR will use its unique position to take actions that put its retail competitors at a disadvantage. However, I should also note that we are encouraged by some of the words of Lord Peter Hendy, who said in a December interview with Simon Calder that there ought to be a level playing field. We look forward to understanding more about how that will be provided, because we have not seen any of the detail on that just yet.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
John Davies: I think it can only be helpful. There is a need to be certain that the retail part of GBR will compete in the market in the same way as everybody else, that it will do so on equality of terms, and that there will be equality of market access on things like fares, features, products, data services and system access, as well as economic parity, so that there is certainty that GBR’s online retail activity will not be loss-making or cross-subsidised, and that there will be transparency of costs and revenues, so that the ORR can hold it to account.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
I have in mind, for example, LNER currently being able to offer a full refund with one click on its website, and that service and facility not being made available to independent retailers even under the current system. Can you elaborate on quite how important that is for the independent sector? I would then like Catriona Meehan to come in with her views, too.
John Davies: When we talk about the need for the right kinds of protections for retailers, we are pointing at something that is not theoretical—these are risks that are with us today. You point at the example of delay repay, where independent retailers are prevented from supporting customers who have purchased their tickets through them by submitting their claims directly. It also occurs with things such as loyalty schemes, retailer inability to offer customers pay-as-you-go fares, and our ability to offer assisted travel. Independent retailers are not permitted to have access to a very significant amount of propositions around rail travel that are a very meaningful part of the market.
Catriona Meehan: I completely echo all of John’s points. For us, it is a concern that there would not be proper separation, which could lead to a degree of self-preferencing. You mentioned SNCF and the separation there, which is an example that we think works well. It is not perfect, of course; there are things that could be improved, but a colleague on the previous panel from ALLRAIL mentioned that EU markets are moving the other way: they are liberalising rather than nationalising.
It is interesting to look at why it has happened and why there is a need for it. FRAND principles were mentioned. We are also seeing that in other markets. Omio operates across 46 markets globally, so we have a lot of experience in other markets. Obviously, the UK is very important through our partnership with Uber trains, but we should also talk about the wider sector of independent rail retailers. Unless we have proper safeguards and assurances in place, we are not sure exactly how GBR will not self-preference. That is not exactly clear to us right now.
Keir Mather
Q
John Davies: Yes, it would represent a streamlining of the system, but that is only true in so far as the GBR online retail function itself is subject to that code of practice equally. It is not clear to us that that is what is intended yet. That is something that we are working through with the Department and the ORR to set out exactly what that means. To the point that was made earlier about the parts of the customer proposition in the rail market that are not available to independent retailers currently, the surety of a code of practice would provide for what we characterise as parity of market access, which is not just fares— “Can we all sell the same fares?”—but features such as delay repay, services such as passenger assistance, and products such as loyalty. We should be able to have all those things on an equal basis across the industry: if they are good for one retailer to offer in support of rail travel, they should be good for everybody. In the work that we are contemplating on the code of practice, we aim to get to a place where no independent retailer or customer of an independent retailer is ever at a disadvantage in comparison with buying a ticket through what will be the future GBR online retail function.
Keir Mather
Q
John Davies: If we are dealing with the legal reality as the backstop to all this, there is a risk that somehow the reform process fails because if all that you are left with, in the way that a market is set up, structured and operates, is that the only protections that independent participants have—whether they are retailers, open access operators or freight operators—are legal ones, then that is ultimately unsatisfactory from a variety of perspectives, because the harm is done by the time you know that you have a potential claim against somebody.
An earlier question mentioned the European model. The German competition authorities found against Deutsche Bahn in 2022 about its conduct in relation to certain discriminatory practices. Tomorrow, there is a third appeal by the German railways against that finding, which was made four years ago. That end-to-end process of using legal tools to provide remedy against the impacts of a vertically integrated state monopolist is now the thick end of 10 years old. Would I say that there needs to be more in the reform process than merely restating legal assurances? Yes, I absolutely would.
Keir Mather
Q
John Davies: Can I add that we would welcome the reassurance? I think that, in different forums at different times, Lord Peter Hendy talked about the assurance that has been provided to the freight sector. I can see, in some of the answers given today, that they do not always feel that assurance, but we would welcome the development of the code of practice as an opportunity to set out how the Government intend those kinds of protections to be provided for. That would be a useful and welcome step to give the kind of signals that the CMA has referred to.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Q
Catriona Meehan: You raise a really good point: having only one retailer offering certain things, such as accessibility information, is a problem. That is why we need several retailers, to have that competition and to work on those products and make better offerings. That is something we do in the third-party retail market.
John Davies: There is always more that can be done in this space, of course. Trainline has been in discussion with the Rail Delivery Group regarding access to its central system, which would enable us to offer passenger assistance to customers and to book the kind of assistance they need at stations or on board trains. That was what I was referring to earlier as one of the features that we have been unable to secure access to. Of course, giving the broadest possible access, in the right way, to customers with additional needs is an extremely important part of what we all do.
Daniel Francis
Q
John Davies: I think it is a bit like there being one central seat reservation system that every train operator uses. Every customer who books a ticket, via whichever operator, accesses the same seat reservation system—there is one definitive record. The same could be true of passenger assistance bookings.
Rail Delivery Group, or its successor, which will be part of the retail industry and management function in the future, could have a system—a definitive record—of all availability of assisted services on offer in the industry. That could be accessed by any retailer, so that customers can book assistance as they need it, for stations or on board trains, and the staff at those stations and on those trains know who to expect and the kind of assistance that is needed. It would all be aggregated in one place, but drawn upon by as many retailers as needed.
Laurence Turner
Q
One of the things that becomes problematic is this. Thinking about something like the centralised seat reservation system, which is a piece of industry architecture, we are currently able to draw on it at a very granular level. We take a very base level of data and are able to use it in different ways, as are other retailers, to design good customer experiences. For example, a 28-day view of the availability of cheap fares for any given journey is not that straightforward if you are only able to access information that has previously been filtered—let us say by a future GBR—which has decided that all you are going to have available are five single and return journeys for the date on which you have made the inquiry.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Davies: Potentially. There are already moves within the industry to restrict those data flows. Again, if it goes to the point that this is not entirely a theoretical risk, then yes, we would—
Laurence Turner
Q
John Davies: It does not. It comes from the Rail Delivery Group, through its provision of RAAS, which is the rail availability and reservation service.
Laurence Turner
Q
John Davies: No I am not, because the benchmarking is done by Trainline’s board, consistent with the processes that it has published.
Laurence Turner
So that is privileged information.
John Davies: It is certainly information that I do not have access to.
The Chair
Thank you. As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We move to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Bill Reeve and Peter McDonald gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Transport Scotland and the Welsh Government. We have until 3.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Bill Reeve: Good afternoon. I am Bill Reeve, director of rail reform for Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government.
Peter McDonald: Good afternoon. My name is Peter McDonald. I am director of transport for the Welsh Government.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Bill Reeve: There has to be a balance, because we are trying to secure the ability of our Ministers to have a proper accountability mechanism and proper direction for implementation of our strategies and of our very substantial funding of the infrastructure. Equally, our network is not an island; clearly, if a direction in Scotland were to have a material impact on matters south of the border, which would not be the intention, that provision is there; I can understand that. There were constructive discussions between our Ministers and officials about how we strike that balance so, broadly, we are content with the arrangements, noting that an MOU is also required by the Bill to flesh out a little more how that will work in practice.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Bill Reeve: We are working with colleagues in DFT on the heads of terms for that and on what the principles will be. Since the Bill submission last year, that has clearly been a key priority for us. Again, we have had good constructive discussions, working through in detail, as we should. Thus far, we are pleased with those discussions.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Bill Reeve: I do not imagine that the guidance will be used then. Ordinarily, I would imagine that we would start with the use of our strategies, our statement of objectives and our normal means of engagement. It is important to remember that, whereas currently we spend £1 billion a year on Network Rail in Scotland, and it is for the ORR to enforce its delivery obligations under the delivery plan to the current funding arrangement, that role is being removed from the ORR.
What you see reflected in the Bill is something to address what would otherwise be a complete accountability gap. We would welcome the fact that we will have stronger accountability mechanisms under these provisions than we have had hitherto, given the very substantial amount of funding that we fund the railway infrastructure in Scotland with.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Bill Reeve: I think that would be a matter of convention and expectation. It is not the sort of thing you would rush to do when there are other ordinary means of engagement to be used first.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Peter McDonald: Yes I do, in terms of the legislation. However, I do not think we can come to a full judgment on this. This may also pre-judge your second question, because we do not have the full memorandum of understanding in front of us. It is only when we see that full package that we can make a judgment about whether the degree of consultation and partnership is sufficient for Wales.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Peter McDonald: In the case of Wales, the heads of terms for the MOU were published in December. We are now working closely with Department for Transport officials on the detail. We are optimistic that we can jointly publish a full draft in early March. It is important for us to do that, because, similar to the Scottish Government, we have a pre-election period ahead of the devolved elections, and we would not want that to lose momentum in this important process.
Keir Mather
Q
“the way that the Bill has been discussed with Scottish Government partners is the exemplar that other Government Departments in Whitehall may wish to follow”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 210.]
That is impressive, isn’t it? Do you have any reflections on how this process has been worked out in consultation with yourself and the Scottish Government and whether it might provide instructive lessons for how GBR might seek to engage on a four-nations basis once it is established?
Bill Reeve: It would be churlish of me to disagree with that quote, frankly. In all seriousness, the level of engagement both between officials, and between our Cabinet Secretary, the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister, has been, in my experience, the best I have ever known when it comes to inter-Government exchange. It has been a constructive discussion and a sometimes forthright debate, which is reflected in where we have come to agreement now.
You will be aware that it is the Scottish Government’s position to support the Bill as it goes through the legislative consent motion process in the Scottish Parliament—pending any amendments that might change that; I do not want to fetter the will of our parliamentarians. We have been encouraged by the level of constructive engagement.
Keir Mather
Q
My second question relates to the issue raised by the Opposition spokesperson about the publishing of documents, consultations and memorandums of understanding relating to this Bill. Mr Reeve and Mr McDonald, you are storeyed in your working on the railway and deal with these issues on a daily basis. What do you think the requisite trade-offs are when designing a railway fit to serve four nations and 67 million people through legislation that is hermetically sealed, as opposed to working in consultation to develop the documents over time, in an iterative process throughout the Bill's passage?
The Government have been in power for about 18 months now and are seeking to progress this work at pace. Is this usually how the process of engagement happens with railway stakeholders when you are trying to achieve macro change in a short amount of time?
Bill Reeve: If you will permit me to say this, without wanting to undermine any positivity it, of course, remains our preference that the railways in Scotland should be fully devolved. However, we understand and accept that that is not on the table at the minute. So we get to the complicated challenge of devising something that reflects the fact that in Scotland about 95% of all trains are run by Scottish Ministers—the services and passenger trains. We fund more than 90% of the costs of the infrastructure, but to date we have not had the level of accountability around that substantial expenditure in Scotland.
That takes us to the need to work out how to strike the right balance, in the absence of full devolution, that will allow us to run the railways in Scotland in accordance with our published strategies and with due accountability for the substantial funding we provide— while facilitating cross-border traffic, which is in the interests, of course, of all the nations.
Peter McDonald: I have been part of a large number of intergovernmental processes. The work that is happening, which could only really have begun once the Bill was published, is at the more intensive end of the intergovernmental spectrum, as opposed to the slower end. You want to get this right, but I think the early March deadline is important for the Welsh Government to maintain momentum.
Keir Mather
Absolutely. Lord Hendy mentioned in his testimony to the Transport Committee that upcoming elections in Scotland and at the Senedd in May will focus minds as those discussions progress. I also think that is a very healthy basis on which to drive the conversation forward on these really important matters of detail. For the moment, I have no further questions.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Q
Peter McDonald: It certainly does not take us further away, if I can put it that way. In technical terms, I would say that the Bill is neutral for the devolution settlement. It does not adjust the fundamental constitutional arrangement in Wales, just as it does not change the fundamental constitutional arrangement of Scotland.
I think the Bill makes the current settlement more operable and better; I will not comment on the Scottish case—I will leave that for Bill. Certainly, the Welsh Government support track-train integration. I appreciate that I came at your question from a negative direction, but the Bill definitely advances us in terms of making the settlement more operable and efficient.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Q
Peter McDonald: It is very reasonable for there to be a conditioning adjective in the clause, certainly for the purposes of primary legislation. In practice, hundreds of operational decisions will be happening every day that—certainly in the case of Wales and England—affect the border. I certainly would not want each of them to have to go through a duty to consult.
The Welsh Government view is that “significantly affect” is reasonable. It could be further codified and defined in a memorandum of understanding, which provides a more flexible, non-legislative route to get into when consultation matters and when this can be done at working level more informally, without legislative backing.
Bill Reeve: We would agree. I might have a professional interest in the signalling of the Newquay branch in Cornwall, but I am not sure I need to be consulted on it. We are a small team in proportion to the size of the network that we are responsible for: we would be overwhelmed if we had to be consulted about everything on a precautionary basis. As Peter said, the working of the MOU will be important and people’s behaviours will always matter. But the drafting is fine from our perspective.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Peter McDonald: The Welsh Government view is that the primary legislation is taking a reasonable approach. There are a couple of extra, non-legislative layers to reflect on. The first is the provisions of the memorandum of understanding, which I will keep coming back to. That is really important for cross-border partnership.
Then there is the culture of effective partnership. Currently, a large number of Transport for Wales and Network Rail officials and employees work together collaboratively; we want that to continue and think that can improve. We think there are lessons from the alliance model in Scotland.
This is almost leaving the constitution at the door; it is more about a proper culture of partnership between the two organisations. We think that can be best led by an empowered and distinct Wales and borders business unit. That is not necessarily a matter for primary legislation, but it is really important for how this will operate on the ground.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Bill Reeve: My Welsh colleague’s point about the importance of culture and behaviours and how that is given effect through the MOU will be the real test. As drafted the primary legislation seems fine, and there is indeed an obligation to consult on services that cross the border both ways. However, I have no doubt from my experience that how we put this into effect will matter more than the words.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank our witnesses, Mr McDonald and Mr Reeve, for their evidence today. We move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Malcolm Brown, Darren Caplan and Rob Morris gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Malcolm Brown: I am Malcolm Brown, the CEO of Angel Trains.
Rob Morris: Good afternoon. I am Rob Morris, the joint CEO of Siemens Mobility, a manufacturer of trains and the supplier of rail systems here in the UK, for the UK.
Darren Caplan: I am Darren Caplan, chief executive of the Railway Industry Association, a trade association representing rail suppliers throughout the UK.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: Yes, by all means. Angel Trains is a ROSCO—a rolling stock operating company. We own circa 4,000 passenger vehicles in the UK, and we provide the bridge between private sector finance and the actual rail industry. In the last 10 years, we have invested about £1.9 billion in new rolling stock in the UK, and we invest about £80 million a year in refurbishing and maintaining trains across the network.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: As has been covered in other panel sessions, the Bill as it stands does not provide a long-term view. It relies on the building blocks that it refers to—we talked about this in other panel sessions—where you have a long-term rail strategy and there is also a promise of a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy. It is those documents that we would look to to provide a long-term view on what is coming up in the industry.
Our assets last circa 30 to 35 years, as does the infrastructure, and it is that long-term view that we require, not necessarily to give us certainty, but to give us a clear look-through that allows us to decide whether to invest and the level of investment we will make. In answer to your direct question, we will be looking to the railway strategy, which we presume will come first, and then to the long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: As a general rule, a 10-year horizon is something that we can work with. With the nature of infrastructure—not just rail, actually, but other infrastructures too—for this type of asset, that, while it is not whole life, gives a clear look forward. When you extend that, clearly the level of accuracy, if not certainty, gets less. That is perfectly okay; we are used to dealing with that. That is how infrastructure actually works. We do not need to have 100% knowledge of something that is going to happen in 35 or 40 years, but what you want to have for look-through is, “Okay, we know what is going to happen in 10 years, and therefore, on a probability basis, this is what we will assume to do in 30, 35 or 40 years.”
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: No, I am not. I am suggesting that the strategy should give various date points—10 years, 15 years, 30 years. I do not think we should exclude it saying, “Here is a vision for what we wish our rail industry to look like in 30 years,” while accepting that that will actually change. It has to change; it has to morph and adapt to the market.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: I think the references to the building blocks of the long-term rail strategy and the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy are key components that will actually help give greater colour to the Bill. At this point, a number of us are looking at this and trusting in the fact that they will come, and will come in a timely manner, and that that will allow us to get on and invest. This is not just investing for investing’s sake; this is taking Rob’s plant in Goole and actually pouring work in there that will employ people in the local area. It is that type of thing that will break the log jam that we have just now, and let us get on with things.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Certainty is very important. We have invested something like £340 million, and we are currently investing in a new Goole facility for rail and train manufacture and a train command and control systems R&D and manufacturing facility at Chippenham. To continue with investment not just in facilities, but in skills and rolling stock for the future, we need certainty about the financing or funding over the control periods. It is not just about renewals, which are currently included, and which are there to stop the infrastructure from falling over; it must also be about enhancements and rolling stock and the maintenance of that.
From our perspective, we would echo what Malcolm said about the 30-year long-term strategy. For all those elements I have talked about, we must recognise that strategies have to be reviewed. I would suggest that that be done every five years for all of those and that funding is made available on a five-year basis, so that the supply chain has absolute clarity on where it can invest and how it can support GBR. GBR spend will be 50%-plus, we expect, within the supply chain, so what it does not want is for the supply chain and the investors to fall over.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Absolutely. Although we are based in the UK, we are a global company. If there is uncertainty here in the UK, we will cut off investments because we are in competition with a global market.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: We represent rail suppliers in the UK—all around the country, large and small. They can be companies like Siemens and Angel, and they can be SMEs—60% of the supply chain are SMEs and they are our members. There are about 640,000 jobs in the UK rail industry, and about half of those work in the supply chain, so it is quite a lot of jobs.
Around £40 billion of GVA is rail, and half of that is from the supply sector. Around £14 billion of Treasury revenue comes in from our sector, and half of that is from the supply sector, so it is a really important sector, covering building, maintaining, reviewing, infrastructure, rolling stock, signalling and so on—it is the full gamut of the rail industry.
The point you picked up on, Mr Mayhew, is really important, and I am happy to expand on that. I have in front of me the Bill’s clauses and provisions. Schedule 2 is the one we are concerned about, and it is really significant. It says:
“The Secretary of State must provide the ORR and Great British Railways with a statement, in relation to a funding period, indicating the amount of financial assistance that the Secretary of State reasonably considers may be made available to Great British Railways by the Secretary of State…for the purpose of funding the activities of Great British Railways during the funding period.”
That period is five years. It says, “must provide”. Then, three pages later, on page 64, it says:
“If the Secretary of State proposes to vary the financial assistance to be provided…the Secretary of State must notify Great British Railways of the proposed variation…The Secretary of State must notify the ORR if…the Secretary of State considers that the proposed postponement, withdrawal or reduction is likely to have a material impact on the ability of Great British Railways to carry on the activities specified”.
That is “provide” versus “notified”. It says they must “provide” the budget for a five-year period, but later it says they just have to “notify” if they want to change what they do. That is hugely significant, because it means that you can set up a five-year budget and decide that you want to change it once in that control period, or every month if you want to. That is highly political, because a future Secretary of State can decide what they want to do coming into a new control period. The future is less certain under the Bill than it is currently. We have had control periods for the last 30 to 35 years— we are now in CP7. Under the Bill, the future version of funding assistance for rail will be less certain than it is now.
The Bill also only talks about postponing, withdrawing or reducing, and not increasing. At no point does it talk about funding going up; it is all about reducing it. For my fellow witnesses, when they are looking at where they are going to invest, they will say that there might be £45 billion invested over five years, but that could come down—if you do not know for certain, why should you do it?
My final point is that rail is a very certain industry: you know what you need to spend in five years—you know the renewals you need to do, and you know the rolling stock you need to get, maintain or refurbish—so why can you not commit to a five-year spending envelope? It is very simple.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: Yes, absolutely—
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: That is absolutely correct.
Malcolm Brown: It is fundamental economics.
Keir Mather
Q
Duties for GBR also exist in the Bill. One of those duties is
“to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their business with a reasonable degree of assurance”.
In a five-year business plan you may have fluctuations in spending to reflect fiscal reality, but would you say that through those building blocks, long-term certainty is offered to the industry, and GBR has to reflect industry needs and build a railway that is coherent in serving their interests over the long term?
Rob Morris: The short answer to that is yes, absolutely. The other elements that we have just discussed—on enhancements, and on rolling stock and the maintenance and funding thereof—are absolutely fundamental to that. I also think that the ambitions for the railway need to be included in that. Witnesses on previous panels have talked about freight and the target there. What we seem to be missing in the Bill at the moment is the ambition for passenger growth, how that will improve the railway and the levels of investment that need to go with it.
A good example of that is last week’s announcement on Northern Powerhouse Rail, where rail and investment in it will create opportunity for increased productivity— I think £40 billion per annum was mentioned. It seems to me that there needs to be a connection in the Bill between what the Bill seeks to achieve, and generating that ambition, not just for freight growth, but for passenger growth.
Keir Mather
Q
Mr Brown, you point to those building blocks, which are really important. On the one hand, you have the obligation for the Government to provide industry with certainty, but on the other, there is the point about not being overly prescriptive or deterministic in driving the outcomes of the private competitive basis on which a lot of these services are procured. Do you think the Bill strikes the right balance between offering that certainty through the building blocks and not freezing in aspic any perceptions of the railway today that might be outdated in, say, 30 years’ time?
Malcolm Brown: It is very hard to comment on a building block that I have not seen, so forgive me for that. I can understand the concept of using these building blocks and I can see how it fits together. We keep referring to certainty in 30 years. If members of the panel can give me certainty in 30 years, I will take that bet. I do not think any of us can—that is a heck of an ask. What we are asking for is a vision or direction of travel—whichever buzzword you want to use—that says, to use Rob’s term, “This is our ambition for rail in 30 years, and setting out these stepping stones will get us to it.” That would give us the flex to deal with something like a pandemic, where we had to move and change.
There are new technologies and we are innovating all the time. As the private sector, we are always looking for what we can come up with that will actually improve things not just for the passengers but for the operation of the railway. I hate using the word “framework”, but if we have that framework, we can work within it as the private sector and develop ideas to bring to market. Some will work and some will not, but that is what we take on our shoulders. We can implement those for the greater good of the railway and the passengers.
Keir Mather
Q
Malcolm Brown: You had a lot of ifs in there, if you do not mind me saying—“if it aligns” or “if it does that.” Yes, if that were all to happen, I could understand that there is harmony there.
Keir Mather
Q
Malcolm Brown: My understanding is that the legal duty is to produce it, but not what is in it. I could have a legal duty to produce a strategy. I do not have a legal duty to say specifically what is in it. Forgive me for pointing that out. I understand your point that there are legal duties, which is good, but as yet, I do not know what is in that strategy.
Olly Glover
Q
Darren Caplan: I think the question was about whether it is suboptimal at the moment. Yes, it is. We have a control period that lasts for five years and looks at operations, maintenance and renewal. That does not include enhancements. That was taken out in 2018, 2019, so enhancements have been reduced. It did not include major projects; we are very supportive of the announcements on East West Rail and Northern Powerhouse Rail, but that is not part of the overall plan. There is no rolling stock pipeline or strategy—we have called for that, but we are still waiting to hear back. There is nothing about decarbonising the network, or having an electrified network—when you have that, it is stop-start and boom-or-bust.
This is an opportunity to get it together. Back in 2024, we called for a long-term strategy for rail, and we are positive that it is in the GBR plans, so we support the long-term strategy and reviews. I totally agree with these guys that we need to bring more than just ORR work into that pipeline and have a 30-year purview. However, there is quite a lot of work to do on it, and the Bill does not quite capture that yet, but it is a start.
Rob Morris: From my perspective, I totally agree that it is currently sub-optimal. Decisions have been made in the past where things have been switched on and then switched off—electrification is a good example. With GBR, we now have a great opportunity to look at the whole system as a fully integrated system, so that we can manage the risks and the performance all together. That suggests that there will now be an opportunity for greater clarity of thinking, reduction in costs and much more efficient execution of the whole system.
The important thing is that we have a review of the long-term strategy in regular periods to make it transparent—perhaps every five years, so that the supply chain can set itself up for the next five years. What has happened in the past is that, when there has been a change of approach, it has not been communicated and it has created a vacuum. When there is a vacuum, there is uncertainty and we will not invest in those sorts of things. Then, when we restart things such as an electrification programme, it costs significantly more than if you had a steady-state approach to it.
Malcolm Brown: I agree that it has been sub-optimal. I think the clue is in the title; it is a rail system, and therefore a system has a number of components that we require to work as one. For example, I will invest £1 billion in new trains that we have made in Derby, and then those trains are getting maintained. These are state-of-the-art trains—they are absolutely brand new—but they are being maintained in sheds that were built in the Victorian era. That is not how I would like to look after my assets. I would like a holistic, full-system approach that takes these things into account. It cannot be perfect, but there is a lot more that we can do. The one word of caution I would give is this: be careful we don’t try to boil the ocean. We cannot have answers to everything, and nor should we expect the long-term rail strategy to have them.
Lastly, it is a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, and if it comes through, that is a major step forward. There is no point in devising electric trains with pantographs and batteries if we do not have the infrastructure to support that, either in maintenance or passenger service. Those two combined are utterly critical, and it is certainly in the title.
Rob Morris: May I add one comment to what Malcolm said? That old-system thinking with GBR opens up opportunities for the supply chain—ROSCOs and OEMs like ourselves. We can provide the optimum infrastructural rolling stock solution that also does the best in net zero outcomes for carbon, such as the battery bi-mode trains and discontinuous electrification of new technology that manufacturers like ourselves provide.
Baggy Shanker
Q
Malcolm Brown: To cut to the chase, yes. Our hope has to be that with GBR—we have talked in this room about the missing building blocks, but our hope is that they all align—we will end up in a better place than we have been, certainly for the past six or seven years.
You referenced GBRX. It is a limb of GBR that does all the very high-tech and signalling aspects. That seems to be working very well. We work closely with it, and we are investing in new technology—for example, on the east coast main line. We have been installing that on trains. It is very much future forward—we are looking into the future. We know that that will not be an immediate change, but we can see in the future that this is—to go back to this point—the direction of travel. It is not a no-regrets bid, but it is something that we have a degree of confidence in.
Rob Morris: To add to that, yes, again the funding ambition and the need that it generates is the fuel for innovation. The one thing I would say, though, is that I am a little concerned about the Bill’s requirement for GBR to do R&D. R&D is a good thing, and we would expect it, but the thing that GBR should not do, perhaps, is to crowd out the R&D that suppliers like ourselves and many others do, both locally here in the UK and globally, because we will potentially end up reinventing the wheel. While we as global suppliers, and our competitors, have wheels to put out all around the world—the wheels are an analogy, of course—they all have functional spokes, and what we do not want to do is to reinvent the shape of that wheel for the UK. That would be abortive, it would cost, it would take time and it would be the taxpayer who pays for it. The provision in the Bill should be about harmonising with the supply chain on what is done within R&D for the benefit of the passenger, the taxpayer and the freight user.
Darren Caplan: We are very concerned. We think that GBR is heading in the right direction, but Members might not be aware of how difficult it is in the supply chain supply sector at the moment. Through Savanta, we conducted a poll at the end of last year, between October and December, of rail business leaders: 64% of them said that the market is going to contract this year, which is up from 48% last year, and last year had been our record low; 62% are freezing or reducing headcount at the moment, with 34% actively laying off staff; and 85% expect a hiatus this year, which is partly because of the time it has taken for GBR to be set up, which is often cited as a reason why there is lack of confidence in the market at the moment. That is in contrast to the international situation: UNIFE, the European trade association, does a global market study, which shows that around the world, rail has grown between 3% and 6% every year.
I know lots of products are out there and things feel positive, but actually our members in the supply sector are feeling that they are in a very difficult place at the moment. We need certainty, and any measures that can help with that. We have already mentioned schedule 2, which does not help at all—it has to be changed, because it makes things less certain—but clause 72 also has potential to deter private investment. That is the regulation to make changes to non-GBR infrastructure facilities and services. It gives the Government the powers to make future changes to legislation by regulation outside a parliamentary vote—so-called Henry VIII powers. That weakens the power of MPs. It will mean that the Government can rewrite the rules about non-GBR networks and how those integrate with the GBR network, including setting conditions of access and charges.
That is for any network, station or track not operated by GBR, which could be High Speed 1, freight terminals, depots—we heard from freight earlier—ports and airports, telecoms and energy assets. They all integrate with the GBR network, and there is a lack of certainty about how they will integrate in the future, which will deter private and third-party investment. One global logistics company would strongly like to see such sites excluded because of the effect that it will have on investing in those assets. If you get rid of schedule 2 and amend clause 72, you can help to create a better situation when it comes to investment.
I have a prop here, which is a chart showing the current investment for renewals in the UK over the past 30 years—you can see that it goes up and down. The situation that we are talking about with GBR makes it less certain. I have another chart here that shows electrification—
The Chair
Order. Sorry, Mr Caplan, but props are not allowed.
Darren Caplan: My apologies. The charts show how uncertain the current situation is, and these measures would make it less certain. If we can have the positives for GBR going forward, and get these issues addressed, that will be better for the supply chain.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: To 2029.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: Operations, maintenance and renewals.
Jerome Mayhew
I am going to put words into your mouth, but please correct me if I am being unfair. In each control period, you get a bell curve of activity. You start with a low level of activity, because people did not know that there was certainty of funding, and then in years 2 and 3 it gears up and you get peak activity in year 2.5, roughly. Then, as you get towards the end of the control period where the medium term funding dries up or is uncertain, you get a drawdown of activity. That is the point that you were trying to make—is that correct?
Darren Caplan: It can happen between control periods as well, but the basic point is that over those five years, that money is the same. It can vary a bit between years—you can carry some over—but in that time you spend that money. Our concern about schedule 2 is that you can reduce the amount of money in that period.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: Absolutely. If you do the work that you need to do on rail when you need to do it, it is much cheaper than doing it at a later date. It is 30% cheaper to do a renewal when you are supposed to be doing it than at a later date. That is better for the taxpayer, because you can aggregate it. It is also better in terms of passenger experience, because the asset is being maintained when it needs to be.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Darren Caplan: These guys can talk to that specifically, but I assume so, because you are planning out your workforces, your investment in partner machinery, your overall business plan, the apprentices you are going to take on and innovation—all these things can be planned in advance. If you know, you will get a better cost.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Yes—electrification and signalling are both part of the renewals process. The five-year cycle that we currently have—which is often referred to as the boom-and-bust cycle, because that is what it is like for us—adds, let us call it, a subjective cost increase of about 30%, as Darren mentioned.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: The overall figure is normally about £40 billion, in terms of renewals and operations maintenance.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Subjectively, yes. I think there will be more accurate figures around that, but it is an inefficient process.
Jerome Mayhew
That is amazing.
Rob Morris: One thing I would say to support the figures that Darren mentioned earlier is that we have had a particularly sluggish start to this control period, which is actually prolonging that and impacting on skills and capabilities in the industry, which might add additional costs to remobilise.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Your words are correct.
Darren Caplan: Yes.
Malcolm Brown: I am not in that space, so I could not comment.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
I am going to move to Siemens now. Historically, during the period of privatisation, rolling stock improvements have been inextricably linked with franchise bids. As franchises have come up for renewal, different operating companies have been in a bidding process, through competition, to make the most attractive proposal to the Department for Transport. Some of that would be in cheques to the Treasury, but a lot of it has been in improving rolling stock infrastructure. My own operating company, Greater Anglia, entirely renewed its rolling stock right across its area as part of its franchise bid.
That impetus for improvement of rolling stock is being removed entirely and replaced by GBR, a nationalised bidder. It has various duties. I look at clause 18(3), which we discussed a little earlier, under which it has a duty to improve “railway service performance”, but that is defined as being, in the main, reliability and passenger overcrowding. There is no reference to improved customer experience, to quality of rolling stock and to improved services that would come with new rolling stock. For Siemens, are you concerned that moving to GBR will lead to a reduction in the pace of improvement in rolling stock?
Rob Morris: Again, it is about understanding what the ambition is specifically with rolling stock and the funding thereof. My belief is that there is a need for a passenger growth target, which would further fuel the need to make sure that there is a clear approach to modern, carbon-neutral, efficient rolling stock to match a similar infrastructure for the betterment of GBR.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Rob Morris: Yes.
Malcolm Brown: If I may, there is a natural life cycle. There is a beat rate to replacing, renewing and then retiring rolling stock. It is lumpy, because you do not replace trains one at a time; it tends to be in fleets. There is not a great deal we can do about that. What would concern me is if we reverted to everything being planned and done by a central organisation. We have tried that before. I refer the Committee to the 2014 National Audit Office report on the DFT procuring IEP. It did not go well, the National Audit Office says. There is a natural tension there just now—the commercial tension of trying to improve rolling stock and always trying to have the next best thing.
You talk about Greater Anglia. Apologies, but it is Alstom’s trains that we bought in there. They are a step change that was there before, but we cannot keep replacing every single train every time. We need to refurbish trains. We invested £125 million in the Pendolino fleet on the west coast. That created 100 jobs at Widnes and its own infrastructure there. That was completed on time and on budget. Nobody ever really talks about that, but we can do it. We have given the passenger an environment that is as new. That is a lot more cost-effective than simply going, “We must buy a new train every time we feel like it.”
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Malcolm Brown: I cannot comment. I presume it is going to be in one of the building blocks. My concern is that we have a group of people who are trying to design trains for a hobby, when we have manufacturers such as Siemens in the UK, which have global platforms for trains. Yes, we adapt and customise them for the UK, but we get all the benefits of the manufacturing experience of a global manufacturer with the economies of scale that that provides as well. We do not need bespoke custom-built trains in the UK.
Keir Mather
Q
Malcolm Brown: To my mind, there is the potential there—there is no question of it—but without having visibility, at the risk of repeating my previous answers. You talk about consulting with the industry; there is a vast amount of experience in the UK rail industry. I am totally agnostic about whether that is in the private or public sector. I would compel GBR to use that experience to inform the decisions and the forward planning.
I have an organisation that is not as large as Siemens. It is about 170 people and I think about 60% of them are qualified engineers. We have more than 30 years’ experience of acquiring rolling stock and structuring it. I think we are reasonably good at it. I would say utilise the experience and expertise that is there. I am not saying private or public; I am saying use the experience that is there to, frankly, avoid reinventing the wheel.
Keir Mather
Q
Rob Morris: To add to that, there should be a duty on GBR to engage with the supply chain around its decisions and intentions, because essentially we will be more than 50% of the spend for GBR and it would be wholly inappropriate for decisions to be made that are outside the capability or the investment profiles of the supply chain. They need to work in harmony, rather than in silos.
Keir Mather
Q
Rob Morris: I think it needs to be explicit. The ultimate aim is to do the right thing by the passenger, the freight user and the taxpayer.
Keir Mather
Absolutely. Thank you.
Darren Caplan: My final point, to wrap this up, is that the Competition and Markets Authority civil engineering market study was published just last month. It said:
“Funding settlements and infrastructure pipelines are often short-term and volatile, reducing the opportunities and incentives for public authorities and the supply chain to plan and invest.”
This is not public or private. For both GBR and our members to invest, we will need that longer-term certainty.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon. Mr Caplan, if you would like to submit your props or diagrams, the Committee would be very grateful to receive them in written form.
Examination of Witnesses
Jason Prince, Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Andy Burnham: Good afternoon, everybody. I am Andy Burnham. I have been the Mayor of Greater Manchester for coming up on nine years. I was previously the Member of Parliament for Leigh for 16 years.
Jason Prince: Good afternoon. My name is Jason Prince, and I am the director of the Urban Transport Group, which represents transport authorities and mayoral strategic authorities across the UK.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
I will start with the Bee Network up in Greater Manchester, which you have organised on the basis of concessions let by you, the mayoralty. The benefit of that is that the fare box is kept locally and it is operated privately. It does not have to be; you could run those concessions through a wholly owned subsidiary. I accept that. That approach of keeping the fare box local does not work with GBR because the fare box stays with GBR. Even if you have a greater level of devolvement, it feels a bit like it is going to be GBR in Greater Manchester, just painted yellow. Is that what you wanted from the Bill, or did you have aspirations for a bit more control?
Andy Burnham: Thank you very much for the question. I agree with the way that you have presented it. There is a tension to be resolved, but I believe it can be resolved. It is really important that you have mentioned the Bee Network, because I am responsible for running the tram and bus systems, so the backbone of the public transport system is under our control. We have to move to a world where the railway emerges from its railway silo and sees the bigger picture—the integration of public transport across all modes. I would encourage the Committee to think about that, because that change is coming. You will know, Ms Barker, that Liverpool city region will also soon embark on putting buses under public control, and I think the model we are creating will become something of a norm around the country.
I think it is possible to go further, as you say, and my evidence for that is TfL Overground: an arrangement was reached between the Government, the railways and TfL on an integrated, fair offer. I believe that is entirely achievable in Greater Manchester, where the railways come into the capped system. Actually, the rest of the Bee Network adds value to the railway, because no longer will it be the case that you buy a ticket in somewhere like Buxton or Glossop and your travel runs out at Manchester Piccadilly; in a capped system, people can have their onward travel all included under that daily cap. That is what operates in London, and I see no reason why it cannot operate in Greater Manchester—indeed, we will insist that we get the same.
Isn’t it all about revenue sharing, hopefully in relation to passenger growth? We have a plan to bring eight rail lines into the Bee Network, starting with two this year, and it is a plan that has been agreed with the rail industry. This is potentially a win-win for everybody, because the arrival of the capped Bee Network system gives people more reason to use the railways, so we think that we can increase patronage on those rail lines.
It has to be a real partnership with the railway, which is why we are encouraging the Committee to go beyond the idea that we are just consultees who can be listened to or not. Meaningful partnership is what will build the right railway and the right public transport solution in our city. It is much more than painting the trains yellow, although I do want to see yellow trains all over Greater Manchester with bees on them.
Jerome Mayhew
Welcome to the Committee, Ms Brabin; I am sorry that we started before you managed to get in.
Tracy Brabin: My apologies for being late.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Andy Burnham: I do not think it can be justified any more that there is one transport arrangement for London, but that arrangement is not available to everywhere else—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Q
Tracy Brabin: Thank you so much. It is an absolute privilege and a pleasure to be in front of this Committee on something as important as the Railways Bill. In West Yorkshire, we are a region of 2.4 million people, with seven universities and hundreds of thousands of businesses, but, as part of my local growth plan, transport is the key, so it is really important that we get this right. Thank you for the invitation.
The Chair
Thank you. The shadow Minister is whipping at present, so for the time being, until he rejoins us, I will move on to the Minister, Keir Mather.
Keir Mather
Q
I want to start with a more thematic question about the overall purpose of the Bill, and the DFT’s approach to transport more broadly. We unashamedly stand behind the view that our transport network is not just something to get people from A to B; it is an important catalyst for this Government’s missions, particularly around economic growth and delivering the housing that people need to live in dignity and flourish as individuals.
On that basis, the Railways Bill lets us take on lots of devolved work with mayoral strategic authorities, because we believe that is the right size of unit of devolved power and economic focus to drive those priorities. I know, Mayor Brabin and Mayor Burnham, that those priorities are also crucial to your local plans, so how do you feel they marry up, using this Bill as a catalyst to achieve some of those shared ambitions?
Tracy Brabin: I mentioned our local growth and local transport plans. The Bill is timely because of the changes that we see across the country through devolution. As the Prime Minister says, it is the devolution revolution. The opportunity with the statutory responsibilities for mayors to be at the heart of that decision making is a once-in-a-lifetime chance. I value this chance to feed back, because it is important that GBR is an agile body working closely with mayors who are seen as partners, not just stakeholders to be included when and where. We have skin in this game: I see myself as the passenger-in-chief for the public of West Yorkshire.
Like in Greater Manchester, with the work that has been led brilliantly by Andy on the Bee Network, in West Yorkshire the Weaver network will encompass bus, rail, tram, and electric bikes and active travel. We will not be able to deliver that potential for growth in our communities unless we have a meaningful relationship with GBR. It is not just about West Yorkshire, because we are a region at the heart of the UK. A lot of traffic goes through our region. It is not self-contained; we have opportunities—for example, Ilkley to Leeds or the five towns—would definitively be part of our Weaver network.
While we have ambitions to bring the network into the Weaver umbrella, it is also about integrated ticketing. That is important because while we have the MCard, one of the most sophisticated multimodal ticketing apps outside of London, we want the ability that I heard Mayor Burnham talking about when I arrived, to travel across the whole of Yorkshire—from Leeds to Sheffield and Leeds to York—with that integrated ticketing opportunity. Both mayors, and mayors across the country, share the ambitions of the Mayor of London. Frankly, if it is good for London, it is good for all of us.
Enabling mayors to have greater powers to support decision making around services is important. This is my final point. Let me bring it alive with an example: we want to build a station for Leeds Bradford airport. We want to invest and we have an appetite for risk, but if we do not get any revenue—or do not have some ability to get revenue as part of that agreement—what is the point? That is also true if we do not have any opportunity to help decide services. We can build a station, but if we have no responsibility or skin in the game for services, how can we make the economic case for jobs, growth and investment in our region?
Keir Mather
Q
Tracy Brabin: And what a great choice for them.
Keir Mather
Indeed, and many of them have similar aspirations around connectivity and growth. Mayor Burnham, was there anything you wanted to add before I hand back to Jerome?
Andy Burnham: A little, thank you. I echo everything that Tracy said. I strongly welcome this Government’s rail reform journey; it is going in a positive direction. Anything we say today is just making it that little bit better—or perfection. This is really positive from our point of view.
We are beginning to invest in rail from our own resources in Greater Manchester, with £210 million over the next four years. As rail comes into the Bee Network, we are going to be improving stations, working with the rail industry. Under the plans, there is the possibility that we may start putting local revenue into new rail services, with additional services where there is capacity to take them. We would both say that real partnership is what we want. It goes back to the shadow Minister’s point at the start. Making us more than consultees is what we are asking for.
In relation to wider investment, perhaps the Bill could require GBR to align rail investment with local transport plans, and to consider integrated transport all the time. How does somebody get off a train and easily on to a tram? There could be a joined-up approach to thinking about place-making, with wider housing investment. That is why the partnership matters. Railways serve places. With our councils, we are responsible for those places. The more that it is all thought through, the better the future for the railways, because they will be easier and more attractive to use, and housing regeneration will follow because the railway is in the right place, with the right levels of accessibility.
I think that the question of accessibility to the railway for all our residents is one that I ask the Committee to address. Some of the funding, as I have mentioned, is to be spent on making our stations step free in terms of access, and the idea that we are going to carry on with a railway that basically excludes our disabled and older residents is just not tenable. What we can do is accelerate that change, working through closer partnership. As we have been told at the Rail North Committee, which I chair, if things carry on at the same pace, we will have step-free access stations across the north by 2080. That, honestly, is not good enough, so let us get in closer partnership, accelerate those changes, and bring in investment to the railway from wider planning developments. That all points to a closer, deeper and more meaningful partnership between combined authorities and GBR.
Tracy Brabin: To bring Access for All alive, 65% of stations in West Yorkshire are not accessible, and we were allocated not a penny in the last round of Access for All, because there was an assumption that the TransPennine upgrade covered it. It does not. There are MPs across all of West Yorkshire who are desperate for that investment. I want to do it, but Access for All has to help us. If we do not have responsibility for that money, we are back to the begging-bowl culture that I know this Government want to move away from.
Keir Mather
Thank you both. I hope you feel that GBR having a legal duty to promote the interests of passengers, especially those with disabilities, is a signal that we want accessibility to be hardwired into the Bill, and not something that comes after the operational decisions about the railway have been taken. I have more questions, but I am conscious that we should hand over to the shadow Minister.
The Chair
Before I bring the shadow Minister back in, I make colleagues aware that the session will run until 5.15 pm.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
It was rather frustrating, Mr Burnham —the Division bell went when you were about to deliver a hammer blow against the Government on your disappointment about what is not in the Bill and what should be in it. You used to say that you wanted more autonomy for the Bee Network. I have heard your answers—it is clear that your position on that has not changed. You want to have more autonomy, but the Bill does not provide it at the moment. You have a duty to consult, which is okay so far as it goes, from GBR, and then thereafter, once it has consulted with the mayoralties, it only has a duty to have regard to what it is that you have said or requested. In your combined evidence, what would be a better form of words more accurately to reflect the relationship that you think should exist between the national and the regional? Mr Burnham, because we were halfway through a conversation, perhaps we could start with you, then move on to Tracy.
Andy Burnham: Thank you. I do not know about coming back, but what I do know is that in my 16 years here, there were enough Tory MPs around that there was no double-jobbing, I do not think, from my memory. We will move on.
I think that it is about a meaningful role. I do not think autonomy is actually what we are asking for here today, any of us.
Tracy Brabin: No.
Andy Burnham: What we are saying is that we want a meaningful partnership, which is about more than just being consulted and then ignored—which, if we are honest, does happen to us as mayors with the rail industry. Even though I am chair of the Rail North Committee, we sometimes have to work very hard to make the railways listen to what democratically elected mayors and leaders say. It is a different relationship, and I would say that I strongly feel the railways need culture change. We need to get back to a railway that serves people and places, not a quite adversarial section of transactional arrangements that can be very complex. It feels to us sometimes that the railways have lost sight of that.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Andy Burnham: Yes, I think if you end up with a very top-down railway, it is a bit like the phrase I used to hear in the Department of Health: “You can hit the target and miss the point.” Is that not that the risk with the railways, if they become too much like monolithic structures? It has to be a bit of both. If you go back to the old British Rail days, I remember a thing called Regional Railways, which was very separate to InterCity, so that split has always been there in the railways.
What we are arguing for in front of the Committee today is to think of the railways in a more place-based context. Railways serve growth in local areas, and there are things that we can bring to the table to support the health and growth of the railways in the future. It points to a different partnership, but it is a partnership. We want the right to specify timetables, as it is legitimate for us to make those requests, and we want a stronger role over station access. Actually, we think there should be a presumption in favour of devolution. Rather than a right to request, the onus should be the other way around; there should be the right to refuse, which presumes that it should be devolved, if that is possible, but there is still a callback if it cannot be devolved.
There is a relevant recent example: the Access for All funding. The Rail North Committee has asked the Department to devolve the Access for All funding, so we do not get the situation that Tracy described a moment ago. Currently, that is not being supported by the Department. We submit lists of stations to the Department as part of our Access for All bid on a regular basis, but we have often had the experience that it comes back with a different prioritisation to the one we sent in. This is really granular, local stuff, and it is mind-boggling to us that you have an infrastructure programme for the railways, and then an Access for All programme at the highest level that is dealing with very local schemes at stations. It is a meaningful partnership, and we are calling for a devolved role, where there can be one.
Tracy Brabin: I totally agree with what Andy has said; it is about accountability. I do not think you could expect the Secretary of State to be accountable for the whole of the network. How on earth would they understand the challenges? At Denby Dale, all they need is a ramp, and those sorts of decisions should be made locally.
We are building three stations in the next year. Why are they so expensive? In Germany, I think it is £5 million a station, but here they are £50 million. In the ’80s, it was £500,000 a station in today’s money. Surely, if we are working together as a collective for the good of the nation, we could find a way that makes it easier—one where we are more agile in building stations, and where we are part of that conversation around services. Also, it is about where we get then get the revenue from, so that we have a circular pound—the one that goes into the washing machine and comes back out again on the other side—and can build more accessibility on more stations.
Keir Mather
Q
Keir Mather
No, mine did not either—it is important that we also get to hear your perspective, Jason. One of the things I want to hit on is accountability. One of the benefits of the Bill that Lord Hendy stressed in his evidence to the Transport Committee is that by having a unified, guiding mind for the railway, you will have hard-working people at GBR who will wake up every day and know that they are responsible for making sure that the railway runs in the interests of the British public, in partnership with people like yourselves. Could you take us through the current challenges in engaging with an array of different private sector operators and DFTO-managed train companies? What does it look like for the people you represent who are trying to navigate this bewildering system, and for you guys who are trying to drive high standards, passenger satisfaction and, ultimately, better economic opportunity for your local areas?
Tracy Brabin: It has been very difficult to navigate who is responsible for what. There is a lot of finger pointing with, “It’s them,” or “It’s them,” and trying to get a decision about who actually owns a project has been difficult. That is why I really welcome the leadership that Lord Hendy has shown in bringing together track and train and having that simplicity.
In West Yorkshire, the partnership piece of work was published last week. We have been seen as an exemplar in our strategic place partnership, where we brought together Network Rail, DFT, the TOCs, the shadow GBR, ourselves and all the partners to identify how we can cut through roadblocks. It has been incredibly effective. When the Mayor of South Yorkshire, the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire and I were working with David Blunkett on the White Rose rail plan, it was helpful to look together at how we could phase the delivery of the plan, how we could make it affordable and what was the structure of delivery. You can do that only when you are all in the room and all have skin in the game, and you are not blaming each other. I want to reflect on the relationship held locally by our organisations and myself. I think that is the way forward.
We also need resources, and I speak for other mayoral strategic authorities as well. I am blessed to have some very talented people—some of them are sat behind me—who help me with our rail plan, but not every MSA has that talent. Although people might be waking up to deliver better outcomes, they are not all sat in the regions. Having people with timetabling and infrastructure experience actually in the regions would also be a huge benefit.
Andy Burnham: The job of getting the railway to be more accountable has been the devil’s own job in my time as mayor. I am not talking so much about recent times, but certainly in the early days when we had the 2018 timetable collapse. It was only Transport for the North and the Rail North Committee that got underneath what was going on inside Northern and TransPennine. If we had not been there, I do not think the travelling public would have seen the change.
We were the ones who challenged Northern, when it was run by Arriva, to keep guards on the trains. We were the ones who fought to keep ticket offices open—the railway would have closed them if it had not heard our voice. We had to challenge Avanti West Coast when it was collapsing and cutting the timetable between Manchester and London—two major cities in this country—damaging our growth. It just took that decision without any reference to us. Recently, the Office of Rail and Road has done something relating to a ghost train. We constantly have to challenge these things. Without us, I do not think we would have a railway that has moved towards more public ownership and more accountability.
I think major culture change is needed. I come back to this point. My observation is that it is still not responsive enough to what local areas need. As people may know, I support Everton. I go to Everton’s new ground on a regular basis. So many more people are travelling there by train, but to the railways, it is like it has not happened. It is as though they are oblivious to it. They are not in the place with us, managing it and putting extra people on. The railway seems to be too dislocated from what happens on the ground. For example, Sunday services are not put on during the Manchester Christmas markets. That is the thing: you need a railway that is knitted in to supporting growth.
Finally, look at the evidence where we have more locally accountable railways. Transport for Wales is a strong operator, in my experience—it serves Greater Manchester as well. Merseyrail is accountable to the Mayor of Liverpool. It has higher levels of performance, I believe, although all railways have their issues. That is evidence that if you have more local accountability, you generally have a higher performing railway that is more responsive to what people are saying.
Tracy Brabin: Andy and the Rail North Committee have been holding operators’ feet to the fire not just for northern transport but also for the east coast main line where it goes through other mayoralties. So on accountability, I think coming from a mayoral strategic authority or a mayoral combined authority where all mayors across the country can hold rail to account—you are doing a brilliant job, Andy, but currently where else in the country is there that group that will hold operators to account? At the moment, it is only the Rail North Committee, but surely that has to be across the whole country.
Keir Mather
Q
Jason Prince: I will probably approach this session from more of a technical point of view than a thematic one. Fundamentally, the Bill is strong as it is written and I think we have to acknowledge that. The journey to GBR started under the last Government and it is good that we have got to a position where we are on the precipice of something where there is a once in a generation change.
On the accountability point, it is great to have the aspiration of accountability, but the only way you will embed it is if you build GBR on the back of strong mayoral partnerships. To do that, the Bill needs strengthening around how you ensure that GBR reflects what is happening at the local level. How do you ensure that rather than having regard to—which pulls on the shadow Minister’s point—you have a stronger recognition of what happens at a local level, which the mayors are responsible for in terms of local transport plans and local growth plans? It is one thing to say, “Accountability—the good people go into GBR every day and that will be their focus,” but for my members, who are transport authorities, thousands of people are going in every day to design transport networks that shine. In this Bill there is a once in a generation opportunity to make rail shine as part of a bigger place-based offer. To do that, the Bill needs strengthening so that accountability is built in through the legislation, rather than just accepting that GBR will act in such a way.
Keir Mather
Thank you. That is a really important point, which I am sure we will come back to, but I am conscious that other Members have questions, so I will sneak in at the end if I can.
Olly Glover
Q
Jason Prince: I think the Bill needs strengthening in the relationship between MSAs; I will put that on record. We are working very positively with officials to see how we can strengthen the Bill to ensure that it reflects that. We are on a journey of devolution where local government reform is making sure that mayors will be the conduit, broadly, across the UK. The Bill does set a framework for how that engagement will take place.
From a technical point of view, I think what would be beneficial, which is not necessarily something you will cover in line-by-line scrutiny but which needs to be looked at in the guidance issued, is to look at how will this work in practice—your specific question—when you look at how railway under a national structure will work between different areas. When you look at areas like the West Midlands, for example, and the West Midlands Rail Executive, their geography is bigger than an MSA. At the minute the Bill does not acknowledge things like that, so I think there is something that needs to be looked at. Guidance accompanying what is in the legislation would probably give some clarity, and there is an opportunity to bring that through that process.
Olly Glover
Q
Andy Burnham: This is a really important point. Giving city regions the ability, either individually or together, to manage events better with the railways, and a role over that, is really important. The Everton stadium example is probably most relevant with rugby league, where England played Australia. There was just an utter meltdown of the TransPennine timetable, and chaos at stations. That affects the country’s reputation when it is a major event.
We have the Euros coming in 2028. Manchester and Liverpool will be hosting games. You just want to have a grip on the system. At the moment, we do not feel that we have that with rail, but we do with trams and buses. We have a control room for Transport for Greater Manchester. We manage these things really closely. Oasis played in the summer—you may have noticed that—and we handled major numbers coming through the city on five consecutive nights really well. Obviously, there were some issues, but really well.
The railway does not quite live in that world with us, and that is an issue. It is reputational for the country. The railway has been living in its own world a bit too much. That has got to change. I realise some of that is culture change rather than the structures that we lay out in the Bill, but the railway does have to come through this re-emerging as a public service again—people putting a bit more into the railway than they are required to, because they care, and we all care about the reputation of our places and our country.
It feels to me like that has been lost, as I look at where the railway has got to in recent times. We need to use this Bill to get it back. It is not a trivial point to say that the bee on the side of trains creates a sense of civic pride again. This is about us and the places where we live. It is a softer point perhaps, but it should not be missed.
Tracy Brabin: On events, we have seen a 10% uplift in passenger numbers on rail. There is still a feeling post covid that rail passengers are in decline, because of the change in the 9 to 5, Monday to Friday and so on. Actually, we are seeing an uplift in passenger numbers. Particularly Sundays are rammed.
I can give one example of the lack of connectivity. I was a participant in the Abbey Dash in Leeds. There were thousands of people coming into Leeds, then there was a signal failure and the whole of Leeds station closed down. On Trainline on your phone, the app was suggesting the trains were all running. I enquired and they said, “Well, that is a private company. They are not connected to us, so they don’t know.” People were coming to the station assuming that the trains were still running. We have to have that local accountability and the connected nature of the ebbs and flows of the network.
If you build it, they will come. If we have more carriages—more than two on CrossCountry—you will get more passengers because people will enjoy the journey and feel it is value for money, rather than being rammed in like cattle. Standing at London Bridge station, you see Southern trains with 13 carriages. I dream about 13 carriages. We have trains that are two and three carriages that are absolutely rammed because we have such an uplift in footfall.
Olly Glover
You may enjoy a ten-minute rule Bill speech that I am making tomorrow.
Tracy Brabin: I shall set my timer to make sure I watch it.
The Chair
I have a lot of colleagues indicating that they want to speak and I do not believe we will get everyone in. If we could have shorter questions, and perhaps shorter answers, to try and get as many people as possible in, that would be really helpful.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Q
How do we make sure that GBR is able to be as responsive as possible to those very local, very small-scale but otherwise very important improvements to stations and the wider rail infrastructure?
Andy Burnham: If we think about it this way, mayoral combined authorities and the transport authorities that Tracy and I lead will be able to add value to the railway by bringing resource to invest in our stations and adding more passengers to the railway, because the Bee Network cap covering all modes will encourage more people to travel by train. We have something to add to the railway to make it serve people and places better, and to make access improvements more quickly, so that passengers do not walk away from the railways because they see a problem that never gets fixed. That is the way to look at it.
However, if we are going to put our own resources and effort into improving the railway, we have to be a meaningful partner. We cannot have rail as a silo that may or may not listen to us—that would not be the right arrangement. We should have a Bill that really cements the partnership and requires joint decision making, as opposed to us being consulted but maybe not listened to. It is possible to do that.
We like everything that is here, the direction of travel is right and we support what the Government are trying to achieve, but if we always have in our heads that railways serve places rather than themselves, it follows that a properly balanced partnership between the two is needed. Sometimes it feels like the railway just serves its own purposes, and does not have enough regard for places. The Bill should leave no doubt that railways are there to serve places and the people who live in them.
Tracy Brabin: I concur with Andy. It is about accountability, and it is also about revenue, so that if you have built this great station and the toilets are not working, you have skin in the game, because you want it to work. Who actually owns that responsibility: Network Rail, GBR, or the mayor who knows the need and can get on and deliver?
Joe Robertson
Q
Andy Burnham: It is important to say that we are doing that without the Bill at the moment. Again, we thank the Department for coming with us on the Bee Network journey. We will bring the first two rail lines into that this year; and over the next three years, eight rail lines will come into the Bee Network system. It is complex, because some of the lines begin outside of our borders, such as in Glossop and Buxton in Derbyshire, or in Southport in the Liverpool city region, but because those lines are GM commuter lines, so are not going to Liverpool, it is right for them to be in the Bee Network. We have made that argument and the Government have supported us.
We have already created an integrated ticketing system for tram and bus travel in Greater Manchester: you can tap in on both now, and there is a London-style cap. We want to add rail to that as soon as possible. When the first lines come into the Bee Network in December, people will be able to buy a paper ticket that covers tram, train and bus, but in time we want that to be integrated.
There is absolutely no reason at all why you could not have that over train and ferry travel—I know that the Mayor of Liverpool wants Mersey Ferries to be a part of his integrated system. It is complicated, but it is absolutely possible. The Department has already shown a willingness to do it, and is putting the technology into the rail industry to support that.
Joe Robertson
Q
Andy Burnham: I think there should be a presumption in favour of integration; you are absolutely right. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, have had that as their guiding star, but we went down a fragmentation route in public transport, and have suffered as a country as a result. Integration is the way to think. People are not just loyal to one mode; they want to use transport in as convenient a way as possible. The railways have not had an imperative to think that way for a long time, but you are absolutely right to think of integration as the watchword.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Tracy Brabin: As Andy says, we are already doing it. We are sharing with the bus operators in our integrated Weaver network, where we have, for example, brought in the “mayor’s fare”. I think it is the only one in the country, and it is a day saver. It is capped and can be used on any bus, anywhere, for any number of journeys and on any operator. We work with the operators to divvy up the checks and balances of the passengers. I think you can see that it is possible.
To the previous point, devolution means that every region is different, so you do not always have to have one size fits all; you can have whatever works for you and your community. There are definitely ways to do it. Certainly, if it is done in London, that should give you comfort that it can be done elsewhere.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Tracy Brabin: I will say timetabling, because I have witnessed a bus arriving as the train is pulling away. Having that localised regional mind that considers what the public and businesses need, and where the buses need to go to deliver the passengers to the trains, is challenging, but are you not going to get a mayor soon?
Jayne Kirkham
Oh, there is a fraught question. I think anyone in the rest of the country who you ask will be having issues about devolution.
Tracy Brabin: Fair enough. But it is about that oversight of the buses feeding the train timetable.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Q
The application of the term “devolution and local leadership” to this Bill is quite distracting, because ultimately, unless you are a mayoral combined authority, you do not get any of these powers. I think that was what Jayne was alluding to. To my mind, GBR is an increasingly two-tier system: you have the devolved local authorities and everywhere else. I am concerned about what that is going to mean for accountability to local areas. That was more of a statement than a question—apologies.
You keep saying that you want a meaningful relationship with GBR. The question that has kept coming to my mind is: what does “meaningful” actually look like? Can you unpack what you mean by “meaningful”?
Andy Burnham: On your statement, I think we have to get our heads in the space of an all-devolved England. I know it can be difficult, but sometimes people have to see the bigger picture of the area where people live and travel. People go across those borders every day; they do not think about borders as much as politicians.
Rebecca Smith
It is more the fact that there are not going to be any more in certain parts of the country for this Parliament.
Andy Burnham: For us, though, we are moving to a situation where Cheshire and Warrington are going to have a mayor soon, and I believe Lancashire will too—hopefully, Sarah. That would mean an all-devolved north-west. I think we would start to collaborate very differently with each other in that world, and it would work. I do not see why it cannot go everywhere; I suggest that it should.
On “meaningful”, the answer is that it is joint decision making. Let us get away from the idea that we just mandate the railways. That would not be realistic, because running a railway is complicated. It is about joint decisions. We are already doing it, to be honest with you. We are working like that. We have a Greater Manchester rail board and all the partners come to it. It has moved on a lot in the last 12 months. Going back a year or so, it was a little fractious, but it is not so much any more. People are clicking into a new way of thinking and working. Culture change takes time, but it is happening. It is about jointly agreeing ways forward.
I will give you an example. We had four different rail fares from Manchester airport to Piccadilly in the city centre. We said, “That’s just ridiculous; it’s confusing for visitors.” Picking up on what Jayne was saying, we have now agreed a fare simplification, which came in in December, as a sort of precursor to the cap system. That has just been jointly agreed. We have also agreed with TransPennine that there will be services through the night from Manchester airport. This joint decision making is beginning to happen in a meaningful way, and that is the meaningful bit.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Andy Burnham: Jointly.
Rebecca Smith
Or at least make them jointly. Is that what you are after—that joint decision making?
Andy Burnham: Yes, I think that would be what we would want. The risk would be that GBR is too remote and not responsive—everything that Lloyd was saying about slow decision making. That is not what we would want. From our point of view, we would want a Bee Network business unit within GBR, with joint decision making and a very place-based focus. That would be meaningful.
Sarah Smith
Q
Andy Burnham: We have no plans to annex you yet, but I will let you know if that changes!
Sarah Smith
The Reform county council is trying to delay our progression towards a mayor, which is deeply frustrating because of all of the things you have outlined, and much broader things as well, about the benefits of devolution. What benefits might Hyndburn get, without being part of a mayoral authority, as the Bill currently stands? What more might we be able to do to benefit areas that are dependent on that progress before they can be talking in the way that you are today, Tracy and Andy?
Andy Burnham: Obviously, from Hyndburn, people will travel to Manchester, but also to Liverpool, Preston and other places. Once you see the emergence of more integrated systems in which Hyndburn is included, travel will become more convenient and cheaper. In effect, there will come a point where your constituents, Sarah, will be able to tap into the Bee Network cap and come into Manchester and then use our trams and buses at a much lower cost than might otherwise have been the case. I think that is the way to think about it: as this spreads out, in the end, it will make travel more convenient and more affordable for people everywhere. It is really just within the city region boundaries at the moment, but it will grow beyond that, and I believe that your constituents will feel the benefit in three to five years, possibly, but maybe not as immediately as others.
Jason Prince: We also have to remember that the reason we are here now is that the railway system did not work. What GBR will do, through the legislation that the Government have brought forward, is bring a much stronger focus. We will have a structure and a body that, almost as a minimum, seeks to deliver a good passenger journey and good access, whether that is for freight or whatever.
We are starting from a stronger base and probably with greater clarity, but we have to acknowledge that different areas, such as Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, have been given powers and funding, and with that comes greater responsibility. They are all prepared to take that on and, conversely, with that they should have greater strengthening and probably deeper partnerships. I think that needs to be written into the Bill, to better define it. There are 20,000 words in the Bill, and the addition of probably only 500—about 2% of the overall text of the Bill—would make that relationship much stronger. I know that is quite geeky and very technical, but that is broadly where I think we need to land in terms of strengthening. GBR will set a framework that we have not had before, which should benefit every part of the country. I think that is what the Bill will do.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of these witnesses. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for giving evidence this afternoon. I am sorry to colleagues who were unable to ask questions.
Examination of Witness
Richard Bowker gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Richard Bowker: I am Richard Bowker. I am the former chair of the Strategic Rail Authority. I now co-present a podcast about the railways called “Green Signals”.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
I am going to focus on a couple of things. On access and capacity, we have heard a lot of evidence today; I do not know how much you have heard, but it has replicated, in essence, what was put before the Transport Committee a few weeks ago. There is a huge amount of concern in the sector about whether the Bill provides a level playing field between GBR and open access, freight and the like, coupled with a very weak—those are my words—appeals process, which is so narrowly constrained that it only deals with errors of law as opposed to disagreements on the merits. Is it right that there is a real problem with the future of competition in our railways? If you agree with that broad statement, perhaps you could expand on your reasons why.
Richard Bowker: I will probably say more about certainty and confidence for investors than competition per se. If I think about my experience at the Strategic Rail Authority, it was a significant frustration that elements of planning in terms of timetable and service were split apart in the way that they were. I think the Government are right to want to create a directing mind—I say directing mind rather than guiding mind. We have a capacity-constrained railway. In places, that is very severe, and someone needs to say, “Right. This is how we think we should allocate capacity.”
Having said that, there is a possibility that the pendulum has swung a little far. Probably the biggest issue with that would be rail freight. If you are a rail freight operator, at the moment you have certainty; if you are unhappy with the way that you are treated, you can go to the ORR. As an independent regulator, the ORR can make the final access decision.
What is contemplated is a perfectly logical process, starting with an access and use policy, capacity plans and capacity decisions. The problem is that railway timetables are not really like that; they are more dynamic. These things change. We looked at doing exactly this at the SRA, and it is very difficult to do. It changes constantly, so it has to be very agile. Under the Bill as drafted, while the process could work perfectly adequately, the capacity duty in clause 63—and potentially clause 18(4)—seems to say, to me at least, “Yes, GBR has all these duties, but they are subject to the capacity duty.” I can see why that causes tension and concern among freight operators, for example. I am not saying that it cannot work, but until we actually see it work, there is a risk that third-party operators will be concerned.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Richard Bowker: The ’93 Act was not set up that way; it was set up so that the Strategic Rail Authority was responsible for setting an overall strategic plan for the railways and for managing the award and management of franchises, but Railtrack plc, and then Network Rail, was under the regulation of an independent economic regulator. The two worlds were apart. Whereas the regulator had to have regard to our strategies, it did not have to comply with them, so we always had that tension. It was not really for me to change it. That is why I think that, overall, this is a good approach.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Richard Bowker: It is not for me to say whether she is overreacting, but I absolutely understand the concern, because rail freight in particular involves a lot of private capital. You have to have a degree of confidence and assurance that if you have access rights, you will be able to maintain them, so I understand that. I think the Government are right to create a directing mind. We have seen too many examples of timetabling processes that have gone wrong for precisely that reason—it is about balance.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Richard Bowker: On the first point, yes, I recognise the concern. Secondly, personally I would look at clause 18(4) and ask whether we really need to have the capacity duty able to override other duties. As far as the appeals process is concerned, I can see why being able to look at a case on the merits rather than on a strictly legal basis would help enormously. If GBR believes that its access and use policy, its capacity planning and its final decisions constitute a good process, it should not fear that.
Keir Mather
Q
I was pleased to hear that you agree with the concept of a guiding mind for the railway—a unified body able to direct services in the interests of passengers. I want to point to the specific provisions in the Bill that relate specifically to passenger experience. One of GBR’s duties is to promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway, including those with disabilities, and clause 18(3) talks about having reliable services, and the avoidance and mitigation of passenger overcrowding. Does what is contained within the legally binding duties on GBR reflect the overall aspiration to have a unified railway with the passenger at its heart?
Richard Bowker: Yes, I think it does. There is a danger in being overly prescriptive about how you do those things, but the duties are fairly widely drafted, and they probably do do that. Much of this will depend not so much on what the Bill says GBR’s duties are; they are pretty clear and comprehensive. It is about how it is then structured to go on and do these things. Previous panel members talked about culture and behaviour, and those are really important. So, yes, I think the duties are broadly fine.
Keir Mather
Q
Richard Bowker: No, I think there is a danger of being too prescriptive. Having a long-term rail strategy is an extremely good thing, but there is a danger, to take that as an example, of being too prescriptive. In terms of it being 10, 15 or 20 years, I was running the Strategic Rail Authority 20 years ago. We had no social media; it did not exist—I am jolly glad it did not, in terms of decision making—and AI was also not a concept. So there is a serious danger of being overly prescriptive in these things.
Setting out a clear strategy, and having clear policy and direction, is exactly what the railway needs more than anything else. It does not need to be tied down in too much of a straitjacket. What is absolutely crucial in all this is the relationship between the Department for Transport and GBR, and with mayoral combined authorities and local authorities as well, as we heard from previous panel members. That relationship between the DFT—between how Government sets their policy—and how GBR then delivers will be one of the most defining things in terms of whether these proposals will be a success. If we get it right, this could be transformational; if we get it wrong, it could be yet more micromanaging and meddling, which would be a disaster.
Keir Mather
Q
Richard Bowker: I have two answers to that. First, I do not think we should judge what has happened in the last few years too harshly. So much of the way train companies have been able to behave has been highly prescribed by the national rail contracts they have with the DFT. Many, many rail leaders are looking forward to being liberated and empowered to serve customers better as a result of the end of that process. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that there has to be a balance, and I genuinely think the Bill has got it broadly right. If I were the chair of GBR, I would take very seriously a duty to have regard to a mayor’s transport plan. That is not a thing to be trifled with. You do not go, “I am just going to ignore that”—you do not. The problem we have, if you take the west coast main line in Manchester, is that the corridor between Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport and then further south is used by an awful lot of freight operators, intercity services and west coast—all the services Mayor Burnham is keen to see grow. Capacity is constrained and limited, so in the end somebody has to be able to say, “I’ve listened to everybody. My duties are to take account of everything, weigh it all up and work in partnership,” which is crucial. It is important that somebody has to be able to make a decision.
Olly Glover
Q
Richard Bowker: There were tensions, some of which were actually quite healthy in a way, because if somebody is basically in charge of everything and has no checks and balances, I am not sure that is a good thing. What is described here, and the way the Bill works, is a far better set of circumstances than I had to deal with 20 years ago. Why? Because, as I said in answer to another question, the SRA was responsible for strategy and for franchising, while the rail regulator was responsible for the network, regulating Network Rail and who could go on the network, ultimately. Those two things did not interface well at times. They did in many ways, and we got a lot done, but it was not perfect.
I think the Bill helps significantly in terms of providing clarity and a directing mind. What is key to all this, though, is not necessarily what is written here; it is about how it is then implemented in practice. You have some good building blocks, but the real test will be when real people try to make this work.
Jayne Kirkham
Q
Richard Bowker: Well, there is a target of 75% growth by 2050, and there is a duty to take it into account and to support the carriage of goods and services by rail. That is all great stuff. The rail freight businesses are in the private sector, and they are commercial and very agile. They will follow business. If business is there to be brought on to rail, I genuinely believe they are out looking for it all the time, and if they can make it happen, they will. I do not think GBR will necessarily have to try to find freight flows; the freight operators are extremely able at doing that. GBR has to make sure there are no blockages to being able to get those flows on.
The discounting process for track access is a very good thing in the Bill, and I think that will really help. The most important thing is that the freight team inside GBR is able to have its appropriate share of voice inside GBR when it comes to the passenger business as well. If GBR genuinely takes account of all its duties, I think it will work, because the freight companies will go and find the business. GBR just has to enable it to happen.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allocated for this witness. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you, Mr Bowker, for giving evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Keir Mather and Lilian Greenwood gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Department for Transport. We have until 5.55 pm for this panel. Ministers, you have both participated in today’s sitting, but could you please briefly introduce yourselves for the record?
Keir Mather: My name is Keir Mather. I am the Minister for Maritime, Aviation and Decarbonisation at the Department for Transport and the lead Minister for the Bill.
Lilian Greenwood: My name is Lillian Greenwood. I am the Minister for Local Transport, and I am assisting as a Minister on the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
We have heard lots of evidence, and some clear, consistent themes have risen out of it. If you have read the Transport Committee’s report on this issue from a few weeks ago, as I am sure you have, you will know that the sector is giving the Government a few messages very loud and clear. We will discuss those a little bit, but the secret question is: So what? What are you going to do about it? That is what I hope you will come back to.
A level playing field is fair and without discrimination. There is a structural conflict of interest between GBR as the holder of the ring and GBR as an operator—for example, in the relationship with open access, with freight and with independent retailers. Each one of those—they are sectors, not individual organisations—has profound concerns about a structural conflict of interest that has been deliberately built into the Bill.
Combined with that, there is an appeals process that is not worthy of the name. We can say that it is robust, but we all know that it is not. It is very, very tightly defined. It relates only to areas of law; there is no appeal on the merits at all. GBR is judge, jury and gamekeeper, as well as participant—that is a slightly mixed metaphor, but you get the point.
With the defenestration of the Office of Rail and Road as an economic regulator, the independent arbiter of the relationship with GBR is now gone. You have heard the evidence. What are you going to do about it?
Keir Mather: It is a very good question, Mr Mayhew. It goes to the core of the differing ideological perspectives that underlie the debate we have had today on the Bill. Although you see the state seeking to take too much control and giving itself an unfair advantage, our perspective on why this legislation is so important is that passengers—who are ultimately both people who pay for services on the railway and taxpayers who end up funding those services more often than not under this broken rail system, and will do once GBR is established—deserve a good service. We believe that having a unified service with a single guiding mind to bring track and train, passenger services and infrastructure together under one roof, with one point of accountability, is the best way to achieve those aims.
You asked me what we are going to do about the concerns raised today. It is my obligation as a Government Minister to address them, to explore ways in which we can allay them further and to progress the work the Department is already taking on through its stakeholder engagement, whether that be on the freight target or the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, to make sure that stakeholder concerns are heard.
On the principle of fairness and transparency as it relates to ticketing and third-party access, it is worth making the point that GBR is, by public law principles, obligated to have regard to fair and transparent processes as part of how the system works. On access and appeals, that is a real point of contention, which we will explore throughout Committee, but I heard the concerns raised by freight stakeholders and others.
I want to take this opportunity to be really clear that the Department’s very firm view is that clauses 60 and 63 are not in contention with each other and that Great British Rail has the ability to decide what constitutes best use of the railway, in a way that not only meets its duties, but balances opportunities for GBR services, rail freight and open access alongside one another. The clauses provide an opportunity to appeal on the basis of whether that has been followed, through the ORR, but also a robust process, once that allocation has been determined, to figure out whether GBR has been compliant with the law, as of course we always expect it will be.
Overall, this is a point of ideological difference that exists between our two parties. Labour believes fundamentally that you need one point of accountability and that the Government need to take a more proactive role in fixing this broken rail system. I am really pleased that this piece of legislation seeks to achieve what I think are very noble aspirations.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
The Bill has designed in a structural conflict of interest, as we have heard many times from all sorts of different people. Given that the Government have taken that decision, my question has nothing to do with ideology—it is practicality. What are the Government planning to do to reassure that 60% that they will not be steamrollered by a GBR that says, “We are the masters now. We can do what we like and there’s no effective right of appeal, so suck it up.”?
Keir Mather: I would point to the extremely robust suite of accountability measures that sit within the Bill as it stands. If you look at the legally binding duties GBR has in how it undertakes its work, one of those, which came out in our discussion with the ROSCOs, is to ensure that those who provide railway services can plan the future of their business with a reasonable degree of assurance. GBR is bound to meet a freight target set by the Secretary of State; it is legally bound to meet its duty to promote the interests of freight and, in clause 60, through the design of the best use of the railway as GBR sees it, it must give equal regard to users of the railway. Open access operators and freight are included as part of that mix.
However, we also need to think about what this legislation does in the future and how that contrasts with the situation now. The ORR had to turn down a number of open access applications on the west coast because we had insufficient capacity in our rail network. I do not understand how that constitutes fairness or competitive advantage for open access operators—it means that they are locked out of providing services and turning a profit by a rail system that is failing.
GBR having the capacity to manage, within one centralised function, capacity on the railway overall allows us to unlock those benefits, in partnership with mayoral combined authorities, but with a robust set of accountability measures to ensure that it is compliant with the law, compliant with its duties, and compliant with the aspirations of the Secretary of State, irrespective of their ideological predilections. Hopefully, that is an adequate answer to your question.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Keir Mather: Absolutely. It is fundamental that that investment continues, both on the—[Interruption.] Sorry— I will just say this very briefly and then let you come back. On the rail freight point, where we have a target in place allowing us to boost the amount of goods moved by train, it might create more capacity for open access to work on the network, but the infrastructure delivery and the long-term rolling stock strategy that accompany this legislative piece of work also offer the private sector a real opportunity to play in the future of our railway, as I see it.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Whether it is the access in use concerns, the failure of the appeals process to be anything worthy of the name, or the fact that the proposed powers for the Secretary of State to change without notice access in use, taken in combination, the evidence from multiple witnesses today was that the Bill does not make it easier. Are you going to listen to them, or are the Government going to pursue their dogged insistence that everyone else is wrong and they are right?
Keir Mather: If you take something like the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, the consultations are undertaken in close partnership with the private sector. If you are asking me whether it is going to be easier in the long term, with GBR created, for private sector operators to engage with a level playing field, I think that it will be. I think that it creates a very clear structure of accountability measures, clear metrics by which decisions are taken and robust accountability, if GBR does not meet its obligations under the access regime, to make sure that it does things correctly, especially on the matter of access.
I think it is important that we dig into this further, because it came out consistently with the freight operators. GBR has to decide how it meets its capacity duty once it has decided what best use of the railway constitutes. That is a really important safeguard that is built into the Bill. The Secretary of State gives GBR its funding envelope through the business plan, and needs to ensure that GBR will deliver the services that it has said it will. It is therefore very important to have that capacity duty in place, but that is after GBR has made a determination, while balancing its existing duties and its need to promote freight and service providers on the railway, on whether or not those services stack up.
I think that the accountability process and appeals process are very clear, and give private operators multiple points to raise concerns, and robust enforcement measures for the ORR to substitute decisions and ask GBR to think again. The point about thinking again is very important, because we want GBR to improve as an organisation, and to become more agile and more responsive to the needs of the private sector, and the appeals process facilitates that.
Olly Glover
Q
Keir Mather: That is a really important point. I hope that you feel that the human side of the equation, in terms of furthering the interests of passengers through the duties, is embedded in clause 18, but I take your point about the funding envelope, and the way that passenger services are funded via the spending review period set by the Secretary of State, as opposed to infrastructure more broadly. The reason for that in the immediate term is that the procurement and delivery of passenger services is a far more complex and changeable process to work through than the delivery of long-term infrastructure, or other functions that sit under GBR.
In the future, we can certainly get into a debate about whether passenger services should be funded in a similar way to other aspects of GBR’s operation, but for the moment, and after GBR is stood up, which let us remember is in quite short order after the passage of the Bill, in around 12 months’ time, the Secretary of State needs to be able to determine that passenger services offer value for money. It is therefore right that she retains more control over the funding envelope for those services at that stage. We can certainly take the debate on how that should change in the future forward as part of this Committee. I would be very keen to explore it further.
Laurence Turner
Q
I want to raise devolution, and specifically clause 5. There is a lot of history to the clause, and a line of continuity with the old section 20 of Barbara Castle’s Transport Act 1968. A lot of great things were accomplished under that legislation, including the creation of a cross-city line in Birmingham, but then privatisation came along. There was an attempt to do something similar under section 13 of the Railways Act 2005, which frankly did not work; there was never a single agreement signed. What lessons have been learned about what went right in the past and what went wrong with the 2005 legislation, when it comes to clause 5 of the Bill?
Keir Mather: I suppose that, in the 2005 Act, section 13 was not only really narrow in scope, in that it covered only franchised services, but represented a significant watering down of relationships between the rail industry and passenger transport executives. The difference with clause 5 of the Bill is that it is significantly wider in scope, to ensure that partnerships under GBR cover the full rail offer, rather than focusing only on services.
There is an important point around corporate structure. It is right that the corporate structure is not laid out in the Bill—no piece of rail legislation in 113 years has done that—but what has come out quite consistently in the testimony of the mayors, and in the broader points made around devolution, is that, whether it be on the MCA basis or on the local authority basis more generally, people want GBR’s structure to be flat, and responsive to dynamic changes both in demographics around housing and your ability to get to Everton stadium when the rugby league is on, which is of personal interest to me.
I think the point is very well made, and it is certainly taken by me as the Minister, that democratic accountability means that the operational reality of GBR should be diffuse wherever possible. People do not want to see a replication of a centralised model of the past.
Laurence Turner
Q
Keir Mather: I think we have been really clear, and the provisions in the Bill support this, that GBR needs to be organised locally so that it can work really collaboratively with local leaders, and it is through the business units that it has to devolve that responsibility to as close to decision-makers as possible. MCAs are the right level, in terms of being a catalyst for economic and housing growth, but you are right that the challenges around rail infrastructure and service provision, even though the solution to a lot of them may be set by MCAs, are inherently cross-border. I would expect GBR to be able to fulfil a role in facilitating the ironing out of those differences, for the good of everyone, on a cross-border basis.
Edward Argar
Q
Keir Mather: Yes.
Edward Argar
Q
Keir Mather: We think there are benefits from consolidation in terms of building a more efficient railway, which we are confident will be able to build a more efficient system for passengers. We hope that that will reduce costs. The Secretary of State also has power through the Bill to set guardrails on fares, which are a really important part of the system. Unfortunately, I have not brought my crystal ball with me today on the exact time when fares may increase or decrease.
Edward Argar
Q
Keir Mather: It is my understanding that GBR’s functions and operational work when it comes to ticketing will be subject to the code of practice, yes.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Keir Mather: The Bill requires the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Scottish and Welsh Ministers before they issue a direction that directly affects passenger services. That means that there is a robust ability for the devolved Administrations to play their role in thinking about how we have joined-up services. In Wrexham and across north Wales that is incredibly important, as we go through into north-west England.
It is also important that GBR is able to carry out work across the four nations that does not conflict with the aspirations of the devolved Administrations to pursue their own rail ambitions. For example, the Scottish Government have stated very clearly that they want to pursue a vertically integrated railway. GBR needs to complement the aspirations of the devolved Administrations and create close bases on which we work.
I am really pleased to say that it seems that, from a Scottish Government perspective, they are happy with the balances and accountability measures in the Bill. They think—I would not want to put words in their mouth, but they can correct me if I am wrong—that it forms a strong bedrock upon which we can start to take these conversations forward.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Keir Mather: That is a very good question. The answer eludes me at this moment, but I am happy to either let you know or inform the Committee in writing.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Ministers for their evidence. Apologies to colleagues who did not get in, but there will be lots more opportunities for colleagues to ask questions of the Ministers.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Nesil Caliskan.)
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
Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of the NHS in preventing domestic homicides and domestic abuse-related deaths.
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to open a debate on the role of the NHS in preventing domestic abuse and dealing with it when it presents to the NHS. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), who, since we secured this debate, has been appointed as the violence against women and girls adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care. I think we shall hear from her later. I also place on the record my thanks to Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, IRISi, Respect and, from my own constituency, Stroud Women’s Refuge, which have really helped me with this speech. I declare an interest: I am a working GP and sometimes need to deal with these issues.
On average, five people a week die as a result of domestic abuse in this country. Now, there are actually more suicides related to domestic abuse than homicides. Behind each of those statistics is a life lost and a family devastated. In far too many cases, there has been repeated contact with health services and there have been moments when the health service could have intervened. The NHS is the most consistent point of contact for people living with abuse. Each year, about half a million people seek support from the NHS in relation to domestic abuse and 85% of them ask at least five times before they receive effective support. That is not because clinicians do not care. It is really about recognition of domestic abuse and getting referral services that are easy to understand and well known in practice. If we are serious about preventing domestic abuse, we must be serious about the role of the NHS—not just in primary care, but across all mental health services, across maternity services, through emergency departments and through community care. It has to go right across the NHS and not just primary care. This is really a debate about making sure that we do not miss chances and that we provide meaningful intervention when people present with signs of domestic abuse.
The Government have committed to delivering on our promise to halve violence against women and girls by 2029, and I welcome the comprehensive strategy to tackle that. For too long, support services have been unable to support victims and survivors effectively. They have been without sufficient resources and, in too many cases, women and girls have not been able to access the support they need. Therefore I welcome the Government’s supporting victims through the largest ever investment of £550 million in victim support over the next three years and an additional £5 million each year from the Department of Health and Social Care.
I would like to say a few things about how GPs specifically are often the first port of call, and how presentation to GPs is incredibly important for recognition of this issue. I shall quote from Killed Women, an organisation for bereaved families of women who have been killed by men in the UK. It says about one woman:
“She had gone to the GP a few days before her death as she couldn’t take any more. She was only offered antidepressants. On the day of her murder when I spoke to her, she said they are not helping and she had had enough. She said the GP knew her situation but yet again she was failed there.”
That shows that simply giving out antidepressants is not the right strategy. We need to build support around women subjected to domestic abuse. Often, they present with mental health issues and will not give any details of their abuse. One thing that I teach GPs in training is that there is something called a hidden agenda. Women particularly will present to the GP but they will not say that they are being abused; they will have other symptoms. We must recognise that presentation straightaway, and there are ways we can recognise it. Sometimes the woman in question will present with a partner and not feel comfortable talking about the situation. I often ask the partner to leave the consultation and I speak to the woman individually, which can be an effective way to find out exactly what is happening. We need to be aware that women in this situation are often nervous and walking on eggshells. We also have to recognise that often there are physical injuries, often of different ages. We sometimes see women presenting in sunglasses to cover up a black eye, for example. The health profession must recognise all those symptoms.
As I have said before, there are very high rates of mental health problems. Women who are being abused often present with symptoms of depression caused by domestic abuse, so we need to ask those women whether anything is going on at home. Female survivors of domestic abuse are three times more likely to develop mental illness. There are also other high risk periods, such as when women are pregnant and they often have poor outcomes in those situations. We must also be aware, across the health service, that women might disclose domestic abuse. Health visitors are in an ideal situation to hear about that type of thing and must be aware of that potentiality.
In A&E, women often present with overdose, and underneath that there is domestic abuse. Midwives are often presented with this, as are mental health workers, and even gynaecology services as well as social services. Often women present to the health service with different symptoms, but that is a cry for help, which we must recognise.
What do we need to do to support those women? One thing I am delighted about is the concept of steps to safety. The Department of Health and Social Care will roll out a domestic abuse and sexual violence referral service across integrated care boards, giving GPs the tools and ability to identify and refer victim-survivors to support. What is important is that it is a simple service with one number. If it is not simple, it will not be used by health services, and that is incredibly important. It is also important that we make use of existing resources. I visited the sexual abuse centre at Gloucestershire Royal hospital recently. It is a fantastic resource with really well-trained staff who are available 24/7.
It is really important, particularly in practices, to have a safeguarding or domestic abuse lead who is totally up to date with what is available, because quite often services change and GPs themselves are not on top of that. So that is important as well. Can I also stress the importance of women’s refuges? In Stroud we have a fantastic refuge. It does not advertise itself, for obvious reasons, and the people working there are simply amazing, supporting women who have difficulties, and often their children as well. It is inspiring to see the work they do, and it is important that those services are available immediately if women feel in danger.
Can I also make a plea for support for the perpetrators of abuse? It is usually men that perpetrate abuse and they often abuse at least five times, so it is important to catch them the first time and institute really good treatment and management for them. There are often drugs, alcohol or mental health issues behind their problems, so we must deal with that before they continue to abuse. Although that is controversial, I think that is incredibly important as well.
What do we need for the whole of our health strategy? We need things to be co-ordinated. There is a suggestion that we have domestic abuse co-ordinators for a group of GP practices. As I said, I think we need to have leads in general practice, with one person leading who can keep up to date and keep reminding the other members of staff that that is really important. When we are training in primary care, it is important to train everyone. For example, the receptionists in primary care are often aware of the people coming in. They need training to detect domestic abuse so that they can inform the doctors. It is a whole team approach, with pharmacists, nurses and physiotherapists also needing to be trained and aware of the signs and symptoms of domestic abuse.
That training should be essential for everyone, but I want to step back from mandatory training. Many people in the health service find that irksome and a tick-box exercise. I do not want domestic abuse training to simply be a tick box where someone goes on an hour-long course every year and that is it. We need a more integrated approach and it needs to be part of an appraisal process so that every doctor, nurse and healthcare worker is aware and trained in domestic abuse—but without it being made mandatory so that it does not simply become a course that people must go on, but is instead properly integrated into the service.
Last of all—and this seems incredible in this day and age—we need to share data between all of the health services, for example, A&E, GPs and mental health. We often do not get any information from mental health. It is important that we get that data sharing up to speed because domestic abuse can present in many different situations in the NHS and it is important that everyone is aware of the risks. In terms of funding, the £5 million a year from the Department of Health and Social Care is a good first step, but we need quite a lot more than that to bring this service to the fore.
In conclusion, if we are serious about preventing domestic abuse and the deaths that so often follow it, then the NHS must be properly equipped to play its full role. There are three points that I would like to make. The first is on funding, and around training and investing in services that will really help in domestic abuse. Those steps to safety are key because it must be simple for women to access those services. It is also important that wherever a woman presents to the NHS, that the person they present to is trained to detect domestic abuse and aware of what is available for that woman. Finally, we must have a comprehensive whole-health plan for the NHS and tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. That must cover primary care, mental health, maternity and accident and emergency services—and I would like it to be published by 2027 at the latest.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. At the beginning of this debate my hon. Friend mentioned suicide. As we are talking about NHS services, and when we have women trying to take their own lives, I wanted to highlight the devastating impact of the deaths of two people from Portsmouth who took their own lives because of coercive control. Does my hon. Friend agree that all of the agencies across the NHS, our wider health service and our police need to be joined up to stop the loss of lives and that that is a public health issue?
Dr Opher
I know that my hon. Friend is invested in trying to help women subject to domestic abuse. Coercive control is very important as it often stops women presenting to healthcare workers. As I have said before, one key thing as a clinician is that we have to be brave and ask the man to step out so that it is possible to have a proper conversation. They can often resist that and can get violent as well. It is important that we take a brave view on this to protect women in general.
To conclude, if we get those three things right—funding, recognition, and a comprehensive and integrated care service—we can move forward to a service that repeatedly sees and recognises abuse and immediately steps in to stop it. That is the shift I am calling for in this debate, and it is one that could save many lives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they need to bob to catch my eye— although I can see they already know that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate. He is a real champion for the NHS, and it is a benefit to all of us that he brings his former experience as a GP to bear in this debate.
The NHS has more contact with people experiencing domestic abuse than any other service and, therefore, it is vitally important that staff feel adequately equipped to comfort and reassure victims who take that brave step of reaching out for support, often for the first time. In turn, it is essential that victims can feel confident that when they confide in the NHS, the staff that they speak to have the knowledge to properly support them.
While NHS staff do receive the statutory general safeguarding training, it can be easy, as the hon. Member for Stroud has detailed, to miss the signs of abuse and the cries for help, especially when staff are tired from working extensive and difficult hours. As a country, we have so much to thank our NHS for—whether it be for the sacrifices that staff made during the pandemic, or for working additional hours to take care of our loved ones—so my speech is intended to ensure that staff have the tools they need at their disposal to help the most vulnerable, rather than critique their best intentions.
Victims are often hesitant to ask for support; they feel trapped by their abuser and fear the repercussions. The extent to which domestic abuse and sexual assault is known to the authorities is somewhat unknown. It is estimated that only 16% of people report their experiences to the police. One reason is mistrust of the authorities, which emphasises the importance of ensuring that those who treat victims’ injuries are prepared to provide them with the help and support they need. Of the 16% of people who do report an assault, only 2.6% of alleged offenders are charged or receive a summons. Even in cases where the offence takes place in public, the percentage of reported sexual assault offences that receive a charge is disproportionately low; fewer than 5% of reports on public transport resulted in a charge in 2025.
While death is tragically the end result of too many domestic abuse cases, there will have been a point in almost every single case where a step could have been taken to better support the victim. A report commissioned by Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse underscored that fact; of the 47 reviews of deaths related to domestic abuse published in 2024, 89% contained reports of an instance in which our health service had the opportunity to step in and do more to help. While domestic abuse training is mandatory in the social care system, the same training is not always made available to other NHS frontline services. That is clearly something that could be rectified, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how the Government might ensure that domestic abuse training is stepped up. Will they release the funds to ensure that every NHS frontline member of staff has access to mandatory domestic abuse training?
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate on such an important issue.
In 2022, 44% of victims surveyed by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner said that their first disclosure was to a healthcare professional. Unlike the criminal justice system, health spaces focus on wellbeing and recovery and are therefore a crucial front door for identification and referrals into specialist services, not just for the many women affected by domestic abuse, but the 105,000 children who, right now, live in homes where there is high-risk domestic abuse. We know that victims who reach out to police are just the tip of the iceberg, given that fewer than one in five ever contact the police about their abuse. Getting our response to violence against women and girls right in healthcare is key to unlocking our ability to properly tackle domestic abuse. For that reason, I was delighted to be asked by the Health Secretary to become his violence against women and girls adviser.
I worked for six years at the domestic abuse charity SafeLives and saw first hand the huge role that health could play. In the report “A Cry for Health”, we found that nearly a quarter of victims at high risk of serious harm or murder had been to A&E as a result of domestic abuse injuries in the year before they were able to get help. We also found that staff were worried about asking, even though it is required under National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, because they felt they would open a can of worms and, in some cases, make the situation worse. In some cases we found victims visited A&E 15 times before getting the help they needed. Health professionals were patching victims up and sending them back into the violent and controlling arms of their abusers.
Research from Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, as we have heard, has shown that in 2024, 89% of domestic homicide reviews had at least one recommendation for professionals in the health system—professionals who could have helped save the life of the woman who had been murdered. I have met families whose relatives were killed after repeated contact with health services. In SafeLives’ report on health in London, a survivor who was interviewed and who did disclose at A&E said:
“When I went to A&E the doctor told me we only do bones here, not that ‘relationship mental health stuff’. But didn’t offer to refer me to somewhere that did.”
This has to change.
In 2018, Elena was killed by her partner, Razvan. The month before her murder, she was treated in hospital for abdominal pain after using crack cocaine, but she left hospital with Razvan before she could be discharged. As a result, a child and family assessment was conducted, and they were visited at home together the day before she was killed. She was not seen alone. She was never seen alone. She was pregnant. Razvan was with her and never, ever left her side, and no one thought to question her on her own or spotted that she was subject to an extensive range of domestic abuse as well as sexual exploitation.
There are, of course, thousands of hard-working health professionals who do safeguard their patients, but it is clear that there is much more to do. I will always remember a senior GP who told me, honestly, after I asked why health did not share information when a patient was at clear risk of serious harm, “Well, I care more about the thud of an envelope with a GMC logo on it, than hearing that one of my patients has been murdered.” That is why the co-location of specialist domestic abuse professionals in all health settings is so important.
The “A Cry for Health” report found that when independent domestic violence advisers are located in hospital settings, they make a net positive saving of £2,050 per victim in health costs. They also lead to 84% of victims feeling safer, with 73% seeing an improvement in their quality of life. It is about their health and their wellbeing, which makes them both safer and more likely to recover. Hospital-based IDVAs also identify victims earlier, on average. It is a preventive measure, with their victims on average experiencing six fewer months of abuse than those engaging with local services. We can prevent abuse through the co-location of specialists in health settings.
We also know that co-location works in primary care settings, as the IRISi— identification and referral to improve safety—programme has demonstrated for decades. That is why Steps to Safety, announced in the VAWG strategy just before Christmas, as we have heard, is so welcome. The programme aims to ensure that by 2029 any victim or survivor in England can get the help they need through their GP. It will also ensure that each GP practice is linked to specialist support workers who can support victims to access their local specialist support services. It is crucial that the support is independent from statutory services and sits within those local specialist services, not generic services, if it is to be trusted by victims.
As well as supporting the Department to roll out Steps to Safety and to look at other areas and neighbourhoods to locate VAWG expertise, I will also be focused on improving VAWG commissioning in the NHS and on exploring links between alcohol and violence against women and girls. I am clear, as is everyone, that alcohol does not cause VAWG, but it can be a factor in escalation and serious harm.
There is much that I have not shared: mental health, maternity, links into family hubs and other community health settings, where we need to be exploring the role of health. We need to treat this as a public health epidemic if we are to reach our goal of halving VAWG. If anything, health has a bigger role to play than the police and courts in identifying perpetrators and in identifying and providing lifesaving support for adult and child victims. I am clear that the DHSC is serious about doing just this, and I am personally committed to doing everything I can in my role to help.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate, setting the scene incredibly well and giving us all an opportunity to participate.
As always, I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective of what is happening. Unfortunately, the things happening in Northern Ireland are replicated, as shown in what other Members have said and what others will say after me. In some ways, things in Northern Ireland are even worse—the numbers of women being killed are at such a high level in proportion to the rest of the United Kingdom, and outpace what is happening elsewhere.
The Minister, who I am always pleased to see in her place, has a special interest in Northern Ireland, and because of that she will be aware of the stats, which are incredibly worrying. In Northern Ireland, the Police Service recorded almost 30,000 domestic abuse incidents in the 2024 to 2025 period, translating to roughly 85 incidents daily. Almost 18,500 of those became crimes, although many incidents do go unreported. Call volumes, particularly around Christmas, highlight a consistent challenge for victims seeking help. There are about 15 incidents and 10 crimes per 1,000 people, which puts the stats into perspective. Although that is a decrease on the previous year, those numbers are still incredibly jarring.
One of the worst times of the year, as we all know as elected representatives, is Christmas and the new year. There is a strain on relationships, whether it is a combination of financial and emotional pressures, or everything just building up at that time of year. The Police Service of Northern Ireland received 1,407 calls in the period from 20 December 2025 to 2 January 2026, seeing a peak of 116 reports on new year’s day. There is pressure on the PSNI back home, and on the police here, to respond to quite difficult issues. I know the Minister always tries to be responsive to our requests, so has she had the opportunity to speak to the relevant police in Northern Ireland, to get an idea of what they are doing and how we can help each other?
In June, we had the absolutely heartbreaking murder of a young mother of two, who was pregnant with her third child; the ripples are still felt in our community. Young Sarah Montgomery’s murder simply should not have happened, and more has to be done in those cases. Sarah was the 27th women to be murdered in Northern Ireland since 2020, and the level of domestic abuse calls indicate that this remains a central problem.
In Northern Ireland, health and social care is a very important partner in the domestic and sexual abuse strategy for 2024 to 2031, which designates domestic abuse as “everyone’s business”—and it is everyone’s business. Health settings are often the only safe and trusted environment where a victim can disclose abuse, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned. When a victim goes into a health setting, people run to support to them, and there is nobody looking over their shoulder or listening to what is going on, and they may have an opportunity to disclose what has happened. It is really important to have that strategy in place, and we have it in Northern Ireland.
I will underline the particularly worrying trends from the Christmas and new year period. At that time of year, accident and emergency units are under incredible pressure. Back home, we have had problems with hospital wait times and ambulances queued outside hospitals, and the domestic abuse issue is clearly in the middle of that.
Roughly 30% of domestic abuse starts during pregnancy, so midwives and health visitors are trained to conduct routine inquiry and ask about safety at home. They do that, and it has enabled the issue to be raised incredibly. To catch abuse early, we need to empower those workers to report any concerns and ensure that support is offered. It is essential that NHS departments work together, but the pressure on workers to fulfil their calls and do their paperwork is immense. So I believe that time must be factored in for staff to be able to smoothly report any suspicions. We must know that, in these awful cases, the Government and their Departments have done all that they could.
I want to be clear: murder by domestic abuse can never be the fault of anyone other than the perpetrator. However, in our communities we must all ask ourselves, “Was there something more that we could have done?” I support a UK-wide review by the Minister to ascertain how we can know that we have done all we can, to our utmost and even a bit more.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate.
Too often, domestic abuse is framed solely as a criminal justice issue when, in reality, it is one of the most urgent public health crises that we face. The NHS encounters victims and perpetrators far more frequently than any other service, yet the system consistently misses opportunities to save lives. As the British Medical Journal highlighted, fewer than 24% of domestic abuse crimes are reported to the police, meaning that the health service—not law enforcement—is the front line.
A recent review of domestic abuse-related deaths revealed that 89% of domestic homicide reviews contained at least one recommendation for the NHS—recommendations that occur again and again across cases, showing a pattern of missed signs, inconsistent responses and staff who suspect something is wrong but lack the training, systems or confidence to act on that.
NHS staff are uniquely placed to intervene in suspected domestic abuse. In my own career as an operating department practitioner working in theatres, I can recall many instances when we treated patients with what looked like run-of-the-mill injuries, but all was not as it seemed. A young woman came in for manipulation under anaesthesia of her nose after breaking it in a fall, but she became inconsolable when we told her that she could go home after the operation. “Can I not stay overnight?” she cried. As I talked to her more, we discovered that she was being abused at home by her partner.
I also want to highlight honour-based abuse; sadly, I encountered that many times in my career—from extreme female genital mutilation, to the woman undergoing an endoscopy for severe oesophageal pain, which turned out to be from her family poisoning her with battery acid, stripping the lining of her oesophagus and stomach.
Those suspicions are not always explored, despite clinical teams being highly skilled, compassionate professionals. The opportunity to intervene can easily be lost. Mandatory standardised domestic abuse training is essential. Experts estimate that delivering consistent training across the NHS would cost just £2.6 million per year, which is a tiny fraction of the entire NHS budget but has the big potential to save lives.
We also know that poor co-ordination between agencies is repeatedly cited in death reviews, with 35% of them calling for multi-agency working. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has stressed that domestic abuse deaths require accountability across entire systems—particularly the NHS, which must implement lessons from domestic abuse-related death reviews and participate fully in the new national oversight mechanism.
Preventing domestic abuse deaths also means understanding the complexities of coercive control—something that survivors, including the domestic abuse campaigner from my constituency, Samantha Billingham, have worked tirelessly to highlight. Coercive control is often invisible, yet it is one of the clearest predictors of escalation to serious harm and homicide. If professionals do not understand coercive control they cannot identify the danger. That is why social workers must receive mandatory specialist training in coercive control: they are often the first professionals to see patterns emerging across family, mental health, housing and safeguarding contexts, but too often their training does not equip them to recognise or challenge the dynamics of manipulation, isolation, surveillance or financial control that underpin domestic homicide.
The NHS must also embed specialist domestic abuse support directly into clinical settings. The Government’s upcoming measures, including the Steps to Safety initiative, aim to ensure that every part of England has dedicated NHS referral services for victims and specialist support workers linked to GP practices. These reforms are welcome, but they must be implemented at pace and be fully resourced if they are to prevent future deaths. Domestic abuse deaths are preventable when we train our workforce properly, when agencies work together, when we treat domestic abuse as a health issue, not just a crime issue, and when we equip professionals to understand the controlling patterns that escalate into lethal danger. It is the responsibility of all of us and the NHS to ensure that no victim is left unseen, unsupported and unheard.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important debate, which has crucially focused on the important fact that prevention has to work across the NHS.
When domestic abuse escalates towards serious harm or death, what can the NHS do to stop it? For too long, we have talked about domestic abuse as if it happens outside public services—as if it starts and ends behind closed doors—but the truth is that the NHS is already in the story; it just has to connect the dots. The moment someone sits in a GP waiting room trying to keep their voice steady, the moment that someone turns up at A&E with an injury that they cannot easily explain, the moment that someone finds out they are pregnant at a maternity appointment and are terrified of going home, or wants to ask for help but cannot because their perpetrator is sat there with them—those are moments of contact with the NHS and crucial opportunities to save a life.
The NHS absolutely has a duty of care to its patients: it must not just treat injuries but respond when someone is at risk. In domestic abuse, risk is not theoretical. The most recent national figures show that there are 108 domestic homicides a year. For the first time, suspected suicides linked to domestic abuse have overtaken intimate partner homicides. That is a flashing warning light for the health service. If suicide is preventable, domestic abuse-related suicide must be treated as preventable too.
A duty of care is real only if staff are trained and equipped to carry it out. If someone reaches out in the NHS and gets silence or disbelief back, or if a note is taken but there is no action, that can be the moment that they stop asking for help. In domestic abuse, missed moments can be fatal.
For the majority of victims and survivors, health professionals are the first—sometimes the only—person they disclose to. People often assume that a victim’s first call is to the police, but the first brave step for many survivors who disclose is often telling a GP, a midwife, a nurse, a health visitor or even their pharmacist. Our healthcare system is the frontline of support for victims of domestic abuse. Tragically, too many survivors are forced to seek help again and again before the system even responds. In fact, 85% seek professional support about five times before they finally receive help.
In Bolton, we see both the challenge and one of the solutions. We operate a system called Identification and Referral to Improve Safety, a specialist training programme that links GP practices directly with domestic abuse support services. IRIS is delivered by Fortalice, a local domestic abuse charity—I am incredibly grateful to Gill and her team for their hard work. Since it began in 2014, nearly 3,000 victims have accessed support, and 274 healthcare professionals were trained in the last year alone. That training matters, because it changes what happens in the room. It helps clinicians ask safe questions, spot warning signs and act so that when someone says, or their face or demeanour tells us, that they are not safe, the response is not panic or paperwork but support. We need that consistently, because Bolton has seen what happens when the system does not join the dots.
One case that has stayed with local services is the domestic homicide review of Margaret—not her real name: an 80-year-old woman killed by her husband in 2019. While the husband was in hospital, Margaret disclosed fear and abuse and said that she did not feel safe. Those concerns were discussed in a meeting between hospital staff and social workers, yet once her husband’s physical health stabilised, he was discharged home. Days later, Margaret was dead.
If a patient can say, “I am not safe,” and the NHS cannot act, the NHS is not yet safe enough. So how do we make it consistently safe? I have three practical asks. First, we need proper and consistent domestic abuse training—not a one-off e-learning module but trauma-informed training, refreshed over time for the whole team, including reception staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, who are often the ones who see the warning signs first. The Government have said that they will launch a mandatory safeguarding and learning programme that covers domestic abuse. That is welcome, but it must be embedded in day-to-day NHS practices.
Secondly, there must be sustained funding for evidence-based pathways, such as IRIS and the specialist services that it relies on, because referral routes work only if support exists and exists safely. The Government have set out an ambition that by 2029 there will be dedicated referral services for women and girls affected by abuse in every area of England. That is exactly the direction we should be travelling in. However, those routes must cover the whole NHS.
Finally, the NHS should establish a universal codeword scheme, so that a victim can ask for support just as easily as we can at pharmacies, a bar, a pub or even a restaurant. The NHS is our frontline and it absolutely needs to be well-equipped to spot, safeguard against and deal with domestic abuse, as it should have been doing for decades.
Domestic abuse thrives in silence and isolation. The NHS can be the opposite of that: a place where someone is seen, believed and connected to safety. Bolton has shown what is possible when services work together—when we connect the dots. Now we need our NHS to match that with consistency; every week we delay, more families will be left asking the most painful question of all. They reached out for help, so why were they still not safe?
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), not only for securing this debate but for all the work that he does in the NHS as a GP on the issue of domestic violence and abuse.
The NHS has opportunities to safeguard against domestic violence and, in the most serious cases, domestic homicide. Domestic homicide can be a consequence of honour-based abuse, which is particularly grounded in lived experience in my constituency in Leeds. Honour-based abuse is widely misunderstood, meaning that hundreds of victims are not being helped and perpetrators are escaping justice; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for highlighting it in her speech and in the work she did when she was in the NHS.
Honour-based abuse, a form of domestic abuse, is motivated by the abuser’s perception that other persons have brought, or may bring, dishonour or shame on themselves, their family or the community. It can take many forms and be complex to identify, but perpetrators of honour-based abuse often use methods of coercive control to force their victims to behave in certain ways, or to subscribe to certain beliefs. For some people, the concept of honour is prized above the safety and wellbeing of individuals, and to compromise a family’s honour is to bring dishonour and shame. That can be used to justify many types of abuse and even disownment or physical harm.
Honour-based abuse is frequently missed or misidentified within health settings. It is often framed as family conflict, particularly when it involves multiple perpetrators, rather than being recognised as domestic abuse and a form of violence against women and girls. This is particularly concerning because victims of honour-based abuse often have repeated contact with the NHS, including GPs, A&E departments and other hospital services, sometimes over many years. Those touchpoints present critical opportunities for early identification and intervention.
The point is tragically illustrated by the story of Fawziyah Javed, a constituent of mine who was a victim of domestic homicide. She had regular, ongoing contact with GPs and hospital services prior to her death. Fawziyah’s case highlights how risk can be present and escalating without being fully recognised or responded to within health settings, particularly where honour-based dynamics are not understood.
Fawziyah had such a beautiful and vibrant character that she could fill a room with joy just by her presence. She was full of life and soul. Helping others was so central to her being that she was well-known in the charity sector within Yorkshire. In December 2020, she married Kashif Anwar, but the marriage quickly became a prison of abuse. Despite reporting her husband’s abuse to police on two separate occasions prior to her murder, Fawziyah was failed on multiple levels.
The abuse of Fawziyah escalated. Ultimately, her abuser pushed her off the cliff at Arthur’s Seat while they were on a trip to Edinburgh. She died at the scene in the presence of female allies, who would later confirm that her dying words pointed to Kashif being her murderer. When Fawziyah died, she was 17 weeks pregnant with her baby boy.
Fawziyah had contact with the NHS during her pregnancy. Her family feel that there were missed opportunities to protect her during that time. A risk assessment was begun by one member of staff but completed by another, meaning that vital information might have been missed. Handing that assessment over when it was only partly complete undermined the seriousness of both the process and Fawziyah’s case. Her mother told me:
“This was a clear example of how systematic failures, lack of accountability and poor safeguarding practices can leave vulnerable women at risk. It is exactly why mandatory, trauma-informed Domestic Abuse screening and better training for NHS staff are so urgently needed.”
It is vital that healthcare professionals support and encourage the early identification of signs of domestic abuse. Routine sensitive questioning could help to protect people and potentially save lives.
When Fawziyah was pushed off Arthur’s Seat, at no point did her abuser dial 999. Instead, his first reaction was to call his father, showing how the family’s complicity helped enable the abuse. The failure to recognise the dynamics of honour-based abuse, and the involvement of multiple perpetrators, played a significant part in the tragic loss of a life. If her case had been recognised as the multilayered abuse it was, along with the honour dynamics involved, Fawziyah might have had a chance to escape the violence.
Domestic homicide reviews consistently identify health as a key agency, with recurring recommendations around improved identification of abuse, better information-sharing, professional curiosity and escalation pathways, especially in cases involving honour-based abuse and coercive control. I thank those at Karma Nirvana, based in my constituency, for their essential work on the issue, tackling misconceptions. I also thank Fawziyah’s family for sharing her story with me over many years, ensuring that we will strive for it not to be repeated and never to be forgotten.
Fawziyah’s story is a tragic reminder of why we must do more to recognise and address honour-based abuse and the impact it has on victims. Recognition, training and support in the NHS for victims of honour-based abuse are vital. I look forward to hearing the steps that the Minister intends to take to improve the situation.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
For the benefit of the large number of visitors in the Public Gallery, I say that we now move to the wind-up speeches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this vital debate.
In November 2025, Surrey police recorded 45 incidents of domestic abuse in my constituency, an average of 1.5 incidents every day. Let us be clear, those are not just statistics. Those numbers represent real people: mothers, daughters, sisters and children, experiencing some of the most harrowing abuses imaginable. I have met local organisations such as North Surrey Domestic Abuse Service, the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre in Guildford and East Surrey Domestic Abuse Services to understand the support available to survivors.
What I learned is deeply troubling. The overwhelming number of women whose lives have been shattered by domestic abuse is staggering. Many victims face financial hardship, debt and isolation. Children grow up in fear, forced to endure violence in silence, their innocence stolen. Yet for some escape never comes. Gemma Devonish, a much-loved teacher at a local girls’ school in Epsom, was found with 54 stab wounds in her home in December 2024. Her boyfriend was due to stand trial for her murder but justice remains delayed, as the trial is yet to begin.
Aliny Godinho, a mother of four, was stabbed to death by her estranged husband in front of her three-year-old daughter while picking up her children from school in Ewell. Despite emergency accommodation having been arranged for Aliny in Streatham, her children remained at a school in Surrey. An examination of her husband’s computer revealed that he tracked her phone, accessed her emails and knew her new secret address.
Those tragedies are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of systemic failure. Recorded incidents are only the tip of the iceberg, because less than 24% of domestic abuse crimes are reported to the police. The NHS, however, has more contact with victims and perpetrators than any other agency. That places healthcare professionals on the frontline of the domestic abuse epidemic, not just for identifying and supporting victims but for monitoring potential abusers.
Let us consider the case of Emma Pattison, the beloved headteacher at Epsom college, and her seven-year-old daughter, Lettie. Both were shot and murdered by Emma’s husband and Lettie’s father, George Pattison. George legally owned a shotgun and held a valid licence. Before his last licence renewal, which requires a letter from a GP, he used an online consultation service to obtain antidepressants. The online doctor had access to his medical records but they were unaware that he held a gun licence, and the medication was never declared to his GP.
If medical professionals are a line of defence against abuse, it is unacceptable for them to be left in the dark about who owns a firearm. Mandatory medical markers would ensure that any health professional with access to a patient’s records could see if the patient held a gun licence. If necessary, the health professional could immediately notify the police.
That measure is overwhelmingly supported. A survey by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners found that 70% of existing certificate holders in England and Wales believe that a marker should be placed on the medical records of gun holders. Among the wider public, support rises to 86%. Will the Minister commit to exploring the benefits of mandatory medical markers with colleagues in the Home Office?
The previous Government’s guidance for health professionals states:
“Domestic violence and abuse is so prevalent in our society that NHS…staff will be in contact with adult and child victims…across the full range of health services.”
Too often, however, staff feel ill equipped to support victims, and training opportunities vary widely across the country.
Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse looked at all domestic homicide and abuse-related death reviews published in 2024 and found that 89% had at least one recommendation for health professionals or the health system. Its analysis also revealed that delivering training for healthcare workers at scale could cost as little as £2.66 million per year. Will the Minister review those recommendations and consider including them in the long-delayed workforce plan?
I welcome the Government’s announcement of the Steps to Safety initiative, which aims to better equip GP surgeries to identify and respond to domestic abuse and sexual violence. However, any initiative must be grounded in lived experience. The IRIS programme, a specialist domestic abuse training support and referral programme for general practices, has shown remarkable success; practices with IRIS are 30 times more likely to recognise and refer domestic abuse victims to specialist support than those without. Will the Minister review the IRIS programme to ensure that Step to Safety mirrors its success?
Finally, it is clear that we are missing a critical opportunity to use the NHS to detect and help victims of abuse earlier. Will the Minister set out a national plan to ensure that NHS staff across the country are sufficiently trained to spot the signs of domestic abuse? For Emma, Lettie, Gemma, Aliny and all other victims of domestic abuse, it is time to tackle this national crisis once and for all.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate and his characteristically well-informed speech. His passion and knowledge as a GP bring a real benefit to this Chamber. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) on her appointment as the Government’s adviser on violence against women and girls, and her excellent and impassioned speech. I am sure her ideas will be of great benefit to the Department and the Government as a whole.
This is a necessary debate, but it is also uncomfortable. The figures before us describe not merely a system under strain, but a system that is unfortunately failing too many women and children. If we are serious about change, we must be honest about responsibility and delivery. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for the experience she brought to her speech. Her discussion of honour-based violence, alongside the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), was very prescient.
I also thank the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for telling us about her experiences. We were all interested to hear more about the IRIS system she mentioned in her constituency. As ever, I welcome the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) giving us a perspective from Northern Ireland. Sir John, despite the fact that you have not spoken in this debate, it is worth noting your campaign on Holly’s law, which would implement a mandatory register of abuse against domestic animals, because that abuse is often a precursor to or goes alongside the abuse of humans. Thank you for your work on that.
Abuse happens across this country, and none of us is untouched by it. In my Farnham and Bordon constituency, I think of the horrendous case of Alan Jermey, who strangled his partner Kirsty Wilson to death and set her alight as their two small children slept upstairs. Cases like that bring this issue home to all of us.
The Minister will know that the NHS has more contact with victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse than any other public service, which puts it in a unique position to intervene early. It also gives it a responsibility to deliver. The Department has set out ambitious plans around alcohol harm, neighbourhood health services and better access to support, and those ambitions are welcome, but ambition must be judged against outcomes. Unfortunately, there is a growing gap nationally between ministerial intent, which is welcome, and the frontline reality.
The Office for National Statistics found that 6% of women aged 16 and over were victims of domestic abuse, and the police recorded more than 1.35 million domestic abuse-related crimes and incidents last year. The consequences are often fatal. There were 108 domestic homicide victims that year, 83 of whom were women. Among adult female homicide victims, six in 10 deaths were the result of domestic homicide, almost all at the hands of a male partner or ex-partner. Domestic abuse is also a significant driver of suicide, as we have heard: between 2020 and 2024, 98 suspected suicides, including of children, followed domestic abuse. This is not a marginal issue; it is systemic.
The Government’s freedom from violence and abuse strategy is welcome but its impact will be undermined by persistent failures in delivery. Training remains inconsistent, referral pathways are unclear and staff lack the time and capacity to act. The evidence is clear. As mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in June 2025, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse looked at domestic abuse-related death reviews published in 2024 and found that 89% contained at least one recommendation for healthcare professionals or the wider health system. Time and again, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, opportunities for intervention within the NHS were missed.
Yet, at precisely the moment when that learning must be embedded, the Government are reorganising the NHS, abolishing NHS England and cutting integrated care board budgets. Standing Together has warned that these changes risk weakening domestic abuse and sexual violence protection work at the local level, including in training, co-ordination and follow through. A system that is being restructured, distracted and under financial pressure cannot deliver the prevention we all want. In Surrey, the police receive around 19 domestic abuse calls every day—domestic abuse is now more prevalent than shoplifting—so these systematic failures play out in real time in our communities.
I want to briefly speak about a young woman who lived in my constituency, Skye Nicholls, who died in 2023 at the age of just 22 after nearly two years of coercive control and abuse by her ex-partner. I have spoken to her family and friends, who are campaigning for mandatory psychological injury assessments following a police report of domestic abuse. One of them told me that, too often, the focus remains on visible injuries while psychological abuse is underestimated or dismissed, even though its effects often last far longer than physical harm. For family and friends, mental health support is frequently fragmented or absent, despite them often being the first to spot the warning signs.
Prevention does not begin at the point of crisis; it begins with early, trauma-informed intervention. NICE guidance clearly sets out how NHS staff should respond to domestic abuse, but guidance alone does not save lives. Women’s Aid’s 2025 report found that just over half of referrals into community-based domestic abuse services were rejected—nearly a quarter because services could not even contact the victim. When support is reduced to just phone lines and signposting, women unfortunately fall through the cracks.
Detection is really important. Accident and emergency is where the physical signs of this abuse are seen but, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, primary care is often the first point of contact. We must use the expertise of GPs and other primary care services and give them the time to effectively identify, intervene and support those victims.
The NHS cannot act alone. The justice system must also command public confidence, which is why the early release scheme for serious offenders, including rapists and murderers, is so damaging. It sends entirely the wrong signal to victims and undermines trust in the institutions meant to protect them. We as the Conservatives will continue to oppose that policy.
Under the previous Conservative Government, we introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, recognised children as victims in their own right, published violence against women and girls strategies, and invested significantly in victims’ services, mental health and suicide prevention, but we are honest enough to say that legislation alone is not enough. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has shown that only 6% of police-recorded domestic abuse cases result in a conviction, and only one in five victims feel confident reporting abuse. That demands competence and delivery, not the constant structural upheaval we are going to see in both the justice and health systems.
We made good strides in this area and I genuinely believe that the current Ministers in the Department are doing their level best to move it forwards. I think we all agree that there is much more to do, but where the Government are making those strides, we as the Conservatives will support them full-throatedly. I close with three questions to the Minister.
First, I welcome the Government’s announcement of a 5% funding uplift, but given rising costs and national insurance increases, how much of that is a real-terms increase and how much will go directly to frontline services for victims? Secondly, when will mandatory safeguarding and domestic abuse training for all NHS staff formally begin? What will its roll-out look like and when will the entire workforce have completed it? Finally, what assessment has the Department made of the case for mandatory psychological injury assessments following a police report of domestic abuse, to ensure that victims receive early, trauma-informed support?
We will not prevent violence against women by abolishing institutions, cutting local capacity and releasing dangerous men early. We will prevent it by enforcing the law, backing the frontline and putting victims, not systems, first.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate and, as others have said, for sharing his direct experience as a practitioner—he is still a jobbing GP, among his other roles. His expertise was apparent throughout his speech.
As a Member of Parliament I have long talked about this issue, which is massive for me personally and as a constituency MP. All colleagues will be aware, through our casework, of how widespread domestic abuse is. It is one of the biggest issues for me in Bristol South. The number of women who fear injury or worse at the hands of their partners should keep us all up at night.
The Office for National Statistics estimates that well over 2 million women have experienced domestic abuse in England and Wales in the last year alone. Year on year, domestic homicides are present in all our constituencies. There were 108 domestic homicides in the year ending March 2024. Getting the right support early could help to prevent these needless and tragic deaths.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked the Government to publish a comprehensive plan for health. We now have a clear agenda for officials, as set out in the commitments in the violence against women and girls strategy. I will personally ensure that we make progress on that throughout 2026.
My hon. Friend asked for the Department’s contribution to the VAWG strategy to be increased in future budgets. I am happy to confirm that we are doing that over this spending review period. As well as the £5 million annual investment for victim and survivor support services, we are committing up to £50 million over the next three years to the roll-out of the child house model. In addition, the Department will provide dedicated funding for the Steps to Safety referral service for those affected by domestic abuse. I will address both those points later in my speech. My hon. Friend was also right to emphasise the importance of specialised NHS training on domestic abuse, which I will also pick up later.
Tackling domestic abuse has to become everyone’s business, as we have heard today, so the whole of Government are behind the agenda to prevent abuse and save lives. We saw before Christmas—if people had not recognised it before—the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to this agenda.
I spoke plainly from the Opposition Benches about how the cost of living crisis was impacting women, and I will not now sugarcoat that fact from my Government position. Many women face the impossible choice of staying in an abusive situation or destitution. My right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary is doing everything he can to support people back to work more generally, and particularly to help women to gain financial independence and keep them free of coercion.
While this work is all necessary, it is not sufficient. NHS staff will play a vital role in helping victims and survivors to access health, housing and justice. As we have heard, healthcare workers are often the first point of contact, offering support, treatment and rehabilitation. They have their eyes on those at risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made an excellent point about fragmented services, and I take the point made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), that with recognition comes responsibility for delivery. We absolutely recognise that.
The support we offer must be consistent, responsive and easier to reach. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), said, the incidents we have heard about from colleagues this morning are not isolated; this is a systemic issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) said in her excellent speech, we need to join the dots.
Like all our public servants—teachers, social workers and the police—NHS workers already play an essential role in safeguarding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) said, that includes dealing with so-called honour-based killings. For instance, partners are often asked to leave the room before a midwife asks a mother whether she feels confident that no one will try to hurt her or her baby. We take our duty of care towards survivors of abuse extremely seriously, because violence against women and girls is, as we have heard, a public health emergency.
GP surgery staff are at the frontline of our commitment to safeguard lives. Since we came into office, we have supported primary carers and GPs as the front door to the NHS, and we have recruited over 2,500 more GPs. We have since seen patient satisfaction improving, with the recognition that access is improving, and online consultations are ending the morning scramble for appointments, thereby supporting that frontline.
This year, we will work with all ICBs to help staff in GP surgeries to identify and support victims and survivors of domestic abuse and refer them into wider support services. As we have heard, the Steps to Safety strategy will, first, introduce training for all staff in GP surgeries, to help them to spot the telltale signs of abuse and give them the skills and confidence to offer support to affected people. Secondly, a specialist worker will advise GP practices on supporting victims and survivors to take their first steps to safety by linking them with local support services. Thirdly, we will learn from the excellent practice that is already happening locally—for example, in places like Devon, Cornwall, Birmingham and Solihull.
Support services could help women to escape their abusers and get back on their feet, whether by helping them to find housing, to get back into work or to put the perpetrators behind bars. We are rolling out this initiative from April, starting with 10 ICBs in the first year, and by 2029 any victim or survivor in England will be able to get the help they need by talking to staff at their general practice.
We are determined to ensure that services do not become a postcode lottery. It is a shameful truth that some of the most alarming health inequalities are those faced by victims and survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), who made an excellent contribution to the debate, to advise the Government. She will look at how we reduce the impact of alcohol on violence against women and girls, how we commission services to ensure that the right support is in the right place, and how we embed support into neighbourhood health services so that women and girls can be connected to the specialist support they need.
A lot of colleagues talked about training, including the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). We need to remember that health professionals are trained to identify and respond to all types of violence and abuse, using blended learning methods including e-learning, in-person training and supervision. National mandatory safeguarding training is being strengthened for launch in late 2026. We recognise that that needs to be done.
The training will reinforce to staff their safeguarding responsibilities and support them in identifying and responding to victims of abuse. It will include training on the importance of recognising the impact of trauma and the cultural barriers to discussing abuse. It is the responsibility of employers to ensure that staff complete the mandatory safeguarding training. The Care Quality Commission assesses compliance with that requirement. The NHS England safeguarding team oversees this work, and has audited integrated care boards on completion rates. We will strengthen that work.
It takes immense bravery for survivors, not least the survivors of child sexual abuse, to come forward and tell their story, and we are doing everything possible to end the trauma of children and young people having to relive their ordeal over and over, by bringing a range of specialist support services under one roof in every NHS region in England. This is called the child house model. We have started to recruit the extra mental health workers we want by the end of this Parliament, to help survivors who still carry the scars of their abuse, and we are more than halfway towards our target. Whenever and wherever a victim or survivor contacts the NHS, it must be there for them with compassion, care and dignity.
The changes we are making to NHS England are to resolve many of the problems outlined by the Opposition spokesperson. We have huge problems with pathways as a result of layer upon layer of provision and bureaucracy have been introduced to the system over the last decade. There are confusing pathways, confusing levels of accountability, and massively increased costs with no improvement to the services received at the frontline. We need to support local delivery, where people present, and that is our intent with the changes. I was not aware that the Opposition were against the abolition of NHS England, but we will obviously make sure that we focus on service delivery as we go through the changes.
Our starting point is that women and girls who are victims of abuse are never responsible for the abuse. The perpetrators are responsible for it, but tackling it is everyone’s problem. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has started to deploy domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms, building on best practice across the country, including in my own Avon and Somerset police area. It is why my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has introduced new measures to protect victims of stalking, and why my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is taking steps to challenge misogyny in the classroom.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the really shocking levels of killings, as well as abuse, in Northern Ireland. It is good to have that voice in this place. As he knows, I take a great interest in Northern Ireland, but we do not often hear about that particular situation there. I assure him that the Home Office, as the lead Department, has been working with all devolved partners to produce the strategy, and the Department of Health and Social Care is sharing learning, but we absolutely need to keep an eye on that to ensure that we support colleagues in Northern Ireland on this agenda.
We are working across Government, which is why I am determined that the NHS will do its part in halving violence against women and girls by the end of the decade. However, our strategy is not just a Government plan; it is a national endeavour. Everyone in this room or watching on screen has their part to play.
I want to end by speaking directly to survivors and anyone who may be trapped in an abusive relationship. This Government are on your side—and we have heard this morning a willingness across all parties to make this work. We have not forgotten you. You can get in touch with the Refuge national domestic abuse helpline, Women’s Aid or Respect—an organisation that works with male victims and perpetrators of abuse. Please get in touch with those or other specialist charities, or contact your local sexual assault referral centre. The Government are determined to make the strategy work and I am really grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to the debate.
Dr Opher
I thank the Minister and all those who spoke and brought their fantastic experience of this really difficult problem. Let me say two very simple things. We need to imprint on healthcare workers the idea “Think domestic abuse”, so that we do not miss it. If someone presents, we must have in the back of our minds the question, “Is this domestic abuse?” That will help to identify victims much earlier. After that, we need to enable them to be referred in a simple and effective process that brings them support immediately.
I thank everyone here, and you, Sir John, for chairing the debate.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Thank you for winding up. This has been a really important debate and I am so pleased that everyone was able to contribute. I hope that, had I spoken in the debate and not chaired it, I would have spoken with the same passion and insight that everyone has shown.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of the NHS in preventing domestic homicides and domestic abuse-related deaths.
Temporary Accommodation: Out of Area Placements
(1 day, 6 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
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I will call Josh Babarinde to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. Other Members may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge. There will not be an opportunity to wind up, sadly, as it is only a half-hour debate.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered out of area placements in temporary accommodation.
Thank you so much, Sir John; it is great to serve under your chairship. I have deliberately avoided the green suit that I know is not your favourite from my wardrobe, so I hope that you will afford me good grace in this debate. [Laughter.]
Josh Babarinde
I am grateful for the opportunity to spotlight the challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness who are placed by their local authorities into temporary accommodation outside their local authority areas.
In many cases, out of area placements are both necessary and an appropriate means to safeguard vulnerable individuals. A clear example is survivors of domestic abuse, who may be forced to relocate to ensure their own safety. But too often, for placing authorities, “out of area” becomes shorthand for “out of sight and out of mind”. A scandal has unfolded across our country, in which homeless people are dumped from one place to another without the proper assistance that they need to address the causes of their homelessness, or other support that could help to get them back on their feet.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I am absolutely incredulous that any authority should send a family way out of their area. I was shocked when I read about an example of this issue in my constituency, with a family whose child attended a special school being offered accommodation in County Tyrone, which is three hours away from where they live and from where their child goes to school. There is absolutely no way that that family could cope with that. The disruption to their children’s routine would have been severely detrimental. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that special consideration must be given for family units, and particularly to those with children who have particular educational needs?
Josh Babarinde
The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the scandal that families face in his own constituency, but what is even more scandalous is that that is not the exception; it is happening in too many places. Due consideration is not given for families with children with special educational needs. That consideration does not go far enough, and too many councils are not just failing when it comes to making those kinds of assessments but failing to uphold their wider duties of care, communications standards and accountability in following those people and their families wherever they are placed.
In Eastbourne, this issue particularly grew during the pandemic following the introduction of the last Government’s “Everyone In” directive, under which people who were experiencing homelessness were rapidly—and rightly—placed into temporary accommodation, including hotels and bed and breakfasts, in order to protect their health and public health more widely. Although that approach was formally stepped down by the Government after the first lockdown, many local authorities have continued to use that model.
While “Everyone In” was extremely well intentioned, it has since become an embedded, informal and unregulated practice that contributes to the sustained use of out of area temporary accommodation without the necessary support in place. Over the last couple of years, out of area placements in Eastbourne have increased fourfold, to the 209 that Eastbourne hosts today. As I have said in this very room before, out of area placements now account for 46% of all temporary accommodation placements in Eastbourne, with the majority being from Brighton and Hove city council. There are currently 178 placements by Brighton and Hove city council in Eastbourne, and 31 from other neighbouring districts, such as Hastings, Worthing and Rother, and a small number from London.
To the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), this is not just a local issue but a national one. At the end of June 2025, 42,080 households were living in temporary accommodation outside their home local authority. That represents an increase of more than 10% since 2021. London accounts for a significant proportion of such placements, reflecting the acute pressures in the capital. I recognise the scale of the challenge there, but that pattern has clear consequences for other towns and cities across the country, which are increasingly expected to meet these needs without the resources, co-ordination or accountability that should accompany that expectation.
After years of sustained pressure and negotiation by Eastbourne borough council, our town has finally secured somewhat more consistent notifications from placing authorities when individuals are moved into the borough. Although that progress is welcome, serious information gaps remain. Too often, notifications are incomplete, with receiving authorities not provided with information on key risk factors such as histories of domestic abuse or other serious vulnerabilities. That leaves frontline services without the information that they need to keep those individuals, staff and the wider community safe. If a duty of care is to mean anything, it must include the timely sharing of appropriate and proportionate case details across local authority boundaries to ensure that safeguarding responsibilities can be properly discharged.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
This is a really important debate. One element that is often not told is the number of out of area placements for 16-year-olds. Last year, 1,000 care-experienced children were moved away from home during the three months around their exams. Does the hon. Member agree that we should do everything in our power to ensure that people are able to keep their local connections as far as possible, and particularly those in that vulnerable group?
Josh Babarinde
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the plight faced particularly by care-experienced young people. All the evidence tells us that such placements can have a scarring effect on individuals, pervading way into later life, which can set them up for disadvantage before they have even had a proper chance to begin.
Another issue is that local authorities do not routinely notify the receiving authority when a placement has ended. That, again, gets in the way of achieving a proper picture of the temporary accommodation landscape. The impact of that dysfunction is profound. Some people placed in Eastbourne from Brighton, who have gone on to live in Eastbourne, have had to make a 50-mile round trip to access support from their local authority, taking sometimes more than three hours by bus. Those people are often ripped away from their GP, mental health support, addiction services and schools, as has been mentioned already by hon. Members.
Tragically, we have seen the fatal consequences of the broken system. In January 2023, a 25-year-old man placed in Eastbourne by Brighton and Hove city council was found dead in the accommodation in which he was placed. In the month before his death, no welfare checks had been carried out by Brighton and Hove city council—a scandal. Last year, two more people died in Wilmington Square in Eastbourne within days of each other. In Newhaven in the neighbouring constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), 10 people have died in similar circumstances. That is obscene. It is immoral and it is not fair on anyone.
There is also a wider out of area homelessness issue in Eastbourne that is important to acknowledge. Alongside formal placements, Eastbourne has seen individuals arriving from outside the area voluntarily, including cases of people travelling from as far as the Isle of Wight to reside on the streets in Eastbourne. Those people often move in search of safety, support and services that they believe will be available to them. The reality, though, is that unmanaged and unsupported movement across local authority boundaries places additional strain on receiving councils and charities, particularly when there has been no co-ordination, information sharing or support from the originating authority.
I am very proud that Eastbourne borough council has been at the forefront of responding to the challenge. There are amazing officers like Jaime Wainwright-Jones who has pioneered person-centred, preventive and proactive models of support that are delivering extraordinary results. I am also proud of charities and initiatives such as Eastbourne Salvation Army, Matthew 25 Mission, Kingdom Way Trust, Eastbourne food bank, Warming up the Homeless, Feedbourners, Eastbourne Street Pastors, Change Grow Live in Eastbourne, Southdown, Citizens Advice Eastbourne, YMCA Eastbourne Foyer, BHT Sussex, Absolute Angels and Food4Thought. Those are just some of the organisations that have stepped into the breach.
I saw the work at first hand as recently as yesterday when I went to Matthew 25 and spoke with Andrea, Maria and Andrew from the team and volunteers about the impact of out of area placements on the town, on their services and, most importantly, on people. I spoke there with one gentleman who had been placed in Eastbourne by Brighton and Hove city council without the support that he needed. As we were having the discussion he piped up:
“They ended up dumping me here”.
It is inhumane. And I am concerned that that the issue at national level still lacks the urgency that it demands.
I raised the issue in a letter to the previous Minister who committed
“to further define where out of area placements are acceptable and expectations on placing and receiving local authorities.”
I am profoundly concerned that, despite the amazing work that the Minister has done to bring forward the national strategy to end homelessness, the commitment that the last Minister made has not been not met. I therefore call on the Minister to do four things: first, will she set out a clear timetable for clarifying and strengthening the guidance on out of area placements so that local authorities know what is expected of them, and so that people experiencing homelessness have the dignity and support that they deserve, as hon. Members have mentioned in their remarks?
Secondly, I appeal to the Minister to directly consult local government, especially Eastbourne borough council, so that the real experience of receiving councils when it comes to this scandal informs the guidance to come. Thirdly, I call on the Minister to clarify what sanctions exist to course-correct councils who fail in their duty of care and in their duty to co-operate with receiving local authorities. Fourthly, in the meantime, I ask the Government to make it clear to placing local authorities who, I believe, are failing people experiencing homelessness—such as Brighton and Hove city council—that their responsibilities do not end at the point of placement. The duty of care must follow the person. It cannot stop at an arbitrary local authority boundary.
Ultimately, this is about fairness to councils, empowering our support services and, most importantly, protecting the dignity of individuals experiencing homelessness. It is on those principles that I urge the Government to act further without delay.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship in this debate, Sir John, on such an important issue. I was unaware of your views on green suits, so I shall try not to err in future. I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for securing this debate. He and I have discussed this issue a couple of times, and he has written to the Department. I congratulate him on working hard to make sure this issue gets the attention it deserves. It is complex, but we set out our national homelessness strategy before Christmas, as the hon. Member mentioned, and we can make a difference. I will run through some of those areas and come to the points that he has raised.
As a Government we inherited a homelessness crisis, with both rough sleeping and the number of households in temporary accommodation more than doubling since 2010. Those pressures stem from years of underinvestment in affordable housing and overstretched local homelessness systems, and I am sure the hon. Member would recognise that. Insufficient truly affordable housing means that councils in England too often have to rely on poor- quality, high-cost options to house homeless households. That has a huge impact on families in temporary accommodation, which is at record levels. As of June last year, 132,000 households, including 172,000 children, were living in temporary accommodation. It is shocking to hear those numbers and that is why we are determined to put it right. Our national plan to end homelessness sets out how we will do that: committing to record investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services, and giving a huge boost to social housing because, in the end, the cause of all of this is not having enough homes that people can afford. Even though it will take time, our commitment to £39 billion of investment to build the social housing we need must be at the root of our response.
The scale of the crisis means we will need to make progress over time and there will be a transition period as the situation stabilises and services are able to move toward longer-term prevention, rather than moving to some of the crisis responses that the hon. Member set out. In our plan we set out that sustainable change to tackle the root causes of homelessness, including the delivery of 1.5 million new homes. In the medium term, while we are building the homes that we need, we are investing £3.5 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, which will help councils intervene earlier, keep people in their homes and reduce the number of households entering temporary accommodation.
In the short term, we are taking immediate action to increase the supply of good-quality temporary accommodation through the £950 million local authority housing fund and, where it is needed, we are working to improve the experience of people living in temporary accommodation. I mention that because two important new goals in the national plan to end homelessness will help the situation that the hon. Member faces in Eastbourne. First, I want to see local authorities prevent homelessness and not end up in the position where they have to place people at all, never mind place them out of area. We will not be able to do that overnight, but if we can stop people becoming homeless in the first place, that problem will not arise.
Secondly, too many places that are using out of area placements to fulfil their homelessness duty have poor access to good-quality temporary accommodation in their own areas. Addressing that is a way to prevent the problems arising, before I get to the reasonable points that the hon. Member has made about what happens when authorities do need to place out of area.
On out of area placements, as of June 2025, 42,0000 households in temporary accommodation were placed outside their home district, with the majority placed in nearby regions. London boroughs accounted for the vast majority of those moves—placing 34,000 households out of area—and also received the highest number of inward placements from other boroughs. As a proud northerner, I sometimes hear from colleagues in the north of England about whether London is the cause of all of our problems. That is just not true; London is dealing with significant issues related to poverty itself. This is a huge amount of disruption for the individuals and families who are affected. We cannot accept it as inevitable, as I have said. We think our plan will help us get to the root cause of it, but we must act now to address poor practice in managing out of area placements to ensure that they are not used where closer, more suitable accommodation is available, and that, where they are used, there is collaboration between the placing and receiving authorities. That comes to the heart of the points that the hon. Member for Eastbourne has made.
The homelessness code of guidance makes clear that all temporary accommodation placements, including those out of area, must be suitable. That includes minimising disruption to schooling, healthcare, support networks and other essential services. The household’s circumstances, safeguarding and support needs must be considered, with links with schools, doctors and social workers retained wherever possible. The guidance does what I think the hon. Member for Eastbourne is arguing for; the question is why it is not working, if the guidance is already there. He mentioned a commitment to strengthen the guidance made by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali). That is restated by the homelessness strategy, and we will be engaging with councils. He has already written on behalf of Eastbourne, and I am in touch with councils week in, week out—including Brighton, which he also mentioned, on a number of occasions. I will be on the hunt for the areas where we need to strengthen the guidance in all my conversations with local authorities, which he will know are very regular at the moment because of the funding settlement.
Josh Babarinde
I thank the Minister for her response. I am heartened that a review of the out of area placements guidance is still on the cards, but I am disheartened not to hear a timetable for that. It feels as though not much has progressed since my letter and the response that I received in the summer. I wonder if she can share a timetable for when that review will take place and be concluded.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for his point, but I disagree that not much has progressed because we have published a national plan to end homelessness. As I set out before, the point of that plan is to increase prevention and, in the short and medium term, get better quality placements closer to home. We are working on that action plan now. I do not want to give him an arbitrary deadline for work on the guidance, but I am sure we will speak again on many occasions. It will be part of the action plan and the steps that we are taking, coming out of the strategy. I am happy to update him as we move along.
Let me make some progress in responding to some of the other points the hon. Member for Eastbourne raised. For example, we already require the authority to consider the suitability of the location for all members of the household. Housing authorities should, wherever possible, seek to place homeless households in their area, except where there are clear benefits for the person seeking assistance. I am pleased that the hon. Member mentioned those who are experiencing domestic abuse—we would all obviously see the benefit of an out of area placement, and I am sure he did not mean to imply anything other than that.
Where an out of area placement is suitable and necessary, good communication between authorities is vital, as we have heard. Section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 requires councils to notify the receiving authority when they place a household out of area. We know that, across the country, notifications are not always made and, where they are made, the information provided is limited. That is not good enough; I expect all local authorities to ensure that placements and notifications align with duties under the relevant legislation. The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked about sanctions and so on. There are clear ways in which local authorities can be held to account for the decisions they make, such as the ombudsman, Parliament and other means. We will not succeed in our goals in the national plan to end homelessness without local authorities, so my role is to support them. Through the funding settlement and other things, that is what I am trying to do. If there are areas where local authorities have fallen down, there are clear routes through which they can be held accountable.
All services have a role to play in providing the right support, and I am delighted that we recently introduced an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill requiring local housing authorities to,
“notify…educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services…when a child is placed in temporary accommodation”.
Consent would have to be provided. That will ensure that schools and health services have the information they need to provide proactive, practical and pastoral support where needed.
The amendment a part of our strategy, as is our commitment to introducing a duty to collaborate, to ensure that notification and co-operation is happening as it should. To be honest with the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I can imagine a number of reasons why they may not operate as they should, not least a decade and a half of austerity where local councils were stripped of the resources that they needed to do the job. That is the reality they face, but our job collectively is to provide the systems and processes to help them do it, notwithstanding the point I just made about accountability.
Amanda Hack
Could the Minister clarify whether that duty to inform also includes the 16 to 18-year-olds, who may well be placed by social services, rather than by homelessness teams?
Alison McGovern
My very dedicated civil servants are just mouthing to me that they might be in care, and therefore there might be requirements from that point of view. If it is okay with her, I will write to my hon. Friend with a detailed and full response, because the legal situation surrounding 16-year-olds is particularly important.
To conclude, temporary accommodation challenges are different across the country. Therefore, as I said, we need to respond to the realities that councils are facing. As part of that, in boosting the capacity that local authorities have, our emergency accommodation reduction pilots, backed by £8 million of investment, have effectively reduced the number of families with children in bed and breakfasts for more than the six-week limit by working with areas experiencing the highest pressures. That is the approach that I want to take on this issue. Receiving authorities must of course be able to work collaboratively with placing authorities, as we have said.
In the end, the heart of this problem is the people who are affected. I was disheartened to hear the hon. Member for Eastbourne report that somebody had said to him they had been “dumped”—how awful. We want people to feel that councils are there to support them if the worst happens and make sure they get back on their feet. That is why our emergency accommodation reduction programme, with a £30 million funding increase through the homelessness strategy, will help tackle poor practice and get us on the right road.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for raising these issues. As I have said a number of times, out of area placements should be a last resort. When they happen, they must be handled properly with full notification, safeguarding referrals and collaboration between councils. Overall, we are committed to tackling the drivers of homelessness, improving standards and ensuring that vulnerable households get the support they need.
This is a shared challenge, and I look forward to working with all local authorities, charities and Members across this House to deliver the long-term solutions we want to see. On behalf of all of us in this House, could the hon. Member for Eastbourne pass our sincere thanks to the charities, organisations and individuals he mentioned? It sounds like they are doing a very important job.
Question put and agreed to.
Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dr Allin-Khan, and to open this debate on the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.
Like many Members across this House, I welcomed the introduction of the Water (Special Measures) Act last year. After years of public anger over pollution, rising bills and declining services in the sector, the Act promised a tougher approach to a failing water industry. It pledged to ban bonuses for failing bosses, bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers, impose meaningful fines and introduce independent monitoring of every sewer overflow. On paper, that sounded like progress. In practice, the Act has proved to be little more than a drop in the ocean.
The Water (Special Measures) Act was meant to turn the tide, but right now the sewage is still flowing and so are the excuses from water bosses. The Act was intended to strengthen regulation and restore public trust, yet in the months since its introduction we have seen companies complying with the letter of the law while confidence continues to drain away. When regulation is drafted so narrowly it can be complied with but the purpose is undermined, it is quite clearly not fit for purpose and not strong enough. That brings me to a central question of this debate: how do we ensure that the principles of the Act are properly enforced, and that water companies are genuinely held to account?
Nowhere is the failure of the current system clearer than the performance of Yorkshire Water, which supplies water to my constituents in Harrogate and Knaresborough. The problems they face mirror those across the country, from poor customer services to rising bills and the persistent sewage pollution we see in our rivers.
Yorkshire Water was classified by Ofwat as “lagging behind” but my constituents are having to pay that price upfront. In October 2025, the Environment Agency gave Yorkshire Water a red rating for serious pollution incidents. Those incidents had almost tripled in 2024, leaving the company with one of the worst pollution records in the country. Despite this performance, customers have repeatedly been asked to pay more while receiving less. One constituent described their experience as:
“Probably the worst consumer experience I have had in my life”.
Against that backdrop, many were rightly shocked by comments from the Yorkshire Water chief executive when she suggested criticism of the company reflected
“a level of expectation from customers that’s much higher”
than it had been. With water bills expected to rise by as much as 41% over the next five years, and a hosepipe ban that was imposed from July to December, my constituents are entitled to ask how low does she think their expectations should be? If expectations are too high, then perhaps the problem is not the public but the leadership of Yorkshire Water.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Liberal Democratic party for all they do on water issues. That cannot be taken away from them: they are to the fore. Other parties may be a wee bit annoyed at that, but they are so active it is incredible. Well done.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the private companies do not appear to be tied to doing the right thing for the public as a whole, but to doing more for their investors? The ability to freeze bonus payments as a penalty should be used, and the consultation with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must allow this measure to be implemented in a quick and cost-effective manner, as a matter of urgency. Does he agree that is one thing that could be done?
Tom Gordon
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It is a pleasure to take an intervention from him, as always. I completely agree with what he has outlined and the characterisation of the way that the water sector is, frankly, morally bankrupt. There is no interest in the public good. That is why my party has long been calling to see these companies reformed, where they have to put public benefit interest first rather than corporate shareholder responsibilities.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member and alongside him I wish to put on record on behalf of my constituents what an absolute disgrace Thames Water is. In a desperate attempt to secure their investments, avoid special administration and keep the company within the private sector, Thames Water’s creditors are trying to strike a deal with Ofwat that would see them polluting our waterways for up to 15 years. That is a shameless attempt that proves that they cannot be trusted to put the best interests of their customers or the environment ahead of their own purses. Does the hon. Member agree that Ofwat ought to reject that deal and use the powers it has been granted through this Act and put Thames Water into special administration?
Tom Gordon
The hon. Lady hits the nail on the head. Water companies are trying to get away with doing grubby deals by the back door. Across the board—it is not just Thames Water and Yorkshire Water—the sector is not operating as it should, so we need proper wholesale reform of the water companies’ models.
If the expectations are too high, it is perhaps not the public who have the wrong end of the stick, but the leadership of Yorkshire Water. Clean water is not an unreasonable demand, but the bare minimum that we should be able to expect. My constituents can see the consequences of Yorkshire Water’s failure at first hand; they need only to go out into our wonderful countryside across Harrogate and Knaresborough, where the River Nidd, Crimple beck and Oak beck have all been affected by sewage outflows and overflows.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, the River Avon and its tributaries are central to our natural environment and to leisure and tourism—the visitor economy. It is a disgrace that our waterways are still being polluted. Does my hon. Friend agree that water management data must be transparent, and that the Government must introduce monitoring of the volume, not just the duration, of sewage overspills?
Tom Gordon
I thank my hon. Friend for that very pertinent intervention. I have been to Stratford, and it is a lovely place. No community should be blighted by sewage at the hands of these water bosses. The point about volume, and not just hours of sewage dumping, is key.
The River Nidd, which once brought joy to families in Harrogate and Knaresborough, is now treated as a health hazard. Every year, kids are taken to hospital after playing and swimming in it. Dogs routinely fall sick and have to go to the vet if they dare go swim in the lido. That is not progress, but decline. Things are not getting better; they are still getting worse.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. In 2024, storm overflows at Harbertonford waste water treatment works discharged into the Harbourne river for more than 3,500 hours. In other words, raw sewage was pumped into the river, which flows into the glorious River Dart, for 40% of the year. As of this morning, the same storm overflow has been activated since 11 January. Does my hon. Friend agree that South West Water must not be allowed to get away with that?
Tom Gordon
That is another fantastic example of how poorly water companies across the length and breadth of our country are performing. It is entirely unacceptable. My hon. Friend and many other Liberal Democrat colleagues have done a fantastic job of holding the water bosses to account. Her constituents are very lucky to have her, and I am sure she will continue to do that.
Last summer, I took part in the Knaresborough bed race, which ends with participants crossing the River Nidd after running around town, up and down hills, with kids on beds. It is a fantastic event. If Members have not seen it, they should google it—even better, they should come and watch it. Hopefully, I will get a place to do it again this year. But in recent years the river crossing at the end has become contentious. There was talk of scrapping it altogether because of the danger of having to cross the river when sewage overflows have been pumping. Locals advise those competing in the race to drink a can of full-sugar Coke at the end in the hope that it will kill off any bacteria and nasty things that they may have swallowed during the river crossing. When that is the best piece of advice that people can give to those competing in a sporting event, something has gone very wrong. The regulation of the water sector is completely failing. No one should have to fear sickness from their local river in 21st century Britain, but that is Yorkshire Water’s legacy in my constituency.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech about Yorkshire Water, which also serves Dewsbury and Batley. In 2024, there were at least 346 sewage dumps in local waterways in Dewsbury and Batley, lasting over 1,000 hours. That equals 1.5 months of continuous sewage discharge. Discharges around Batley beck, the River Calder and the River Spen are blighting our waterways and our community. In addition, sewage is backing up into streets and people’s homes because of a failure to maintain pipes or design the system correctly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that water companies have been getting away with almost murder for too long and must be held accountable? Customers must not have to pay any longer for their failings and their profiteering.
Tom Gordon
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of Yorkshire Water. All too often, we hear that there will be investment and improvement, but it is frankly too little and often too late. There has been a lack of investment in infrastructure over decades, which has left the system creaking at the seams. I completely agree that we need to get a proper grip of the issues that I have outlined.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I will add another name to the catalogue of water company disasters: Southern Water. In Rudgwick in my Horsham constituency, residents have complained for almost 20 years about effluent backing up into bathrooms, footpaths covered in soiled loo paper and having to keep children and pets indoors. Yet over the last decade, average Southern Water bills have shot up from £262 in 2016 to £702 today. Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that residents are paying vastly more with absolutely nothing to show for it?
Tom Gordon
That is a damning indictment of the state of water companies across the length and breadth of this country, especially at a time that is hard financially, when people have to tighten their belts more than ever before and are struggling with the cost of living crisis. That is what jars people: when they see their water bills going up more and more but they still have to deal with the grim situations that my hon. Friend outlined so eloquently. That is not an isolated story; it is a reflection of systemic failures across the industry and our country.
Since the introduction of the 2025 Act, Thames Water’s financial position has, as we have heard, continued to deteriorate, while sewage discharges persist. In the south-east just a few weeks ago, we saw repeated outages that left households without even the basic service of being able to turn on the taps. When water companies repeatedly fail and nothing visibly changes, the message to the public is clear: accountability is missing.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous. As the Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Minehead, I represent two water companies, Wessex Water—who are no angels—and South West Water—who I have been chasing for several months in order to get a meeting on behalf of a constituent whose bakery was flooded to such an extent that she has now had to shut up shop and go home. I am supposed to be meeting them on Monday, but it has taken at least four days to get a time out of them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that these companies are able to literally stick their fingers in their ears when people raise concerns on behalf of their communities?
Tom Gordon
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I do not envy her having to battle just one water company, but two. She has her work cut out for her—some of us are now breathing a sigh of relief in comparison. The problem is, as she outlined, that there is no accountability. It often takes public pressure, campaigning or us in this place banging the drum to talk about these issues to get those meetings set up and problems fixed when it is a basic obligation that water companies should already provide.
Since the introduction of the 2025 Act, we have seen issues across the country. The failure of water companies is a source of frustration and distrust in politics. People feel that the legislation that was passed is simply not working, or that we got it wrong. One of the most high-profile elements of the Water (Special Measures) Act was the commitment to block bonuses for executives at failing water companies. Water companies are upping their game and thinking about the way that they structure their payments to try and circumvent these measures and the bonus ban. Ofwat investigated Yorkshire Water last year, but said that it did not breach the legislation or regulatory guidance on executive pay. The payments made to the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, Nicola Shaw, through the offshore parent company Kelda Holdings were what they called “fixed fees” for group-level responsibilities and funded by shareholders. While technically that might not constitute a breach of the ban, it is a demonstration of how open to exploitation the system and the legislation are. Rather than a bonus ban, we have ended up with a bonus rebrand.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. Last year, it emerged that Thames Water was planning an enormous additional compensation package under the guise of a management retention plan. After being grilled by those of us on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and an understandable public outcry, it announced that it would no longer go ahead with that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any water company setting its moral bar lower than Thames Water should take a long, hard look in the mirror?
Tom Gordon
I completely agree with the hon. Member. I thank him and the Chair of the EFRA Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is also here today. The work that they have been doing in highlighting the issues endemic to water companies across this country could not have come sooner. The fixes that they have highlighted in their reports are important for driving this conversation as we look towards the future.
Turning back to Yorkshire Water, in the past two years, those payments—which were apparently not bonuses but rather “fixed fees”, or whatever Yorkshire Water called them—totalled more than £1 million, on top of the near £700,000 annual basic salary, at a time when pollution incidents were rising and trust was collapsing. Yorkshire Water’s chief executive has since said that it was a “mistake” not to disclose those payments and not to have been more transparent. Well, that is too little too late when Yorkshire Water has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar. My message to Yorkshire Water is simple: it can rename a bonus to a “fixed fee” and apologise for getting caught out, but the stench of sewage still clings to it, and to the bosses at Yorkshire Water.
I remain concerned about the overreliance on fines as a primary enforcement tool. In recent years, we have seen Yorkshire Water and many other companies facing record-breaking fines, but the problem remains: the lack of accountability that they face, even when such astronomical penalties are imposed on them. Simply put, we cannot fine our way out of failure when customers end up footing the bill.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for his impassioned speech on this very important subject. My constituents in the South Cotswolds will be deeply disappointed by this White Paper. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to get literally upstream of this question, and address the question of water company ownership? When we look to Europe, we see models such as mutual or public-benefit ownership working much more effectively. Does he also agree that the profit motive does not sit well with an essential public utility?
Tom Gordon
I thank my hon. Friend for putting across that argument, and I completely agree with her. She has outlined the case and the reasoning very well.
Moving on to today’s water White Paper, it is right that we recognise that the current regulatory system has failed, that Ofwat has not provided the hands-on oversight required, and that prevention must replace crisis management. Proposals for a new regulator, stronger inspections and greater transparency are a step in the right direction—if long overdue—but a White Paper and those new proposals will only be as strong as their enforcement.
I want to press the Minister on three specific points. First, will the Minister confirm that the new regulator will have an explicit duty to close remuneration loopholes, so that executives cannot simply comply with the letter of the law while undermining its purpose? Secondly, will the Minister commit to ensuring that criminal liability for water bosses is not merely theoretical but actively pursued where there is evidence of serious or repeated environmental harm? Thirdly, will the Minister set out how enforcement action will target decision makers, not just balance sheets, so that customers are no longer left paying for failure through higher bills? Those are the tests that will determine whether today’s White Paper represents a genuine reset or simply another missed opportunity.
Ultimately, this debate is about accountability. Pollution on this scale is not an accident; it is a result of decisions, incentives and failures of leadership. When executives are rewarded while rivers are polluted, that is not mismanagement; it is environmental vandalism. Nicola Shaw remains in post despite rising bills, collapsing trust and one of the worst pollution records in this country. In any other industry, that level of failure would end in resignation. So today I say clearly: Nicola Shaw, do us a favour and go.
A new regulator must come into post and go further than we have seen with Ofwat. Water bosses who preside over illegal pollution should not just have their bonuses blocked; they should face criminal consequences for their environmental damage and harm. No more hiding behind corporate structures, no more excuses and no more polluting with impunity: if they poison our waterways, they should answer not just to shareholders but to the full force of the law.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Timings-wise, we will stick to approximately five minutes per person at the moment, which should make possible one or two interventions as well.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as always, Dr Allin-Khan. I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing such an important debate on a crucial topic, which concerns people across the country.
I am grateful to take the opportunity to speak today about the River Tyne, which holds great sentimental value to me, as I know it does to so many people who call both Northumberland and the wider north-east home, and have been raised in the area surrounding it. I, along with many of my constituents, have deeply fond memories of exploring and enjoying the astonishing diversity of nature that the River Tyne has to offer. It is a natural landmark, central to community life, to local economies and to the identity of the region, along with some of Northumberland’s other great rivers.
With that in mind, I will take a moment to highlight the incredible work of the Tyne Rivers Trust and the Wylam Clean Tyne organisation, both of which are dedicated to improving the wellbeing of the region’s rivers and communities—from Alston up to Kielder and beyond—through education, practical conservation and environmental activism. The protection and development of the Tyne’s waters establish it as one of the best salmon rivers in England. It houses a diverse range of animals and plant life, and it is worth millions to our local economy. Importantly, it also acts as a third space for local communities looking to access the positive effects on wellbeing associated with spending time in and around nature.
It is a devastating fact that the previous Government allowed our river to be flooded with an unregulated torrent of sewage. They were a Government who saw environmental protection as an inconvenience, not a responsibility. They underfunded regulators, scaled back monitoring and weakened the enforcement of environmental standards. They allowed water companies’ profits to soar, bosses to accept hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses, and household bills to increase. They left my constituents with a River Tyne that is unsafe and in decline, not because of natural change but because of political failure and political choices.
I strongly welcome the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Act, which reflects our mission to clean up our rivers and bring accountability to water companies. I agree that, in order to bring about the necessary long-standing reform, it is fundamental that the plans are effectively enforced, and that funding and resources back regulators so that they can apply the new legislation consistently and effectively. I would like to hear from the Minister how rural communities, including those in my constituency, can be supported by the Act specifically. Northumbrian Water must be held accountable, having made over 3,000 sewage dumps into the Tyne in 2024 alone. It must be held responsible for what must be significant investment in the infrastructure of overflows and the rebuilding of public trust.
I also want to emphasise, as often as I can, the importance of working in partnership with communities across my constituency, particularly rural communities. The expertise of the organisations that I mentioned will be crucial to the conversation that Northumbrian Water and local government could have if they are serious about understanding and tackling the problem. They, alongside farmers and land managers, are vital stewards of our environment. Supporting sustainable land use, reducing run-off and improving soil and water management must be done collaboratively, with practical support, funding, clear guidance and long-term certainty. This Government understand that environmental recovery and economic growth go hand in hand. Clean rivers do not just enrich our environment; they support tourism, angling and farming, and they build a sense of local pride. Protecting the Tyne is not a barrier to prosperity; it is part of building a greener, fairer and more resilient future.
I will touch on the impact of the clean river on young people. Tyne Green in the town of Hexham or the banks along Wylam and Prudhoe are all venues for young people to get to know the river and enjoy it. There have been some fantastic initiatives on river safety pioneered by my friend and comrade, Angie Scott, who is a Northumberland county councillor for Prudhoe. As we try to clean up our waterways, it is important to ensure that young people maintain not just access to them but an understanding of them. I should be grateful if the Minister would speak about that.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing this welcome and—particularly in my constituency—timely debate on regulation, public trust and customers’ experience.
I am participating on behalf of my constituents in East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages. Many people will know that Sussex and Kent were at the epicentre of the recent outages, despite the guidance we had on the Friday before the taps were turned off that it would be elsewhere. Today is another opportunity to welcome the new powers in the White Paper and talk about how we hold the regulator, Ofwat, to account. I put on the record my huge thanks to the Minister and her team in DEFRA for listening to me on behalf of my constituents and holding these companies to account.
What has happened over the weekend is clear. I will go through my list of experiences. Before the boundary changes, in August 2020, hundreds of homes were affected in my patch and in East Sussex. In November 2022, 30,000 people were affected, including in my part of the world, and in Kent. In December 2022, in Uckfield and in Crowborough in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), 16,000 households were affected. In June 2023, thousands of homes were affected again across the Mid Sussex district. In January 2024, Sussex and Kent homes were affected by the impact of Storm Henk. Then Sussex and Kent were again affected in November 2024, and again in January 2025.
Dr Allin-Khan, you will be interested in this. I met today with Karen McDowell, the head of Sussex integrated care board, to consider the impact on the Queen Victoria hospital in East Grinstead. I thank its leader Abigail and her team for their stoicism during the outage. In the midst of the sanitation issue, with a norovirus crisis and a flu crisis in our local NHS, when we did not have water across my area, people from Surrey, where they declared an emergency, were being sent to my local hospital for treatment. It is absolutely outrageous.
People are now turning to the point of compensation. If this is caused by a storm and an act of God, that is one thing. The Minister knows that this is about a bulk supply issue linked to South East Water. Ultimately, if there is any break in service and if licence conditions are broken, it is ultimately my constituents who cannot function.
Today’s written statement mentions the need for a
“joined-up regional water planning function and framework to improve local decision making and delivery.”
I recognise the need for a broader debate on the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, building on the Environment Act 2021, to make sure that there is a proper answer.
My constituents are turning at the moment to what this means in terms of compensation. The break in service is absolutely front of mind. As I have spelled out, this is not the first time. Unless there is leadership and structural change, I truly believe it will not be the last.
Let me give the example of the Ashdown Park hotel. There are 50 staff members living on the site. It was closed for days, with no response from the Saturday of the outage through to the reopening. Birthdays, spa days, treats and celebrations were all destroyed, with frontline staff left trying to explain.
I urge my constituents and those watching today to sign up to the priority list. Many vulnerable people, particularly in our villages, were left waiting for water. I know that is an issue that both the shadow Minister and the Minister are particularly worried about.
There are also the needs of livestock. Horses need to drink 5 to 8 gallons of water every day. This situation has been tearing out people’s hearts and souls. They have been so worried. For me, these outages are a moment of crisis in the water sector. I have people cancelling their direct debits at the same time as larger bills are falling on their mats.
I am conscious that many people want to speak, so I will come to a conclusion. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on something that matters to me deeply. I ask the Minister to work with me on behalf of my constituents to hold the leadership—the chair, the chief executive and the team—to account. I hope that this new vision, with this White Paper, turns into action, change and accountability.
Colleagues have spoken about the opportunity for shareholders to do what they can. NatWest Group holds a large stake in South East Water. In today’s Telegraph, it notes that it wants the company to be held to account for supply issues, and for those issues to be “fully resolved with urgency”. Other shareholders also say they want this addressed and they want resilience in the services. So do we, so do our constituents, and so should everyone.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan.
Cleaning up our rivers is one of my top priorities, and I am delighted that the Government agree and have introduced more legislation and action on enforcement in 18 months than the previous Government did in 14 years. I was incredibly pleased to serve on the Bill Committee for the Water (Special Measures) Act—the subject of this debate—with some of the other Members present. The Act sets out, for the first time, a ban on water company bosses’ bonuses, and will ensure that the CEOs of water companies can even face criminal charges and imprisonment.
In Wales, Dŵr Cymru is our not-for-profit water company. However, I am afraid that being not for profit has not stopped it dumping sewage into our much-loved rivers. In 2023, we had a massive 2,383 sewage-dumping incidents in Monmouthshire. In 2022, the then chief executive took home £332,000, and a further £232,000 in bonuses. More recently, Ofwat stepped in and stopped the company paying out £163,000 in bonuses from customers’ money, so that was a step forward.
Caroline Voaden
In May 2024, an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in my constituency left 17,000 properties under a boil water notice for as long as two months. Although the incident is the subject of legal investigation, I would like to highlight my constituents’ frustration that the then CEO, Susan Davy, later picked up a share bonus of £191,000, bringing her total package for that year up to £803,000. Ofwat banned six water companies from paying executive bonuses, but I was shocked to see that South West Water was not one of them. Does the hon. Member agree that that is a clear illustration of why Ofwat must be replaced without delay, as it clearly fails to adequately protect the public interest?
Catherine Fookes
Our White Paper, published today, deals with the reform of Ofwat, so hopefully we will see an end to that kind of behaviour. In fact, I was just about to say that a total of £9.7 million was paid out in executive bonuses and benefits to water and sewage company executives between 2022 and 2023. The Act will stop bonuses for poor performances.
Let me move on to my favourite topic: our wonderful rivers, which we seek to protect with the Act. I would argue that in Monmouthshire we have some of the finest rivers in the UK. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), but they are much nicer than the River Tyne. The majestic Wye—the birthplace of tourism in the UK—the babbling Usk and the meandering Monnow are all wonderful rivers. They give us our sense of place, they provide recreation in the form of walks, kayaks or swims, and they are a magnet for tourism. They are the backbone of our local economy.
I will never forget the awe I felt when I first saw a flash of blue go past me as I was kayaking down the River Wye, as I saw my first ever kingfisher. It was an incredibly exciting moment. Rivers know no borders, and the Wye runs through four counties and two countries, so we must co-operate to manage it across borders. Fortunately, that is now possible given that we have two Labour Governments working together.
When I was growing up, my parents had no problem with letting me go and cool off by dunking myself in the chalk streams near my house. The only issue was the mess that I made when I came back inside. Now, though, parents have to be fearful of letting their children go in the river. The only thing on which I really agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) is the fact that dogs are now getting seriously ill in our rivers. A wonderful, usually bouncy, sprollie named Tess recently fell seriously ill with E. coli after swimming in the river, only recovering after many weeks of antibiotics.
We all want waterways that we can swim in, and water that is safe to drink and available to us, and we want it at an affordable price, so I am delighted that our two Governments in Cardiff and here in Westminster are working together. I am so grateful to the Minister for all her work and for supporting me in a meeting with the Wye Catchment Partnership and the Welsh Government, which resulted in £1 million for the River Wye action plan, which is just the start of the Wye’s recovery. I also thank all the non-governmental organisations and citizen scientists—the Welsh Rivers Union, Friends of the River Wye, Save the River Usk and the Wye and Usk Foundation, to name but a few—for all their work to help to clean up our rivers.
I am pleased that as well as the Water (Special Measures) Act, the White Paper has been published today, and it aims to overhaul the water system and strengthen regulation. It is the next piece of the jigsaw puzzle. The Deputy First Minister has confirmed that, following the Cunliffe review, the Welsh Government will publish their vision for water reform in Wales later this year, setting out the next steps and inviting views from others. I welcome the fact that there will be a shared transition plan, co-designed with the UK Government, that sets out the route to a new water system in Wales, and that interim arrangements, including a strategic policy statement for Ofwat and other regulators, will provide clarity during the period of transition.
I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for all their work so far on this vital issue. I hope the Minister can assure me that the UK and Welsh Governments will continue to work closely on our water courses as, of course, rivers do not heed boundaries.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this important debate and giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents, who are utterly fed up with Southern Water and a system that is failing them at every level.
My constituents are being hit with a 53% increase in their water bills—the largest rise of any water company in England or Wales—at a time when household finances are already under enormous pressure. What are they getting in return? Outages, sewage dumping, hosepipe bans, leaks and a provider that can act with impunity but cannot get a grip of its failed services.
Against that backdrop, my constituents were rightly furious to learn that the CEO of Southern Water received a £1.4 million annual pay package last year—nearly double what it was the year before—despite the company being banned from issuing bonuses, and after zero improvements in service delivery or environmental performance. It beggars belief and is frankly indefensible. My constituents should not have to pay for Southern Water’s failures, yet that is exactly what is happening. Bills go up and services do not get better.
There are repeated sewage leaks into the River Itchen, the precious chalk stream that runs through my constituency. In the latest Environment Agency assessment, Southern Water was handed a two-star rating after causing a shocking 269 pollution incidents in 2024, including 15 that were classified as serious.
Meanwhile, water outages in my constituency have become commonplace. Just before Christmas 2024, residents in Chandler’s Ford and Eastleigh were left without water after a massive outage, with almost 60,000 homes across Hampshire affected. I raised the issue of outages at Prime Minister’s questions last April and was assured that action would be taken. What exactly has changed? That is why I am so disappointed that the Government’s water White Paper, published today, does not go further and fails to deliver the fundamental change needed to protect rivers such as the Itchen.
People in Eastleigh are fed up with tough words from the Government while bills rise, sewage continues to flow and water company executives continue to cash in. We need a new ownership model in which water companies are mutually owned by customers and professionally managed, with full transparency, including the publication of the volume of sewage dumped into our rivers, not just the duration of spills, and a new regulator that can finally get to grips with this crisis.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan.
I would like to start by thanking the Minister for all her support. I do not think we realised that we would spend so much time on the same Zoom calls with a vast collection of characters from across Kent and the water sector. I also thank the Secretary of State, who came to Tunbridge Wells last Wednesday to announce an unprecedented review into South East Water’s licence.
It has been interesting to hear Members talk of their local water companies and how surreal it is that they are able to continue with such appalling performance while patting themselves on the back and rewarding themselves with eye-watering sums of money. I have news for everyone here—hold my beer—because South East Water is the worst in the entire country.
At the end of November, the water went out in Tunbridge Wells, and South East Water got off to a good start by setting up a bottled-water station in another town. When we pointed out that Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells are different towns, bottled water stations were then set up in the right town, although we had to point out where they should be. That outage lasted about two weeks, with a week of no water and then a week of a boil notice.
South East Water handled the communications so poorly that, naturally, my constituents were quite fearful of the quality of water and whether they would be able to drink it. That space was then filled by bad actors and we had to ask the Cabinet Office to intervene to help us with the disinformation. South East Water’s crisis management and communications during that outage were absolutely appalling. The Minister will agree with me that through all of the Zoom meetings we had daily, the qualities on display among the representatives from South East Water were extremely poor. Yet when they were called to the Select Committee in January, they gave themselves an eight out of 10. [Laughter.] I did mention to Members that these are literally the worst people. They are gangster capitalists, as I will go on to explain.
While the CEO was at the EFRA Committee giving himself an eight of 10, the water was going off again in Tunbridge Wells. At the exact moment he was saying there was a plan and everything was going to be okay, I got a text from my mother-in-law, who lives at one of the highest points in Tunbridge Wells. We are all water experts in Tunbridge Wells now, and the water goes off first on the high ground, because South East Water cannot pump it uphill. I immediately rang South East Water and was asked where I had got that information, so I was informing the water company that there was a major outage in Tunbridge Wells.
I then picked up the phone to the borough council, which picked up the phone to Kent county council, which runs the resilience forum. That was the chain of the passage of information to get the local resilience forum stood up, rather than South East Water understanding, knowing what was going on, getting a grip of the situation and communicating effectively to local partners.
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman is making a speech that I feel I could make. I feel deep sorrow for him and for his constituents. Given the amount of outages, it is very surprising that the crisis communication does not get any better. Water companies should be experts in it, but are clearly not. My concern is that even when we give them information that we believe is true, when they offer information back it very often is not true. I have asked, “Has the water station that you’ve said has been set up in my patch actually opened?”, and got the answer, “Yes.” I then told people in good faith but it turned out it had not. That is a fundamental problem, is it not?
Mike Martin
I offer two examples—surreal is the only word for them. I was standing at a water station in Tunbridge Wells, speaking to South East Water, and I was told, “The water station is open.” I looked around, and it definitely was not open. The problem is that South East Water has a contractor that sets up the water stations that either is incompetent, is mendacious or lies—or all three—so the company does not have a grip of what is going on.
I have another utterly surreal example. I think the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) was in the meeting with the Minister when the Minister said, “There seems to be a problem in Cranbrook, according to my briefing. Dave Hinton, could you speak to that?” For Members who do not know, Cranbrook is in the borough of Tunbridge Wells but not in the constituency. Alongside me was the chief executive from the borough council, who said, “What’s the problem in Cranbrook?” He immediately thought he had a problem to deal with. Dave Hinton, the CEO of South East Water, said, “Oh no, there’s no problem in Cranbrook. I think it’s absolutely fine. Where did you get that information?” The Minister asked her official where the information was from, and in a moment worthy of the best episode of “Yes Minister” the official said dryly, “Minister, we got that information from South East Water.”
These people are utter gangsters. They gave evidence to the Select Committee, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and immediately afterwards the chief water inspector for England and Wales—God, he warms your heart if you are in the middle of a water crisis, I can tell you—came and rubbished their evidence. South Easter Water said the crisis was unforeseeable; the chief water inspector said, “No, not only was it foreseeable but we told you what you needed to do in the weeks and months preceding the outage. Had you done that, the crisis wouldn’t have happened.” To my mind, that is negligence. In the first crisis in December, people had to receive lifesaving treatment because a dialysis centre got knocked out. South East Water is a hair’s breadth away from a corporate manslaughter charge. These people are gangsters.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
The disasters involving South East Water in my hon. Friend’s constituency are frightening. In my constituency, Thames Water managed to put water in the wrong town, and the residents of the small town that was affected could not go and find it because they had no transport. Thames Water did not tell anyone that the water was there. In fact, had it not been for the local supermarket telling people that there was water in the car park, no one would have known. What I find really scary about my hon. Friend’s comments—I am sure he will agree—is that gangsters seem to be acting in my area as well, because Thames Water seems no different from the company he highlights. We need to look at this more seriously.
Mike Martin
My gangsters are worse than my hon. Friend’s. She makes a powerful point.
Mr Carmichael
All this talk of gangsters makes me think my hon. Friend must be styling himself as the Eliot Ness of the water industry. His point about the Drinking Water Inspectorate is particularly important today, as we hear about the changes proposed in the White Paper. The DWI does exceptionally high quality work. Does he agree that we must not lose that output when we fold it into the new super regulator?
Mike Martin
I am well over my time, and I need to get to the point of my speech, but I get incredibly passionate when defending my constituents’ interests and their right to clean water. The White Paper is out today. My challenge to the Minister, whom I count as an ally in this fight, is this. What measures contained in the White Paper would have prevented the outages in Tunbridge Wells? She will, of course, give me an answer from the Dispatch Box, but I ask her to reflect honestly on that.
I also ask her to think about debt, which the Government do not speak to in the White Paper. About £70 billion of debt is held across the water industry, much of it by shareholders in water companies that pay out 10% interest. Financial engineering got us into this mess, and we need a bit of financial engineering to get us out of it and to lower interest rates on that debt. I ask the Minister to speak to that.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
The passion is very welcome, but in the spirit of trying to be fair and make sure everybody gets at least five minutes, we are now on a strict time limit, with no more than five minutes for the final two speakers. I call Josh Newbury.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and giving those in positions of power in our water industry a chance to hear hard truths and take accountability. Although the state of the industry and the morally questionable behaviour of many companies is a talking point for some, I know that he has been a dogged campaigner on this for many years. In fact, I am sure I saw a photo somewhere of him wading in the River Nidd, such is his commitment to getting up close and personal with the issues.
Speaking of getting up close and personal, those of us who are members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have had—I hesitate to say the pleasure—the task of grilling the bosses of nine water companies as part of our inquiry into reforming the water sector. We have dived into many of the issues that we are hearing about, such as sewage overflows, compliance with environmental laws, support for vulnerable customers, the impact of flooding and outages, and, of course, the atrocious corporate culture and disconnection from the principles of delivering an essential public service that has taken hold in much of the water industry. That work has reinforced for me just how bad things have got, how far public confidence in the water industry has been damaged and how necessary robust reform has become.
What I have heard from my constituents is echoed across the country: a sense that accountability is an afterthought, that communities are left to pick up the pieces when things go wrong, and that bosses can get additional compensation regardless of how their company performs. That is precisely why the Water (Special Measures) Act is so important. It rightly strengthens the powers available to regulators and makes it clear that persistent failure—environmental, operational or corporate—must carry real consequences. It reflects a clear Labour principle that essential public services must work in the public interest and not simply for shareholder return.
Crucially, the Act marks a decisive shift away from the regulatory complacency of the past. In the year from July 2024, criminal prosecutions of water companies rose by 145%—a clear sign of meaningful progress. However, enforcement needs to be felt not just at operational level, but at the top. It is impossible to justify the need for customers to tolerate sewage in our waterways, botched responses during outages and poor communication, while senior executives still receive substantial payouts with impunity. That disconnect is corrosive. It undermines confidence not only in individual companies, but in the whole system, regulators included. That is why I believe that the true test of the Act and the newly released water White Paper will be whether they drive a genuine shift in the industry—one in which transparency and consumer trust are central to how success is measured.
Some companies, as we have heard, have sought to repackage rewards under labels such as “retention payments”. The public do not distinguish between a bonus and a retention payment. They see only failing senior execs continuing to be rewarded. The boss of South East Water is set to receive a £400k bonus just for staying in his job, despite, as we have heard, the company leaving thousands of households in Kent and Sussex without water for days and issuing some of the worst crisis communications I have ever seen. Last month, the BBC picked up on the comment I made on social media that David Hinton should do his job or go. Having heard him in front of the EFRA Committee, I absolutely stand by that.
Ofwat is currently responsible for enforcing the Act. Enforcement has often been too slow and remote from customers’ lives, and that cannot be separated from how the regulator has operated. The Committee took a long, hard look at Ofwat and found a regulator that was too cosy in dealing with water companies and too bureaucratic in dealing with customers. A regulator that is slow to act, overly procedural and reluctant to challenge company behaviour will never deliver the cultural change that the Government are determined to secure.
It is important to recognise that not all regulators have failed. During a recent Committee session with South East Water and the drinking water inspectorate, the response from the DWI was, as the Chair of the Committee has said, incredibly useful. It was clear that it is doing very effective work, despite having fewer than 60 staff. As we move towards a new single regulator, we have to preserve the DWI’s culture, expertise and robustness. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister can set out what the Department will do to make sure that the few examples of where the current regulatory system is working well are preserved rather than thrown out with the bathwater.
I welcome the measures set out in the new water White Paper, such as an end to companies marking their own homework. An MOT-style regime for water assets will finally move us from crisis response to prevention. The new water ombudsman, with its legally binding powers, will be customers’ advocate when things go wrong. Our communities want action. They want to know that when rules are broken, consequences will follow. The only way to change behaviour in a broken system is to change the law, and I am confident that we will continue to see tough action from this Government where the last failed so miserably.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on bringing to the Chamber an issue that has sparked vivid examples of the complete and abject failure of our privatised water companies. I welcome this debate, although the news that it brings is very disappointing, is it not? Our rivers are, of course, precious. The Tone runs through and unites almost all parts of Taunton and Wellington. It is a lifeline for biodiversity, for families and countryside lovers and for the whole natural world. When rivers are healthy, our communities and our nature flourish, but when they are polluted, we all suffer.
That is why the recent revelations about Wessex Water are infuriating. Just a few weeks ago, we learned that the company’s former chief executive officer, Colin Skellett, received a £170,000 bonus from the Malaysian parent company, YTL Utilities. Despite a Government ban on bonuses, the current CEO and chief financial officer received £50,000 in additional payments through the same route. Those payments came after Wessex Water’s criminal conviction in November 2024 for pollution that killed more than 2,000 fish, and after the company was fined £11 million for additional sewage failures. That is all in the context of the £4.25 billion paid out by Wessex Water to private shareholders since privatisation. I cannot think of a more graphic failure of the Conservatives’ privatisation programme. Imagine if that £4 billion had been invested in our rivers and infrastructure over that time. That is exactly the kind of behaviour that the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was meant to prevent, but companies are getting around it by using parent company fee payments, fee payments generally and complex corporate structures to circumvent the rules.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) warned that that would happen and pushed for a stronger regulator. We called for Ofwat to be scrapped and replaced with a regulator with real teeth. We also called for a new ownership model for water companies, for the public to be brought in through public interest companies, and for mutual ownership so that customers have a stake in the ownership and profits are reinvested in the company rather than going to private shareholders on the other side of the world. Many bill payers in the Wessex Water area would be surprised to find that that is where the money they pay ultimately ends up.
The fundamental problem is that while executives are exploiting loopholes to line their pockets, rivers are getting worse and dying. Customers are paying through higher bills, and communities are watching their local rivers fill with sewage. I checked just before coming to the debate, and north of Bradford-on-Tone and in Heron Gate and Lower Henlade in my constituency, sewage works are pumping sewage into the River Tone right now. Water company bosses should not be rewarded for that kind of behaviour through whatever corporate sleight of hand they are attempting to use. That is as real in my constituency as it is anywhere else.
As so often happens, volunteers have come to the fore. They banded together, and the Friends of French Weir Park and I applied for and got bathing water status to try to improve the water quality of the river, but we need investment.
Tom Gordon
My hon. Friend highlights the involvement of the fantastic community groups that have had to pick up the pieces of this broken system. Does he agree that, in an ideal world, we would not need organisations such as the Nidd Action Group in my constituency, even though the work they do is fantastic?
Gideon Amos
That is absolutely right. Water companies should be run in the interest of the public, not of the private shareholders’ pockets. That would be a welcome reform for communities in Taunton and Wellington and, no doubt, across the country.
In Taunton and Wellington, Wessex Water needs to reform and put this right. I welcome the action it is beginning to take, but we need real investment in the River Tone to improve bathing water quality, and water quality generally. Our sewage works must get the investment that they need. The Government must close the loopholes whereby bonuses are paid in all but name, and we need to ban the parent company payments that circumvent those rules. We need to strengthen enforcement powers, give regulators teeth and hold companies accountable so that communities such as mine can have confidence that the water they pay for comes from a company that is set up and run in the interest of the public, not private profit.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Tim Farron. I thank everyone for keeping to time.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is as privilege to serve under your guidance, Dr Allin-Khan. I say a big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and leading it so ably. I also make a little apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for clearing my throat while he was speaking. I was not doing so to make him shut up and sit down—I am not the Speaker. I genuinely had a frog in my throat.
I remember the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 well. I genuinely enjoyed being on the Bill Committee with Members here and others. There are lots of good things in it, but overall the Liberal Democrat view was that it felt like incremental change when more radical reform was needed. All the same, it included some real positives, including provision to ban bonuses for the senior executives of failing water companies. Yet, as we have heard from multiple sources, water companies are now making a mockery of that legislation.
We have heard about some of those already, but let me run through some examples. Southern Water’s chief exec’s pay has doubled to £1.4 million via a “two-year long-term incentive plan”. Wessex Water’s chief exec and chief financial officer both got an extra £50,000 undisclosed from its parent company. As we have heard, Thames Water tried it on—21 senior managers were set to be paid a total of £2.46 million in retention payments. In perhaps the most explicit example, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the chief executive of Yorkshire Water received £1.3 million from the holding company, Kelda Holdings.
Those are clear and obvious examples of water companies trying to perhaps abide by the letter of the law, if they can get away with it, while completely and utterly flouting the spirit of it. It is totally predictable. Outrageously, Ofwat have either signed off many of these cases or just shimmied and said, “None of our business. We’ve got no powers to do it”—a reminder that it is high time it was abolished and replaced with a more powerful regulator.
Mr Carmichael
Thames Water first paid out bonuses it said it would not recoup, and has subsequently said only that the payment of bonuses is paused. My hon. Friend knows that I am a nasty, suspicious and cynical person, but I am pretty sure the senior management, the chief executive and the chair of that company are heading for the door one way or another at some stage. I suspect that one of their last acts before they leave the office will be to press “pay” on those bonuses. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that happens, we can agree that whatever the good intentions behind the Water (Special Measures) Act, they simply have not worked, and we need to build a consensus on how to regulate these things more effectively?
Tim Farron
My right hon. Friend is neither nasty nor cynical; he knows Thames Water only too well. Well intentioned though the Act may be, it is clearly full of holes, and the water company chief executives and others are finding ways through them.
We contrast all of that with the fact that in 2024—the last time we had comprehensive figures—the water companies between them dumped sewage in our waterways for a duration of 3.6 million hours. My patch of Westmorland is now the third hardest-hit constituency in England for duration of sewage spills. In 2024 alone, there were over 5,000 sewage discharge incidents, amounting to more than 55,000 hours of raw sewage released into our rivers and lakes, from the Eden to the Eea and from the Kent to the Crake. In just the first 20—no, 19 and a half—days of 2026, there have already been 424 hours of sewage discharge into Westmorland’s precious waterways.
At the same time, water companies across the country are shamelessly slithering around the bonus ban. Their bonuses and dividends are being paid, for the most part, by bill payers. Indeed, water companies are wading in colossal debt, often incurred to pay those bonuses and dividends. In just 2024, £1.2 billion was paid out in dividends, mostly out of debt. In my communities in Westmorland, 11p out of every pound we pay on our water bills goes just to finance debt. Thames Water is even worse: customers are paying over 30p in the pound simply to service the company’s debts.
My message to industry leaders is this: bonuses are meant to be paid to folks who do a good job. If you are leading a company that actively pollutes our lakes, rivers and seas, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are not doing a good job.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
My hon. Friend is right to discuss the problems of sewage in our waterways, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and I, and the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), have all experienced in recent weeks, it is not just about sewage in waterways; it is about freshwater supply. Does my hon. Friend agree that the chief executive of South East Water should also go for failing to deliver tap water to our taps?
Tim Farron
I imagine that that is item 1—indeed, probably items 1 to 6—on the job description. If they cannot fulfil that obligation, then go they should.
The Government brought in the Act to stop bonuses like this being paid, but they are clearly not effectively enforcing that ban in practice. Although I am critical of the Government, my main criticism is reserved for the water company bosses themselves, who have the nerve to go looking for ways to get around the bonus ban to enrich themselves, often out of bill payers’ money. I tell water industry bosses this: your customers see you, our constituents see you and your hard-working frontline employees see you. Your authority is diminished because your integrity is diminished. That proves the Liberal Democrats right: we need far more radical change in our water industry.
So we come to the White Paper released by the Government this week. Having rejected our 44 amendments to what is now the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, the Government soon conceded that they needed to do more and launched the independent commission into the water sector, chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe. The commission reported last July, and this week’s White Paper draws from its report. It is meant to be a step towards a more far-reaching water Bill, perhaps in the coming parliamentary Session, and there are welcome elements in the Government’s trailing of it. For example, it is good that they want to borrow the Liberal Democrats’ plan for a single unified regulator to bring financial and environmental oversight together.
I want quickly to add to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and others that the Drinking Water Inspectorate is doing a good job. We should not level it down to the level of the rest of the regulatory sector, but level the sector up to the inspectorate’s level.
It is good that the Government want to make regulation more proactive through the work of a chief engineer. However, the disaster in Kent and Sussex over the water supply, the financial failure of Thames Water, the failure of all water companies to prevent sewage dumping and the decision of water industry leaders to stick two fingers up to bill payers and Parliament by dodging the bonus ban all tell us that we will never solve this crisis while we maintain the current ownership model. The Liberal Democrats demand that our water companies be transitioned to being mutually owned public benefit companies, so that money raised in the water industry is reinvested in our infrastructure, and the main motivation is not the profiteering of people who are often probably not even resident in this country, but the quality of our water supply and sewage removal systems and the benefit to the customer. We are therefore bitterly disappointed that the Government have no plans to change the ownership model at all. As a result, the White Paper looks like yet another missed opportunity.
Water UK has welcomed the White Paper, which ought to really worry the Government because it is the water companies’ trade body. Of course it is delighted that the Government continue to protect the water companies from the fullest scrutiny. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) pointed out, we are measuring the duration, not the volume, of sewage. I said that sewage was dumped for 3.6 million hours in 2024, and that is all I can say, because the duration of spills is all we are allowed to know, but the volume of sewage going into our waterways is surely even more significant. There can be long trickle or a swift deluge, yet the Government refuse to enforce the measurement of volume, despite Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill that would have allowed them to do that.
It feels like the Government, in failing to enforce the 2025 Act and stand up to the water companies in their new water White Paper, are content merely to make tentative steps to be better than the dismal record of their Tory predecessors—which is not a high bar. The British people need this Government to be a lot more than just a bit better than the Conservatives. They need radical reform of this failed ownership model and of inadequate regulations and enforcement. The Liberal Democrats will offer that reform.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to speak in this important debate on the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and for his opening remarks. We have heard many powerful contributions from across the Chamber.
Today’s debate once again reinforces what everyone here and the public know: the water industry needs fundamental reform—work that the Conservatives started. Because of the Conservatives, 100% of storm overflows are now monitored, compared with just 7% in 2010, when the last Labour Government left office. We now know the scale of the problem and can start holding water companies to account more transparently and, importantly, with an evidence base for incidents such as illegal sewage spills.
Our landmark Environment Act 2021 delivered our plan for cutting plastic pollution and holding water companies to account. We had our ambitious plan for water, and strong action on water companies that were illegally dumping sewage into our waters. The last Government brought in measures to ban executives from receiving bonuses where water companies are found to have committed serious pollution incidents. That is why it was so disappointing to see the current Government simply recycling and repackaging some of those measures, while leaving out major improvements, such as the water restoration fund, when they introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act.
Existing measures to allow Ofwat to change the conditions of water company licences in the Environment Act 2021 were already sufficient to ban bonuses for executives where that was deemed necessary. Although the Opposition supported and constructively scrutinised the Water (Special Measures) Act, that primary legislation, despite the measures it included, was not necessary to enforce a ban on bonuses in the first place. During its passage, we tabled many sensible amendments, including ones to ringfence funding from enforcement fines to a dedicated water restoration fund, to guarantee that companies fixed locally the environmental damage they caused; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its remuneration and governance rules, on which MPs would have been given a vote; to reduce consumers’ bills if their companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies did not leverage too much debt. Sadly, the Government failed to support those amendments, and very much missed an opportunity to increase accountability through them.
I am sure the Minister, for whom I have great affection and respect, will reassure us that the Government have set out all their plans to improve accountability in the water industry in the water reform White Paper published today—although I have to say that that is nearly six months after the water commission published its final report, which the Minister said the Government would respond to promptly.
We need only look at the example of Thames Water, which we have heard about a bit today, and which is still in a precarious financial situation, to see that we really cannot afford to delay wholesale reform much longer. It has been wrung dry of capital, and it has failed to invest to expand its supply and clean up sewage spills. Alarmingly, the interim financial report showed that between the end of March and the end of September 2025 its debt, as a percentage of company equity, increased by £833 million—a 5% increase. All of that is only heightened by the fact that Thames Water has had £123 million pounds of enforcement fines because of Ofwat’s findings last May.
His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear: we do not want to see Thames Water fold, because although water supply would continue, there would be a serious risk of higher bills for consumers and the issues facing the company would not be solved. Strangely, the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company, and both they and Reform seem happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky high. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government are taking action to help find a market-based solution for the Thames Water rescue deal?
When it comes to water supply, we need only look at recent events in the south-east, which we have heard about today, to see directly how urgently customers need changes to regulation. In recent days and weeks, we have heard powerful testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and other colleagues. Communities across Sussex and Kent have faced terrible impacts, with tens of thousands of homes left without water supply, medical procedures cancelled, some hospital appointments moved online, schools and libraries shut, hospitality businesses having to close their doors, and farmers and horse owners fearing they will not have enough water for their livestock.
On the subject of animals, water companies have been saying that they have no duty to provide water for them. As a medic, Dr Allin-Khan, you will be very familiar with the fluid requirements of a person, but to put it in perspective, the average 500 kg horse needs 25 litres of water a day, and a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres a day. That is a hell of a lot of water that the companies are not providing when we have outages, creating animal welfare issues and pressing local communities. Farmers, animal owners and local communities have had to step in, roll their sleeves up and help each other out—it should not be like that.
Given the clear need for wholesale reform and accountability for water delivery and quality, can the Minister provide any clarity today as to when we will actually see tangible, beneficial changes to the quality, but also quantity, of fresh water supplied to households, medical establishments, schools and businesses? One aspect the Government have articulated is that the regulatory system will see reform, with some of the current bodies abolished and merged into one. The Opposition accept that that is necessary to improve the current state of the water industry, but can the Minister confirm that the Government are working at pace to provide a new regulatory structure that genuinely improves regulation and delivery; to provide clarity as to how that regulator will be organised to efficiently deliver its responsibilities; and, as we have heard from colleagues, to ensure that standards that are currently working better—such as in the Drinking Water Inspectorate—are not worsened by regulatory reform?
His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have always maintained that we will support serious efforts to continue the last Government’s work in holding water companies accountable and improving our water sector. Ministers have said that they will not tolerate any attempts to work around the ban on bonuses and will instruct Ofwat to enforce fines and other penalties if it finds the rules have been broken. Ofwat has said it is considering updating its company reporting requirements for next year’s performance-related executive pay assessment to ensure that there is greater transparency around exactly what renumeration companies receive and, as we have heard today, why they are receiving that payment.
The Opposition fully support the Government in seeking to enforce the law and ensuring that executives do not receive unfair bonuses where water companies have been found to commit criminal breaches and are not delivering a good service. We would also support genuine efforts by the Government to hold water companies to account and build on the work of the last Conservative Government to improve water quality. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to outline exactly how the Government will ensure existing laws are properly enforced. I am sorry to say that, so far, the meaningful reform that they have promised, and that is rightly expected, has under-delivered when it comes to the change that we need. Their response to the Cunliffe review, although slow in coming, is now their biggest opportunity to make sure they get this right. We need not just words, but action, and sensible measures that the whole House can get behind.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate. I am particularly delighted he has done so today—great timing—since today we have published our new vision for water.
These are once-in-a-generation reforms to our water system, delivering tough oversight and real accountability, and putting an end to water company excuses. This Labour Government are doing away with water companies marking their own homework and are holding them firmly to account. From an MOT-style approach for water companies’ pipes and pumps to no-notice inspection powers, we are creating a system where customers get the service they deserve and bosses have nowhere to hide. We have already taken tough action on the worst performing water companies, while protecting customers by doubling compensation for those impacted by supply interruptions.
There are a few more treats included in today’s White Paper, among them a new chief engineer to bring technical expertise to the new regulator for the first time in 20 years; new performance improvement regimes, so that any water companies falling behind in finances, environmental standards, drinking water quality or operations will face tough consequences; and dedicated supervisory teams to replace the current one-size-fits-all approach and give the new single regulator a thorough understanding of how each company operates; no-notice inspections; mandatory water efficiency labelling; accelerated roll-out of smart meters; regional planning to bring together councils, water companies, farmers and developers to deliver joined-up plans to tackle river pollution, water resources and housing growth; and senior accountability to ensure water bosses are directly accountable for the service that customers receive.
Mims Davies
My constituents, particularly businesses, want clear understanding around compensation, but the area that interests me is the chief engineer role. The guidance that was given to her fellow Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh) before the recent 16,500-property outage in East Grinstead and the villages was that it would affect Sussex Weald and Crowborough. How can this new chief engineer help us to get South East Water to be clear about what is already going on?
Emma Hardy
I have huge sympathy and support for the hon. Lady and her constituents in the situation that they have faced in the last few weeks and I understand the urgent need for compensation, not just for her residents, but many of the neighbouring constituencies. She mentioned that it is the first time that Ofwat has ever done an investigation into whether a company is still complying with its licence to operate. It is looking at the customer part of the operation licence to see whether or not the company is complying; that is the first time that has ever been done. The Consumer Council for Water is visiting the Tunbridge Wells area to hear direct testimony from people about how they have been treated and how the situation has impacted them. I share the love expressed in the Chamber for the Drinking Water Inspectorate, particularly for Marcus Rink and all the work he does, and the inspectorate is looking carefully into that matter as well.
One of the things that we promised in the Water (Special Measures) Act were powerful new customer panels to ensure that customers are at the heart of company governance. Some first accountability sessions will be held in spring 2026, requiring customers’ views to be taken into account in company decision making and allowing those customers to hold companies to account—one of the many things that was in that Act.
While we are on the situation that the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) faced, I will mention the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), whom we spent rather a long time with over the last few weeks. It is outrageous; my heart sank when I saw Tunbridge Wells and its residents being impacted again after the awful situation that businesses faced in the run-up to Christmas. I am keen for them to receive compensation as quickly as possible. He is right to point out the concerns that we all had about the disinformation that was put out. The need for clear communication to everybody about what is happening is incredibly important.
There are many things from the water White Paper that I would like to highlight. I hope we get a chance in Parliament over the coming weeks to look at some of that in more detail. There is a section on debt at the bottom of page 26 of the White Paper that states:
“We will therefore consider how the regulator can work with companies and investors to ensure companies do not accumulate unmanageable levels of debt”.
There is a direct reference to debt in the White Paper. It is also worth pointing out what it says in the section called “Putting Customers First”. Page 31 mentions
“increasing public access to water for recreation and wellbeing”',
something that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) is really interested in. That is because of the love that there is for the Tyne and how beautiful it is—we want to see people having access to it.
The White Paper mentions the powerful new customer panels as well, and also looks at regulators strengthening the “customer measure of experience”. That is one of the metrics used to judge water companies and we want to strengthen that metric of experience.
Another thing that comes up in debates on agricultural pollution is the effect that it has on the beautiful and stunning River Wye, and which I know is a huge source of concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). On page 35, we talk about how we will
“consult on reforms on how sewage sludge use in agriculture is regulated and whether this should be included in the Environmental Permitting Regime..”
One of the big focuses and challenges is what the difference would be, if these measures were all in place. One of the many key things is about prevention rather than cure—I know you will understand that analogy very well, Dr Allin-Khan. It is about getting companies to fix things before they break. Around the country, we have too many examples of things breaking before companies recognise that they should be fixed. The MOT work, the engineer and the resilience standards are all about understanding where the problems are and getting in there and fixing them first. Fundamentally, that is cheaper and better for customers, because it costs less to fix something before it breaks and creates a disaster somewhere.
Mr Carmichael
I am interested to get the Minister’s view on this subject of the relationship between the Department and companies. She may be aware that the Department is currently appealing to the first-tier tribunal a decision of the Information Commissioner requiring them to disclose information to Democracy for Sale, an organisation run by investigative journalists. DEFRA’s defence is that they have to have a safe space when talking to water companies about these things. I am not expecting her to comment on live legal proceedings, but will she reflect on that, and interrogate her officials when she returns to the Department about whether it is appropriate for the Department to defend such cases where, in this case, the party receiving the obvious benefit is Thames Water?
Emma Hardy
As the right hon. Gentleman has noted, I cannot speak about live investigations, but I will reflect on what he outlines.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) mentioned livestock and its importance, something that came up a lot during our many calls. Yes, we need adequate water for people, but there have also been many animals in distress.
We will carry out pilots across the country to look at the new regional regulatory structure and how we are going to make it work. That is a massive opportunity for Members across the House to get involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) was talking about rural communities being supported and ensuring that we have emergency provisions for livestock. In relation to the River Tyne in particular, I encourage him to speak to his water company and find out exactly when it will upgrade those storm overflows, so that he can see tangible progress in his area.
We have also doubled the funding for catchment partnerships, which is great news where we have those, particularly in rural areas. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire for her work on the Bill Committee and for the work that she continues to do in championing the River Wye. She is quite right that rivers do not obey geographical boundaries, so we have to work together. I put on record my thanks to the Welsh Government for all the work they have done. We have worked together on many different measures and will continue to do so.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase for his work on the EFRA Committee. He is right that there should be clear consequences for failure, and he will be pleased to know that following the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Environment Agency is on track to deliver 10,000 inspections in the year ’25-26. That is a massive increase on the previous year’s 4,600 inspections; we are more than doubling inspections of water companies. We are also doubling compensation because, sadly, we have seen that the doubling of compensation for customers who face supply outages or receive boil notices is desperately needed.
I would like to be in a situation—as we will be when we implement all these measures—where we do not need to compensate customers because we are not continually seeing failure. But until that moment, I will continue to work hard, push on and deliver the changes that the industry so desperately needs.
Tom Gordon
Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. It has been a privilege to hear from Members from across the House and the country. They have shared examples about their water companies, and the failures and systemic issues that are pervasive across the sector.
In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for his determined campaigning on this issue over the years and in the run-up to the general election; it came up time and again when we were candidates, and those Liberal Democrats who were elected to this place owe him a great debt of gratitude for banging the drum. I also thank everyone who intervened—I cannot rattle through everyone in the time I have, but I look forward to seeing the water White Paper and to chewing it over in depth and with more time, hopefully in the main Chamber.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.
County Durham: Cultural Opportunities
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
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
That this House has considered cultural opportunities in County Durham.
I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this debate to the House. To many, culture is an add-on: a luxury for when times are good or a line item to be trimmed when budgets are tight. In County Durham, we know better. For us, culture is the thread weaving through our communities. It is our history, our pride and our future. It does not just inform what we do; it defines who we are.
To understand why culture matters, one must look to the history of the Durham miners. They did not just extract coal; they built entire communities. They created a welfare state long before 1945: out of their own pockets, through subscriptions and solidarity, they built the institutes, the schools and the libraries that stand today as monuments to self-improvement and collective dignity. They knew that a person needs more than just a wage; they need a sense of belonging. They knew that they had to nourish the mind as well as the body.
That culture lives on in the newly refurbished Redhills—the pitman’s parliament. My constituency office is in Redhills and I never fail to be struck by the fact that it was built by the pennies of pitmen. It is a beacon of working-class heritage and culture. That spirit is reflected in the continued success of the Durham miners’ gala, the big meeting, which was first held in 1871. It has survived strikes, wars and the closure of pits to remain the largest celebration of trade union culture in Europe. From the blessing of the banners at the cathedral to the brass bands on the racecourse, it is a reminder that although the pits might be gone, our solidarity is permanent.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady, who I spoke to before the debate, for recognising the cultural attachments that we all have. I know she is aware that County Durham and Northern Ireland share deep-rooted cultural parallels, largely shaped by their industrial heritage, strong community identity and significant historical migration—many families from Northern Ireland are in Durham, and vice versa. Does she agree that to make the best of such areas’ attractions, we must fully fund tourism and investment? That will not only preserve the past, but provide a future for her people.
Mary Kelly Foy
I could not agree more. I will go on to talk about the diversity in Durham, with the Irishmen, those from Northern Ireland and those from Scotland who came to the north-east to work in our shipyards, our mines and our steelworks. We need to remember that heritage and culture—and, yes, it is something for tourists to enjoy as well.
Alongside the proud heritage of the mines, left to us by those miners, we also have the legacy of rail, left to us by the pioneering spirit of George Stephenson and others.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech about the rich cultural heritage of County Durham. Does she agree that a key part of that cultural heritage is the history of the Stockton and Darlington railway, of which we celebrated the 200th anniversary before Christmas, and which runs through my constituency? Would she join me in encouraging Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and other cultural partners, to continue to celebrate that heritage railway, so that we can attract tourism and investment in the future, and the industrial heritage that we are proud of?
Mary Kelly Foy
Once again, I could not agree more. Of course, it was the railway that took the coal from Newcastle down to London. That built the wealth of this country, so we have to remember where it started. Those tourism opportunities need to be encouraged by our county council.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend mentioned where it started. In Shildon we recently unveiled a world origin site plaque, showing that the world’s first commercial railway started in the Bishop Auckland constituency. Does she agree that we should do more to celebrate some of the world firsts in the wonderful place we are lucky to represent?
Mary Kelly Foy
As my hon. Friend knows, I had the privilege of listening to someone from the history group in your constituency—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. I ask the hon. Lady to address the Chair.
Mary Kelly Foy
I am sorry. They were talking about exactly that. Again, that is an opportunity for people across the country and the north-east to visit the rich culture of our area.
All that heritage has blossomed into our modern culture. In Durham, we see the brass festival blending our colliery roots with global performers. We see it in Durham Pride, which for years has sent the message that everyone is welcome in our county. We see it in the life-changing work of TIN Arts, which tirelessly ensures that disability is never a barrier to creativity.
Let us not forget the talent emerging from our university, schools and streets. Last year, I saw the energy of bands such as Jam Tub, a trio of young lads embodying the DIY spirit typical of the north-east. Beyond the city, our culture thrives at the Bishop Auckland food festival, local fairs and agricultural shows.
Sam Rushworth
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Bishop Auckland. On Friday, we are having a big meeting for people helping to launch our bid to be the town of culture. Does she agree that culture is what people do together? That is what makes County Durham such an incredible and vibrant place: the people who do stuff together. That is why we need Government support to do more together, particularly for the rising generation.
Mary Kelly Foy
That is a valuable point. Last year, Durham applied to be the city of culture but, unfortunately, came second to Bradford, which had a fabulous year as the city of culture. I wish my hon. Friend success with Bishop Auckland’s bid to be the town of culture.
Such events are the social glue that keep our rural and ex-mining communities resilient, yet today it can sometimes feel that culture in Durham is in retreat. We have been told that Lumiere, which transformed our streets into a world-class art and light installation, bringing millions into our economy, has turned off the lights for the last time. We have always been proud to say, “It started here. It started with us,” so losing it is a devastating blow to our prestige and our economy.
A few years ago, Rocking Horse rehearsal rooms was unceremoniously turfed out of its city centre location, as the landowner simply wanted to build some more industrial units. Even though the owner of Rocking Horse, Rich, has managed to relocate outside the city, there is now no dedicated recording space in the city of Durham for non-students. What am I supposed to say to bands such as Jam Tub when they tell me that the cost of equipment and space is prohibitive? There is also a huge lack of venues for new up-and-coming bands to perform in. To follow their dreams, they are often left with no choice but to leave the north-east.
Sadly, the new administration at Durham county council views culture through a lens of division. It has grandstanded over Durham Pride, claiming that it has saved money by cutting funding, while branding that key annual event, which brings thousands of people to the city, as “political street theatre”—I do not know about you, Ms Vaz, but I love a bit of street theatre. We cannot let the divisive views of other parties diminish the importance of such events to many people in our communities.
Pride is about dignity and equal rights, self-affirmation and an acceptance of ourselves and each other, as well as a shared remembrance of our struggles and victories achieved together. When events are made to feel like political targets by the council that should be their champion, our communities become less cohesive.
The north-east is populated by people with diverse histories. I think of migrants from Scotland and Ireland who came into the region to work in our shipyards, mines and steelworks, and, more recently, migrants from further afield working in our NHS. We should be embracing new cultures, with their food, music, language and dance, and new traditions. That is how we build community and inspire creativity. Grandstanding and division do not build a culture; they tear it down.
At the heart of the city, we have the astonishing Durham cathedral. It sits atop a stunning peninsula at the centre of the UNESCO world heritage site. We are rightly proud of that jewel in the north-east’s crown, but for a resident in Sherburn village or Willington, or someone further afield in Stanley, Crook or Newton Aycliffe, that grandeur can feel a world away if their local community hall is shut or the community group has run out of cash. Those are not simply things that would be nice for communities to have: if centres close or groups struggle for cash, where do we tell people to go for their music classes, art groups or dance classes?
Under the coalition Government, education reforms removed the arts as core subjects in the curriculum. The effects of that are clear: the north-east has the lowest entry rates for music and performing arts, and whole areas of the north-east have schools with no students at all applying for music. If young people cannot access art through schools, and their opportunities in the community are limited, where will that spark of inspiration come from that will produce our next generation of artists, performers, writers and musicians? The answer cannot be, “You can participate if you can afford it.” Cultural opportunities should never be left as a preserve of the rich.
I do not want to paint a picture of total decline. I recently heard from Dr Stephen Cronin, chair of the Durham fringe, which was launched in 2021 by volunteers and is now the north-east’s largest recognised fringe. By using alternative spaces, it ensures that creativity remains workable and rooted in the community. Stephen is putting together a fringe academy to give young people a chance to learn the trade of the arts.
Stephen’s message was clear: culture does not always need multimillion-pound capital grants for shiny buildings. We need to look beyond the usual suspects for funding, and grassroots groups like the fringe do the most with the least. They do not need cathedrals of glass and steel; they need consistent support to keep the lights on in the hall and to feed those shoots of creativity. They need a Government, a region, and a local authority that provide fertile soil—[Interruption.]
Mary Kelly Foy
We are delighted that culture in Durham has been backed by our North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness. She shared our dismay at the loss of Lumiere, having backed it with nearly £250,000 of funding. She has long advocated a tourism levy—a small £2 per night charge that could bring £20 million into our region’s culture. She has also backed the Women of the World North East festival, celebrating the achievements of women while tackling the inequalities that still exist. But we cannot rely on the mayor’s office alone; we need our schools, colleges and local authorities to be fully engaged in offering real opportunity in music, art, performing and sport. Those miners knew that a century ago, and it is reflected in the motto of the newly refurbished Redhills:
“The past we inherit, the future we build.”
As the residents of County Durham know today, culture is essential for our wellbeing, but unless we support it, it will die on the vine. What value do we truly put on culture? Does the Minister agree that culture should not be the preserve of those with the deepest pockets? What can we do as a Government to ensure that culture remains a contested space and is able to spring and flourish from the grassroots? What can we do to get young people to see that there is a future for them in performing arts and music, by engaging our schools, colleges and community spaces? How do we make sure that in our communities bands such as Jam Tub have a place to play, that Durham fringe can continue and that the recently rehomed Durham folk festival can survive and flourish?
Finally, will the Minister pass on my invite to the other Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), to come to Durham and see what we have to offer, while also seeing what we need? I am sure that my hon Friend will be left feeling assured that our county is a place to invest in culturally, to help the talented people here chase their dreams without them having to leave for pastures down south.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I thank Sir Nic Dakin for stepping in on behalf of the Minister.
The Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Ms Vaz. I am pleased to respond to this debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing it.
My hon. Friend has spoken with great passion, conviction and authority about the flourishing of the arts and the challenge to the arts in her constituency. She is right that culture should never be just the preserve of people with the deepest pockets; it is in the veins of all of us. She is also right to identify investing in the future with young people and what happens in schools and activities around them, and in the community, to build the culture of the future. She is right to invite the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock) —she was with us for most of the debate, but unfortunately had to leave us—to visit the city of Durham. I am sure that the Minister will put that in her diary as soon as she is back.
We have heard with great passion about the deep-rooted cultural identity of County Durham—a place where the miners historically did not just extract wealth from the ground, but invested it back into the minds of the community through libraries, schools, halls and community events. Many of those survive today and have been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham in her speech.
The Government are backing the vision for investment in grassroots arts with more than just warm words. Last year, we announced the £270 million Arts Everywhere fund to support our venues, museums and libraries. In 2024-25, we provided over £500 million in grant-in-aid to Arts Council England. I am pleased to confirm we have increased ACE’s core budget for 2025-26 by over £7.6 million.
In County Durham, ACE has invested almost £2.5 million since 2023. That is a massive vote of confidence in local creativity and includes over £2 million of annual funding through ACE’s national portfolio programme, which supports eight organisations in the county—including TIN Arts, which my hon. Friend alluded to in her speech. That organisation is doing vital work in inclusive dance for those with learning disabilities. Beamish Museum, a recent winner of the Art Fund museum of the year, is also a joyous and immersive site shaped by the very community stories my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham highlighted.
The support for the national story is mirrored in our investment in the physical health of the county, with £2.79 million provided by Sport England in 2024-25. That has funded everything from a leisure centre in Bishop Auckland to walking football initiatives, ensuring that culture and sport remain visible and valued parts of everyday life.
My hon. Friend raised concerns about the closure of community spaces and the future of local celebrations, and she was right to do so. We recognise that local government is the backbone of culture. Durham county council receives more than £500,000 annually from ACE as a national portfolio organisation. That supports the Durham book festival—vital as 2026 is the National Year of Reading—and the Durham brass festival, in its 20th year. Although I understand that last year was Lumiere’s final edition in that format, the council is seeking a “fresh approach”. I wish it luck in building on the legacy of 1.3 million visitors. I commend to it my hon. Friend’s comments in this debate as a purpose and reason for taking things further and ensuring that that legacy is a true one.
The Pride in Place programme is targeting up to £20 million each for neighbourhoods like Spennymoor, Peterlee East, Stanley South and Crook North and Tow Law. Crucially, we are also investing in the next generation. We have invested almost £1 million for better youth spaces in Durham, £900,000 for a Young Futures hub and Local Youth Transformation, and more than £500,000 for five Durham-based charities since 2024 from the enrichment partnerships pilot.
I heard the concerns about local bands lacking rehearsal space. That is a very real issue—not just in my hon. Friend’s constituency but around the country, but she puts her finger on something that needs attention and addressing. Our new industrial strategy includes a music growth package of up to £30 million specifically to support the grassroots sector. We know that a sustainable music scene is the bedrock of the entire industry. Furthermore, through the creative places growth fund, we have provided £25 million to the North East combined authority. That empowers the fantastic local mayor, Kim McGuinness, to turbocharge the creative sector right across the region, including the communities struggling outside the UNESCO site.
Looking to the future and towns and cities of culture, County Durham’s 2025 city of culture bid was a remarkable achievement and we gave it, as a runner-up, £125,000 to sustain that momentum. However, we also want our towns to take centre stage. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said:
“There is so much for us to be proud of in the towns we’re from—from the rich, local history to unique festivals and celebrations. They have shaped our national story for decades. Now it’s time they take centre stage and showcase the unique stories they have to tell.”
Our new competition for the town of culture is designed for places exactly like Bishop Auckland. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) knows well his area’s cultural might—from the Faith Museum to the world’s greatest collection of 17th-century Spanish art outside Spain. The other Minister need not go to Spain—she could simply go to Bishop Auckland. We welcome bids from all towns in the country and County Durham in particular. Expressions of interest are due by 31 March 2026.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham pointed to the fact that culture is sometimes seen through a lens of division. It is to her great credit that she has not done that today. Indeed, she has reminded us of the glue that culture is within our communities. We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) and for Bishop Auckland—and, of course, from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who finds joy in the whole country. I am sure there is something that he particularly enjoys in County Durham.
Areas selected through the Pride in Place programme will receive dedicated support from the communities delivery unit. With the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the CDU will work in partnership with neighbourhood boards and local authorities to provide access to place-specific data guidance and capability support tailored to local needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor drew attention to the heritage railway route, the Stockton and Darlington railway, and I understand that he met my colleague Baroness Twycross, the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling, in December to discuss its potential world heritage status. I welcome his advocacy and support for an important component of local heritage, but I must reiterate Baroness Twycross’s explanation that we are not considering adding new sites to our existing tentative list—our pipeline of potential world heritage nominations—outside of the UK’s formal review process. The next review is expected in 2033, and I hope that he will be here to see it.
To conclude, from the £400,000 for emergency repairs at Ushaw to the £2.79 million for Sport England for local leisure, we are investing in this part of the country at every level. The culture of County Durham, with its brass bands, mining banners, railways and art—of course, I loved the mention of its steel heritage as well; I would, wouldn’t I?—has remained the golden thread binding its communities together. The miners of Durham built for the future. Today this Government are doing the same, ensuring that whether we are in the shadow of Durham cathedral or at the heart of a former coalfield, we have access to a rich, vibrant and inclusive cultural life.
In this debate, we have heard many examples of the vibrancy of that culture in 2026. The opportunities to be seized by the cultural and creative industries across the north-east are vast. County Durham, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham reminded us and as was reinforced by colleagues’ contributions, is a cultural powerhouse that is open for business. We stand ready to work with local leaders and communities to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to experience and participate in arts and culture across County Durham.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I thank you again for stepping in, Sir Nic—what a talented person you are.
Question put and agreed to.
ADHD Diagnosis
(1 day, 6 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
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered ADHD diagnosis.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. This debate is about how pathways to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis might be improved, including by offering screening in schools, so that people can access the right support in good time.
We all have a pretty good idea of what ADHD means, but I am here because a 19-year-old constituent of mine, Matty Lock, took his own life in September 2023. He was diagnosed with autism at the age of 14, but he and his parents, Christine and Richard, who are here this afternoon, did not know about his ADHD until much later. In Matty’s memory, Christine and Richard have set up the Matthew Lock ADHD Charity, and they have been part of the independent taskforce. One of the things that the taskforce has done—this has been accepted by the NHS—is to highlight the proven link between suicide and ADHD. The prevalence of ADHD is 10 times higher among men attempting to take their own lives.
Let me say a few words about Matty. I knew him because he was very interested in politics. He had become a town and parish councillor, and he had campaigned hard with me for some time. Those of us who knew him through politics believed that he would be in this place before much longer. It is very, very sad that that was not to be.
Matty was known on television as “The Vac Mat” for his repairs of vacuum cleaners and his advocacy of domestic appliances on “This Morning”. He was everywhere in the community of Maghull—clearing up and playing his part. He was a real, strong advocate of the community that he grew up and lived in.
Matty’s ADHD was linked to how hyperactive he was. We know that people with ADHD are restless, lack concentration, are impulsive, act without thinking and always talk over others—actually, as I go through the list, I can think of nearly 650 people in this place who have a lot in common with that description.
What is the impact of having ADHD? We know that it leads to a significant number of school exclusions and very high drop-out rates. We know about the link with addiction, and that the prevalence of ADHD among people in prison is five to 10 times higher than among people outside. Sadly, we also know about the link with suicide.
NHS figures suggest that about 700,000 people are waiting for a diagnosis, and that many of them have waited for several years. Nearly two thirds of those people have been waiting for more than a year. The economic cost is estimated to be about £17 billion a year.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech that has affected us all. In November 2025, NHS Surrey Heartlands integrated care board in my constituency paused assessments on the Right to Choose pathway until April 2026, which has caused major disruption. My constituent’s daughter does not know when she will be seen or if she will be seen at all. I have talked to the ICB and I know that there has been a massive increase in referrals for ADHD, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must set out plans to improve local NHS provision of ADHD assessments?
Bill Esterson
The example of the hon. Member’s ICB is typical of ICBs around the country. The purpose of this debate is to raise the issue with the Minister and highlight how important it is to improve diagnosis and speed up how quickly people can get access to treatment and medication.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Last year, a number of constituents contacted me because they were similarly concerned that Coventry and Warwickshire ICB decided to pause new ADHD referrals for those 25 and over so that it could prioritise children on its waiting list, which was at a really critical point. I recently met the chief executive of the ICB, who confirmed that referrals for adults will restart in May. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must get the balance right so that children and adults with ADHD get the diagnosis and support that they so desperately need?
Bill Esterson
It is good news that we are seeing some progress in my hon. Friend’s ICB. I profoundly hope that NHS staff in other ICBs around the country are watching this debate and will follow the lead of her ICB in improving the access that is needed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing the debate. He has outlined the waiting lists, which are no better for us in Northern Ireland—they are over a year, and up to six years. The issue about early diagnosis is that every child with ADHD has a different level of ADHD. The diagnosis is really important because it enables the education system to respond for that child specifically. Does the hon. Member agree that for an educational programme to be tailored to a child, it must be absolutely right, which can be done only if there is early diagnosis?
Bill Esterson
Yes, I agree with the hon. Member. It is important to realise that everybody is different and that we all need different support. That is very true in school. When we call for diagnosis, we need to take great care around what we mean. Diagnosis is a means of getting support, getting the right treatment and getting the right medication, if medication is right—it is not right for everybody. ADHD is a spectrum and that individual, tailored support in school, and indeed in adult life, is an important part of what we are discussing.
Bill Esterson
I will give way to both my hon. Friends in a moment.
A key element of the discussion is that we have to be really careful what we are calling for. That situation partly explains some of the delays: at the moment, a specialist is the only person who can give a diagnosis because of the complexities that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just referred to.
Mr Rand
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I met Matty on a number of occasions, like many who sit on the Labour Benches representing the north-west, and he certainly made a lasting impression on me from the few opportunities when we met.
We know that when faced with lengthy waits for an NHS diagnosis, some people with ADHD turn to shared care, receiving a private diagnosis before their care transfers back to the national health service. I have a constituent who tried to do that for her son, but her GP refuses to accept the private diagnosis and provide treatment, meaning that my constituent now faces huge treatment costs, yet just a few years earlier her other son secured a shared care arrangement with the same GP practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to address some of the inconsistencies in ADHD care that are caused by long waiting times?
Bill Esterson
I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point, because one of my asks to the Minister is to iron out those inconsistencies.
Perran Moon
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate, and thank the parents of Matty Lock for being in the Public Gallery for it. A couple of years ago, my son was diagnosed with ADHD while he was at university. To my shame, I always thought that his behaviour was simply a case of mischief or laziness. Does my hon. Friend agree not only that it is a case of early diagnosis, but that we need to increase awareness of ADHD—and neurodiversity more broadly—among parents, guardians, medical professionals and Government?
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he has made a very good point. My son has been diagnosed with ADHD—belatedly, like so many—but we were told early on that having a diagnosis would not help him. How wrong that was, because the diagnosis was the key to getting support and understanding what we were dealing with, both for him and for us as his carers. There is a lot of misinformation around, and getting that right is key, but yes—
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Member. Education, health and care plans are not supposed to depend on or require a formal diagnosis of ADHD but, in practice, that is how local authorities apply them. Families are far more likely to be challenged by the local authority if they do not have that diagnosis but, in my own area of West Sussex, the predicted waiting time for assessments has now risen to four and a half years, which is virtually an entire secondary education. Does the hon. Member agree that that Catch-22 situation requires urgent action from the Government?
Bill Esterson
The hon. Member is making the same point, which is that we need to clarify and have consistency across the country. That is, again, something that I hope will come out of the work that the Department is doing. I know that it is carrying out its own review and drawing on the work of the independent taskforce.
Several hon. Members rose—
Bill Esterson
I am going to give way. I am conscious that I am at 11 and a half minutes and a lot of people who want to speak. If Members intervene on me from now on, could they please keep it brief? I will give way to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) first.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Based on UK-wide estimates, about 83,000 people in Northern Ireland are likely to have ADHD, yet it is clear that many remain undiagnosed, particularly women and girls. Does the hon. Member agree that there is an urgent need for clear, consistent and properly resourced diagnostic pathways across all health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, and that a UK-wide source is needed for an even approach right across the United Kingdom?
Bill Esterson
It is a very well-made point, repeating what colleagues have said. I hope that professionals in Northern Ireland will have heard his point too, and will act on it while we are waiting for the Government to get to the UK-wide approach.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I have similar stories of incredibly long waiting lists, my local ICB closing waiting lists and my constituents’ general difficulty in accessing support. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have already had a two-part report with recommendations on dealing with ADHD, and that there is plenty in there that could be implemented while further evidence is sought?
Bill Esterson
I do agree. Various Ministers’ answers at oral questions last week referred to the ongoing work. I know we are due a response in the summer; this is my opportunity to say directly to the Minister that sometimes, when Governments say they are going to respond in the summer, that is a very loose term. I hope that, in this case, it means early summer. Perhaps the Minister will come back to us with a bit more clarity on when he expects to respond.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with giving way. Oddly, I was told by a Scottish Education Minister on the BBC recently that a diagnosis was not required in Scotland either to get the right support—we all know from our experiences that that is not the case. In Fife, we have more than 40,000 children waiting for neurodevelopmental assessments and there are no pathways at all for adults. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we get this right across the United Kingdom, and that the Scottish Government also need to get their skates on and take some action?
Bill Esterson
Let us hope that someone from the Scottish Government is listening to the debate and acting on my hon. Friend’s request. We were talking before about the importance of supporting children to avoid stigma in education and ensure that support is in place, that staff understand and that they can improve their chances at school and beyond.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this incredibly important debate. He is right to raise the issue of ADHD waiting lists, and the Health Secretary is right to commission the review, which is needed, into rising demand. Does my hon. Friend agree that the right response is to understand and then fix the system with empathy rather than—as I often see in my constituency—blaming parents who are simply doing the best they can for their children?
Bill Esterson
It is a good point, and we have to get away from that very inappropriate approach that I am sure all of us have come across from time to time.
I want to say a few words about alternatives to diagnosis. I mentioned briefly that, at the moment, typically a specialist psychiatrist carries out the diagnosis process, yet there are many GPs and other health professionals who would very willingly step in and be in a position to carry out that diagnosis. I wonder whether—and this comes out of the independent taskforce report—there is a big opportunity to speed up waiting times through the use of GP diagnosis and expanding the role of GPs and other professionals who want to specialise in ADHD. That might also be a way of overcoming the problem we heard before about the shared pathway challenge between private clinics and GPs in prescribing.
There are undoubtedly a number of challenges in moving this forward and addressing the very lengthy waiting lists, and their consequences for people. I hope that the Government will pick up these challenges and address the recommendations of the taskforce in a timely fashion. It makes sense to improve the ability of GPs and other professionals to assess and support the management of ADHD. It also makes sense to improve screening in schools. Another recommendation is to extend training for GPs on to an extended role pathway, and shared care between specialists and GPs. All these changes can enable cuts in waiting times and improve life chances and prospects for many people.
I decided to put in for this debate in Matty Lock’s memory, but looking around the room at how many hon. Members are present, I can see that this has touched so many lives across the entire United Kingdom. Whether it is for Matty, for anybody who has been profoundly affected, for the loved ones—for Christine and Richard—or for so many other people, we have a duty to act. We know what is needed and how we can address these concerns. If the Government are minded to respond, we can build a system that supports people living with ADHD, and the people who want to care for them and improve their lives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I ask hon. Members to remain standing. I will call the Front-Benchers at 5.23 pm. I am afraid I am going to impose a two-minute time limit, but you can do it as Olivia Dean says, by being “nice to each other”, or I can put impose a hard limit. We will start with the soft two-minute limit. I call Rachael Maskell.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Ms Vaz. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I will be brief. In York, we know that children are waiting for two and a half years to get an ADHD diagnosis. Adults are not even on a waiting list; they are literally in a car park. They fill in a form and then they go no further, although I am assured by services that if people face a crisis, the services will be there—although I am less than convinced of that. In York, therefore, we have been thinking about how we can reconfigure services.
This is my specific ask to the Minister. We know that, over a child’s life, the local authority is the controlling mind in providing holistic support for children, particularly those with special educational needs, yet we have a segregated service in child and adolescent mental health services. The two services are not integrated and, as a result, we are not looking at a child holistically. We are seeing them in two sections: their mental health and their holistic needs. That does not work. Therefore, I ask the Minister: can we bring those services together, at least through a formal partnership? If not that, can we put the controlling mind under the director of children’s services, to ensure that they can deliver for that holistic need?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said so eloquently, we need to ensure that the functional needs of those children are met. A diagnosis, of course, is an important part of that pathway, but when we are talking about people across a whole spectrum of needs, a diagnosis only partially describes the needs of an individual.
If we are able to build the holistic support that a child needs, we can ensure that a child gets the security they need in a timely way, integrate that with the rest of the work being done on SEND by the Department for Education, and ensure that we really see the integration and transformation that this Government can bring.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing this debate and for raising awareness of the case of Matty Lock.
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and as one of the openly neurodiverse Members of this House: I have dyspraxia, dyslexia and—surprise, surprise—ADHD.
As someone with personal experience, I know how transformative a timely diagnosis and the right support can be—something I unfortunately did not receive as a little girl. I was often considered disruptive and described as having little focus, lazy and not meeting my potential. I was moved to the “naughty boys table”, aged seven, away from my friends. Even though my handwriting was atrocious, I struggled to read and I had very difficult emotional dysregulation, a lack of attention and fidgeting, no one would ever have considered back then that I was neurodiverse.
It has been many years since I was at primary school, but I would have hoped that the situation would have progressed. Unfortunately, it is hard to hear, again and again, about parents and children battling a system to get their needs recognised. It is troubling to hear from constituents who are in similar situations to what I experienced in the early 1990s, and about the barriers they are currently facing in accessing ADHD assessments, medication and therapeutic input. Those are not isolated cases, as we have heard. For both children and adults, waiting several years has become routine.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In the last few weeks, I have visited two alternative learning projects in my constituency. One is the Wheels Project, which gets children working on restoring cars. The other is Enemy of Boredom, which is a brilliant thing, getting children video gaming while learning at the same time. What is amazing is that they do only half a day a week there, but it transforms their experience of mainstream education. They are much better when they get back to the classroom, because they have had focused attention on something they love doing. Does my hon. Friend agree that we ought to do more of that?
Olivia Blake
Absolutely. Just to go back to myself again, in a very ADHD way, I did art and drama alongside sciences. I became a scientist before I came here, but without the art and drama I would never have succeeded in science. I think it is really important that we work with people’s strengths, because the alternative to not doing that is huge. We have heard about suicide rates, prisons and unemployment among young people, and young people being blamed for being unemployed even though they have ADHD and have gone through a system where they are not getting the support they need. The ADHD taskforce has all the answers and should be looked at urgently by the Government.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing this important debate.
Delays and problems relating to ADHD diagnosis are not just a marginal administrative issue, but a profound failure of our system to meet medical needs early, effectively and equitably. For too many children and adults, long waits for diagnosis can negatively shape their entire life trajectory, harming their educational attainment, mental health, employment prospects and personal relationships.
NHS estimates suggest that 2.5 million people in England have ADHD, including nearly half a million children and young people, yet demand continues to vastly outstrip capacity. In September 2025, over 60% of both adults and children had been waiting more than a year for an ADHD assessment.
In my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, Rachel reached out to me rightly outraged at an 18-month wait for ADHD assessment, with Kirklees council working through a backlog from November 2022. Another constituent, Laura, has spoken about her difficulty accessing medication even after diagnosis. The pressure on councils has been increasing on all fronts, with funding decreasing at the same time over the 14 years of the previous Government. I am not blaming the councils, but they do need support.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He makes the point very strongly that long waiting times mean that children are being left behind. As we have heard, it was revealed last week that many integrated care boards are capping the number of assessments without telling GPs or patients. Does the hon. Member agree that a child’s access to diagnosis and support should not depend on where they live or whether their parents can afford to go private?
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree. We hear the phrase “postcode lottery” a lot, and we should not have a postcode lottery in our country for access to essential healthcare and educational services. Everybody should have equal access to the support that is available to other people, without having to go private.
The consequences of these delayed assessments are stark. Families are pushed towards private assessments they cannot afford, entrenching a two-tier system that makes a mockery of the NHS’s spirit of free care at the point of use by rendering access contingent upon income.
The Justice Gap also reports that around 25% of prisoners have ADHD, with many entering the system having not been diagnosed. They are more prone to reoffending.
I will conclude to give time for other colleagues to speak. I urge the Government to look at this issue holistically, as mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and provide support for children, adults and offenders. I believe that investment would render a greater return.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak as chair of the APPG on ADHD. As someone from a neurodiverse—or, as we call it, neuro-spicy—household, I understand the difference that support can make and the consequences when it is missing.
I want to address an elephant in the room, because there has been a lot of talk about the overdiagnosis of ADHD. I understand why that question is asked, but the evidence does not support it. The NHS ADHD taskforce has been clear that ADHD is “under-recognised, under-diagnosed and under-treated”. Diagnosis rates are well below what the prevalence suggests, and some trusts are so overwhelmed that, as we have heard, they have paused new referrals, not because demand is inflated but because services cannot keep up. When ADHD goes undiagnosed, it does not disappear; it shows up elsewhere, including in health services through higher rates of co-existing conditions and crisis-driven care. Untreated ADHD costs more than £13,500 per affected person each year. Early diagnosis and treatment save money and reduce the burden on the NHS.
ADHD shows up in our schools, and children with ADHD are more likely to be excluded, miss school or face bullying. Many have literacy challenges and other conditions that compound when support comes too late. It also shows up, as we have just heard, in the criminal justice system. One in four people in prison have ADHD, compared with one in 20 in the general population. Without support, people are more likely to develop risky coping strategies, including substance misuse. Diagnosis is not a magic bullet, but it is a starting point. It shifts people from blame to understanding, and it only works when followed by support across education, workplaces and public services.
That brings me to the key issue: we still do not have a clear national picture of how long people are waiting for an NHS diagnosis, and I would like to put that to the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing this debate. He knows my links to his constituency, and I am certain that his moving tribute to Matt will be appreciated by Matt’s family, his Labour family and everybody that knew and loved him.
ADHD affects people of all ages, backgrounds and communities, yet too many are stuck on waiting lists for years, during which time their needs go unmet and their wellbeing deteriorates. In the limited time I have, I want to make three points. First, on barriers and gatekeeping, I have received so many cases of schools refusing or postponing referrals, adults reporting GPs minimising symptoms, and community paediatrics increasingly rejecting referrals even when evidence is clear or a private diagnosis exists. Such gatekeeping practices do not protect services; they merely protect delay and lead to wider mental health problems in the long term.
Secondly, on the right to choose, I am sure we all have cases in our mailbags where constituents have been forced to obtain a private diagnosis because of waiting list delays, only to find that the NHS rejects the assessment, will not provide the medication they need or will not play fair on the shared care agreement. That is wholly improper.
Thirdly, I assisted an individual whose referral to adult services was not made before community paediatrics stopped prescribing as he transitioned from childhood to adulthood. Due to excessive waiting lists, this person has been without ADHD medication since March 2025, which is indicative of a system that is not working properly. Will the Minister address the systemic barriers to the ADHD pathway?
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for highlighting this hugely important issue.
My inbox, like many people’s, is full of parents with children who are struggling, especially those who have comorbidities. Their combined conditions make them doubly disadvantaged, and their unmet needs cause significant harm to their physical and mental health, hugely increasing their complexity and meaning that their years of education are not used to maximise their potential.
In Warwickshire, there seems to be a Catch-22 with ADHD waiting lists. Coventry and Warwickshire ICB’s waiting list now stands at more than 7,500 children—a 10-year waiting list for some. The ICB often does not accept ADHD referrals for under-sevens, despite the evidence showing that this early period is when interventions are most impactful. Potentially, the earliest a child can expect a diagnosis is at 17, after their entire educational career.
The adult waiting list, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), has been closed since May 2025. It is due to reopen this year, which we very much welcome, but this provides a very narrow assessment window for when a child can get through the waiting list and not be considered an adult. To further complicate issues, for children who have been referred for general neurodiversity assessments, there is difficulty in ensuring a consistent pathway back to ADHD assessments and the waiting list. I would welcome a defined pathway so that children and professionals have certainty that they will receive the support they need.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
A number of colleagues have spoken movingly about the individual circumstances of their constituents. I want to speak about individual circumstances, as I was diagnosed with ADHD last year.
I recently bumped into a friend at an event who had also been diagnosed. I am one of those people with ADHD who takes medication, and she asked me, “When you first took your medication, did you get emotional as well?” The answer was yes, I did. I got emotional for the same reason so many people with ADHD become emotional the first time they take their medication. They realise what so many other people have been able to live like for so many years. They realise that they are not lazy or stupid but just a bit different, needing a little extra support. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) is correct that diagnosis is a gateway to support, not an end in itself.
When I speak to people with ADHD, I hear that the difference that diagnosis and support make is almost a universal experience. Many describe it as life-changing, and I certainly do. I am keen to make this point. It is so good to hear from colleagues who are willing to share their experiences. In these discussions it is important to recognise that an ADHD diagnosis is not a problem to be managed or a game of numbers; it is about supporting people, identifying a challenge and finding resolve and support for something that otherwise might have been treated as disruptive behaviour. Instead, we can support them to be their best and most productive selves.
Briefly, in the time I have left, I want to turn to the number of young people with ADHD not in employment, education or training. Will the Minister touch on whether the independent review of mental health conditions, ADHD and autism prevalence will interact with the review from the Department for Work and Pensions on NEET rates?
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Getting in the two remaining speakers will squeeze the wind-ups. Mr Esterson, you had a fair bit to start with. Maybe the Front Benchers could not use their full time.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Ms Vaz, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Too many people in Warrington South are being failed by the system that is meant to help them. Demand for ADHD assessments has risen sharply, with waits of up to six years. As someone whose ADHD was diagnosed when I was an adult, I know at first hand how difficult it can be to navigate a system that often does not join up or listen properly.
Ahead of this debate, I asked constituents to share their experiences of seeking an ADHD diagnosis. Adults told me that they waited years for assessment, only to be pushed through mental health pathways that did not fit and prescribed medication that made things worse. While waiting, some self-medicated with alcohol or drugs, not to escape but simply to cope. Years of masking, burnout and misdiagnosis have taken their toll. Parents told me that their children were identified early in nursery or reception, but support stalled because schools are restricted in what they can do without a diagnosis. By the time the referrals are finally made, children are already struggling, falling behind or believing they are lazy or stupid.
I heard from women diagnosed in their 40s, 50s and 60s, after a lifetime of being treated for anxiety or depression that never quite made sense. Teachers contacted me too—experienced, committed professionals who want to help but are trying to meet complex needs in classes of 30 or more children, with limited support and resources. They told me that diagnosis means very little if there is no capacity to act on it. In Warrington, concerns about waiting times came up again and again. Misdiagnosis, problems in education, workplace breakdowns, mental health crises and families forced into private care, if they can afford it, while others are simply forced to cope until they cannot cope any more.
When Ministers point to frameworks and data improvements, I say that those things matter but do not help the child struggling in school today or the adult in crisis being told to wait until the next decade. This is not about ADHD being over-diagnosed; it is about a system that consistently under-treats and under-supports those who have it. We desperately need more specialists, more appointments, more assessments, and waiting lists that are measured in months not years.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing this important debate. He spoke powerfully about the long and agonising waits that many people have to endure to get an ADHD diagnosis, but I want to focus on what happens next. For many people, receiving a diagnosis is not the end of the fight; in many cases, it is the start of a new one.
Time and again I hear from people who, after finally securing that elusive diagnosis, encounter a set of new barriers that prevent them from accessing the treatment they are entitled to. In January 2025, local medical committees in Suffolk and Essex advised GPs to stop delivering ADHD treatment under shared care agreements. A survey by Healthwatch Suffolk of people’s experience of the changes to shared care found that only 40% had received prescriptions or monitoring from their GP. Of those, 69% said that their GP had already stopped or would soon stop providing support.
Most received only two or three months’ notice that their shared care agreement was ending; some had no notice at all. Patients are left in limbo: they have been diagnosed, and maybe even stabilised on medication, and they are suddenly told that their shared care agreement is ending. In some instances, people are left with no access to medication whatsoever. I have received letters from terrified parents and families, panic-stricken at the prospect of being left without the medicine that they need to function every day.
I look forward to hearing the Goernment’s response to the ADHD taskforce recommendations and I welcome the launch of the independent review into the prevalence of and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism. Reducing waiting times for an assessment and diagnosis is critical, but that work will be rendered futile if we do not also address the crisis of timely access to medication and support. For too many of my constituents—and I am sure for the constituents of many Members across the room—the hardest part of their ADHD journey did not end with diagnosis; it simply began there.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Thank you. All colleagues got in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Adam Dance.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I declare interests as vice-chair of the ADHD all-party parliamentary group, and as someone with ADHD. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing this important debate. It is good to hear and see so many Members here today—we have seen that with the time limit; I think we could have spoken for a good two to three hours on this.
The most important thing this debate has done is highlight the importance of ADHD diagnosis. It makes me so angry when I hear the media or politicians talk about a “crisis of overdiagnosis”. As the NHS ADHD taskforce report tells us, the evidence is clear:
“ADHD is under-recognised, under-diagnosed and under-treated (including with medication).”
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I think my hon. Friend would agree that the Minister needs to hear that in places such as Dorset whole conditions are being ignored. We have the same situation as Suffolk; shared care agreements for ADHD, bariatric services, eating disorders and gender dysphoria are being cancelled, and whole cohorts of people are not being given GP services. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is outrageous?
Adam Dance
I completely agree. We have seen this issue across the board with lots of conditions, and I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning it.
Higher diagnosis rates over recent years reflect greater awareness, not an overdiagnosis crisis. As someone with severe ADHD, I can tell Members the life-changing difference that an ADHD diagnosis can make. That is why I am standing here today. But I am one of the lucky ones: too many people with ADHD are not having their needs identified or supported. That is the real crisis. As of March 2025, over 500,000 people were waiting for an ADHD diagnosis. In Somerset, the average wait time is around two and a half years, if someone is lucky.
Like many hon. Members, I see first hand the dire consequences of the crisis. A constituent who I cannot name reached out to me about her son who, like many nowadays, went through school without having ADHD diagnosed, despite his family constantly fighting for support. The bright lad recently left school without qualifications, but he was dismissed by his teachers as “challenging.” The lack of support left him vulnerable and hopeless. Now he is suspected of getting mixed up with county lines gangs, which is something that we see far too often.
It breaks my heart, because my constituent’s case is not exceptional. Around 25% of people in our prisons have ADHD—although, that is probably an underestimation. As I found out in a response to a written question, the Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold data on the number of people in prisons with ADHD. I have heard from so many people, including those who are not able to work or have come out of prison, who said that if they had their ADHD identified and got a little bit of help, their life could have gone so differently.
For those interested only in the impact on state finances, the estimated economic cost of not identifying and treating ADHD is around £17 billion to the UK economy, although I think that is seriously underestimated. That is why it is important that we identify people’s needs early, and that is why I have put forward a Bill calling for universal screening for neurodivergence in primary school-age children. That is a cost and time-effective way to identify every child’s needs early and put in place non-medical interventions that do not require diagnosis, such as changes to teacher training. It would also provide high-quality data for medical references where necessary. That last point is really important. At my SEND roundtable, a local paediatrician told me that a huge barrier to formally identifying and supporting needs early is the lack of high-quality data, information sharing across the sector and non-medical interventions. I hope the Minister will tell us whether universal screening of neurodiversity will be considered in the important review of ADHD and autism or the schools White Paper.
We cannot just stop identifying needs early. For many with ADHD, a formal medical diagnosis is vital, as it opens treatment pathways, accommodation at school or work, and state support. That is why the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to provide greater funding to integrated care boards so that they can accept and treat new ADHD patients. We especially need greater support for community-based projects and services for those living with ADHD. In Somerset, we are getting new programmes, but we need the funding to roll them out and to recruit and retain more professionals in the NHS to diagnose and support ADHD. Will the Minister reassure us that any reforms to clinical pathways for ADHD will not see communities and the ICBs that serve them lose any funding and support? Will he also update us on the progress that NHS Digital has made on the NHS improvement programme?
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for getting so many MPs here to talk about such an important topic. His tribute to Matty Lock was truly epic. The only thing I am sad about is that we could easily have filled a 90-minute debate. Perhaps he can take note of that for the next time that he applies for such a debate.
Time is short, so I will skip to the most important questions. This debate is about ADHD diagnosis, and there is no disagreement among Members on both sides of the House about the challenges that we face. We have seen the numbers go up, so the question is: what are the Government prepared to do about it, and how can the House work to facilitate them in that?
Before the general election, the previous Government worked with NHS England to establish the independent ADHD taskforce, with the aim of developing a data improvement plan. As we have heard, there have been two iterations of that. The Minister confirmed in a written ministerial answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on 17 November that the Government are considering those recommendations. Will the Government respond to the taskforce’s recommendations today? If not, when will they do so? If so, will they take on all the recommendations, or will they challenge some?
I commend the Government on commissioning their own independent review into autism and ADHD. They are often linked and there can be co-morbidities, which are important to consider. As we have heard, there is no distinct timeline for that—summer is a long period of time—so I would be grateful if the Minister can set out exactly how the Government define “summer”. How will that intertwine with the work that the taskforce has already done? Will that work get superseded, or will the two pieces of work dovetail together?
Finally, I want to talk about accountability and delivery. I understand that NHS England has identified reducing long waits for ADHD assessments as a priority in the medium-term planning framework. With NHS England set to be abolished, it is unclear how those priorities will be maintained and enforced. Will the Minister confirm that reducing the long waits for ADHD assessment will remain an explicit national priority for the NHS? How will the Government enforce that, given that NHS England is being taken away, and ensure consistency across integrated care boards?
I welcome the acknowledgement in a recent written answer that data on ADHD waiting times at ICB level is currently not held centrally, but that there is an intention to publish it in 2026 or 2027. That transparency matters, so will the Minister confirm that the plans to publish ICB-level ADHD waiting time data will continue regardless of the structures of the NHS after the change? Will he provide an indicative timeline for the delivery? Is it 2026 or 2027?
Will the Government publish more data about Right to Choose that shows what is and is not successful, and what is good practice and what can be improved? That is one of the ways to deal with the postcode lottery. At the heart of this debate is the fact that behind the numbers is a person, a child or a family seeking answers, support and stability. It is our duty in this House to hold the Government to account for delivering that for all across the nation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing what is, by all acknowledgement, an important debate on ADHD. I thank other hon. Members for their valuable contributions today, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for sharing personal experience that has been invaluable to this House. In this debate, we have heard moving testimonies and I want to thank all hon. Members who have shared personal and family experiences. I personally express my welcome and my deepest sympathies to Christine and Richard, the parents of Matthew Lock. I thank them for being in the Public Gallery for this debate, and thank them for all the invaluable work that they have done with the Department and with NHS England to raise awareness of the issues surrounding ADHD and suicide through the charity that they set up in Matthew’s memory.
We have learned, through this debate, the intersection between ADHD, other mental health conditions and suicide risk. Every suicide is a profound tragedy that leaves families, friends and communities devastated. That is why, in addition to our approach to ADHD, mental health and autism, we are committed to delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England, which aims to address the risk factors contributing to suicide to ensure that fewer lives are lost. We will work across Government to improve support to those who are suffering, and those who have been bereaved by suicide.
We know that people with ADHD have co-occurring neurodevelopmental conditions. We must not only intervene early but assess people with suspected neurodevelopmental conditions—about which I will say more later—and ensure that, following diagnosis, people have the right support to meet their needs, including their mental health needs. The Government have already taken significant steps to stabilise and improve NHS mental health services but, of course, there is so much more to do. Transforming the system always takes time but we are committed to delivering a new approach to mental health.
The 10-year health plan sets out the ambitious reform that we wish to undertake to make the system fit for the future. In line with that, we will go further to ensure that NHS mental health services deliver the care that people deserve and rightly expect. The publication of the “Staying safe from suicide” guidance in 2025 means that all mental health practitioners must now follow the latest advice in understanding and managing suicide. Associated training is now available to all NHS and non-NHS mental health staff.
Following the tragic loss of their son Matthew, Richard and Christine have been keen to ensure that other families are made aware of the increased risks of addiction and suicide that are associated with ADHD. NHS England has worked closely with Richard and Christine to revise content on the nhs.uk website, and has included separate, tailored content on ADHD for adults, children and young people. The website also specifically highlights the increased risks of suicide and addiction in those with ADHD, it signposts anyone who might be struggling to find urgent help and support, and has updated wording to reflect lived and clinical experience. I extend my thanks again to Richard and Christine for all their input to that work. I invite them into the Department to meet me alongside my colleague, the mental health Minister, to see how we can go further faster.
We know that too many patients are facing long waits to access services including ADHD assessments and support. I know that such issues are affecting our constituents up and down the country, as has been reflected in this debate, and I understand the devastating impact that that has on individuals and families. Lord Darzi’s report laid bare the growth in demand for ADHD assessments nationally. That has been so significant in recent years that it risks completely overwhelming the resource available. I thank everyone who has taken part in sharing evidence for Lord Darzi’s report, and with the subsequent ADHD taskforce established by NHS England. We know, from the taskforce’s report, that there are quality concerns with assessments. There has been rapid growth in remote assessments and in use of the independent sector. We are urgently looking into those concerns. That is why work is currently underway to improve ADHD services in both the short and long term to meet the needs of those waiting for an assessment, or those needing treatment for a diagnosis.
Dr Ahmed
I have met the chair of the taskforce: we discussed the outcomes, and the need—as the hon. Member mentioned in his remarks—for work on those outcomes to dovetail with the prevalence review. I think that would be the most appropriate way to provide a holistic response. We, of course, respect the findings of the report, which is an excellent scientific piece of work looking at the data underpinning the diagnoses.
Dr Ahmed
At present, the hon. Gentleman will have to ask my colleague the mental health Minister about the specifics, but my understanding is that the prevalence review will be a wider piece of work that will be partly informed by the ADHD taskforce report. It would be better to respond to them as a combination rather than as individual reports.
The House will know that on 4 December 2025 the Secretary of State announced the launch of the independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism. It will bring together the most respected researchers, clinicians and voluntary organisations in the country, alongside, crucially, people with lived experience, who will be directly engaged to scrutinise the evidence and support the development of recommendations. Part of that will be about how we address and label reporting, and I would expect that we come up with a better definition and a better way of reporting than we have at the moment.
The Government’s 10-year plan sets out the core principle of early intervention and support, and will make the NHS fit for the future. Through the NHS medium-term planning framework, published in October 2025, NHS England has set an expectation that local ICBs and trusts improve access, experience and outcomes for ADHD services over the next three years.
I heard the call from hon. Members for much more integration between community mental health services, GPs and other healthcare bodies. It is our expectation that through the NHS reform Bill and the disbanding of NHS England, as well the production of independent health authorities and strategic commissioning, the health service will be better able to serve the needs of children requiring assessment for mental health conditions and ADHD. We will end up having a helicopter view, which is currently not possible.
Olivia Blake
The review highlighted the lack of cross-Government working, so I wonder whether, for example, Access to Work could be looked at. Self-employed people currently have to wait six months to access it, and it is obviously a form of early intervention that gets people the support they need to stay in work.
Dr Ahmed
I thank my hon. Friend for her very valid point. It is important to mention that we expect that the prevalence review will align with the review that the Department for Work and Pensions is carrying out on employability and other issues affecting disability.
NHS England is working with ICBs that are trialling innovative ways of delivering ADHD services and is using this information to support systems to tackle ADHD waiting lists and provide support to address people’s needs. I understand that it is increasingly clear to patients and staff that the current highly specialist ADHD assessment model needs to evolve quickly. Moving to a more generalist service model could improve care and reduce waiting lists. That was one of the taskforce’s key recommendations.
Iqbal Mohamed
Approximately a quarter of the prison population—22,000, give or take—have ADHD. Will the Government commit to an impact assessment of what savings the Government could make, and how many people’s lives could be improved, by assessing people either before they commit a crime or after?
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister knows that he has two minutes.
Dr Ahmed
As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have a lot of things in my purview, but prisons are not one of them. However, his point is well made. We expect that such sub-groups would be investigated and interrogated during the prevalence review.
I do have only two minutes, Ms Vaz, so I will move on quickly and not test your patience. In the longer term, we recognise the need to understand the factors behind the rising demand for services. We recognise that ADHD and autism frequently co-occur, which is why it will be important for the prevalence review to look at the conditions holistically as well as individually.
I acknowledge the impact that delays in accessing assessments and diagnosis are having on people, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central for tabling this important and timely debate. I hope that the actions I have set out today, including the prevalence review and how it will dovetail with other reviews and other Departments, will provide some reassurance to my hon. Friend and other colleagues that we are taking these matters extremely seriously, and with a parity of esteem with any physical health condition or issue. I hope that all hon. Members’ constituents start to feel that progress very soon.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Bill Esterson, you have a few seconds to wind up.
Bill Esterson
In that case, I will thank all who have taken part and given their own testimonies and experiences. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) described the benefits of treatment and medication in exactly the same way as a constituent of mine did—mentioning the difference that comes from recognising that they can live their life the way that others do. I thank the Minister for what he said about Richard and Christine: that they have already had an impact. I just make a plea to him for early implementation of at least some of the findings ahead of the final response.
Industrial Strategy and Global Talent Taskforce
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Today the Government are setting out the next phase of delivery of the industrial strategy and a major package to strengthen the United Kingdom’s position as a world-leading destination for exceptional international talent.
Delivering the Industrial Strategy
We are moving further and faster to realise the vision set out in the industrial strategy to increase business investment in our highest potential sectors and create high-quality jobs across the UK. In a world where geopolitics is not something that happens somewhere else—and what happens across the world shapes the cost of energy, the price of food and the security of jobs—delivering this strategy is essential not just for raising living standards, but for supporting national security and sovereignty.
Today we are announcing a package of measures to support scale-ups, accelerate battery innovation and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. This builds on the “Entrepreneurship in the UK” prospectus published at the Budget, which committed to change how the Government work with founders to back firms to start, scale and stay in the UK. Together, these actions mark a co-ordinated approach to ensure that UK businesses feel an immediate positive impact, unlocking investment and supporting innovation to boost economic growth.
Today’s announcement follows last week’s publication of the latest quarterly update on delivery of the industrial strategy. This was published alongside the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council’s 2026 mandate letter, which commissions the council to provide impactful advice and analysis on key delivery priorities. We have also announced three new members to the ISAC—Amelia Gould, Keith Anderson and Dana Strong—to broaden the council’s insight across UK industry.
In today’s global economy, we must use every tool of Government—domestic and international—to fight for the interests of working people, as well as fighting for British interests abroad.
BBB
The British Business Bank will be making a £25 million investment into Kraken Technologies as part of Kraken’s $1 billion demerger from Octopus Energy Group, the bank’s largest direct investment to date; and two £50 million scale-up fund investments into life sciences, via Epidarex Capital, and into deep tech, via IQ Capital. The last quarter has seen a step change in the activity of the British Business Bank, committing or deploying £1.03 billion in the last quarter.
UK Export Finance
So far this financial year, UK Export Finance has provided over £9 billion of support to help UK businesses grow, invest and secure new contracts overseas. We have introduced legislation to Parliament that will significantly expand UKEF’s firepower from the £80 billion it has today, so that it can back more British firms to seize opportunities in fast growing international markets. Later this month, the Secretary of State will convene major high street banks to unlock additional finance for high growth exporters.
Battery Innovation Programme
The Government are making their largest ever investment in UK battery research and development, with £180 million of battery innovation programme funding going towards supporting UK small and medium-sized enterprises to: secure private capital; accelerate the development of high-risk, high-reward technologies; and commercialise cutting-edge, home-grown battery innovation here in the UK, reducing exposure to volatile global supply chains.
Regulation package
Building on the Government’s regulation action plan progress update in October, the Secretary of State and the Chancellor have commissioned all Departments to set out plans by March to meet the 25% administrative burden reduction target, and the Government will update on further progress towards the target in due course.
The Government will also:
Launch deep-dives, working with industry and trade unions on health and safety regulation and farming and agritech regulation, building on the approach and lessons of the Fingleton review;
Launch the competition consultation “Refining our Competition Regime”, delivering on the commitment in the regulation action plan. This will include proposals to deliver increased pace, predictability, proportionality and improved processes across the UK’s competition regime, such as amending the decision-making model in mergers and markets investigations;
Not proceed with the proposed Audit Bill, avoiding further business burdens; and
Bring forward the consultation on modernising corporate reporting to early 2026, expanded to include virtual annual general meetings.
The Business Secretary and the Chancellor will also ask Ministers to develop and set outcome focused growth goals for key watchdogs that still lack clarity from Government on what growth means for them.
The industrial strategy was never about a single publication at a single point in time. These measures go further and faster, building on existing commitments to ensure that we succeed in ushering in 10 years of stability, growth and investment—the decade of national renewal, even as global pressures evolve.
Talent Package
We have seen competition for top talent around the globe intensify, particularly in research and technology. This is an opportunity for the UK to issue a clear and confident signal: that we welcome the world’s best minds to come and help us drive our industrial strategy and wider growth mission, and that they will find the environment, support and opportunities they need to thrive here.
This Government know that attracting top international talent is a catalyst for creating British jobs, boosting investment and increasing productivity. We are continuously working to better welcome top researchers, innovators and entrepreneurs to the UK, ensuring that we respond swiftly to changes in global mobility trends.
Today’s announcement follows the launch of the global talent taskforce, a new concierge service to support top talent to lay down roots in the UK; and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s £54 million global talent fund, which sits as part of a wider £5 billion HM Government offer on research talent, and which has already secured the relocation of top researchers and their teams to work in our industrial strategy priority areas.
The 2025 immigration White Paper set out plans to improve and expand key visa routes for talent, making it easier to move to the UK for exceptional researchers, entrepreneurs and future leaders.
And, in her 2025 autumn Budget, the Chancellor also expanded the enterprise management incentives scheme, so that scale-ups can offer more competitive equity, and increased the venture capital trust and the enterprise investment scheme investment limits to help high growth companies raise more capital as they scale.
Today’s package continues to build on this work with a series of targeted and practical measures designed to enhance the UK’s offer to exceptional talent. We are:
Doubling the resourcing of our global talent taskforce, including bringing in specialist private sector head-hunting expertise and emboldening our concierge offer to the world’s elite talent, starting with a dedicated focus on international AI talent;
Reimbursing visa fees in a limited and targeted manner for those with skills that will further our deep tech, innovation, and research and development aspirations, including in AI, quantum and semiconductors;
Expanding the global talent visa to make it simpler and easier for those with a relevant academic or research appointment and those in industry to get their visa, ensuring the UK can access the talent it needs, including those working in cutting-edge industries;
Launching a referral route to fast-track sponsorship licences for high-growth and high-potential firms supported by the global talent taskforce or the Office for Investment; and
Providing new Government-funded scholarships for International Mathematical Olympiad gold medal winners.
We are also adding a new talent pathway on business.gov.uk to provide a single, clear “shop window” for exceptional global talent considering relocating to our country.
This Government remain committed to exploring how we can best attract and retain the world’s top talent. By welcoming exceptional individuals through these initiatives, the UK is powering research and innovation that creates jobs, builds our science capabilities, attracts investment and strengthens our economy for the long term. These initiatives form part of our industrial strategy and broader growth mission to strengthen the UK’s global competitiveness, and strengthen cutting-edge industries—now and for the future.
[HCWS1254]
UK Trade Envoy Programme
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The Secretary of State has today made appointments to the United Kingdom’s trade envoy programme.
The United Kingdom’s trade envoys are important to this Government’s growth agenda. They support Ministers to deliver trade and investment outcomes within the industrial and trade strategies and attract foreign direct investment across UK regions.
Working in close partnership with our ambassadors, high commissioners and His Majesty’s trade commissioners, trade envoys support deeper bilateral trade relationships, lead trade missions, welcome inward delegations and address market access challenges, to ensure that British firms can compete and succeed.
The role as a United Kingdom trade envoy is unpaid and voluntary, with cross-party membership from both Houses.
The Secretary of State is pleased to appoint:
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Türkiye;
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Pakistan;
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to France;
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Germany; and
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Italy
In addition to their existing roles, the Secretary of State is pleased to appoint:
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to the Republic of South Africa and to Mauritius;
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Ghana; and
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Algeria.
These new appointments are testament to the United Kingdom’s commitment to strengthen bilateral trade and support growth across the nation.
Today’s appointments mean that there are now 32 trade envoys focusing on 73 markets.
[HCWS1255]
Civil Service: Innovation
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
The British people deserve public services that work for them. I am announcing today changes to rewire the state and jump-start a move to a new model for Whitehall, fixing some of the fundamentals of how the civil service works by learning from the best examples of innovation in both the public and private sector.
The No. 10 innovation fellowship programme is an example of the opportunity to do government differently. A small number of leading technologists and data scientists have been given the freedom to approach public service delivery problems in new ways. From prison security to patient safety, the fellows are working on projects to make the state more productive and more dynamic. We will build on this success and expand the programme this year.
The need to innovate to deliver the public’s priorities is urgent. I am therefore also making broader changes to the delivery architecture of government. Supported by teams in the Cabinet Office, we will establish taskforces, working with Departments to drive forward delivery of some of this Government’s top priorities. Time-bound and focused on specific outcomes, taskforces will be granted freedoms to operate outside normal administrative rules so that they are unhindered in tackling high-impact challenges with singular determination.
To incentivise innovation throughout the wider civil service, I am also announcing changes to the performance management and recruitment of senior civil servants. Guided by the principle of targeting bonuses more towards the highest performers, bonuses and a system of pay progression will reward innovation and delivery in critical areas. We will also change the criteria for SCS selection to prioritise candidates with frontline delivery and innovation experience. Under-performers will be held accountable to tougher standards and must improve or face the consequences, including dismissal.
Alongside incentivising performance and innovation, we must build a civil service with the skills it needs for the future. I am announcing that we will establish a new National School for Government, which will provide learning and development for civil servants, while saving taxpayers money by ending current high-cost contracts with external providers.
[HCWS1260]
Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Sale
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I wish to update the House on the sale of the Telegraph Media Group. As I set out in my written ministerial statement on 17 December 2025, I received a formal request from the representatives of RB Investco Ltd, the current owners of the call option to purchase Telegraph Media Group Holdings, to allow RB Investco Ltd to derogate from the Public Interest Merger Reference (Telegraph Media Group Limited) (Pre-emptive Action) Order 2024, in order to sell its call option to Daily Mail and General Trust. The 2024 order prevents the parties to the transaction from taking actions which may prejudice a reference to the Competition and Markets Authority and/or Ofcom for them to be able to carry out regulatory scrutiny. I am currently considering whether to grant the request to derogate from the order and will update Parliament once this decision has been made.
Following a thorough consideration of the terms set out in the derogation request and independent research, my Department has today written to the current and proposed owners of the Telegraph Media Group on my behalf to inform them that I am “minded to” intervene on the following public interest grounds specified in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002:
Sufficient plurality of views;
Sufficient plurality of persons with control.
This will enable the necessary regulatory scrutiny to commence. These letters, and other relevant updates, will be published on gov.uk.
I have also considered the new merger under the foreign state influence regime, as specified in chapter 3A of the Enterprise Act 2002, and I am not minded to intervene. As set out in the Enterprise Act, if any new information comes to light which indicates influence from a foreign state, I must intervene.
It is important to note that I have not taken a final decision on intervention at this stage. The “minded to” letter invites further representations in writing from the parties and gives them until 9 am on Monday 26 January to respond.
If I decide to issue an intervention notice, the next stage would be for Ofcom to assess and report to me on the public interest concerns, and for the Competition and Markets Authority to assess and report to me on whether a relevant merger situation has been created, and any impact this may have on competition.
Following these reports, I would need to decide whether to refer the matter for a more detailed investigation by the CMA under section 45 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
I will update Parliament on my final decision at the earliest opportunity.
[HCWS1263]
International Education Strategy
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Today I am announcing the launch of the UK’s refreshed international education strategy.
Together, the Department for Education, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are setting out a vision and road map to economic prosperity and resilience, through promoting the UK’s world-leading education system globally.
Unlike the previous strategy released in 2019, this approach removes targets on international student numbers in the UK and, while continuing to welcome international students, shifts the focus towards growing education exports overseas by backing UK providers to expand internationally, build partnerships abroad and deliver UK education in new markets.
By strengthening our international partnerships and leadership, we can help to bring stability and co-operation in an uncertain and changing world. War has returned to Europe, and old certainties have been shaken. The world’s population will exceed 8.5 billion people by 2030, and urgent challenges such as climate change are reshaping the skills that people need to thrive. Education equips people to succeed, societies to prosper, and nations to build the participation needed for global stability and growth. It has never been needed more than it is today.
The new international education strategy sets out three ambitions to harness the world-leading quality of UK education:
To increase the UK’s international standing through education and make the UK the global partner of choice at every stage of learning;
To sustainably recruit high-quality international higher education students from a diverse range of countries; and
To collectively grow education exports to £40 billion per year by 2030.
These ambitions leverage the strengths of the UK’s education system and the trust with which UK education institutions are viewed by global partners.
I am grateful to representatives of the UK education sector for their help during the development of this strategy. They are creating a promotional brochure to set out the UK’s offer to the world. We are also grateful to our international education champion, Sir Steve Smith. We will be convening a new education sector action group, chaired by Ministers, with representatives of the sector who will help us steer delivery and maximise the impact of the strategy.
The international education strategy will be available online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-international-education-strategy-2026
[HCWS1256]
Fuel Supply: Fees for Military Drivers
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
The Secretary of State will be using powers under the Energy Act 2013 to increase the hourly rate for use of military fuel tanker drivers paid by hauliers during a deployment of this capability. This programme is a long-standing fuel supply contingency measure jointly managed by my Department and the Ministry of Defence to make trained military drivers available to support fuel deliveries in an emergency.
This is a routine increase to keep the cost in line with inflationary increases since 2021, and in line with agreements signed with industry.
A direction under section 148(3)(b) of the Energy Act 2013 was made to increase the hourly price from £28.51 to £34.44. This will take effect on 20 January 2026. I believe this direction is fair and proportionate as it will now take account of inflationary price increases from 2021 calculated using the consumer prices inflation index and has been agreed with industry. The Secretary of State reserves the right to make further changes to the charging regime if that becomes necessary.
[HCWS1259]
Water White Paper
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Today I am announcing the launch of this Government’s water White Paper, “A New Vision for Water”.
This paper sets out once-in-a-generation reforms for our water system, putting consumers and the environment first.
For too long, previous Governments have turned a blind eye to record levels of pollution and poor performance.
Companies have been profiting at customers’ expense, with vital infrastructure left to crumble and public trust destroyed.
This Government inherited that failure—and we are not shying away from it.
Every family in this country deserves clean water from their taps, seas their children can swim in, and bills that are fair and affordable.
We have already taken decisive action and have:
passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to give regulators the powers to ban bonuses for polluting water bosses, and to take tougher and faster action against water companies.
secured a historic investment of £104 billion of private sector funding to rebuild the water network.
established the water delivery taskforce to get spades in the ground, fast-track delivery of new infrastructure projects and drive economic growth.
We are now going further. This White Paper sets out our response to Sir Jon Cunliffe’s Independent Water Commission’s final report of July 2025 and gives a clear vision for the reforms this Government will make to our water sector. I would like to reiterate my thanks to Sir Jon Cunliffe for his excellent leadership of the Commission.
We will:
Set out a clear direction for the water sector by revising the strategic policy statements, rationalising planning and introducing a more joined-up regional water planning function and framework to improve local decision making and delivery. There will be new overarching targets for the water environment to enable consistent oversight and alignment. This will increase the long-term stability of the water sector.
Reset the approach to regulation by abolishing Ofwat and creating a new single, integrated water regulator that combines the functions of the four existing regulators. This will replace the currently fragmented system with a proactive and targeted supervisory approach tailored to individual companies. We will create a new performance improvement regime to give the regulator the power to step in and put things right for the poorest performing companies.
Make the water sector more attractive to, and reliable for, long-term low-risk investors by simplifying performance commitments. We will introduce new measures to improve financial resilience and ensure investors receive a fair and stable return that compensates for risk.
Make sure customers are protected by creating a new independent water ombudsman, alongside stronger protections to keep bills predictable, affordable and fair. There will be better access to smarter metering to help those who need it most. New water efficiency labels will be on every appliance, so when customers buy a washing machine or shower, they will know exactly what it will cost not just to buy, but to run.
Protect our waterways from pollution with record investment in storm overflows and waste water treatment, taking action to tackle sewer misuse and introducing a clearer set of standards and enforcement for agricultural pollution. We will also end operator self-monitoring and develop a new, strengthened open monitoring approach, making data accessible to the public in near real time and helping to restore public trust in the system.
Increase the resilience and security of the water system by introducing statutory resilience standards and improving mapping of asset health. There will be new “MOT” checks on water infrastructure to stop water company assets being left to crumble. The new regulator will have a chief engineer and engineering capability so that decisions are grounded in practical understanding. We will improve infrastructure planning with better regulatory oversight to deliver projects more efficiently, attract third-party investment, and protect infrastructure from growing risks.
Several reforms will be taken forward immediately while others will form the foundation of a new water Bill. The Bill will provide the powers necessary for transformation and deliver the outcomes the public deserve.
To help stakeholders manage these changes, we will publish a transition plan detailing the journey to a new system.
This Government were elected with a clear mandate to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. We remain committed to delivering on that promise.
We will work in partnership with the water sector, investors and communities to drive this sector-wide transformation.
[HCWS1259]
Chinese Embassy
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This statement follows the decision I made today to grant planning permission and listed building consent for a new embassy in London.
The proposal is for the redevelopment of the Royal Mint Court site in the London borough of Tower Hamlets to provide a new Chinese embassy. It would involve the refurbishment and restoration of several listed buildings, and associated works.
The decision was in line with the recommendation of the independent planning inspector who held a public inquiry into this case between 11 and 19 February 2025.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers making planning decisions must follow a quasi-judicial process. This means they must make decisions fairly, based on evidence and planning rules.
The decision letter and associated inspector’s report fully explains the reasons for the decision and is available on the Government’s website. The decision letter comprises the Secretary of State’s letter, the inspector’s report, and the following annexes: annex A (Schedule of Representations); annex B1 (List of conditions for the listed building consent); annex B2 (List of conditions for the planning permission); and annex C (Consolidated Drawing Schedule and revised drawings). Annex C is a separate document. The relevant plans to which these permissions relate are secured by condition. I will deposit a copy of the decision letter in the Libraries of both Houses, including all annexes.
Representations received from parties as part of the reference-back exercise are listed in the decision letter and are available on request. For convenience, I will deposit a full set of the reference-back correspondence in the Libraries of both Houses.
All material considerations were taken into account when making this decision.
The decision is now final unless it is successfully challenged in court.
[HCWS1261]
Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
I will be updating the House via an oral statement later today.
[HCWS1262]
WorkWell Expansion
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Today, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, we are announcing England-wide expansion of the WorkWell service from autumn 2026 backed by up to £259 million of investment over three years. We have seen great success with the 15 current WorkWell pilots, which provide integrated employment and health support for local working-age people, helping them to get into and on in work. It is a voluntary service which saw over 25,000 disabled people and people with health conditions receive support to stay in and re-enter the workplace, within the first 14 months of launch.
Key to helping local working age people get the support they need to stay in work or return quickly following a period of absence is ensuring local services are joined up to provide an integrated, holistic approach to health and work support. WorkWell is innovative because although funded by central Government it is designed and delivered by our local health systems, who work in partnership with local government, jobcentres, and community and voluntary groups. This allows us to intervene early at the point an individual feels their health condition or disability will have an impact on the work they do or make it more difficult for them to return to work quickly.
Good quality work is a key determinant of health, and that is why keeping people in work is a core priority for the Government. We know that 2.8 million working-age people are now economically inactive due to health conditions, with 800,000 more people out of work due to health problems now than in 2019. There are more people currently in work with work-limiting health conditions or disabilities than ever before, with almost one in four of the working-age population classed as disabled. The £259 million expansion of WorkWell that we are announcing today forms a key part of our wider Pathways to Work offer for working-age disabled people and those with health conditions.
Helping people along their unique pathway to work is what we mean when we say we want an opportunity welfare state. This is why I am pleased to share that, alongside our existing pilot sites, WorkWell will be available to support our working-age population across all of England from autumn 2026.
[HCWS1257]
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Purpose of this ActThe purpose of this Act is to—(a) strengthen community empowerment,(b) secure sustainable council finances,(c) protect vital social care services and enhance local accountability in their delivery,(d) support local growth through devolved powers and locally led decision-making, and(e) enable flexible and locally driven housebuilding and planning to meet community needs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause sets out the overarching purpose of the Act, emphasising locally led, consent-based governance, sustainable council finances, and strong accountability for social care and growth. It also clarifies the Act’s intent to support flexible, community- driven planning and housebuilding.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, before I start, I wish a belated happy birthday for yesterday to the Minister. I hear it was a big one, and I hope she enjoyed it. Secondly, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils.
I am pleased to open the debate today on the first amendment on the first day in Committee on a set of important principles that should guide the remainder of our debate on the Bill. I must also say, with respect, that the Title of the Bill still promises rather more than its text delivers. It speaks of devolution and community empowerment, yet too often it reads as central direction dressed up as local choice. We can and we should do better than that.
Amendment 1 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson goes back to first principles: the purpose of this Act. It asks the Government to be clear in the Bill that we will champion consent over compulsion, secure sustainable council finances without unfunded mandates, protect social care with stronger local accountability, support local growth through devolved powers, and enable flexible, locally driven housebuilding and planning. These are not abstract aspirations. They are the everyday tests by which our residents judge whether devolution is real and beneficial to their lives.
Proper devolution is built, not imposed. It is negotiated, not mandated. It respects identity, geography and local choice. That has been a consistent theme in the debate on this Bill: concern that the centre would gain broad powers to redraw local structures, create strategic authorities, consolidate councils and impose mayors without clear and explicit local consent. That is not empowerment; it is compulsion. At Second Reading, many noble Lords raised precisely this point, and we did so again when the Government proposed to commit this Bill, a constitutional Bill, to Grand Committee without the agreement of the usual channels. Process matters because it reveals intent.
Our amendment therefore states plainly that the Bill’s first purpose should be to strengthen community empowerment by championing consent over compulsion. Noble Lords might think that that should be a given in a Bill called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but the detail of the Bill does not follow. It risks a power grab, enabling Ministers to force reorganisations and mayoralties on areas that have previously said no and even to postpone local elections to fit a central timetable. That is not how you build trust.
Local government cannot be rebuilt on financial quicksand. We all know how many councils have come to the brink. We have heard repeated warnings about local government reorganisations that promise continual savings but deliver costly transitions and do not make any of those savings into the future, and about new duties placed on councils, such as social care or regulation, but without the resources to meet them.
The second purpose listed in the amendment calls for a simple commitment: no unfunded mandates. If the Government wish to assign functions downwards, they should assign the means to discharge them as well; otherwise, we will set up local leaders to fail and then blame them for that failure. That is not partnership; it is abdication. Commons colleagues pressed this exact point at Second Reading and on Report: stop hoarding power in Whitehall while offloading pressures on to town halls. Put the principle of fiscal sustainability into law and plan reforms accordingly. If we do not do so, we risk even more tax rises through the back door.
Nowhere is the risk of failed devolution clearer than in adult and children’s social care. Every noble Lord who has served in local government, of whom there are many, understands the arithmetic, the demography, the demand and the duty. This does not change where local government is organised or reorganised. If we devolve responsibility with capacity, we will simply move waiting lists from one council to another and call it reform.
The amendment’s third principle seeks to
“protect vital social care services and enhance local accountability”
for outcomes, with transparent reporting to the people who depend on them. Reorganisation cannot become a distraction from stabilising the front line. We need to understand how this is going to work. Social care is perhaps the biggest responsibility of local government, yet the Bill does not even mention those words.
Growth is not ordained by Ministers; it is enabled by place and by leaders who know their patch and who can unlock a stalled site or knit together skills, transport and planning to make things happen. The Government’s own narrative for the Bill claims that it is the biggest transfer of power from Whitehall in a generation. If that is truly the case, the test is simple: will local leaders get the levers they need, or are we just creating authorities that must still ask for permission for every pilot, every power and every penny? Our amendment’s fourth principle states a purpose to
“support local growth through devolved powers and locally led decision-making”.
Finally, on housing, communities will support more houses when homes make sense: the right homes, in the right place, with the right infrastructure. That is achieved through locally driven planning that takes communities with it—not rigid national targets that ignore character, capacity or constraint. The Government speak about flexibility, but our amendment would require it. It would clarify that the Act’s intent is to
“enable flexible and locally driven housebuilding and planning to meet community needs”.
This is perfectly compatible with ambition, but it rejects the idea that Whitehall always knows best.
This purpose clause would not blow the Bill off course but set its course. It states exactly what Ministers say they want to achieve: empowerment, sustainability, accountability, growth and locally led planning. If the Government mean what they say about handing power back to local people, they should welcome having this in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I declare at the outset that I have been a vice-president of the Local Government Association for a number of years. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said many things with which I agree. We are in a position where we are seeing the cumulative impact of many years of underfunding—serious underfunding of both local government and problems such as adult social care, to which the noble Baroness referred—for which a proper policy has never ever been devised.
I want to be clear that we are in favour of strategic authorities that can drive growth. I am, however, bothered about the potential for upwards mission creep, on which the electorate have no direct say other than via the election of a mayor every few years. So I see this Bill not as a destination but as a staging post towards something that genuinely devolves power.
I went first to the overview of the Bill, given that this amendment seeks to define the Bill’s purpose. In the Explanatory Notes, the Government have indeed done that. I shall read it out, if I may. It is very short:
“The purpose of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is to transfer power out of Whitehall, by giving local leaders the tools to deliver growth, fixing the foundations of local government, and empowering communities”.
There is great potential in the Bill for delivering growth. However, I do not think that it fixes the foundations of local government or that it empowers communities. As we go through the Committee stage, I hope that this will become clearer.
In Amendment 1, the purpose of the Bill has been redefined by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. It has some things in it and other things are not in it. I hope that the Minister will try to explain in greater detail how the Bill does deliver devolution. There are two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. I should tell the Committee that I am standing here because my noble friend is not able to do so. We hope that she will, in the next two or three weeks, be walking much better than she has been able to and will return to your Lordships’ House. I send our very best wishes to her and I hope on behalf of the whole Committee, as I am sure that that is shared by everybody.
In Amendment 95, my noble friend has explained what she thinks the Secretary of State’s statutory duty should be in terms of strategic authorities. Amendment 95 is very important, because it specifies that the role of local government is to be
“the primary democratic institution responsible for the leadership, coordination and long-term stewardship of local areas”.
We have to be clear, and I hope that the Minister will confirm, that that is what the Government think. Secondly, it says:
“Arrangements for strategic authorities must be framed so as to enable constituent local authorities to … pursue a long-term vision for the … development of their areas”.
We need to be clear that they
“exercise convening and coordinating functions in relation to public, private, voluntary and community sector bodies”
and that it is their job to
“integrate the provision of local services with wider economic, social and environmental outcomes”.
The conclusion in proposed new subsection (3) is that, in discharging this duty,
“the Secretary of State must not treat local authorities solely as administrative or delivery bodies for national policy”.
This is a fundamental problem. It is not clear to me from reading and rereading the Bill that that is actually the situation, so I look to the Minister to say that the Government indeed agree with that. We should bear in mind that it was the 2007 Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, under a Labour Government, that clarified that the role of local government was to provide
“democratic, place-based leadership and long-term stewardship of local areas, rather than acting solely as a delivery arm of central government”.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I wish to speak in favour of the purpose clause tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson.
From the outset, the Title of the Bill is quite wrong and misleading. The Bill is not about devolution; it is about centralisation. The number of directed powers it awards to the Secretary of State to instruct combined authorities is alarming. The purpose clause proposed by my noble friends reinvigorates the Bill to achieve what matters most to local government now and the issues most likely to be of concern in the future—namely, sustainable council finances and keeping the “local” in local government through locally led decision-making.
Putting aside the tax-raising powers for mayors enshrined in the Bill, it does nothing to address the serious concerns the sector has about putting the finances of our councils back on to a sustainable footing, or on the ever-increasing DSG deficits or the seismic pressures placed on upper-tier authorities in the delivery of their SEND responsibilities. However, what we had before Christmas was the Government’s unfair funding announcement, which left many councils worse off than before following the withdrawal of the remoteness adjustments metric, which in turn has left councils such as Buckinghamshire £44 million worse off.
We then come to the part of this purpose clause on local decision-making, which my noble friends are correct to underpin. At the start of my contribution, I referenced centralisation. It is astonishing that a devolution-facing Bill will essentially award mass powers to the Secretary of State to impose LGR and strategic authorities without any say from local authorities and groups in those areas. If devolution is to work, it needs to be locally led by local leaders and the community, not forced on communities by Whitehall. Over recent years, we have seen that local government reorganisation and the creation of combined authorities can be agreed by a consensus in local communities and without the imposition of Whitehall. Just look at Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire—two examples of unitarisation which have gone to plan. I welcome the addition in this purpose clause of ensuring that reorganisation and the creation of strategic authorities are locally led.
The Government’s approach to this has already been fairly shambolic. County council leaders who had elections postponed were of the clear understanding that mayoral elections, shadow unitary authority elections or a combination of both would happen in May 2026. Instead, we have had further delay as a result of Whitehall not working closely with local leaders. This is why the point in the proposed new clause about locally enshrined decision-making is worthy. I hope the Government will accept this amendment so that the purpose clause sits in the Bill.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I have no interests to declare, other than that I want legislation to be as good as it can be. I very much welcome my noble friend’s amendment because it provides the foundation for my Amendment 251 that would provide for post-legislative scrutiny, which we will come to much later. Too often, Ministers see legislative success in terms of getting a measure on to the statute book. The real measure of success is when the Act delivers what Parliament intended to deliver. To check whether it has done that, post-legislative scrutiny is necessary some years after it has passed.
To assess whether the Act has achieved what it intended, one needs to know clearly what its purpose is—in other words, the basis on which you are undertaking the measurement. This amendment has the great virtue that it stipulates the five purposes that the Bill is intended to deliver. That would provide the measure against which a body set up to engage in post-legislative scrutiny could examine whether it has actually delivered. That is the great value of this amendment and, for that reason, the Government should have the confidence to accept it, as it would show they believe that the Act will deliver what it is designed to do. If they will not accept the amendment, will they bring forward a purpose clause of their own to demonstrate what they believe are the key purposes against which success can be measured?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have no interests to declare. Like the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I am an academic and am interested in clear language, among other things. I was horrified when I first read the Bill by the looseness of its language. Devolution has already been mentioned. The PACAC report some three years ago on the governance of England noted that
“we … refer to what is currently taking place in England as ‘decentralisation’”
rather than devolution, but it is not really effective devolution. This Bill carries on what its predecessor under the Conservative Government was doing in providing a mayoral strategic structure throughout England.
“Local”, “community” and “neighbourhood” are used extremely loosely throughout the Bill. The use of “strategic” implies something that is not local and has to be seen separately from it. Incidentally, in talking about strategic authorities, we enter into the structure of government in the United Kingdom and are talking about constitutional matters—although, with the odd absence of constitution that we have in this country, Governments can muck about with local government in a way that no other constitutional democracy that I am aware of can.
I regard community as very local. In France, the commune is the village, and each commune has a mayor. I think about the ward represented by my colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton; she has five or six separate communities within the one ward. Neighbourhoods are parts of towns or cities, and a neighbourhood is somewhere you can walk around, but the Bill uses those terms to cover much larger areas. That raises questions about its relationship with central government, in setting up a network of strategic authorities.
I have submitted a later amendment that refers to a mayoral council for England; that indeed has been set up by prime ministerial fiat, but is only a pale shadow of the structure for the Council of the Nations and Regions and the mayoral council associated with it, which Gordon Brown usefully proposed some years ago. If we are to have real devolution, there will have to be some mechanism for negotiation between strategic authorities and central government. That is why the absence of any reference to the fiscal issue here also indicates that we are not really dealing with devolution.
The last thing I want to say is that, according to all the opinion polls, we are in a situation in which public trust in national government is remarkably—horrifyingly —low. Public opinion polls also say that public trust in local government is less bad than it is in central government. Strong local government, with councillors whom your average voter might actually know, is one of the ways that one holds democracy together. Colleagues like the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, find themselves trying to represent 15,000 people per ward in a district like Bradford; that is not really effective local democracy. It is very hard for the councillor to know all the electors, let alone for the electors to know the councillors. When we come to the question of town and parish councils, and devolution from strategic authorities to the levels below, we will wish to emphasise that.
I signal that, as we talk about the context of the Bill and strategic authorities, we must first be clear how those strategic authorities relate to central government and, on the other side, how they relate to the single tier of effective local government and to the town and parish councils in which we hope your ordinary voter will find some sense of identity and participation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
Before I comment on the amendments in this group, I send my very best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We had an online meeting with her last week, and I know how frustrated she is not to be able to be part of this Committee’s work at the moment. I hope that she will be able to return to work with us in due course, so please convey our best wishes back to her.
I thank all noble Lords who have continued to engage with me since Second Reading and for the amendments that have been submitted. This House does great work on Bills, as I have experienced on both occasions that I have taken Bills through the House recently, and I am very grateful for that engagement and the work that has been done between Second Reading and Committee. I will start with a brief introduction of my own.
The Bill will deliver a landmark transfer of power out of Westminster to mayors and local leaders, enabling them to unlock growth, transport and infrastructure and deliver the change that we need in our local areas. It will deliver our commitment to a fit, decent and legal local government as the foundation of devolution by establishing, for example, a new local audit office that will transform our broken local audit system. We have committed to transfer power out of Westminster to all levels, which is why the Bill will also empower our communities via a new duty for local authorities to establish effective neighbourhood governance, bringing decision-making closer to communities, and a new community right to buy, which will help our authorities to have the power to do with the assets that they value what they think is the right thing.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Turning briefly to Amendments 95 and 266 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—I wish her well; we are missing her already—I agree with the principle that this Bill should provide genuine devolution, with decision-making lying with local government and not dictated by central government. This was the guiding principle behind my amendment. I am especially grateful to those who recognise that this is not about trapping the Government but about anchoring their ambitions in the text of the Bill and I thank my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Norton of Louth for their support. I am looking forward to his Amendment 251, where we can discuss further the important issue that he is raising.
Ministers tell us that the amendment is unnecessary because these principles already guide the Government’s approach, but the evidence simply does not sustain that claim. I want to look at one relevant example—housebuilding. The facts are stark. England delivered 208,600 new additional dwellings in 2024-25, well below the Government’s implied benchmark of 300,000. In the first half of 2025, completions fell by 12.6% year on year. Some areas recorded extraordinary collapses. Labour-run Islington saw a 90.2% fall in completions. Even the OBR forecasts show housebuilding falling from 260,000 annually to just 215,000 by 2026-27. That is a 17% decline, moving us even further away from the trajectory and the numbers needed. New-build completions hit an eight-year low in 2025 at 190,600, again far below what is required.
We have heard warm words about empowerment, sustainability, local accountability, growth and locally led planning, but the real-world outcomes—the measures by which our residents judge us—tell a very different story. That is precisely why this purpose clause is needed. This amendment asks the Government only to put in the Bill what they say they believe—a very simple message on the front of this Bill, not in guidance on a large piece of paper, but a simple message that says that devolution should be consent led, that local finances must be sustainable, that social care must be accountable and must be protected, that local growth must be enabled through genuine local powers and that housebuilding must be locally driven and responsive. If the Government are confident that they will already be fulfilling these aims, enshrining them in a purpose clause should not be a burden but a reassurance to councils, to communities and to Parliament.
I hope that the Government have listened and will consider this amendment very carefully to align the Bill not just with the Government’s rhetoric but with the realities facing local government today. But at this point I would like to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe whether, within a strategic authority’s competence, it would have the power to borrow in order to nationalise local transport.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. This group of amendments on Clause 2 concerns the areas of competence afforded to strategic authorities under the Bill. The amendments tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook are probing. They seek to test the scope and limits of the powers the Government intend to devolve, and to understand the rationale behind the choices made in drawing up this list.
We have tried to understand the logic that underpins the Bill. Devolution, if done well, can bring decision-making closer to communities, improving outcomes for local people and delivering better value. But ambition must be matched with clarity, legal certainty and a clear understanding of how these powers are intended to operate in practice. Clause 2 is central to that. It is right that this Committee examines it carefully. Of course, this would be so much easier to debate if the Government were being clear on the powers and fiscal capacity that they are devolving to local government. However, as my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook commented, we see little in the Bill of what is actually being devolved.
Amendment 2 in my name would leave out Clause 2(a). This amendment probes whether, within a strategic authority’s competence, there would be the power to borrow to acquire local transport businesses. The Bill as drafted appears to give strategic authorities a broad remit over transport, but it is not clear whether this extends to the acquisition of assets, the taking over of services or the borrowing powers that would be required to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government’s intention here. Is the power envisaged to be purely strategic and co-ordinating, or could it extend to ownership and operational control? If the latter, what safeguards or limitations would apply? Is transport buses and trams, or is it also rail?
Our Amendment 5 concerns the reference to public safety. This is a term that appears in a number of statutes but its meaning is not always consistent. This amendment seeks to determine what is meant by public safety in the context of the Bill and on what legal definition this remit is set out. Do the Government intend this to relate to emergency planning, community safety partnerships, policing or something broader? Clarity is essential, not least to avoid overlap or conflict with existing statutory duties.
Amendment 11 in my name seeks to clarify how strategic authorities will be expected to identify, seek and assume powers in their areas of competence, and how accountability for those powers will be maintained. The amendment proposes that strategic authorities may exercise functions only within a powers framework set by the Secretary of State, who would be required by regulation to specify the scope and limits of powers, identify any functions reserved to central government and impose any conditions or statutory objectives. It would also require strategic authorities to publish a statement setting out which powers they have assumed and how these relate to the functions within their constituent councils. This is intended to ensure clarity over scope, limits, conditions and transparency for both constituent councils and Parliament as to where responsibility lies.
Before I conclude I want briefly to acknowledge the other amendments in this group, which raise important questions about the breadth and ambition of the proposed areas of competence. My noble friend Lord Lansley seeks to include community engagement and empowerment, a reminder that devolution must be rooted not only in institutional structures but in the active participation of the people it is intended to serve.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. My Amendment 3 would make a simple change but it highlights something fundamental to the Bill, so I want to spend a bit more time going through it than that single-word change would imply.
In looking through the areas of competence, energy is conspicuous by its absence, given that it will be a central challenge for the country—and, indeed, the mission of the Government—in the coming years. I shall use the Midlands region, where I live, as an example; of course, the first energy transition really started in the Midlands. I recently visited the Science Museum down the road, where there is an excellent example of the Boulton and Watt steam engine, which was brought into use in Birmingham and started to turbocharge the demand for coal and the first energy transition from biomass to fossil fuels.
That was a locally led transition, of course, but today, the Midlands remains the industrial heartland of the UK. We have so many energy-intensive users and heavy manufacturing, ranging from nuclear reactors and aero engines to trains, excavators and cars. As a region, we want to help lead the latest energy transition, as articulated in the recent Midlands Engine’s White Paper on energy security; I chaired the task force to produce that.
For a number of years, I have been making the case that, to date, the energy transition has been delivered in a top-down fashion. We have had many welcome developments, such as the formation of the NESO—the National Energy System Operator—but there is still a sense that this is something being done to communities, rather than bringing them along on the journey. No doubt progress is being made on the regional planning for the local power plant through Great British Energy, but we are not yet in a place where we have a fully joined-up governance system that marries up the necessary top-down view of the energy system and the critical bottom-up view that informs it.
Why is it important to drive the transition locally? First, I have already mentioned bringing local communities along on the journey. We are talking about significant changes to buildings, including changes in how we heat and insulate them, and changes to both grid architecture and next-generation charging. All this will be much more effective if communities are helping to drive this themselves and seeing those benefits.
Secondly, local areas have the knowledge of how best to implement the energy transition. For example, they know their local housing stock best. They know which technologies are best for future heating solutions, whether that means district heating or heat pumps. They know where the grid, the charging and the local generation is.
That feeds into my final point, on costs. The cost of the energy transition is getting significant attention at the moment, but the benefits for the Government here are the cost savings possible with a locally led approach. Billions in savings are possible if the most appropriate solution is brought forward for local areas, using local knowledge rather than one-size-fits-all. Regions and authorities are recognising this and taking action, but the Government need to drive this approach forward and avoid the patchwork nature referred to in our debate on the previous group.
What is needed is proper energy planning, at a local level, which then feeds up into regional plans and, ultimately, into the spatial strategic energy plan for the UK that the NESO is producing. That is when we will have a transition where we bring in all the expertise at a local level, which means the most efficient solutions at the lowest cost. There is an opportunity here for the Government to recognise, in the areas of competence, the centrality of energy to what strategic authorities need to deliver; this would ensure that strategic authorities are delivering on energy for their regions. The Government could use that to define how a bottom-up governance system for energy could work, how that might flow up into the spatial strategic energy plan, how that will interface with GBE and NESO, and so on.
I was grateful to meet the Minister last week. We discussed how paragraph (a) refers to “transport and local infrastructure” and how that is slightly misleading, in that it may give the impression of a focus on transport. The other benefit of this amendment is that it would clarify that first part of Clause 2 and provide clarity in the language on what strategic authorities are trying to deliver. With that, I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a visual artist. Amendment 4 in my name is a small but important clarifying amendment. It simply adds the words “including through tourism” to paragraph (d) of Clause 2, which already defines “economic development and regeneration” as a core “area of competence” for strategic authorities. This reflects the Local Government Association’s view that tourism should be explicitly recognised in the Bill rather than left implicit.
Tourism is not a marginal activity; it is one of the principal ways in which economic development and regeneration happen in practice. It supports local jobs, sustains town centres, underpins cultural and heritage assets and brings external spending directly into communities. In many places, particularly outside the large cities, it is the economic driver.
I have deliberately not proposed tourism as a stand-alone category nor sought to incorporate it into the important Amendment 6 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name. His amendment rightly strengthens the strategic recognition of the arts, heritage and creative industries. My amendment is narrower and more operational. It simply makes it clear that tourism sits within economic development and regeneration, which is how local authorities already understand and deliver it in practice.
Too often, tourism is grouped alongside the arts and creative industries in local authority structures, where its scale and commercial focus can unintentionally shape priorities and funding conversations that are not directly about culture itself. Placing tourism clearly within economic development helps to maintain that distinction while allowing cultural policy to retain its own strategic clarity. This matters particularly in the context of the Government’s emerging work on a visitor or tourism levy. Even at modest levels, published estimates suggest that such a levy could raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year in England and potentially over £1 billion annually if applied more widely—sums that would exceed Arts Council England’s entire annual capital budget and be comparable in scale to a decade of lost local authority cultural investment.
In the Cultural Policy Unit’s helpful paper A City Tourism Charge—the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will no doubt develop this point further on Amendment 6, with which I entirely agree—there is a strong and well-evidenced case that a significant proportion of any such levy should be invested directly in cultural and heritage assets, which are often the very reason that people visit in the first place. For strategic authorities to play a meaningful role in shaping and deploying such tools, tourism needs to be clearly within scope. Without explicit inclusion, there is a risk that tourism falls between stools—assumed but not quite owned. This amendment provides clarity, not prescription, and I hope that the Minister will see it as a proportionate and helpful addition.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 8 in my name, which would have the effect of adding to the list of areas of competence in Clause 2 an additional paragraph (h), “community engagement and empowerment”. Noble Lords would not be surprised by the suggestion that this should be designated as one of the areas of competence of strategic authorities and mayors, as the clue is in the Title: the Bill is about community empowerment, and community engagement is instrumental to the achievement of community empowerment. It is therefore one of the areas of competence for mayors.
This led me to thinking about what the Government are trying to achieve by listing the areas of competence—let us understand that and then we can decide what it is sensible to put into the list. As it happens, the White Paper was somewhat more helpful than the Bill itself in this respect, since quite clearly what is intended, as the White Paper puts it, is that this list should comprise
“areas where Strategic Authorities should have a mandate to act strategically to drive growth as well as support the shaping of public services, where strategic level coordination adds value”.
I am looking at that and thinking that “competence” is not necessarily the right word for this; perhaps it is “responsibility”. Let us not worry about the word, but let us at least understand what the Government are trying to achieve. Then I realised that, of course, the point is that they have listed seven because subsequently there is an intention to have up to seven commissioners. Is the answer, “Well, there just has to be seven”? I do not think we need constrain ourselves in that regard.
I then thought that perhaps these are listed because they are the areas of functional responsibility where additional functions are provided by the Bill at a later stage, but when one looks at the functions of mayors, six are the subject of additional functional responsibilities and powers itemised later in the Bill. Environment and climate change is left out but is none the less an area of competence, so we are clearly not talking just about what the Bill adds to mayors by way of responsibilities; we are talking about what mayoral strategic authorities should be engaged with to drive growth, to create social cohesion and to shape public services.
It seems to me, therefore, that there are a number of additions and no problem about how many, as long as they are genuinely representative of the areas of competence—meaning, responsibility and functional powers that are available to mayoral strategic authorities. It seems to me—this will save me getting up and saying anything more on the next two groups—that both Amendments 6 and 7 have merit, in that respect, in adding arts, cultural and creative industries on the one hand and definitely adding rural affairs on the other.
The number of commissioners should be determined in their own right, rather than by reference to the number of areas of competence. If there are more areas of competence than there are commissioners, that is not a problem. Interestingly, while listing the seven areas of competence as we have them in Clause 2, the devolution White Paper said:
“We are interested in where this list could be expanded now or in the future”.
I think that we can help the Government by expanding the list. I personally think that all three that I mentioned could be added without any demerits. They would then be more comprehensively illustrative of the range of functional activities that strategic authorities should be engaged in, in order to achieve maximum growth, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, quite rightly illustrated by reference to tourism—how they can promote growth, shape public services and improve the circumstances for the populations that they serve.
From my point of view, community engagement and empowerment is central to the delivery of many of these. I have no intention that community engagement and empowerment should be the responsibility of a commissioner. It should be the responsibility of the mayor and, of course, it is a cross-cutting area of competence. I can see no reason why one would leave it out, since it is instrumental to the achievement of the objectives.
I shall finish with just one question to the Minister, which I am perfectly happy to take up with her at a later stage. If it is indeed the Government’s belief that this list may be expanded, either
“now or in the future”,
as the White Paper said, where is the power to add to this list? I cannot find such a power. It seems to me that on the face of it there should be such a power. Even if the Government are not persuaded today, clearly in the future, if, for example, using later powers, the mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities were to make proposals for changes to the Secretary of State and acquire additional functional responsibilities, this may be in a new area of competence, but where is the ability to put that into the legislation? I hope that the Minister may, at this or a later stage, agree that we should add an order-making power at that point.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, in this discussion, there is a lot of confusion between what I call the two Ds: democracy and delivery. I have spent over 40 years working in East End housing estates. Around the time I first arrived, I sat in a room with a youth worker, who asked a group of young people, “What do you want to do?” They said, “Well, miss, we want to go to Walton-on-the-Naze”—which is a seaside resort in Essex—“and we want to go ice-skating and horse-riding”. So I got on an Empress Coach with this youth worker and all these young people, and we did those three things. Then a year later, I returned to the same room with the same well-meaning youth worker, who asked again, “What do you want to do?” They said, “Well, miss, we would like to go to Walton-on-the-Naze and horse-riding and ice-skating”. I said to the youth worker, “You’ve been to university, you’ve been to Australia and you’ve travelled around the world. Why are you asking these young people this ridiculous question?” She said, “This is democracy. This is giving them a real choice”. I said, “Really? Why don’t you suggest we’ll take them across the Sinai Desert in six months’ time?” She replied, “Don’t be ridiculous. They’ve never heard of the Sinai Desert”—precisely.
With a business partner, we ended up taking 200 of those young people, in a programme we developed, across the Sinai Desert with the Bedouin. We climbed Mount Sinai and had an amazing experience. When these bright, sharp, entrepreneurial young people from East End housing estates came back, they raised all sorts of interesting questions. One of them, called Darren, wanted to go off to New York—which he did; he then developed an amazing piece of youth work, which was very entrepreneurial and which the Princess of Wales recently visited.
In the very early days in Bromley-by-Bow, we began to embrace an entrepreneurial programme which was created with local people, including local young people. Some 97 businesses have been involved in that over the last 10 or 12 years. Over the years in Bromley-by-Bow, we must have hosted more than 70 Government Ministers, but I fear that we are still asking the same question in many of these processes. With this kind of legislation, because the granular detail is not understood, I fear that we will spend a lot of time with large infrastructure asking people what they want and where they want to go, without thinking about how we really empower a community, particularly a poor community. That is about jobs and work and, in our experience, about helping them build businesses and enterprises and lifting the game.
I agree that community engagement is really important, but so is the granular detail of how you do it, what it means in practice and how you generate learning-by-doing cultures on the ground in some of our poorest communities. If we do not start to do that, I fear that, once again—I must be on my 14th Government now—we will have some restructuring. We will use all these very fine words, but we will be back in that room with those young people asking them what they want, with no clarity about democracy and delivery. I have found with East Enders that they are interested more in delivery than in talk—that when you promise things, you actually do them, and you transform the opportunities for their children. That will not happen unless we get more into the granularity and create learning-by-doing entrepreneurial cultures. That is what empowerment looks like.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, I feel the need to stress that we should not write off deliberative democracy, where people can access information and ideas and come together to reach new conclusions. Let us also stress that the economy—businesses and jobs—is one part of a much larger whole that is the community. Our society needs resources, education, time and health, so a simplistic, one-directional look at what our communities need will not answer our issues.
It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who made some very telling points about how this is a seriously half-baked Bill. Your Lordships’ Committee is going to have to add quite a bit of heat to get it anything like ready for the table. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the National Association of Local Councils. I too wish the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, well and hope that we can see her back soon.
I start with the noble Baroness’s Amendment 95, as it demonstrates why we need many of the amendments in this group. It sets out in clear terms that the role of local government is to provide “democratic, place-based leadership” and it should not be
“solely a delivery arm of central government”.
Increasingly, that is what local government has been forced into being through the decades-long power grab by Westminster, accompanied by swingeing austerity that has left councils unable to carry out pretty well anything but their statutory responsibilities, which are of course determined by Westminster. That is a major driver of the extremely high disillusionment with politics and why the slogan “Take back control” was so popular in 2016.
I set all that out because my Amendment 9 seeks to add to the list of areas of competence. Most of the amendments in this group, as well as Amendment 95, would take the Government in the direction they say they want this Bill to go. I will focus on Amendment 9, but, regarding Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on community engagement and empowerment, I have a lot of later amendments on this which are not necessarily contradictory but potentially complementary. I also support the community energy amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Last night in the Chamber, I spoke about community energy; we are just not seeing the driving force that we need to bring renewables to local communities, which surely has to be a crucial part of the areas of competence of the new strategic authorities.
My Amendment 9 addresses food security and poverty. In terms of local food production, according to a recent report from the CPRE, 1,7 00 farms have disappeared around the edges of towns and cities since 2010. We have seen those peri-urban areas stop being food-producing areas when they should be at the centre of local food systems. We have seen a massive cut in the number of county farms; according to figures from 2019, over a couple of decades they have gone from 426,000 acres to about 200,000 acres. We have seen councils’ control over local food systems hacked away.
We know—this is why poverty and food fit together very well—that we have enormous spatial inequalities, arguably the highest in the OECD. That has been increasing over three decades. There is an understandable feeling in Cumbria, Cornwall, Northumberland and north Devon that Westminster does not understand their poverty problem or the reality of their lives. They are right. We cannot fix the problems of each of those places by making one rule from Westminster; tackling poverty in those places has to be a local responsibility, with power and, importantly, resources to go with it. We have been through regional development agencies, local enterprise partnerships, town groups and the wildly unpopular investment zones. There has been a huge democratic deficit in all those systems, and they all have failed.
I draw on two reports from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission. The first is The False Economy of Big Food and the Case for a New Food Economy, which focuses on how what is colloquially known as “big food”—large centralised systems—is making us sick. It is the first report I have seen to have calculated the estimated total cost of our broken food system: £268 billion. A lot of that is the costs of healthcare, welfare support, social care and loss of productivity, all of which are having to be met by local authorities. Those are the costs—surely we need to put the solution and a reduction of those costs together.
We have lots to do here in Westminster. We have an extremely uneven playing field with a handful of big supermarkets and big food manufacturers entirely dominating the markets, throwing their weight around against local communities and farmers. Westminster needs to act, but how are we going to fill in the gaps? What are we going to put in all these different communities up and down the land? There is no one answer. Westminster does not have the answers.
I stress that about 22% of people in the UK are in food poverty. That means people who have a limited opportunity to feed themselves well, often relying on food banks, et cetera. UKRI is funding the Food Systems Equality project, involving systems in local communities to ensure healthy, sustainable food that reflects cultural preferences. We have recognition from one arm of government that the solution to our food issues has to be local—that is what UKRI is doing—but we have to put the power into local and strategic authorities to deal with that.
I pick one example of where something great is happening. An organisation called Growing Kent & Medway is an inspiring effort to create healthy and sustainable food systems in what has traditionally been the garden of England. It is place based, with a huge number of small independent businesses. I have tasted some great cheese and cider here in the House when they have come to visit us. But if we are going to have those kinds of systems all around the country in each area, they have to be supported by the strategic authorities.
Finally, I bring together food and poverty issues, including local food security in the UK. There is an interesting piece of work by the Royal Geographical Society, which carried out a visualisation of what food insecurity looks like in different parts of the country. It is useful to have this as a map, because you can see what different colours come out on the map showing the difference in different places. Food insecurity is variable across the country because of the levels of poverty, but the way in which people’s foodscapes are configured are different in different places. There is no way in which Westminster can find the solution for each place, because the solution in each place is different. There is nothing more fundamental for government to ensure that people are fed, but the Government in Westminster have to let go and let local communities find their own solutions.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we have been talking about public safety under Amendment 5. I want to check with the Minister how far the Bill is linked to some of the issues with which other departments in Whitehall are dealing. We all know that all the complicated policy problems are cross-departmental. Chapter 6 of the Strategic Defence Review was about a whole-society approach to home defence and home security, and the need for a broad approach to the multiple threats that we now face, including terrorism, climate change and hybrid warfare of one sort or another. The review stressed that we need local resources, knowledge and co-operation in order to make sure that we face some of those threats. So, I am glad to see public safety here.
I recall that when the Salisbury poisoning took place, the public health officer in Salisbury played a vital and impressive role in sorting out its response. I also remember that, when the Covid pandemic struck, the Government outsourced the placing of testing centres to two large companies, one of which had its headquarters in Miami and made a remarkable number of mistakes in where to place the centres. We need not just strategic but local authorities to be leading on this. I hope that the Minister can assure us that public safety is one of the dimensions with which we are concerned.
I am struck that it has been eight months since the Strategic Defence Review was published. It also said in chapter 6 that we needed to start a “national conversation” on how we respond to multiple threats. I have not heard any of that national conversation yet. I hope that the Minister’s department and the Ministry of Defence are in active conversation about how this dimension is built back into our society and our government structure and how the resources—because it costs money—will be provided to local authorities, local civil rescue services, local fire services and police forces to make sure that we can face these multiple threats to our public safety.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group, but the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made me think that it might be helpful to ask the Minister to explain where she sees land management and agricultural policy fitting in any of these categories. This is a bit of a precursor to the rural affairs amendment coming up, but it would be helpful at this stage to hear that. Food security is key to the agricultural policy that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised. I note my interests as a farmer in Devon. I also sit on the food security programme board for the Great South West. I am interested to understand whether the Government think that strategic authorities will have some competence over those areas. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group either, but my noble friend Lord Lansley raised some points. I need to declare a set of interests. I am a non-executive director of Norse Group, the part-owner of Porter and Verrells, a non-executive director of Elixr Earth and strategic adviser to Prodo. There is also Efficio and Peopletoo; I think that is it. They are all companies that will, if this legislation goes really well, probably find a way of doing something better. If this legislation goes badly, they will all probably suffer for it. So, one way or another, they will all be tied into this.
I had not realised, because I do not read the Bills like my noble friend Lord Lansley does, that the Government have not left a place in which they could add further powers to mayoral combined authorities as we prove the concept. At the moment, we know that the concept is different in different places. The team in Manchester is steaming away doing loads of brilliant stuff. Most of the other places are sitting further behind. We already have a landscape with different powers. If the Government do not find a way of putting that in after they reject my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment, will they consider putting something like a power of general confidence in there for strategic authorities so that they can actually start doing things that are necessary for the areas that they look after, which will be different in different places?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I would like briefly to contribute in the hope that I can be helpful to the Minister at this point. There is a list of areas of competence in Clause 2. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, told us that this was a probing amendment. By implication, I think that that means some thought can now go into the list of areas of competence.
I just want to add one new thing. I was a board member of a regional development agency, One North East, for a number of years. There is a difference between the list of areas of competence that we had and this list. Let me explain. We had a rural role and a role in culture and sport, particularly capital investment. We had a clear role in tourism and in energy. We had no role in public safety, health, well-being and public service reforms, or community engagement and empowerment, and we did not directly address issues of poverty, although we did indirectly by the nature of what the RDA was trying to do. I wonder if the Minister might take on board all that has been said and look at those areas of competence. I hope that they are not seen to be a final list. In my view, they are not a final list but a very good basis for discussion. I hope that the Government will be willing to do that before Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments on the areas of competence and for what has been a useful and helpful discussion on the subject. Many of the amendments in the group seek to probe the list of mayoral competences and I understand why noble Lords would want to do that, but I want to be clear that the areas of competence are deliberately broad to enable a wide range of activities to fall within the scope of strategic authorities. They are intended as a framework that mayors can adapt as their local areas determine where they should place the emphasis.
Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to create a distinct area of competence of “community engagement and empowerment”. It is important that all tiers of local government work to deliver for their communities, as we all know. Strategic authorities, like any other tier of government, will be empowered to engage with those who live and work in their areas. Those already in place do so effectively.
Indeed, many existing combined and combined county authorities already use their powers to engage with their communities to ensure that their work meets local needs. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority has an established region-wide engagement platform, known as Your Voice, to strengthen dialogue with local communities. Through this initiative, alongside wider public engagement activity, the authority is gathering views to inform decisions on how its devolved funding is allocated.
The York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority has invested £1.9 million to support community building projects across the region. Funding has been given to buildings which play an important role for communities, such as the village halls in—I always hesitate to use the Yorkshire pronunciations, so forgive me if I get this wrong —Great Ouseburn and Kettlewell.
The areas of competence have been framed to enable a wide range of activity to fall within scope, including community engagement and empowerment. In this sense, it will be embedded within and throughout all the existing areas of competence. These competences are deliberately flexible. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about any power in the Bill, but we intend for it to be a framework; I will reflect on that point and come back to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, made a point about action and impact, as opposed to the broader framework. I refer him to the Pride in Place funding that does exactly as he was describing; it is £20 million of funding for each of 250 neighbourhoods. This is a long-term project, over 10 years, to make sure that each place is able to shape the things that are important to it. I refer the noble Lord to that important project, which shows how we are working with communities—not to them—to move forward the kinds of projects that he was talking about.
Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to create distinct areas of competence for
“reducing poverty and socio-economic inequality”,
and food security. She will not be surprised to hear that I share her objective of addressing poverty, socioeconomic inequality and food insecurity. The Government remain firmly committed to tackling these issues by addressing all the factors that underpin these challenges that we see in communities.
The areas of competence already enable strategic authorities to tackle poverty and socioeconomic inequality in a cross-cutting manner, via skills and employment support, economic development, investing in transport, tackling health inequalities and in many other ways. The same is true for food security. In Greater Manchester, the combined authority is taking concerted action to tackle food inequality and poverty through initiatives such as No Child Should Go Hungry, which has provided thousands of emergency food cards to residents. At a strategic level, mayors will take account of all the needs of their areas, and locally relevant information, such as the land use framework that colleagues in Defra are producing.
Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to add energy to the existing transport and local infrastructure area of competence. The noble Lord and I have spoken about this Government’s energy plans and I have written to him today. With his permission, in a moment, I will quote briefly from that letter because I think it would be helpful for noble Lords to have a bit more detail. On the role that we intend strategic authorities to play in this space, while I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s amendment, I do not believe at this stage it is necessary. As noble Lords will know, the themes of the areas of competence are, as I have said, deliberately broad in scope and include thematic policy areas such as local infrastructure and environment and climate change. Energy cuts across all these, as well as other areas of competence. Importantly, strategic authorities can, and will be able to, address their local communities’ energy needs through the areas of competence. Indeed, many are already doing so.
On future strategies, the Government are undertaking a number of pieces of work reviewing the benefits of local energy planning for meeting national goals, several of which will lay out our approach for local renewable energy. The forthcoming local power plan will be owned jointly by Great British Energy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. That will outline our shared vision for the local and community energy sector. We are continuing to develop the local power plan with Great British Energy and updates will be provided soon. Similarly, the warm homes plan will cover housing retrofit and heat network zoning and will be published shortly. There will be more details in that plan on heat network zoning. The secondary legislation, rather than this Bill, will provide the necessary framework to empower local authorities to act as heat network zone co-ordinators under the Energy Act 2023. That is just a bit more information on those areas. For example, the Liverpool City Region is working to establish Mersey Tidal Power, with the aim of delivering Europe’s largest tidal power project by 2030, capable of powering up to 1 million homes. In the west of England, the combined authority has implemented its local energy scheme, which is funding community-led renewable projects.
Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, seeks to add tourism to the existing economic development and regeneration areas of competence. The Bill already makes provision for strategic authorities to support the tourism industry. Clause 41 extends local powers to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors. Combined authorities and combined county authorities can use these powers to promote tourism and host events attracting visitors to boost local businesses such as hotels and shops. Many existing combined authorities and county authorities are already making use of these powers. For instance, the West Midlands Combined Authority is investing £120 million into an economy, trade and tourism programme, supporting over 250 businesses and 10 major sporting and cultural events. This example demonstrates that prescribing an extensive list of industries and sectors within the area of competence is not required. The areas of competence will empower mayors and strategic authorities to determine their own priorities in the application of their powers, and many are already doing so to address local issues such as tourism.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would remove transport and local infra- structure from the areas of competence for strategic authorities. I note from the noble Baroness’s explanatory statement that her intention in tabling this amendment is to probe how the power to borrow will work for mayoral strategic authorities. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was probing this during his speech. All existing mayoral strategic authorities already have the power to borrow for all their functions, including transport. Clause 12 will confer the power to all future mayoral strategic authorities. Strategic authorities have full discretion over the exercise of borrowing powers and allocation of resources, subject to obtaining the requisite support from their constituent members via the budget voting process.
Like the rest of local government, strategic authorities must also operate within the prudential framework— I think all noble Lords here would expect that. This framework comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. It provides robust mechanisms for oversight and accountability. In practice, this amendment would remove transport and local infrastructure from the areas of competence for strategic authorities. That is clearly contrary to the aims of the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry, but the Minister does not seem to have mentioned this: I think we are also probing where LRS would fit in and what level they would be if they are going to continue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will finish what I am saying, then I will see whether I can answer the noble Baroness’s question.
Including public safety within the areas of competence is important for several reasons. First, it enables devolution of further public safety functions. For example, consideration is currently being given to the role of strategic authorities in resilience as part of the post-implementation review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, due to be completed by March next year.
Secondly, it allows mayors to delegate certain existing functions relating to public safety to a commissioner; where the mayor is responsible for policing, they must appoint a deputy mayor for policing to whom policing functions are delegated. Additionally, the inclusion of public safety within the areas of competence allows a mayor who is responsible for fire services, but not for policing, to delegate certain fire-related functions to a public safety commissioner.
Thirdly, it enables the mayor to convene local partners and collaborate with other mayors to tackle questions of public safety—something all residents would expect them to do. There is a wide range of activity in which we would expect mayors to participate.
Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to clarify how strategic authorities will seek and assume powers within their area of competence and then be held to account. One of the central aims of the Bill is to move away from the current patchwork of powers and piecemeal devolution of functions. To that end, the Government’s ambitious new devolution framework will set out a coherent and consistent set of functions.
Part 2 of the Bill sets out specific functions and the voting and governance arrangements that strategic authorities will automatically receive at each level of the devolution framework, categorised under the relevant area of competence. For example, the duty to produce a local growth plan is categorised under the “economic development and regeneration” area of competence. The Bill allows for new powers and duties to be added to the devolution framework over time, ensuring that it remains adaptive and responsive to future needs and policy developments. Mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities will also be able to request and pilot new functions so it will be possible to test and evaluate outcomes ahead of adding new functions to the framework.
Finally, I turn to accountability. Combined authorities and combined county authorities—
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, while the Bill clearly allows for additional functions and powers to be given to mayoral strategic authorities, the specific question was whether the Bill has a power to enable the areas of competence list to be amended.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I heard the noble Lord’s question. I responded earlier that I will come back to him on how this works within the Bill, so if that is okay, I will do it in writing and share it with other Members of the Committee.
Combined authorities and combined county authorities are required in law to establish both an overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. Also, all strategic authorities are expected to follow the principles and processes in the English devolution accountability framework and scrutiny protocol. The Government remain committed to strengthening local accountability and scrutiny, and we are exploring models such as local public accounts committees; we will provide an update on our proposals in that regard in due course.
I hope that, with these reassurances and explanations, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Perhaps I might come back to the issue of food security. In her answer, the Minister talked about access to food, which is obviously a crucial part of food security and very much related to poverty, but I do not think she really talked about food production and local systems of food distribution, which tie in with the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Devon—particularly in terms of vegetables and fruit. We are talking about health, as well as pure calories, here. Do the Government see looking to produce as much food as possible locally as an important part of the new strategic authority?
Back in the depths of Covid, I chaired an online event on research from the University of Sheffield demonstrating that Sheffield could be self-sufficient in vegetables and fruit, growing in the green areas of the city. That is just a demonstration of the possibilities: if you get local attention on solving these issues, we can make real progress.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand why the noble Baroness is pushing her point strongly, but I will stick to the answer I gave: those areas of competence already enable a very wide framework to tackle poverty and socioeconomic inequality—including food production, if that is where the mayor chooses to go in a particular area. The issues raised by the noble Baroness are cross-cutting aspects so putting them into one of the competences would mean that you would not be able to work so effectively across those competences, including on things such as skills and health inequalities. It is right to leave the framework of competences as broad as possible to allow people to determine the best way forward at a local level.
There is other work going on in Defra, as the noble Baroness will be well aware, in relation to land use frameworks—as well as all of the other issues around how we account for local food production—but, from the point of view of this Bill, the competences and the broad framework that they offer give the widest framework for local authorities to tackle needs in their areas.
Lord Mawson (CB)
I know that the Minister cares a lot about these issues around community engagement, which is always encouraging to people such as me. As a social entrepreneur, I have spent my life at the other end of this telescope. I now operate with a team across this country, in some of the poorest communities, grappling with local authorities and the machinery of the state.
To be honest, we and some of our business partners find a lot of this state machinery very broken indeed; it is very difficult to make it work in practice. What people such as me are trying to suggest is that there needs to be some humility. It is difficult. I am aware that lots of colleagues in this Room have spent a lot of their lives in the public sector—I get all that; it has been my privilege to work with some rather excellent CEOs of local authorities and in the health service, as well as some who have not been so good, if I can put it like that—but there are real challenges with this machinery, whatever we say. I am experiencing them at the moment in one town in the north, where our Civil Service is not understanding the granular, practical detail of transformation and innovation—or what those things look like—and is in danger of putting old men in new clothes.
So, with the opportunity that appears before us in this legislation, let me explain why we need to create, at a granular, local level and in place, learning-by-doing cultures that pay attention to how we work with the public, local authorities, the health service, charities and the social sector—that is, how those interfaces work in practice to deliver. I suggest that it is because, at the moment, although the words all seem fine and lots of people care about this, when you try to do this stuff—as my colleagues and I do—something quite different starts to appear. I fear that, if we are not careful—and unless we grip some of that difficulty and some of the things that some of us have got a lot of grey hairs from trying to do—there will be lots of meaning well, but very little will change, in some of our poorest communities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for those additional points. In this Room there are many people from local government, who have spent many years working to make sure that what he called the machinery of state is not interfering with actually delivering at local level. What we are trying to do with the Bill is to make sure that we continue that, but no doubt we will have many discussions about whether or not it is going to work.
It is very important that what we do is driven by local people at local level. The Co-operative Councils’ Innovation Network, which I started with my right honourable colleague from the other end, Steve Reed, about 15 years ago now, sets up pilot projects to show exactly how you start with the impact at local level and then work up to what needs to be done in the machinery to make that work. That is what I want to do but on a national scale, and I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards doing so.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I raised a minor point around paragraph (a) in Clause 2—“areas of competence”—which refers to “transport and local infrastructure”. My point is about the wording. That could perhaps be taken to mean local infrastructure related to transport. That is probably not the intention of the Government and this is local infrastructure in general, but perhaps there is an opportunity to clarify that wording.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord knows, because we have had the conversation, that I feel that the order of that wording is a little unfortunate. We will reflect on that because it does look as though it is infrastructure related just to transport. That is not the intention of the Bill. The Bill is intended to reflect that the competences will include local infrastructure and transport. If that local infrastructure relates also to transport, well and good, but it might be other infrastructure. So I will reflect on that and come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. What has emerged quite clearly is that there is a huge desire across the Committee for a proper devolution framework that is both ambitious and workable, and one that truly empowers local leaders while ensuring clarity, accountability and coherence.
I want to come back to competence because there appears to be some confusion. My noble friend Lord Porter raised the fact that local authorities already have a general power of competence. Therefore, I want to be clear: what do we mean by competence in the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, raised, what matters for the public is delivery. For that to happen, local authorities, mayors and strategic authorities need to have the responsibility, the powers and the funding. My noble friend Lord Lansley, in helpfully referring to the White Paper, said that a competence is a strategic mandate “to do”, as opposed to the general power of competence. I would really appreciate it if the Minister could clarify—not necessarily now—exactly what we mean by an area of competence and what that means in terms of responsibilities, powers, funding and the ability to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, mentioned energy. Over a century ago the last energy revolution of neighbourhood gas and electricity was rolled out by local authorities because they had the power and the funding—they did not have the responsibility but they took the responsibility—to do so. By the sounds of it, many noble Lords here would like local authorities to be in the same position again to be able to do things at the local level.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned tourism, which is absolutely crucial to delivering economic growth, particularly in certain areas, such as Bedfordshire, where we have the delights of two national zoos and various other things.
My noble friend Lord Lansley and other noble Lords raised the very important issue of empowerment. It is partly because of the need to try to delve into and understand this that my noble friend Lady Scott and I tabled some of our amendments. Amendment 2 seeks precisely to understand what is meant by the devolution of transport powers; I appreciate that the Minister provided some clarity on that. Amendment 5 is about public safety; that term has significant implications, some of which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. My noble friend Lady Scott raised the important issue of LRFs and where they will fit in the future. The importance is around how this will work in the future and the clarity as we go through this process. It is not just about what areas people are competent in but what powers, funding and responsibilities they will be given to deliver that.
The Earl of Clancarty
“(h) the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage as an area of competence for strategic authorities.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 6 would rectify what is, at present, a significant omission from the list of areas of competence: cultural concerns. Amendment 51 is intended to ensure that this area has its own commissioner. I share Amendment 52 with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on a related subject; they both wish to change 7 persons to 8 persons.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar for their support. I welcome the discussions I have had with Culture Commons. I thank the Local Government Association for its briefing and its support for this amendment. I support my noble friend Lady Prashar’s amendment, which has very similar intentions to my own, and look forward to her contributions as well as those of others.
I have given some thought about how this area of competence should be titled. I believe that certain cultural concerns need to be specified at this level in the Bill to know more precisely what it is we are discussing. In this, I have taken my cue from the Government, who, in talking about education, for instance, refer directly to “skills and employment support” as an area of competence, as currently listed in paragraph (b) of Clause 2.
The arts, including our theatres, art centres and more, and cultural services, including museums, libraries and more, provide what is termed the local cultural infrastructure. It is an infrastructure that, traditionally, local authorities have funded in significant part without a great deal of thought about commercial return, even though we know from countless Arts Council studies how much such investment is repaid many times over. It is therefore about funding—the funding that has survived—for the social good and the provision of a civic necessity. This is an infrastructure that, between 2009 and 2024, according to a report produced by the University of Warwick for the Campaign for the Arts, has suffered over 50% in cuts, as the Minister is well aware.
It could be argued that, without the statutory provision afforded by the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, the losses would have been even worse. This is specifically an aspect over which the mayor should have oversight because of the importance not just of economic growth but of cultural growth to a region—of course, one informs the other. Some of our councils, such as the one in Birmingham, are in dire straits in that respect. The first thing that needs to happen, irrespective of this legislation, is for this sector of the arts and cultural services to be properly funded again.
It is also true that there are a minority of councils where arts funding is virtually zero, and where councils have unforgivably said, “If you want the arts, take the train into London and go and watch a play in the West End”. The arts need to be supported—and in every local area, because local areas make up regions. That is why local growth plans, and the mapping of our arts and cultural ecosystem, are important. Despite the cuts, local authorities—and indeed district councils—are still hugely important as a mechanism for funding, not least because they have the local knowledge.
The arts are also slightly different from the more commercialised end of the creative industries. As I say, all regions should be seeking to support the arts, but not necessarily all the more commercialised creative industries, since certain localities or regions will or should be developing their own industries, such as in film or TV, gaming, digital and tech. The Local Government Association briefing helpfully points to the creative places growth fund and the Tees Valley creative investment zone as examples of these specifically industrial concerns and sources of funding, which of course are important in their own right—as is tourism, in relation to our arts and heritage. I support what my noble friend Lord Freyberg said on the previous group about the use of what will be large sums from the tourism levy for cultural purposes. If the moneys are used in this way, they will return to hospitality through making our cultural attractions even more attractive.
But tourism and cultural concerns are separate issues. Tourism drags in a lot of other things, including transport, for instance. It is important then to make the distinctions that I have made in this amendment between the arts, the creative industries, cultural services and heritage, for quite practical reasons because of the strong subtext of the Bill—one might almost say supertext —which is economic growth. There is the danger that, in the drive for growth through the creative industries, we lose sight of the importance of our basic cultural infrastructure and the importance of a region’s cultural as well as economic growth. The mayor should be as concerned about that existing infrastructure as having an effective creative industry strategy. Both of course are important and will feed into each other.
From this area of competence other things flow, whether or not they are formalised legislatively. Later in the Bill, we will discuss the treatment of cultural assets and local growth plans, in connection with amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and myself. As I said, I have tabled Culture Commons’s recommendation of a cultural ecosystem map, which would be hugely helpful. I have mentioned art centres and theatres already, but increasingly assets such as artists’ studios, grass-roots music venues and recording studios, some of which used to be able to thrive commercially, are under threat and require state intervention if we want to hold on to them. Where there are real concerns and gaps, mayors should be able to appeal formally to central government.
Finally, this should be an area of competence because every strategic authority should have these concerns. Not every mayor will have the experience or natural inclination of a Tracy Brabin, of course, but they should have the framework in which to act. I have two questions for the Minister. Does she believe that such cultural concerns should be an area of competence? I do not believe that it overlaps with any other area of competence. Secondly, if so, what does she understand as the responsibilities of a strategic authority in this respect? I have presented my argument, but I am open to other opinions. I beg to move.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, but I shall also speak to my amendment, which is simpler. As I go through my remarks, noble Lords will see the rationale for my amendment. It is clear that the Bill strengthens the architecture for economic growth. It stops short of embedding cultural and heritage ecosystems within this framework and it does not provide a clear mechanism through which MHCLG, DCMS and DSIT and their arm’s-length bodies can work collaboratively with strategic authorities. It leaves the very sectors, culture and heritage, which are the lifeblood of civic life, which encourage engagement by communities and which are a crucial part of the creative industries’ ecosystem, outside the formal machinery of devolution.
Cultural heritage, in my view, needs to be part of the core toolkit for mayors, since devolution is more than just economic growth. If this new architecture is to work, civic and cultural capabilities, which are the connective tissue of local life, have to thrive, so we need to create spaces where intercultural dialogue can take place.
Intercultural dialogue is not just a slogan but a bridge builder, where an ongoing practice of listening, understanding and negotiating difference to sustain social cohesion prevails for people to meet across boundaries, build trust, shape a shared sense of purpose and see themselves as part of a common story. Culture can be a powerful lever, used properly, to avoid the balkanisation of communities and arrest the intensification of difference in an era where identity politics are rife.
As we begin to develop a more robust regional tier of governance, we must ensure that the aims of fostering understanding and strengthening social bonds are woven into the strategic functions and that this change is seen as an opportunity for genuinely building social inclusion, not social division. I would argue that social cohesion matters for our national security, because we need to ensure that local devolution will help to harness national cohesion. This amendment will, in my view, go a long way in helping to ensure that there is deliberate engagement to coalesce around common issues that deepen what are called democratic behaviours and citizenship.
This amendment will not impose any fiscal or bureaucratic burdens but will ensure that culture and heritage sit alongside other competences. We need national economic renewal, but we also need social renewal. These measures as a whole will build trust and a sense of belonging. I am aware that culture and heritage are often characterised as cross-cutting issues, but the same could be said of other competences. It is because they sit across so many parts of people’s lives that they should not be left to discretionary treatment but should be integrated purposefully into the remit of this Bill.
This amendment is not just an adornment but is foundational and will give human meaning to structural changes. I also want to make it clear that this amendment is not prescriptive about scale, timing or configuration, because it will be rightly worked through by mayors with central government. I hope that the amendment will be looked at sympathetically and I thank Culture Commons for the support that it has provided.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am in favour of all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 6, which I have co-signed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for introducing the amendment today and so eloquently expressing why it is so important to every strand of British life. Sitting next to a Lancastrian, it gives me great pleasure to extol the virtues of Yorkshire arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage. I pause to give my best wishes, too, to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and wish her a speedy return to this place. Having broken my ankle, I know how irritating it is to be immobile, but you have to let nature take its course.
As the MP at the time, I was delighted to be patron of Thirsk Museum. Many noble Lords may not know that Thomas Lord came from Thirsk, so when you go to Lord’s, think of Thirsk. James Herriot was also a son of Thirsk and I pay tribute to his son and daughter, who are keeping his memory alive. The James Herriot museum is one of the most visited museums in Thirsk and North Yorkshire. We are also very lucky to have the more recent Rural Arts centre, which is very active and a great contribution to local culture and the local economy.
Will the Minister say whether it was an oversight that arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage were omitted? Will she look favourably on this amendment to ensure that they are covered in the context of this Bill? This group of amendments is entirely complementary to later amendments that come in my name, and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I support these amendments this afternoon.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill. I also wish my noble friend the Minister a happy birthday for yesterday. I was delighted to hear her cite examples of good practice from my old region, Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region, especially on clean energy. As a city councillor I represented the poorest ward in Liverpool, and as an MEP I had the privilege of representing over 40 north-west local authorities.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support Amendment 6, to which I have added my name, and to express my full agreement with the case made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I also support Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Both amendments address a clear omission in the Bill by placing the arts, culture and creative industries, cultural services and heritage explicitly within the areas of competence of strategic authorities, precisely where local government, the Local Government Association and the sector itself understand them to sit. Amendment 51, also in the noble Earl’s name, provides the necessary consequential provision to ensure that this competence can operate coherently in practice. Together, these amendments bring clarity, not complication, and I strongly support them.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Clancarty and Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lady Prashar. I have spoken to a number of people in local government and become convinced that the new strategic authorities could benefit their regions if they had competence over the heritage and cultural sector.
Noble Lords have only to look at the catastrophic situation in the arts and cultural sector in the West Midlands to understand their importance. Birmingham has reduced the funding of arts in the city from £10 million in 2010 to a mere £1.1 million in 2024-26. In 2015, when the first big cuts were announced, they were in part because the political dysfunction of the city council persuaded the Arts Council to redirect funds, with a terrible effect on the city’s cultural and heritage life. Since then, the crisis has continued. The result of this long decline in funding was that in 2024 the city council signed off 100% reductions to funding for some of the most internationally recognised city institutions—the CBSO, Birmingham Rep, the Birmingham Royal Ballet, the Ikon Gallery, Fabric dance and dozens of community cultural organisations; the list goes on.
Some of these cuts have led to entrepreneurial responses by the city’s cultural sector. For instance, John Crabtree at the Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre has put on a more commercial and popular offer that has helped to stabilise the Birmingham Royal Ballet, which is also housed there. The Mayor of the West Midlands, who has strategic authority over the region but does not have legal competence for the cultural sector, has been able to direct some financial support through the regional authority’s cultural leadership board. It has managed to use money left over from the underspend on the Commonwealth Games and wider devolution funding to channel money to at least some of the most important cultural bodies in the city.
However, all these payments are one-off and do not replace longer-term core funding. They are not able to reach many smaller community cultural bodies, which have subsequently closed. In a city where there is huge concern about youth crime, that seems to be a retrograde and regrettable step. Imagine how much more effective the authority could have been if it had a statutory board to oversee and direct more extensive funds to the cultural sector across the region. I would hope that the establishment of a statutory heritage board in the West Midlands Combined Authority, with constituent authorities as members, would bring stability and greater funding to the sector across the region. In the process, that would allow local and national funding bodies to release money to the region and attract private philanthropy.
The acceptance of Amendment 6 would allow this competence and support for the cultural sector and the creative industries. As many other noble Lords have said, the heritage sector is so important for bringing together communities in a region, for giving them a sense of identity and for attracting tourism into the area. I ask the Minister, with her impressive career in local government, to appreciate how important such an additional competency could be in boosting regional development and cohesion.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very supportive of Amendments 6 and 10. I would have added my name to them, but the slots were already gone on Amendment 6. I am agnostic about the difference in wording between Amendments 6 and 10. Like the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I am keen to use this opportunity to discuss the best form of wording, but it is important that these areas of life are added to the competences for the strategic authorities, simply because they are the things that make life worth living. I had the privilege of being the Arts Minister as we were bouncing back from the pandemic—a time when people were cut off from the arts, creativity and heritage—and saw the natural yearning in us all to enjoy these things. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and others, they are also the things that forge communities, bring people together across all their differences and help boost a sense of pride in place and a sense of belonging.
It is tempting often to think of them as a drain on resources but, as Amendment 6 does, that mixes things that might be parts of the subsidised creative sector and the creative industries, which are huge engines of growth, with massive employers, often some of the biggest employers in the strategic authority areas that we are talking about. That is one of the reasons why the creative industries were one of five priority areas for the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and are one of the eight priority areas for the Government now. We all agree about the huge importance of these industries to our economy overall.
The arts, whether subsidised or run commercially, are vital for the skills pipeline that drives all this, and heritage is the infrastructure that underpins them. Our historic houses, churches, heritage railways and more are not just the filming locations for so many of our brilliant TV and film productions; they are places where people can gain skills that they take into other areas of the economy. The Minister knows well Knebworth, which has been the site of many rock concerts from the time of the Rolling Stones to Robbie Williams. These locations are places for literary festivals that draw people in for so much more.
In discussions with local authority leaders when I was in government, I also saw how enlightened local authority leaders could see that, if they invested in the arts, they could save in other areas. If you could get people engaged in arts and creativity, you could save money in your education budget or health budget. They saw the boost in well-being. In so many of the other strategic competences that have been set out, it is important that we think about the arts, heritage and creativity.
It was also clear for me in my time in government that some local authorities get it more than others. I had the privilege of meeting all four shortlisted places for the most recent UK City of Culture competition. It was clear that the four had excellent chief executives and often the local authority leader had previously held the culture portfolio and could see the power of this to galvanise local businesses, employers, universities and more to leverage the opportunities and investments. We have seen from Hull, Coventry and most recently the brilliant Year of Culture in Bradford the inward investment to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. I see my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth—Hull University carried out a good study into the economic impact of Hull’s year as City of Culture, which continues to bring great benefit to that city and wider region.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in the previous group mentioned his role in One North East. I have seen throughout my life the power of the arts and arts-led regeneration across Tyneside, from the Baltic Gallery to what is now the Glasshouse International Centre for Music, rippling up the Tyne to the Mouth of the Tyne Festival and regeneration in Whitley Bay.
But it is also clear that some local authorities do not get it. We have heard about those that have sadly not invested as much. I found myself as a Minister critical of a number of local authorities, including some controlled by my own party. It was not a party-political issue. I found myself criticising Suffolk County Council, the Conservative council, when it slashed its arts budget, the Greens in Bristol City Council and Labour in Nottingham City Council. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, pointed out, I followed closely the travails of Birmingham City Council after that city, the largest local authority in Europe, was bankrupted. There were frantic discussions between DCMS and the commissioners who were appointed. They were tempted to sell off some of what they could see as assets, the art collection and the historic buildings in that city. We are not going for those easy wins. These are collections that have taken generations to build up but can be lost in an instant.
If there is not this statutory message, the issue is not always viewed as a priority and certainly not the priority that it ought to be. Even with devolution and trusting strong local leaders, it is important that we give that encouragement and that nudge, particularly if the authorities are to have the powers that we have heard of in relation to the tourism levy. There is a mixture of opinions out in the country about what that will mean for heritage, tourism and local arts. Some are enthusiastic, while some are more sceptical about whether they will see the benefits or whether they will be diverted into some of the other areas that are already set out in the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I would like to make a point of clarification, if I may, on the Ipswich cuts. The Greens were protesting the cuts, not doing them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I became leader of Brighton council in 1987. One of the first things that we did was triple our spending on the Brighton Festival. At the time it seemed like a fairly minor thing, but it triggered a lot of inward investment through leverage. It demonstrated to me the importance and the value of public sector investment in the arts. Since then, the Brighton Festival has grown; it is now one of the largest arts festivals in the country. But you have to make that important statement to attract extra funding and inward investment.
I currently chair a seafront regeneration board for Brighton and Hove City Council. One of the things I am quite determined to do is to bring a new major art gallery to our city, because it is one of the missing elements. Those things have a long-term strategic benefit and that is why I think adding this as an area of competence to strategic authorities is very important.
After all, it is one of the Government’s missions. We often talk about the £128 billion value to the UK economy of the arts. If we can embed that statutorily, we can grow and develop our reputation. We are one of the arts growth leaders in the world economy. It would greatly help our growth mission and our economic and industrial mission if we were to place this as an important strategic responsibility.
Without that, as others have said, it is not there—it is voluntary and it is very much up to the localities to determine, as they rightly should, what their priorities are. But it is an encouragement, and that long-term commitment and encouragement will make a very significant difference to the development of arts and cultural services across the UK.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I would like to add a small voice to the chorus of support for these amendments. I do so from the perspective of my role as the owner of a cultural institution in Devon and my work on the Exeter place partnership, which has been particularly successful in encouraging arts and heritage activities within the city over recent years, such as Radio 1’s Big Weekend, the Rugby World Cup and the Women’s Rugby World Cup. It has been a tremendous success for the city.
I do not want to repeat what has been so excellently stated by many noble Lords. It does not need repeating. But there is one area to consider that maybe has not been emphasised: the importance for the strategic authorities created under this Bill of having competency over the arts and creative industries within their region. If they do not have the competency over these areas within their region, obviously someone else is going to, and that will be a central authority. That is going to homogenise and fail to develop the cultural identity of the strategic authority region. If we can bestow that core competency on the strategic authority, we will see the identity of that strategic authority grow and improve. It will better sustain the health and vibrancy of the strategic authority itself—not just the region but the strategic authority—and we should think of that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches very much support the inclusion of this measure—above all because, if it is enlisted as one of the areas of competence, it will strengthen the argument that strategic authorities will have to make with the all-powerful Treasury that this is one of the funding elements that must be included.
I declare an interest: I live in Saltaire, which is a world heritage site. We are an open world heritage site, which means that we cannot charge for entry. The delicacy of our relations with Bradford Council, with a very strapped budget in terms of providing the resources to cope with the tourists and visitors, is very much one of the things we have to struggle with. As other noble Lords have said, Bradford has just had the most successful City of Culture year. It has done a huge amount for social cohesion and morale—indeed, for all the things the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was talking about earlier, in terms of expanding people’s horizons and bringing people together.
Culture has been funded through a range of different streams. We all know about and remember the battles with Arts Council England about funding areas outside London. We have seen the way in which local councils used to pull cultural elements together through education in schools, local music arrangements and so on. They have dismantled those music hubs, which have been played around with—they have been constructed and put together, then taken apart—and schools have become very separate. If we are to build back to local intervention, local help and regional support, culture needs to be stressed as one of the things that is of enormous benefit to all of us, both socially and economically. It has been squeezed as councils at all levels have had to squeeze their budgets; they have found that culture is one of the things that has to go, as other things seem more important immediately, but it leaves a huge gap in the long run.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to these amendments, I have a point of clarification: I believe that my noble friend Lord Parkinson was referring to Bristol, not Ipswich.
The amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, would add the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage as an area of competence. The noble Earl has long been a vocal advocate for the cultural and creative sectors; his contributions to these debates and their economic, social and civic value are well recognised by the Committee. The case made by the noble Earl is compelling, as is the case made by the noble Baroness.
Cultural policy is most effective when it is shaped locally, with the flexibility to reflect the distinct histories, assets and ambitions of local areas; we have heard this from pretty much every noble Lord who has spoken today. Taken together, these amendments ask an important question: what role do the Government envisage for culture within the devolution framework? The Bill as drafted is silent on this point. Many combined authorities already treat culture as a strategic priority; local leaders would welcome clarity that they may continue to do so within the new statutory framework.
As with earlier groups of amendments, the issue here is not simply whether culture matters—few in this Committee would dispute that, I think—but whether the Government’s model of devolution is sufficiently flexible and ambitious to allow strategic authorities to support and grow the cultural life of their areas. These amendments invite the Government to set out their thinking and explain whether the omission of culture from Clause 2 is deliberate or merely an oversight. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for Amendments 6 and 51, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for Amendment 10. These amendments seek to create a distinct area of competence for culture; and to enable a mayor to appoint a commissioner to this additional area of competence. As noble Lords will be aware, we had long discussions about this matter during the passage of the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
When I was thinking about this, I thought I would have a look at what was going on in Hertfordshire, my own county, which calls itself the Hollywood of the UK. That might be disputed territory, but that is what it calls itself. When you look at the economic impact in Hertfordshire, there was film and TV investment of £3.7 billion, and 4,000 direct jobs, but 7,000 to 19,000 jobs if you include supply chain and freelance workers. There were major new investments, such as Sunset Studios in Broxbourne, which brought £300 million a year into the local economy; Sky Studios Elstree has an estimated value of over £3 billion over the first five years; and then there are Warner Brothers, Elstree Studios, and all the rest.
I know that is the economic dimension of this, but the whole ecosystem starts with local arts and grass-roots infrastructure, skills and training, and inspiring a new generation of creatives to go into the industry. Mayors and strategic authorities can, and already do, play a very important role in these areas. That is precisely why the Bill’s existing areas of competence have been framed as they have. They are deliberately broad, enabling a wide range of activity to fall within scope, including cultural, creative and heritage activity.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for correctly highlighting the power of these activities to tackle some of the divisions we are seeing in society; they play a very powerful role in that respect. My noble friend Lady Griffin highlighted the importance of skills enabling the culture industries to thrive, which illustrates the cross-cutting nature of the competences because skills in the creative industries and elsewhere are included in the competences as we see them.
For example, Clause 41 extends a broad power to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors to their area. That power sits under the “Economic development and regeneration” heading. This demonstrates how these activities are intended to be captured without the need to list them in a separate policy area. Indeed, many authorities already fund and support culture and heritage initiatives using their existing powers.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made a point about the West Midlands and Birmingham. As we have already had north-west and Yorkshire examples, I will use the example of the West Midlands Combined Authority, which invested £4.1 million into arts and culture projects as part of the legacy funding following the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth Games.
However, I take the noble Viscount’s point that for local authorities this has been a very difficult time when they are faced with the difficult choice between whether they fund the adult care services and the children’s services or arts services. That is why this Government have started to work on the fair funding of local government so that we can get local government’s confidence back that there is the possibility to invest.
The provisional 2026-27 settlement will make available £78 billion in core spending power for local authorities in England. That is a 5.7% cash-terms increase compared with 2025-26. By the end of the multi-year period, we will have provided a 15.1% cash-terms increase, worth over £11 billion, compared with 2025-26. The reforms ensure that this funding is allocated fairly and that the places and services that need it most are supported. It is for services such as adult care and children’s services, but it will also ensure all areas are able to deliver at the kinds of cultural services that we have been talking about.
In my own area, I hung on to the Gordon Craig Theatre in Stevenage. In spite of successive cuts in funding, we recognised its value to our community, not only in terms of our strong cultural life but to skills and our economy. It is what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, called recognising the long-term strategic benefit of what that brought to our community. While I am talking about specific places, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned Bradford, and I congratulate Bradford on its fantastic year as City of Culture. It has done an amazing job, and we look forward to that continuing in Bradford and elsewhere around the country.
On commissioners, I note that they are an optional appointment for mayors to support delivery in a specific area of competence. Mayors are able to shape the exact brief of the role, and it would therefore be reasonable, for instance, for a commissioner focused on economic development and regeneration to also lead on a strategy focused on culture and the creative industries.
However, I note the concerns of all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who is a great champion in this area, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I would be very happy to meet them and discuss this further before we get to Report. I hope that with these reassurances, the noble Earl feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I am grateful for all the support across the Committee that my noble friend Lady Prashar and I have had for our amendments. I am disappointed by the Minister’s initial response. I am very happy to meet her; it is essential that we do so between now and Report.
I will pick up on a couple of points. I am very happy that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, mentioned education, which is so important. We are basically saying that we have an area of competence that has its own identity; it is not covered by anything else. I am not sure whether, for “local infrastructure”—which is the competence in paragraph (a)—the first thing that people will think about are the arts. There is a massive danger that local arts will get forgotten in favour of the commercialised end of the creative industries. That worries me more than anything else.
My noble friend Lady Prashar spoke about social cohesion, which is an important part of this. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, talked out the transformation of cities. This amendment would have a huge effect on cities. Having this as its own area of competence would make a massive difference; it would be a game-changer in how strategic local authorities and the public look at the legislation when it becomes an Act. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(h) rural affairs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add “rural affairs” to the list of areas of competence in clause 2 of the Bill.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 128 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for what he said in his earlier remarks.
The English devolution White Paper, published last year, set out the Government’s intentions for this Bill, including the exploration of
“a better route for rural communities to be considered in local policy decision making”.
The specific reference to “rural communities” is key, given that the Bill, as it currently stands, does not have a single reference to “rural”, “landscape” or “farming” in all its 371 pages. With the national focus on meeting housing targets, delivering large-scale infrastructure and supporting the Government’s growth mission, it is essential that rural areas are not forgotten and that rural communities feel that they have a genuine say in the decisions affecting them. It is important to note that 85% of England’s land area is classified as rural, with around 17% of the country’s population living in those areas. Rural areas have context-specific needs and challenges, and we should take this opportunity to ensure that these communities get the fair representation, strategic investment and support that they need to thrive.
Amendment 7 seeks to add “rural affairs” as an area of competence in Clause 2. Adding rural affairs to the list of competences would, in turn, allow mayors to appoint a specific rural affairs commissioner, if they so wish. As it stands, each competence in Clause 2 can be applied differently in rural and urban settings. There is a concern that in strategic authorities that contain both rural and urban communities, the strategic focus for commissioners covering these competences will lead towards the urban, with rural communities being treated as an afterthought.
Adding rural affairs as an area of competence would ensure that a specific rural affairs commissioner can be appointed to cover the range of needs of rural communities. It would also, incidentally, enable mayors to convene meetings with local partners, as set out in Clause 21, on rural affairs, and enable rural affairs to be one of the thematic areas on which neighbouring mayors can request collaboration, as set out in Clause 22. While Amendments 56 and 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, have a similar aim of ensuring the appointment of a commissioner with responsibility for rural affairs, my amendment, in keeping with the objectives of the Bill, seeks to enable this to be an option available where necessary, with the decision on whether to appoint one ultimately being made locally. My amendment would also allow rural affairs to become a thematic area to which other functions in the Bill can refer, in addition to the clause on commissioner appointments.
As this Bill draws many provisions from the Greater London Act, there is a need to safeguard and ensure that measures being brought forward are not purely urban-centric in their approach and that different contexts are being considered across strategic areas, including those with significant rural populations. Amendment 128 would provide that method of safeguarding. This proposed new clause would place a duty on strategic authorities and their mayors to have regard to the needs of rural communities when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions. As a recent report commissioned by the Rural Housing Network noted:
“Bill amendments that place a duty on combined authorities to consider the needs of rural communities would help ensure that rural housing is not overlooked in favour of urban-focused strategies and investment plans, and that accountability mechanisms are available to rural communities and advocates”.
I welcome Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would add public and active transport provision to the areas to which strategic authorities and their mayors must have regard. These would be vital inclusions to the duty relating to the needs of rural communities. I further welcome Amendment 260 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.
Rural areas are important economic drivers for farming, food production and other local businesses, as well as tourism. According to the House of Lords Library, in 2022 predominantly rural areas of England contributed an estimated £315 billion in gross value added to England’s economy, representing 16.2% of England’s total GVA. Historically, investment has been focused on urban areas, ignoring the potential for rural areas to contribute to the local and national economy, inspire inward investment from the private sector and meet essential needs in food production, health and well-being. With their rich ecology and large landscapes, rural areas also present an opportunity to target investment towards significant gains around nature recovery and climate resilience. We cannot miss this opportunity to recognise the value of our rural communities.
Along with well-respected organisations supporting rural communities, including the Rural Housing Network, the Country Land and Business Association and the Rural Services Network, and as was highlighted in briefings by the Royal Town Planning Institute, I believe this Bill should be strengthened through the strategic focus on rural growth in these amendments. Their inclusion would help identify the enabling infrastructure needed to support rural communities and ensure that their needs are considered in recent and upcoming planning reform, as well as this devolution programme. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and thank her for introducing this group of amendments. I will speak to Amendments 52, 56, 60 and 260 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his support for all of them and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for signing Amendment 52.
The noble Baroness has fulfilled the first part of what the Royal Town Planning Institute—I do not think it is any relation to her good self—said in seeking a duty to consider the needs of rural communities. My amendments propose the second thing it asked for: the establishment of rural commissioners where appropriate. This answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Lansley about where in the Bill there is a legal basis to create other commissioners, so my amendments dovetail entirely with those in her name.
It is important to recognise that in the old days, in the first Labour Government to which I was elected— I was not elected; I was elected to the Official Opposition, let me get the facts right, my memory is playing tricks with me—one of their early proposals was to create regional development agencies, I think they were called. The beef or the grief I had with that was that, on paper, North Yorkshire, probably one of the most deeply rural, sparsely populated counties in the country, represented 11% of the population of the RDA. One would hope that one might get 11% of the funding, but we never got anywhere remotely near that.
Also, there used to be a policy of rural proofing. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, chaired a committee that looked into rural issues and focused quite a lot on rural proofing. That policy is still reflected on the Defra website, and there have been updates: the most recent one on this page was 2 December 2022. Rural proofing had a very special role to play. It ensured that every policymaker and legislator, like ourselves —so the Library note would have reflected this, presumably, on earlier Bills—would look at, assess and take into account the effects of proposed policies on rural areas.
Why is this important? Look at delivering a health service. My father was a rural GP; it is very difficult to access GP surgeries. It is even more difficult to access hospitals in rural areas. It was a 50-mile round trip from where I was brought up to the big hospital. Ambulances obviously have further to go. Look at delivering social care. Carers are not paid for the time they spend on the road, which is often not factored in. That is terrible and should be addressed. On education, we have had a terrible problem with school buses since this Government got rid of the rural deprivation grant, I think it was called. York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority is getting the blame for having to revisit the provision of school buses and the taxi service to get children to schools which are more than three miles away from where they live. This policy has taken away the funding by scrapping that grant.
There used to be a rural commission in Defra which looked at all this rural proofing. I have mentioned some of the policy areas, but there are many others. Some 85% of England’s land area is classified as rural and 17% of the country’s population live in these rural areas, yet so often, particularly at local government level where there is an urban/rural mix, this is not reflected. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I had common cause—she will not disagree with me because it is on the record and I am not quoting her because she is not here—as we both opposed the orders for a metro mayor for York and North Yorkshire and I think that she, like me, also opposed the combined authority for North Yorkshire.
I believe that a metro mayor in areas such as Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester—I am being nice to north- west people at the moment—works where there is a concentrated landmass with a big population in that area. It is perfectly justified for those who wish it, but I do not think it works in rural areas. It certainly has not worked politically, because all the rural voters stayed at home and we have ended up with a Labour mayor for York and North Yorkshire, which is not so excellent for those of us who live there. There is a lesson there.
I also believe that districts and boroughs were closer to the people. People knew exactly where the councillors lived and exactly what they were responsible for and felt that they were more accountable. We have also lost overall control. We have a majority of one now on the combined authority. Again, there was a political lesson that I tried to warn my Government about at the time, but it did not go quite as well as I would have expected.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 7 and 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. They are supported by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association, and an honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and I was once a rural development commissioner.
These amendments would add rural affairs to the areas of competence for strategic authorities and require those bodies to have regard to the needs of rural communities. As the noble Baroness explained, these amendments would ensure that rural areas are not overlooked in the affairs of mayors and combined authorities in relation to the use and development of land, regeneration, housing, employment, health and well-being. The fact is that rural areas have distinct characteristics, but rural communities are likely to comprise only a small fraction of the total population of a mayoralty or combined authority. The amendments would ensure that the needs of these localities get proper consideration.
I shall illustrate the kind of differences that distinguish a rural area from the rest by reference to the all-important housing matters that affect so many households in these places. They are very likely to be areas of lower incomes and higher house prices relative to the rest of the strategic authority area. The local population also faces extra competition for available accommodation from those commuting from elsewhere, rightsizing retirees and, in many places, second home buyers and those letting on a short-term basis of the Airbnb variety. Yet the amount of social housing is appreciably lower: about 11% for areas classified as rural locations, compared with 17% for the country as a whole. The right to buy has removed a larger proportion of council housing in these areas, and many villages now face a virtual absence of affordable homes for those born and bred in the area or needing to live there for family, caring or occupational reasons. Without affordable homes, rural communities can die. Recently, I chaired the Devon Housing Commission, which made important recommendations in relation to the strategic advantages of combined authorities. It also gave clear warnings of the huge significance of housing pressures for those living in rural areas. Since rural housing schemes are mostly small, they do not trigger the obligation on house- builders to include any affordable accommodation.
Set against these many disadvantages facing rural areas, there are positive opportunities that can uniquely help to address their different circumstances. Rural exception sites allow development that would not be permitted elsewhere. Rural housing enablers can help match social housing providers with landowners. Special grants are available from Defra and Homes England, so on the plus side as well, things are different for rural communities. The danger is that these distinctions are not taken on board by authorities which have very many other matters on their plates. Hence the value of these two amendments in requiring attention to be given specifically to the special aspects, good and bad, facing rural areas, as illustrated by my housing example. These amendments would ensure that these areas get the priority they so clearly deserve and I strongly support them.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady McIntosh, to all of which I have added my name.
First, I must declare my interest in that I still have a family farming interest in Somerset, although I am now retired and live in Cornwall. I must also declare an interest—it is more of a perspective, really—as having been the Prime Minister’s rural advocate under a previous Labour Government. I was charged with representing rural interests in the Blair Government and often reported directly to the Prime Minister himself, especially during the foot and mouth disease outbreak at that time, which caused major problems—both social and economic—for rural areas. At that time, I was also charged with producing an annual rural-proofing report for the Government. Believe me, it was badly needed—and still is, in my view. The Social Mobility Commission recently reported that inter- generational poverty in rural England is now as bad, if not worse, than in our most deprived urban slums.
I might add, just to prove my Cross-Bench credentials, that I was also asked to produce a one-off rural-proofing report for the Conservative Government some 10 years ago. I should say that I had more difficulty with the latter role than the former. No sooner had I produced my 2015 report outlining the important job that the rural affairs section of Defra had to play in the agenda than the department, under Liz Truss—she of sound judgmental fame—virtually closed down the rural affairs section, so the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ceased to be Defra and became just Def.
I am glad to say that those times are now over and the voice of the countryside is once again being heard. Defra still seems to be a slightly shy promoter of the rural voice in MHCLG, the Department for Transport, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and, above all, the Treasury. It needs to be saying again and again, “Hey, what about our agenda? What about those who live in the countryside?” In the same way, such a voice is needed, or is going to be needed, in the new strategic authorities. Mainstreaming rural issues into policy-making and decision-taking is fundamental to enabling all strata of rural society to engage fully with modern life; and to ensuring that rural businesses, which are the lifeblood of these communities, can thrive in even the remotest parts of England. Of course, having a rural voice at the top table—or, at the very least, a duty to consider rural needs in each and every region—is absolutely key to this agenda.
There are more VAT-able businesses per head of population in rural England than in urban England. There are more manufacturing businesses in the countryside than in the towns—per se, not just per head. The percentage of self-employed people in the countryside is also more than in the towns, especially—this is why I am particularly proud of my fellow country folk—among those who are below the poverty line. This proves to me that we country folk desperately want to stand on our own two feet, but we need help to do so; we need help to release that entrepreneurial spirit.
As was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Best, housing problems in most rural areas are worse than in towns. There are few affordable houses left. The houses are more expensive and wages are lower. The houses tend to be less well insulated and heating costs are higher; mains gas, for instance, is rare in rural areas. Of course, the solutions are different there than in the towns, but I will not go into that here.
Training and skills problems are also different. How does a young person get to their class in their college 15 miles away when there is no bus? There might be one at 11 am or once a week on a Tuesday, for instance, but that is of no use to anyone. After college, how do you then get your first job? It is probably 10 miles away or more. It is a rural Catch-22 situation: you cannot get a job without a set of wheels, and you cannot get a set of wheels without income from a job.
Again, there are solutions to these problems, such as Wheels to Work, but the solutions need knowledge and need thinking about, along with a drive to push them through. For that, you need someone at the top table to tell it as it is—someone who is perpetually thinking about rural issues to ensure that the right policies are put in place. We need to try to create local jobs in as many communities as possible. That means improving connectivity, broadband and mobile services, as well as enabling planning policies; again, both of those are large subjects that I will not go into here.
The point is that ordinary life in rural England—shopping, doctors’ visits or even sports for the kids—is immensely hard when the only, but vital, family car has gone to work with the breadwinner. This lack of a car also means that kids at many schools miss out on all the extracurricular activities—football, sports, drama, music, et cetera—because they have to be on that school bus which takes them back to their rural village immediately after lessons are finished.
Also, rural households in poverty experience what academics call a rural premium, with living costs some 14% higher than for their urban counterparts, according to the academics. There is no cheap mains gas, which I have already mentioned, but only Calor gas or electricity; there is only older housing stock with poor insulation; food, clothing and transport costs are consistently higher; and there is limited access to childcare, healthcare and other basic services. All this compounds financial vulnerability. Thus, I say again that you need someone who understands all this, and who can speak up for rural interests when decisions are being taken at the top table.
Another factor which underlines the need for rural focus or a rural commission in these strategic authorities is the desperate shortage of government funding for rural areas. Although it is quite obvious to anyone who thinks about it that it costs more to deliver services to remote and sparse populations, central government funding for rural councils is on average 40% less per head of the population than for urban authorities—yes, 40% less per head. This differential is about to get worse under the so-called fair funding review. Therefore, a rural commissioner, or at the very least a duty to consider rural communities, is desperately needed to find ways of minimising the harm that such urban prejudice imposes on rural people.
This prejudice already results in rural council tax payers, for instance, having to pay on average 20% more per head than their urban cousins. For too long, I have been knocking my head against this concrete wall of prejudice against rural areas—too long to think that there is any chance of actually changing the financial situation. That is why I believe it will require a real rural understanding and focus to come up with the imaginative solutions which are so desperately needed to correct this long-standing imbalance.
It is crucial that mayors should have to appoint a commissioner for rural affairs whenever there is a rural element in their bailiwick. It has to be someone who can promote new jobs and make the necessary links. As I say, I know from experience that such a person can make a big difference to the quality of life for many people, whether it be in business, sport, transport, education, health or housing; or whether it be for the young, old or those in between. The countryside deserves a voice at the top table, and I believe these amendments will provide it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I am absolutely fascinated by this debate. For most of my life I have lived in a city, and most of my friends think I am a city slicker. The truth is, however, that I was brought up in a rural community in a fairly remote part of north-east Essex in a rather lovely village called Great Bentley. In the time that has elapsed since I was brought up there over 50 years ago, the village has grown but it has also changed. Over that period, there has been a gradual removal—or a gradual eradication—of local services. There is a doctor and a primary school, but we used to have a very regular bus service, a whole range of small retailers, a chip shop, access to a bank and all the rest of it. Now, however, they have been in retreat and have disappeared.
A few years ago, I chaired a Co-op Party commission on restoring rural services and what we needed to do to reimagine what modern reality would look like, because you cannot just reflect on the past and say that was a glorious time; you have to look to the future in planning services. The noble Lord, Lord Best, made a really powerful argument about rural housing. I was lucky enough to be brought up in a council house in my village, and now very few people in that village have access to social housing. The percentage of the population that has is much reduced, probably 4% or 5%, and there are many people who are excluded from the jobs market because of that fact. We need to address that imbalance.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as I have attached my name to Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and tabled my own Amendment 129, I will briefly join this very rich debate in which the case for this group of amendments, which sit broadly together, has clearly been made.
I will make a couple of additional points. One was provoked by the historic reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about the foot and mouth epidemic. This struck me, because it is an area on which I do a great deal of work: I do not believe that there is anything in the Bill about biosecurity or animal security. Your Lordships are trying to strengthen the human health elements of the Bill, but I wonder whether the Minister—I understand if she wants to write to me later—could reflect on what role strategic authorities might have in biosecurity and animal or plant diseases. I am thinking now of the situation with the continuing crisis of highly pathogenic avian influenza, known as H5N1, which is still affecting many of our factory farms and is a significant issue in particular areas. Is that something in which the strategic authorities would have a role? That was a question that arose from the debate.
I spoke extensively in the previous group on food production, farming and supporting farmers, so I will not go over the same ground. That is obviously an important part of rural communities, although it is by no means the majority. If we are to get more farmers into local areas and grow the vegetables and fruit that we need, then affordable housing, as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is a crucial issue. Wales in particular has done some interesting work looking at ways in which to get producers back on to the land through specific arrangements for housing. There are some interesting areas on which strategic authorities might have the power to act if the Bill is written in the right way.
In essence, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, made the argument for my Amendment 129 entirely. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, set out, this is actually an amendment to her larger amendment; it inserts “public and active transport provision” into the duties to consider the needs of rural communities. The case has already been made; I would just add that we need to be a great deal more aspirational about the possibilities for public and active transport in rural areas.
One of the recent small but significant Green wins was in the bus Bill, when the Government conceded that they would review rural bus services in the coming years. Some have said, “Oh, it is a rural area; there are just no bus services”—that is not an acceptable position. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, many young people in rural areas do not have a licence or cannot afford a car. We also have ageing populations in which increasing numbers of residents are unable to use a car and they need public transport. We also need active transport provision because it is one of the things that will help people to stay healthy.
Thinking about the possibility of aspiration, I recently travelled back from Kyiv by road through Poland and I was astonished at its quality. It went through a deeply rural, farming area with small villages. Beside the main road, there was a brilliant, separated cycle route; it went on and on through this rural area. If Poland can do it, and its distances are greater than ours, surely we can manage that kind of provision, too.
Finally, on active transport, we are talking at the most basic level about making sure that people are able to walk around villages. Very early in my political career, I went to a council by-election in central Bedfordshire, and I was quite astonished coming out of London. It did not surprise me that cycling from the train station was a pretty hairy experience; what did surprise me was that, when I got to the village, I found there was not a single pavement—everyone in this village just had to walk on the road with the cars. It did not have to be that way; it could have been arranged differently. There were lots of old historic buildings, but there could have been provision. Historically, there were footpaths; that is how people used to get around. We should restore footpaths and improve the provision. We need to think about public and active transport being a standard part of provision in rural areas, not something that just cannot be done.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I have found that some of my views have changed slightly as I have listened to noble Lords. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, seeks to add rural affairs to the list of competences. Given the distinct challenges faced by rural communities, from connectivity to service provision and economic resilience, it is reasonable to ask whether the Bill adequately reflects the needs of communities.
While I was listening to the noble Baroness, I realised that I have concerns that in areas with large urban areas as well as rural areas, those urban areas could take out capacity and investment from the rural areas. When I go back into my history in local government, I remember the regional development agencies that did exactly that. I do not think that Wiltshire got a penny from the regional development agency; all of it went to Bristol and Bath. The Government should look at that to ensure that it does not happen now.
Amendments 52, 56 and 60, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, relate to the appointment of a commissioner for rural affairs. I thank her for her extensive knowledge of this issue. She is right that rural affairs need to be at the forefront of policy-making, especially in authorities that may be predominantly rural but could be a mixture. However, I harbour some reservations about requiring mayors to appoint commissioners with competence for rural affairs. I believe that rural affairs should be a priority for the mayors themselves—the unitary authorities that make up the commission will, I assume, be both rural and urban—rather than delegating this responsibility to one commissioner.
We should remember that competences are not the same as powers or capabilities. Moreover, allowing mayors to make these appointments may result in the appointment of yes-men for the mayors, rather than individuals who could provide independent, robust scrutiny on behalf of rural communities. While I fully appreciate the intent behind these amendments, I am yet to be convinced that mayoral appointments of rural affairs commissioners will be the right mechanism to ensure that rural voices are heard.
Amendment 128 is also from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon; I thank her for her continued commitment to rural issues. As I have said, it should be a fundamental priority for any authority covering rural areas to consider their particular needs, especially at a time when these communities are being required to absorb substantial housing targets and sprawling solar farms. They deserve a meaningful say if this Bill is really about community empowerment. As I have said, I have a real problem with the mixture of urban and rural, and the issue of the rural voice coming through.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raises the vital question of public and active transport provision in rural areas. Many of us who have been rural leaders over many years have struggled not just with providing that but with its cost and with making it the right type of transport for a particular area. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight the need for infrastructure that is tailored to rural lifestyles and connectivity.
Since I am talking about connectivity, I will turn to another form: technology. When I go back to Norfolk, I can never get anything on my machine or any other machine. There is no IT and no phone connection whatever. Many of our rural areas are like that. There is a two-tier system in this country for technology, but that cannot go on.
Finally, Amendment 260, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, underscores that the impact of the Bill on rural areas has not yet been fully thought-through. That is the big issue for me. It is entirely reasonable to expect the Government to be transparent about the costs and benefits for rural communities. They have to go back to the drawing board to look at how we can ensure that our rural communities have equal access to the capacity, capabilities and finances that the mayoral authorities will have and that the new unitary councils will be able to use.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Bill can recognise and enshrine the needs of rural communities, which we have heard this evening. At the moment, rural communities are feeling a bit let down by the Government, and this is an absolutely key opportunity to change that.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. What she said was very important: the Government have to go back to the drawing board on the issue of rural areas. I can imagine an argument that says that it is implicit in all the areas of competence that all those people will take responsibility for rural areas. However, it is my view that that will not be sufficient. In an earlier group, I discussed how the regional development agencies had a role in rural development. It is very important that the Government go back in order to get this right.
I agree with the noble Baroness when she said that it may not be a commissioner who would do this. In my view, doing that requires the knowledge of a council leader from a rural council, because the relevant immediate knowledge is needed. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to ask whether the Government would go back to the drawing board. I hope that, by Report, the list of areas of competence for strategic authorities is revised, so that rural areas are seen to be protected and developed by the structure. Otherwise, there will be public opposition to the strategic authority, for the reasons that the noble Baroness identified in relation to Wiltshire. I have heard that in most RDAs the money goes to the urban areas. That happens—it has often been the case—because the immediate growth can be delivered in an area of high population, whereas the long-term growth in a rural area can be delivered by financial support at a lower pace.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for their amendments on rural affairs, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
I will begin by responding to Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, which seeks to create a distinct area of competence for rural affairs. Strategic authorities cover a range of geographies in England, from highly urbanised areas, such as the West Midlands Combined Authority, to more rural geographies, such as the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority. Mayors and strategic authorities will be empowered to support all communities within their geography, including rural communities.
It is for this reason that the areas of competence are deliberately broad in their definitions. The topics that they cover are matters which apply to all communities—for example, transport and local infrastructure or housing and strategic planning. We have heard lots of descriptions of why those topics are particularly important in rural areas, but they will be important in different ways to the way that they are important in urban areas. It is right that, at local level, local leaders are empowered to deal with them as appropriate in their area.
Many existing combined and combined county authorities are making use of powers which have not been badged as rural functions to support their rural communities. For example, the mayor of the York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority, David Skaith, is making use of transport functions to build the foundations for a working rural bus franchising model across the area. It aims to deliver a better bus service for areas that currently see only one bus a week—more of that later. Were a specific competence for rural affairs to be included, it could run the risk of encouraging rural areas to be considered in isolation. By that, I mean we do not want rural areas to become a silo that is only one person’s responsibility; we want it to be a responsibility across all those competences. With that in mind, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
I now turn to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which seek to ensure that mayors appoint a commissioner where any of their area is classified as a majority or intermediate rural area. I point out to the noble Baroness that, although the structure of the rurality funding in the formula has changed, it has not been taken out; it has been reallocated with the fair funding formula. We have built sparsity considerations into the fair funding formula. The way it has been done has been changed and it has a different name, but we have included consideration of sparsity in that funding formula.
To turn to her amendment, commissioners are an optional appointment for mayors to help bring additional expertise to support delivery in a specific area of competence. Mayors are able to shape the exact brief of the role. It would be reasonable, therefore, that a commissioner focused on economic development and regeneration could lead a strategy focused on the rural economy, for example. As I have outlined, rural matters cross multiple areas of competence. Commissioners will not be precluded from addressing these rural considerations in their work. In practice, it would be possible for a mayor to appoint a commissioner to an area of competence that has a rural relevance in the area, such as environment and climate change, and then give them a locally appropriate title, such as deputy mayor for the environment and rural affairs. These amendments would also mandate the appointment of a commissioner, removing the mayor’s right to choose whether to appoint a commissioner or not.
Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, would require strategic authorities and their mayors, when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions, to have regard to the needs of rural communities. The Government fully recognise the importance of rural communities and are committed to ensuring that they benefit from devolution.
Mayors already have a strong track record of using their powers to support rural areas. For example, in the north-east, Mayor Kim McGuinness is investing £17 million into the rural economy, supporting farming businesses and rural tourism. The North East Combined Authority has established a dedicated coastal and rural taskforce to ensure that rural and coastal communities are fully represented in investment decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, highlighted housing issues for rural areas. I am very grateful to him for his work on the Devon Housing Commission and his continual advocacy, when I am dealing with housing matters, that I keep considering the needs of rural communities. That has been really helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke about broadband infrastructure in rural areas. I visited colleagues of hers in Cromer recently, who were very keen to stress that among the other issues that coastal communities are facing. It is really important, but the Government’s view is that adding a statutory duty may create unnecessary complexity without delivering additional benefits. We want the benefits to come from the overall structure and empowering our mayors to act in the best interests of their communities.
I turn to the amendment to Amendment 128 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I fully agree that transport is vital to rural communities, but this issue is already well addressed through existing powers and investment. The Bus Services Act 2025 strengthens local leaders’ ability to protect services, and from 2026-27 more than £3 billion will support better bus services, including nearly £700 million per year for local authorities. Importantly, for the first time these allocations take rurality explicitly into account, recognising the higher cost of serving remote areas.
The noble Baroness mentioned biosecurity; I will respond to her in writing on that. She also referred to her earlier remarks on food security. To add to my earlier response, the good food cycle published in July 2025 sets out the Government’s vision to drive better outcomes from the UK food system for growth, health, sustainability and resilience. There are 10 outcomes in that cycle, on healthy and more affordable food, good growth, a sustainable and resilient supply and vibrant food cultures. It has a set of near-term priorities, including securing resilient domestic production, generating growth elsewhere in the food system which supports positive public health and environmental outcomes, and improving food price affordability and access—in particular, targeting costs that lead to food price inflation and supporting those who most need access to healthy, affordable nutrition. I am happy to write to her further on that if it would be helpful.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for making the special effort to provide that extra response, but that is what Westminster is doing. I am talking about what local authorities and strategic authorities can decide for themselves to do in their local area, not relying on a direction down from Westminster.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I take the point. That project is being supported by the Food Strategy Advisory Board, including extensive engagement across government. I will take back the point that that should include all tiers of local government, as the noble Baroness makes a fair point.
Through rail reform, mayoral strategic authorities will have a statutory role in the design of local rail services and all tiers of local government will benefit under the new Great British Railways business unit model, taking local priorities into account. The noble Baroness also referred to cycleways. I am very proud of where I live because my town was built with 45 kilometres of built-in cycle infrastructure. This is an important opportunity for our new towns as we develop the work of the taskforce. I know the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, will again be interviewing our Secretary of State in the Select Committee tomorrow on these and other matters. Gilston, which is a garden village near Harlow, made provision for a cycleway. We have to think about that. While we agree on the importance of these issues, the amendment is unnecessary because this Bill and other government activities will already enable authorities to secure improvements to rural transport without imposing an additional legal duty.
Finally, Amendment 260 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on rural areas before any regulations could be made using the powers in this Bill. Ahead of the introduction of the Bill, my department assessed the impacts of regulatory policies within it on businesses and households, urban and rural. This impact assessment was given a green rating by the Regulatory Policy Committee, indicating that it is fit for purpose. It would not be proportionate to complete another impact assessment solely for rural areas, given that our original assessment applies to those as well.
May I just refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron? He referred to the importance of the rural voice being heard across government. I completely agree. The mainstreaming of rural affairs across competences is vital, as is the freedom for mayors to address their local issues in the best way to tackle their local challenges.
In talking about bus services, the noble Lord reminded me of when I did a review of the universal credit system a while back. I was sent to Blandford Forum in Dorset. Some of the people who were working on their skills with the jobcentre had to visit the jobcentre every day. The problem with that was that the bus fare was £9 and there was only a bus to get there, with no bus to get home again; you may have wanted to improve your skills but it was very tricky to do so because, although you could get there, you could not get back home again. That was one of the big flaws in the universal credit system. Of course we want to keep track of people who are trying to develop skills, but there are difficult issues around that in rural areas.
When we discussed London-style bus services across the country—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will remember it well from the then levelling-up Bill—it raised the eyebrows of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. My noble friend lives in Cumbria, so London-style bus services are quite a long way from the service she gets in her local area. I understand the issues, but I think that enabling mayors —and their commissioners, if they choose to do it in that way—to address their local issues is the best way to tackle local challenges in these areas. For these reasons, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. She referred to an impact assessment. We used to use the tried-and-tested method of tabling an amendment to ask for an impact assessment to be prepared. If the department has prepared an impact assessment, would it be possible for the Minister to publish it while this Bill is going through? That would be immensely helpful.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Let me just check with my civil servants so that I do not say something I should not say. I believe that it has been published; I will send the noble Baroness a link to where she can access it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate and to my noble friend the Minister for her response.
I am of course delighted that mayors are empowered to support every part of their constituency; it must be their aspiration that they do so. It is very good that there are such broad areas of competence. I warmly welcome the great examples from Yorkshire and the north-east cited by my noble friend. However, I firmly believe that this Bill must be, and must be seen to be, relevant to and beneficial for all areas of our country. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out, it is the case for many mayoral areas that, in population terms, such a tiny proportion of their constituents are from rural areas; it would be very easy to overlook their needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke about rural-proofing. That is absolutely vital. I wonder whether we could have some discussions before Report on how there can be some sort of rural-proofing in this Bill. Personally, I would favour a duty that could be included in order to ensure that the needs of rural areas will be properly addressed. I recognise that it will be the desire of all mayors to ensure that they are properly representing and addressing the needs of all their constituents, but I fear that that might be very difficult when funding is stretched, as it is bound to be. I would like to see some means of ensuring that the needs of rural areas are properly addressed; perhaps we could discuss that further before Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment
Lord Gascoigne
“Establishing a strategic authorityBefore establishing a strategic authority, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the authority is capable of exercising the functions conferred upon it, having regard to its governance arrangements, financial sustainability, administrative capacity, and accountability mechanisms.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause ensures that before any new strategic authority is created that there are capability tests which the existing local authority/ies must pass before the Secretary of State grants additional powers.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak for the first time in the passage of the Bill. I know we do not have to address it, but I was intending to speak at Second Reading and I had to pull out for personal reasons just beforehand. This is an issue that genuinely interests me. Every time I sit in these meetings or take part in these discussions, it feels like being at Davos or the United Nations, with so many titles and vice-presidents, and I feel a bit left behind not having any myself. I am a bit like my noble friend Lord Norton in that I am merely a bystander in this, someone who is interested. I am a political geek and a taxpayer; those are my interests. Like others, I congratulate the Minister on many belated happy returns for yesterday. I can think of no better way of spending your birthday than with some of your closest friends late at night in the House of Lords.
My Amendment 12 is embryonic. We are in Committee and I am happy to have a discussion; perhaps if the Minister is still feeling jovial from her party, we can continue that joviality and have another discussion. This amendment is simple, yet it would introduce an essential safeguard into the Bill. Given that the Secretary of State ultimately has the power in the Bill to create these new strategic authorities—it lies in his or her hands—this amendment would ensure that they are satisfied that each new authority is capable of doing what is expected of it before it is created. Those capability tests should be grounded and focused, though not exclusively, on four areas: first, governance arrangements, to ensure that it is transparent, able to make decisions and face scrutiny; secondly, financial sustainability, so that it is on a sound financial footing and able to carry out the new powers and deliver; thirdly, administrative capacity, and whether it has the right people, expertise and systems in place; and, finally, accountability mechanisms, to ensure that it has credible systems for scrutiny and democratic oversight. To be clear, I envisage the same sorts of tests applying to both the new mayoral authorities and the new unitary authorities.
Ultimately, I say with respect to the Minister, this is not game playing, a stunt or an effort to stop the Bill. It is grounded in my concern that there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that, before a new authority can exist, it must be ready and able to do what it says it will. The Bill talks about their functions, voting systems and the powers they will have, yet a Bill about empowering the people has nothing about whether the system being invented will be able to, any good at or even capable of delivering better services for the people—not to mention better value for money, though that is in a future group. I am sure the Minister is looking forward to me speaking on it in due course.
I am sure that some will say that this amendment is unnecessary. Those people who object will probably fall into three rough camps. The first will say, “We don’t need to worry. It’s going to be fine. We should take what we’re given; it is what it is and we can’t go around dictating from on high what it should be like on the ground”. But that is exactly what the Bill is doing: we are dictating what the new system should be like. We are saying that there should be a plan in place and how it will work. I think we should make sure that these authorities are capable of standing on their own two feet. Given that one of the arguments for reforming local government is that it is already quite messy and difficult to navigate, we surely do not want to create a system that is even more confusing. Before we hit the “Go” button, there needs to be effort on the ground and in Whitehall to ensure that the new structures in place are robust and coherent. That is not bureaucracy, it is just accountability. One of the many fears I have about the Bill, I am afraid to say, is that if transparency and accountability are not built in from the outset, that will make it harder to understand and hold people’s feet to the fire. These tests do that.
Another argument against this amendment will be that, ultimately, it should be for the people to decide whether the authority is doing a good job or not. I am a genuinely firm believer in democracy: it is precious and unique. Of course the electorate will ultimately be the judge, but that will come only after the changes have happened, years down the track. With so many elections already being delayed because of reorganisation, there will be no checks put in place before changes take place.
Finally, I am sure that some will say that it is not possible to test something that does not exist. However, we can do so, not just in the prep work and the planning of what is intended, but in seeing whether existing local authorities are good at what they are doing already: whether they are late or slow in delivery, whether services are being cut or expanded, their finances, workforce capacity, roadworks, housebuilding—you name it. Before noble Lords feel compelled—this has happened to me before—to defend the honour of local authorities, I pre-empt this by assuring them that I am certainly not blanketly saying that all local councils are not up to it. Equally, I am not saying that Whitehall is perfect—far, far from it. I am merely saying that, before we proceed to create and approve these new authorities, there should be a system to ensure that they will work, including how they will build on, incorporate or tackle issues in the pre-existing authorities.
There is one final area I will touch on, which we have talked about in passing already. I do not want to open this up into a broad debate about local government finance, but it does have read-through here. We all know the challenges and I do not want to dwell on it, but, across the land, capabilities are not uniform. I read some research that showed that councils in the north are twice as likely to be at risk as those in the south. Then there are the associated costs of reorganisation, never mind whether the new entity is going to be any good. Some organisations are already asking whether the current wave of reorganisation will save money or in some circumstances cost even more. Yet this Bill has no requirement to test capability, never mind finances, before those new bodies are created.
This Bill should not be seen as an exercise to create layer upon layer without thinking it through first. This is a serious issue. It is about spending serious sums of money on serious things affecting the lives of many, so it is important that we get it right. Devolution is meant to be about making the system work better, and that is what is driving this amendment. I recognise that many councils will do an enormous amount of work in getting these changes right, but rather than hoping that this version of devolution works and that things do not go wrong for the taxpayer, let us put in a safeguard. Rather than rely on good intentions, let us make the system work from the outset. Trust is not enough. These simple tests, or something like them, would make sure that from the get-go the new system is better, stronger and more capable of delivering improved services for the people. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I acknowledge the constructive intention behind Amendment 12 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. The desire to ensure that strategic authorities are properly equipped, financially sustainable and governed with integrity is entirely understandable. We have all seen, all too often, the consequences when structures are created without sufficient capacity or clarity of purpose. We do not want that to happen here, and this amendment seeks to guard against it. However—the noble Lord’s heart sinks—while I appreciate that instinct, we cannot support the amendment as drafted.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and I have different perspectives as we come from different backgrounds—him from No. 10 and me from more than 25 years in local government, 16 of them as a directly elected mayor. To us, the amendment seems to reintroduce a centralising veto at precisely the moment when the Bill is meant to be shifting power away from Whitehall. The Secretary of State would become the arbiter of whether an area is “capable”—a term left undefined, and thus open to subjective interpretation. What one Minister might judge as prudent due diligence, another might use as a brake on local ambition. That uncertainty does not sit comfortably with our belief in consent-based, locally driven governance.
We also have to be alive to the practical effects on the ground in the places about which we have spent many long hard hours talking—those most in need of levelling up. They are often those with a much weaker starting capacity. They could find themselves locked out by criteria that they are not yet able to meet, precisely because they have not been granted the devolution tools that would help them grow that capacity. We risk creating a circular trap: you cannot have the powers until you have the capacity, but you cannot build the capacity until you have the powers.
However, we recognise that strong oversight will be necessary with changes of this magnitude. Several amendments in the names of other noble Lords show a strong appetite across the Committee for rigorous oversight, but it must be oversight that does not stray into overprescription or paternalism. I understand why there may be concerns; the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, expressed them well. My spectacles are not rose-coloured—I acknowledge that local government has not always got it right and that there have been failures, some of them cataclysmic—but, with my tongue firmly in my cheek, I think that we could also say this about past Governments, Prime Ministers and initiatives.
That said, the amendment springs from a very real concern: the public must have confidence that new strategic authorities will function effectively from day one. On that point, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. There is space—and, indeed, a need—for transparency in how readiness is assessed in order to ensure that governance arrangements are fit for purpose and to avoid the creation of authorities that are destined to struggle. However, in our view, the answer is not to place broad, undefined tests solely in the gift of the Secretary of State. Instead, we might look to more balanced alternatives, such as clear statutory criteria developed with the sector rather than imposed on it. I am sure that the Local Government Association will be keen to work collaboratively on this; we could even look at greater parliamentary scrutiny rather than ministerial discretion. There is room for a serious discussion on this matter—I hope that we can hold that with the Minister.
The amendment addresses a genuine risk but, in our view, the mechanism it proposes risks undermining the very local autonomy that the Bill is meant to strengthen. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good by setting hurdles that, in some areas, those who would benefit the most will struggle to clear. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne goes to the heart of what effective devolution requires: capability. As he set out so clearly, it is simply not enough to create new strategic or unitary authorities in the abstract and hope that they will succeed. We can and should look at the performance of existing local authorities—including their financial resilience, their workforce capacity, the pressures they face and the services they currently deliver—to understand whether the foundations are in place for a new body to take on, in some cases, even greater responsibilities.
My noble friend was right to say that this is not about criticising local government wholesale—many councils are doing extraordinary work under immense strain—but capability is not uniform across the country. The financial challenges facing local authorities are well known. Reorganisation carries costs, and there is a real debate around whether it always delivers the efficiencies or improvements that are promised.
Against that background, it is entirely reasonable that we should expect a clear and transparent test of readiness before new strategic authorities are created. That is precisely what Amendment 12 would provide. It proposes that, before any strategic authority or unitary authority is established, the Secretary of State “must be satisfied” that it has the governance, financial resilience, administrative capacity and accountability mechanisms that are necessary to exercise the functions conferred upon it. These are not burdensome hurdles; they are basic safeguards to ensure that a new authority is set up to succeed, not set up to struggle.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for this amendment, which seeks to ensure that new strategic authorities have the capability to take on additional powers. I recognise the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that all strategic authorities are strong and effective in delivering their devolved responsibilities; of course, that is a goal that this Government share. However, this amendment would create an express separate requirement on the Secretary of State, adding complexity to the process of establishing new strategic authorities—much of that burden was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—that, in my view, potentially risks their autonomy without providing an equivalent benefit.
I assure the noble Lord that the Government are building on the capability and capacity of new strategic authorities to ensure that they can deliver the new devolution framework. Let me give him a little detail around how that is working. The Government support the improvement of strategic authority capability by funding the Local Government Association to deliver a sector support programme, which is available to both strategic and local authorities; that includes training for both officers and elected leaders, support in attracting new talent, and guidance on topics such as good governance and assurance. We will continue to review that offer to make sure that it remains fit for purpose.
The Government are also seeking to facilitate greater take-up of secondments by civil servants into strategic authorities to ensure that those authorities benefit from the widest range of capability available. We are keen to support areas establishing strategic authorities to get on to a firm footing and to be best equipped to start delivering improved outcomes for all local communities. We are doing this through the provision of a checklist that sets out the key requirements they will need, information sessions with a number of key government departments and a series of master classes for areas on a number of different topics, such as developing a local constitution and risk management. As an example, when a new combined authority or combined county authority is established, there is a year-long transition period when public transport functions remain exercisable by the constituent councils while the new authority creates an effective transport team.
We are very aware of the issues raised by the noble Lord, but I hope that he agrees with me and that my reassurances are sufficient for him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, as ever.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, got me going: she talked about her rose-tinted glasses and I had visions of the infamous Rose Garden treaty. I thought that this would be a new version of the Tory-Lib Dem alliance, but she dashed my hopes there and then.
I appreciate the Minister’s point. I think she mentioned “levelling up”, but this amendment is to try to give effect to levelling up. It is not to lock people out; it is to make sure that levelling up is delivered for them. I think that there is possibly somewhere where we can meet there.
As ever, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott for her genuine support. I am pleased to hear from the Minister’s remarks that there is some work to be done. I would like to have further discussion, perhaps with the LGA, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. There may be something that we could work on, or at least tip our hats to—I do not know. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Shipley
“Devolution of powers within strategic authority areas(1) A strategic authority may devolve to any local authority within its area any power which it holds.(2) In carrying out any action under subsection (1), a strategic authority must—(a) consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and(b) where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution.(3) Each local authority within the area of a strategic authority must—(a) consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and(b) where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution.(4) Within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, a strategic authority must publish a plan setting out how the strategic authority and its member local authorities intend to carry out their duties under subsections (2) and (3) (a “Community Empowerment Plan”).(5) A Community Empowerment Plan must set out how the strategic authority and local authorities within its area will consult local communities on the exercise of those powers which are not devolved to lower-tier bodies.(6) A strategic authority must review a Community Empowerment Plan at least once during the period of four years beginning with the day on which the Plan is published.(7) In carrying out any function under this section, a strategic authority must ensure effective collaboration with any local authority or other body to which it has devolved powers.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make further provision about the powers of a strategic authority in circumstances where the strategic authority considers there to have been a serious failure or breach of duty in relation to a power devolved to a more local level.(9) Regulations made under subsection (8) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for signing my amendment. When I spoke earlier this afternoon, I said that there was a need to ensure that we do not encourage upwards mission creep in this Bill. This amendment seeks to provide statutory help to prevent that happening and to deliver greater empowerment for local communities.
I accept at the outset that there is an inherent tension in devolution policy between scale and geography. Strategic authorities will be large and will have to cover large areas, yet community empowerment will be on a much smaller scale. I submit that the Government’s commitment to empowering local communities will need some statutory backing, so I propose that we embed the principle of subsidiarity in the Bill. I propose that we embed a legal duty of subsidiarity across the whole of devolved English local government, including town and parish councils.
Further, I suggest that we need to legislate to give local and combined authorities the legal powers that they need to devolve their own responsibilities further. They would also need a statutory duty to collaborate on and publish community empowerment plans setting out how they plan to fulfil their duty; local communities and local councils should have the right to challenge both the content and implementation of these plans.
My amendment says:
“A strategic authority may devolve to any local authority within its area any power which it holds”.
This may sound quite revolutionary to some but, actually, it is at the heart of devolving power and this Bill is about devolution.
Secondly, the amendment says that the strategic authority must act in a way to enable such devolution to take place. Each local authority in a strategic authority area would, in turn, have to
“consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and … where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution”.
I then propose:
“Within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, a strategic authority must publish a plan setting out how the strategic authority and its member local authorities intend to carry out their duties under”
the community empowerment plan. I also propose that that plan
“must set out how the strategic authority and local authorities … will consult … on the exercise of those powers which are not devolved to lower-tier bodies”.
Further, my amendment states:
“A strategic authority must review a Community Empowerment Plan at least once during the period of four years beginning with the day on which the Plan is published… In carrying out any function under this section, a strategic authority must ensure effective collaboration with any local authority or other body to which it has devolved powers”.
Then there is the issue of what the regulations should contain to ensure that this measure works well, but I hope the Minister understands that there is a major issue of principle here in terms of devolution. If this Bill is truly about devolution, as the Minister told us earlier today it was, in what way are we going to make sure that strategic authorities do not suck powers upwards but, rather, pass down powers to local authorities, which will, in turn, devolve powers to town and parish councils?
I hope the Minister will be open to thinking about how this must be done. There are so many statements in the Bill and Explanatory Notes about the importance of community empowerment, yet I do not see the means of that actually being delivered in the Bill, hence my proposal on how this might be done. It also requires that the Government just have to make sure that it happens. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I commend him on drafting what I think is a terribly important amendment, as he has just outlined.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said this might sound revolutionary. Well, I think it is revolutionary, and it would mean reversing the entire direction of travel of English governance over the past decades, which has seen power and resources increasingly concentrated in the centre. I said in the earlier group how much that has disillusioned the public and left people feeling like they are not in control of their own communities and lives. This amendment could point the Bill in the direction it is supposed to be heading in, but it is not currently heading in that direction when you look at it.
I confess that this is at the absolute centre of green political philosophy and thinking. Decisions should be made at the most local level possible and referred upwards only when absolutely necessary. That is the foundation of green political thinking and, in my view, the foundation of democracy.
There is so much in this Bill that I was reflecting on when the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, was talking about the problem with commissioners and appointed commissioners. Although I was arguing for a rural commissioner, if we are to have appointed commissioners, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. There is a huge democratic deficit right across the Bill.
In many cases, we are talking about town and parish councils. We are in a situation where we need to think about creating more town and parish councils where they do not exist. Far too often, we see a traditional historic market town with a town or parish council, but also a big council estate on the edge of town which is not parochial. This is the kind of structure that we need to get power down to the people.
This amendment is really giving us a route forward in that sense. It is important to focus, crucially, on providing a direction to the strategic authorities. It returns to a point that we were discussing on a previous group about giving them direction, but is a direction to be democratic and that is something that I will absolutely defend. For instance, proposed new subsection (2)(a) has to
“consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level”,
and, where it considers that to be the case, it must act. That really is the crucial part of this Bill.
I note that the “Community Empowerment Plan” in proposed new subsection (4) of this amendment picks up what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was talking about in the second group. If there is one thing about this amendment, however, it is saying, “Do as I say, not as I do”. That is what Westminster would be saying by including this in the Bill, but this could be a model for Westminster to guide its own actions in future, as well as those of strategic local authorities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendment. For me, it is a little too revolutionary, but I think the idea behind it—to enable strategic authorities to further devolve any powers that they are given—is correct. I do not think they need any more powers to do that, but they do need encouragement. I believe the amendment is well intentioned, particularly in response to the Bill that seems to be doing the opposite, as the noble Lord said: it is moving all the powers up. I do, however, have concerns about the amendment and how it would work in practice.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for Amendment 13, which seeks to ensure that power is moved away from central government—we all agree with that—to strategic and local authorities. The amendment would place a new statutory duty on strategic and local authorities to
“consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level”
of government. Should the strategic authority or local authority believe that to be the case, they must
“act so as to enable such devolution”.
I am afraid that this amendment runs counter to the spirit and purpose of the Bill, and risks creating a patchwork of powers across England, with strategic authorities and local authorities holding different sets of powers depending on where they are in England. We believe that allowing different tiers and areas to hold different responsibilities would blur accountability, make it harder for the public to understand who is responsible for what, and weaken value-for-money assurance for investment by increasing duplication and misalignment. The amendment also risks devolving powers to bodies without the capacity to deliver them effectively—which is part of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott; people need to be willing to accept the duties—and could impose disproportionate and impractical consultation burdens on strategic authorities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not want to give the idea that the parish and town councils across this country would not be able to do it. Some will, but some will not. I know town councils and parishes that run better services than district councils ever did.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was highlighting the fact that the noble Baroness spoke about the willingness to adopt services, which I believe is important.
The devolution framework is designed to eliminate risk by ensuring that mayors and strategic authorities are given a consistent and coherent set of functions, to ensure that strategic authorities can make strategic decisions and deliver policies that span multiple local authority areas. It is important that all tiers of local government work together in the interests of their local communities. That is why local authorities are embedded within the decision-making structures of combined authorities and combined county authorities as full constituent and voting members. A blanket requirement for a strategic authority to meet tiers of local government is a significant administrative burden; for example, in North Yorkshire alone, there are 412 parish and town councils. There is nothing wrong with expecting mayors and local authority leaders to communicate with them, but imposing that approach could place a considerable cost of consultation on them and potentially crowd out the time they need for their core strategic responsibilities.
I take the noble Baroness’s point about town and parish councils. We are introducing a system of neighbourhood governance, and it is important that we have our debates on that when the time comes. We will, I am sure, debate the role of town and parish councils, but including them in the Bill would have indicated to them that the Bill will have some impact on them that it is not intended for the Bill to have. I totally recognise the work that our town and parish councils do around the country: it is important and I know that we will have those discussions when we get to those elements of the Bill.
On Amendment 13, it is important that we do not interrupt the Government’s intention to give a consistent and coherent set of functions to strategic authorities and that their work dovetails with what our local authorities are doing. I hope that that has reassured the noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I want to clarify one of the statements she made. This is a devolution Bill. She implied that she wants clarity that all functions are done at the same level across the country. To my mind, the whole purpose of devolution is that you do it at the level that is most appropriate. That may be very different, for instance, in Yorkshire compared with Stevenage. My noble friends from Yorkshire and Lancashire have disappeared, so I cannot refer to them. It may be that there is a brilliant parish council that can take on more responsibility—my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook mentioned Salisbury—whereas, in another area, we may say, “Well, no, that’s better done at the unitary or strategic level”. Devolution is about that local determination of how services are delivered at the best level for the best results for residents. I want to make sure that the Minister was not implying that that is not the case.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have set out clearly in the Bill—with the competences, for example—where we see strategic responsibilities lying and where local council leaders will be responsible for the services they deliver. As we go through the local government reorganisation process, we will have unitary authorities across the country delivering those services. What we do not want to do is muddy the waters by saying that there will be some areas that have different strategic powers from others. That is why we have set out the competences in the Bill.
It is not about what you deliver at local level because the strategic competences allow that to be flexible across different geographies and demographics. It is about ensuring that the strategic level is delivered by the combined authority and local services are delivered by the local authority. I do not think it would be helpful to muddy those waters by having the picture be different across the country.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister asked whether I was satisfied by her responses; I am actually more worried now than when I started. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just said.
I will give an example of where the Government are heading for great difficulty. Let us take the area of competence for transport and local infrastructure. “Local” is not defined—I think my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire will come back on the issue of definition at a later stage. I understand that strategic transport and major capital infrastructure, such as on a new railway line, is a strategic matter for a strategic authority, but I hope that transport and local infrastructure does not mean that every traffic-calming scheme in every residential road of a local authority has to be signed off by the mayor. I am keen for the Minister to be clear about what these terms mean because the Bill is not clear.
I jokingly referred to the powers I am proposing being revolutionary. They are very different, but they are an attempt to get everyone to understand that if you have a devolution Bill and think it is about devolution, it has to be devolution from the strategic authority where the mayor and the authority think their powers could go to local government. That debate has to be had. It is not, as the Minister said, about ending up with a patchwork of powers. Of course there will be differences in local areas. That is a positive, not a negative thing. Let us not call it a “patchwork” because that means that Whitehall and Ministers want to run 56 million people in England. In the end, having a standard system that everybody must fit into will not work. It will be a cause of great difficulty.
I am encouraged by some of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said—that there are correct things in it, there are principles and it is well intended. The test of successful devolution is a willingness to devolve power from yourself rather than demanding it to yourself. The test is for the strategic authority to say, “We think the powers we have in this area could well be carried out by a local authority, so let’s talk about it”, and say to the local authority, “You in turn must decide whether you need to undertake these powers directly or can devolve them to others, including town and parish councils”. I do not believe that the Government will ever succeed with community empowerment plans unless they empower communities. This Bill is not doing that.
Paragraph 16 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill says:
“The Bill will introduce a requirement on all local authorities in England to establish effective neighbourhood governance, to move decision making closer to residents, empowering ward councillors to address the issues most important to their communities at a local level”.
What it does not say is that that would not include the planning process or a whole set of services that local people might want to have some say in. The Government cannot make statements like that without then delivering the means to increase community empowerment. I will not give up on my Amendment 13. True devolutionists must follow their desire to give power to others to use in a country of 56 million people. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Janke
“(3A) Before laying regulations to designate a single foundation strategic authority under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult all levels of local government in the affected area.(3B) Consultation under subsection (3A) must include consideration of—(a) the proposed geographic area, functions, and powers of the foundation strategic authority,(b) the governance arrangements of the authority, including membership, representation, and accountability to constituent local authorities, and(c) the financial implications of the designation, including funding arrangements, transitional costs, and the impact on existing local authority budgets.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult all levels of local government in the affected area before making regulations to designate a single foundation strategic authority.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, in echoing my colleague’s comments reflecting on the previous debate, it sounds as though today we are agreeing on uniformity rather than devolution. The Bill gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to merge, restructure or abolish councils without parliamentary oversight and local consent—all apparently in the name of devolution. A top-down authoritarian approach replaces local choice with a central direction from Whitehall. A single model is to be imposed across England regardless of geography, identity or local preference. It shifts real power away from local councils and into large strategic authorities headed up by regional mayors, with reduced numbers of local councillors serving larger areas and populations.
Civil servants in Whitehall carving up maps is not a process that encourages local participation and people having real powers, as devolution implies. In fact, it is the very opposite of devolution. When its results become apparent, they will fuel further distrust and anger, as local people will find that they have even less chance to influence decisions affecting their lives or opportunities to participate in the governance of their local area. Mayors do not have the confidence of the population all over the country, so imposing a universal model is asking for local dissent. In my area of Bristol, there was a referendum that decisively rejected continuing with an elected mayor, so this actually imposes something on an area that is contrary to what the local population said.
We had some talk about regional assemblies. Having served on the South West Regional Assembly, I dispute that all the RDA money goes into Bristol, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—Councillor Scott—said, but that is something that we can perhaps talk about afterwards. Having looked at housing plans for the whole of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and more, I can tell the noble Baroness that rural affairs were very high on that agenda.
This amendment seeks to restore the requirements of full local consultation on the substantive changes being proposed, including the geographical area, functions and powers of the new authorities, and governance arrangements including membership representation and accountability. Consultation is also to include funding arrangements, transitional costs and where they will be borne, and the impact on existing local government funding. It is essential for there to be transparency and accountability on funding, and that local obligations and responsibilities are fully funded, with councils enabled to do the job for which they were elected.
It seems deeply ironic that an unelected Chamber such as ours should be party to removing powers and accountability from local communities and riding roughshod over local democracy. This amendment goes some way to restoring the rightful importance of local leadership, local consent and local participation.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I speak on this group of amendments concerning Clause 3, which addresses the creation of single foundation strategic authorities. The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook are probing in nature, and we have also given notice of our intention to oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill.
At the heart of our concerns is the familiar theme that we have returned to throughout the Bill, and I suspect we will again—the balance of power between central government and local communities. Too often the Bill grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create, reshape or direct local government structures with minimal checks, consultation and accountability. That is not the model of devolution that we believe in.
I also ask the Minister for clarification on the role of single foundation strategic authorities. Will all unitary and counties not in a combined authority be offered the opportunity to be a single foundation strategic authority? What powers and funding will they be given and how does this compare to combined authorities, mayoral and foundation mayoral authorities? Where will a single foundation strategic authority fit in the landscape? Could it be forced into a combined authority?
Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, is sensible and necessary. It would require the Secretary of State to consult all levels of local government in an affected area before designating a single foundation strategic authority. Indeed, I would go further. Consultation should involve not only local authorities but local residents. If we are serious about localism and empowering communities, rather than simply rearranging governance structures, the voices of the people who live and work in those areas must be heard.
Amendment 15 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook probes whether the affirmative procedure alone is sufficient scrutiny for the Secretary of State’s powers under this clause. Given the scale of the decisions being taken and the potential impact on local governance and accountability, it is legitimate to question whether Parliament should have a more substantial role in overseeing these powers.
Throughout this Bill we have systematically sought to remove or constrain the Secretary of State’s ability to create new authorities or confer new powers without proper consultation or local consent. Clause 3 as drafted continues the pattern of centralisation. For that reason, we have tabled an amendment opposing the question that Clause 3 stands part of the Bill. We believe that the Government must provide far greater clarity about how and when these powers will be used and what safeguards will be in place.
As I said earlier, this is a theme that we will return to later in the Bill. For now, I hope the Minister will reflect on the strong arguments made today for a more genuinely localist approach, one that respects local government, involves local residents and ensures that decisions about local government are not taken unilaterally by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Janke, for their amendments on single foundation strategic authorities. Clause 3 provides a power for the Secretary State to designate a single unitary council or county council that is not covered by an existing strategic authority as a single foundation strategic authority. Any future designation of a single foundation strategic authority will be subject to the consent of the council involved. For this reason, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, is not a necessary requirement.
I appreciate the intention behind the proposal. However, it would not be proportionate to impose an additional requirement to consult every level of local government within the proposed area of the single foundation strategic authority. The principal body affected by the designation will be the old unitary county council and no designation can be made without the consent of the relevant council.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, probes whether Clause 3 should be included in the Bill. Clause 3 is vital to ensuring that the Bill delivers on its ambition to ensure that everywhere in England can benefit from devolution. The Government recognise that non-mayoral devolution to single local authorities can serve as an important foundational step, allowing areas to see early benefits from devolution, while considering all options for unlocking deeper devolution by working with neighbouring local authorities in combined authorities and combined county authorities, over the longer term.
The second amendment in the group, Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, probes whether the affirmative procedure is appropriate for the Secretary of State’s power to designate a council as a single foundation strategic authority. I should reassure the Committee that this is in line with the long-established practice whereby secondary legislation is used to establish new institutions and to implement agreed devolution agreements within areas.
In addition, the use of the affirmative procedure ensures that no designation can be made without the approval of both Houses. As I said, we want local authority designations to be done at the local level; that is the provision, I believe. However, the Government recognise that, in rare cases, non-mayoral devolution can serve as an important first step. To access further functions available at the mayoral tier, single councils will need to work across a wider geography.
I will let the noble Lord know about the issue of funding in due course in writing, if that is okay. Establishing those single foundation strategic authorities will accelerate the transfer of powers out of Whitehall to local government so that local leaders have a greater say over decisions in those areas.
With these reassurances, I ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Janke, to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Minister said that the affirmative procedure had to go through both Houses; I understand that. We have set up unitary authorities through secondary legislation up until now, and this Bill has never been needed. However, I am not quite sure what happens with a local authority that does not want this. Is there a power through the affirmative procedure for the Secretary of State to insist that a local authority, which does not want to become a single foundation authority for whatever reason, will have to do it? Will that go through the affirmative procedure or not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Government have made our intention very clear: we want to see unitary authorities established across the country. We want that initiative to come from local areas themselves. Some areas may be more comfortable going into the single foundation authority first, before they take the step to go into a combined authority; that is what the provision in the Bill is about. We want to make sure that there are unitary authorities across the country. In extreme circumstances, I believe, the Secretary of State has a power to make sure that it does happen, but that would be very much a power of last resort; we would not want to use it unless there could be no agreement any other way.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
The Minister kindly said that she would write to me about funding, but I had two other related questions. First, will all authorities be able to say, “I want to be a foundation authority”, or is that going to be limited in some way? Secondly, if you are a single foundation strategic authority, could you still be forced into a combined authority at a later date?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
For most local authorities—I have spoken to a great number of them over the past few months—the attraction of taking your unitary authority and going into a combined authority is the ability to have the greater powers that that level of devolution will accrue to the area and the communities for which you are responsible. I think that it will be the exception rather than the rule that people will want to be a single foundation authority, but they may be more comfortable with using that as a first step then working it out for themselves. This has happened to a certain extent through the whole devolution programme. Where people are in a unitary authority, they will look around them to see which of the surrounding authorities work best in terms of their economy and public services, as well as which model makes more sense to their local community, before they decide which way to go; if they wish to take some time to do that, the Bill makes provision for that.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the Minister for her comments. I do, however, feel that there is a distinct lack of local input into the proposals in this Bill; that is one of the symptoms of the approach the Government are taking. They seem to be taking the view that they have decided what will be imposed on the country and are not particularly concerned about what local people think about it. I point to the regional assemblies, where they did the same thing and incurred huge hostility and a lack of trust from local people—not least in arguments about geography and local differences that took up quite a lot of government time and energy.
I think what the Government are trying to introduce here is uniformity, rather than devolution, and they will find an unwilling reception for their attempt to impose uniformity. People do not want mayors, who are very often seen as the outpost for central government; they also do not want local change imposed from Whitehall. I wish the Government luck with the Bill. Local government reform is a very sensitive business and maybe if Sir Humphrey were here, he would be saying that the Government are being very courageous. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment for the present.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Before we move on, I note that the last group is quite a large one. We are due to finish in half an hour, so I would hate to think that we would have to break off half way through the group. I am in the noble Baroness’s hands—where would she like to go with it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It looks like a huge group, but that is only because of the scheduling. Most of the amendments are about the first part of the schedule, so I think we should get it done.
Schedule 1: Establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities and CCAs
Amendment 16
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and my noble friend Lady Scott have stolen my first line about the size of this group; that is largely down to the structure of the Bill, which has numerous schedules. Consequently, we have tabled a vast number of amendments to make a relatively simple change.
I thank all noble Lords who tabled amendments on these issues. They are not merely technical adjustments; they are amendments that go to the heart of our concerns about the true purpose and direction of the Bill and the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State is taking in it. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook has made clear, we on these Benches firmly believe that devolution must be locally led, rooted in local identities and local democracy, and not imposed by central government. Genuine community empowerment cannot be handed down by central diktat, which imposes structures that override locally elected representatives and residents. If devolution is imposed from Whitehall, it ceases to be devolution in any meaningful sense.
The amendments we have tabled seek to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot exercise powers affecting the governance, composition or boundaries of local authorities without their explicit consent. That consent is not an administrative hurdle; it is a democratic safeguard. Such changes must be based on local identities and local wishes to truly reflect the meaning of community. They should not be abstract or managerial plans drawn up at a distance in Whitehall, however well intentioned.
Communities are not interchangeable units on a map. They have histories, relationships and ways of working that cannot simply be redrawn by statutory instrument. Any restructuring must have a demonstrative benefit for local people, not just for the administrative convenience of central government. Crucially, it is local councils, through elected councillors accountable to their residents, who are best placed to judge what will or will not work for their area. This is a particular concern given the Government’s decision to cancel local elections this year, denying the vote to potentially 4 million people. I look forward to hearing other noble Lords’ thoughts on these timely issues and the other amendments in this group.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendments 21 and 24. My noble friends on the Front Bench have pretty much all the other amendments, with the exception of Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is a pity that she cannot be here, but I join in sending her our very best wishes and look forward to her return to the Committee.
Amendments 21 and 24 are in the same area of where proposals can be brought forward for the establishment of new combined authorities. Before I go on, I could have tabled—I neglected to table—two further amendments about county combined authorities in exactly the same terms as Amendments 21 and 24, which relate to combined authorities. Therefore, perhaps the arguments I am making on combined authorities can be taken as read-across.
The purpose of my Amendments 21 and 24 is to challenge the process by which the Secretary of State would make a decision on a proposal for a combined authority or a combined county authority that is brought forward by the constituent councils in an area. As things stand under the existing legislation, which was set up in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but, for the purposes of combined authorities, is in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009—LuRA 2023 has the same for combined county authorities—the way it works is that those proposals come forward for an area and are subjected to tests.
I am interested, in terms of how the tests are currently applied, in whether they are likely to improve
“the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people of the area”.
Additionally, I suggest that the proposal should be required to include the purposes that are intended to be achieved by the establishment of this combined authority or combined county authority. The Secretary of State would have to look at and assess—these are the tests—whether those improvements in economic, social and environmental well-being as well as the purposes included in the proposal are likely to be met.
To me, these are two elements of the test of whether a proposal coming forward from an area should be accepted. The first is an objective test: will it improve the well-being in the area in various ways? The second is more subjective but none the less purposive: the people in this area and the constituent councils have said why they want to have this authority, so the Secretary of State should look at those purposes and say whether they are likely to be met. In this Bill, the question put to a relevant proposal—what purposes are you trying to achieve?—is simply swept away. There is no requirement for such a proposal to have those purposes any more.
Amendment 21 would remove the requirement to have purposes so that they cannot form part of a subsequent test. The test that is to be applied would no longer be the test of economic, social or environmental well-being, which is an objective test related to the benefit to the people living in that area, and would be replaced by a statutory test: is it appropriate to make the order in relation to the area, having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence? In those words, “convenient” leaps out in particular. It makes one think that what my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook was just saying about the desirability of having conformity is what is actually driving these decisions now, rather than, “What is going to happen to benefit the people who live in this area?”, which should be the objective test.
That question did not escape the notice of the Lords Constitution Committee. In its 16th report, published on 13 January, it stated:
“We draw this provision to the attention of the House. It should satisfy itself that it is content to grant the Secretary of State this power within Schedule 1 to subject the new arrangements for a combined authority to such a broad and potentially subjective test”.
Of course, in the text at which the committee looked, what the committee means by “broad and potentially subjective” is, by implication, a bureaucratic test—“Is it convenient for us to have a combined authority?”—whereas what we have at the moment, which is what the committee is referring to, is, in essence, a test of the benefit. It is intended to be able to be determined more objectively, and it is certainly more relevant to the people who live in an area whether a combined authority is or is not in their interests.
When we go on with this Bill, I hope that the Government will in each of these respects think whether the statutory test should have perhaps both the bureaucratic element of whether it is convenient and the objective element of whether it can demonstrate that it will bring benefit to the people who live in this area.
My noble friends have two amendments in this group, Amendments 22 and 36, the purpose of which, as far as I can see, is to remove the power for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of combined authorities and county combined authorities. It seems to me that although the Minister said this is an exceptional power, there is a risk that once this power is available—again, because it will be convenient to do so—we will be instructed to have combined authorities according to the Secretary of State’s proposals rather than the ones brought forward from within the area itself.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am very happy with the amendments spoken to so far, so I will not repeat what has been said. Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock relates to whether the Secretary of State determines local boundaries and whether decisions on local authority boundaries within a combined authority area are a matter for central or local government. In the spirit of this Bill, which is about devolution, I can see no reason why central government has to be involved. It ought to be a matter for local councils to decide on. Perhaps the Minister might explain why my noble friend Lady Pinnock has got this wrong; it seems to me that she has got this right.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There were a lot of amendments in this group, but we whipped through it very quickly, so I thank noble Lords. The amendments in the group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seek collectively to remove the Secretary of State’s new powers to direct the creation or expansion of a combined authority or combined county authority or to provide for a mayor. The Government have been clear that devolution can deliver growth, unlock investment and deliver the change the public want to see, led by local leaders who know their areas best. That is why we want to see more parts of England benefit from devolution.
As I have said, I have been involved in local government for a very long time. We have tinkered around with this issue for a very long time indeed, and it is time we provided some certainty and stability. Our engagement to date with councils across England has demonstrated the appetite for devolution within local government. I have spoken to many of them and visited many areas that do not currently have those devolution arrangements.
Devolution, of course, should be locally led wherever possible, and the Government remain committed to working in partnership with local government to deliver that vision. At the same time, we have been clear that we cannot accept proposals that would block other areas accessing devolution—that would be very difficult for those areas—or risk creating devolution islands. The backstop mechanism in the Bill will allow the Government to establish strategic authorities in areas where local leaders have not been able to agree on how to access devolved powers. That will ensure that all of England can benefit from devolution and nowhere is left behind.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting day debating the Bill. I think there is universal agreement across the Committee that devolution is desirable and that local areas having genuinely devolved powers and being able to deliver for their residents would be a good thing and would deliver better outcomes. However, it is essential that they are part of forming that process and area. The Minister said that the Government believe that devolution can deliver great benefit when led by local leaders who know their areas best. I cannot do anything other than agree with that, but we then talk about a backstop that gives the Secretary of State immense powers to impose solutions on people, and that is the area that we are all concerned about. That is why we proposed these amendments to ensure that that is not done for administrative convenience.
As my noble friend Lord Lansley said, there was a test in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that very clearly stated that there must be a clear benefit to devolution and that the area seeking devolution must establish why it is doing it, and it was judged on the basis of whether it would deliver it. That has gone, and, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, the test now seems to be whether it is administratively convenient. We are not here to do administratively convenient things. We are here to deliver real devolution at a local level, determined by local residents, local councils and local leaders. That is our overarching concern. It is all very well for the Minister to say that this is a backstop arrangement so that we do not have islands or things such as that. While I may have some sympathy about that potential issue, we are giving sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to impose. That is the reason for our amendments.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister as we progress through this Bill how we will ensure that that local voice, the voice of residents, councils and councillors, is heard and is not swept under the carpet, so to speak, on the theme of administrative convenience and diktat from Whitehall. With warning that we will come back to this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Introduction: Baroness Gill
Introduction: Baroness Davies of Devonport
Railways: East Coast Main Line
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of capacity on the East Coast Main Line.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the December 2025 timetable has provided more than 60,000 extra seats across the east coast main line each week, with faster services between London and Edinburgh and a third train per hour between London and Newcastle. Network Rail is leading development of a long-term strategy for the route, which will incorporate this Government’s plan for Northern Powerhouse Rail, which was announced last week, and the commitment to develop a business case for opportunities provided by the Leamside line.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. It is encouraging to hear the progress being made, just as it was to hear a reference to the Leamside line last night in the Statement on Northern Powerhouse Rail. Does my noble friend agree that the progress being made is made possible by the fact that Network Rail, LNER, Northern and TransPennine Rail are now publicly owned, and are able to work together and co-operate without the morass of contracts that have characterised a privatised railway with poor outcomes for passengers? In short, does the Minister agree that the experience of the east coast main line gives us a glimpse of what Great British Railways could—and I hope will—achieve in future?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, the short answer is yes, I do agree. The £4 billion public investment in the east coast main line infrastructure in trains had stalled. Although Network Rail writes the timetable, it lacked the authority to implement it. Requiring ministerial approval amounted to an excessive level of central control that GBR will remove. Encouragingly, public sector collaboration, free from contractual constraints, enables successful delivery. The result is a major uplift in services, supporting economic growth and increasing the availability of cheaper LNER tickets, thanks to more trains and seats.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, capacity on both the east and west coast main lines is stretched, which is why High Speed 2 will make such a difference when it opens. When will the Government publish the project reset, including the revised opening period and costs?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific answer, as I am sure she is probably aware, but we will communicate that as soon as we are able to.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I do not often find myself at odds with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, but I am on this. Indeed, yesterday I came up to London and my EMR train from Spalding to Peterborough was cancelled. I had to seek an earlier train, and then, on that Peterborough to King’s Cross line, there were no services between Lincoln and no services from York, because all trains were cancelled due to late working on engineering works on that line. I am afraid it is very disruptive, and if you have to come to London regularly each week, it is surprising how frequently the train service does not run to time or to capacity.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I set off yesterday from Leeds and I was given the warning that there might be delays because of the overrunning of engineering works. Actually, it did not affect my journey at all. Quite frankly, with the sort of engineering undertakings that are happening, I am amazed that overruns do not happen more often. There is an enormous amount of work to do on the railways. It is obviously very disappointing if you get delayed and if there are cancellations, but everything the Government are doing is working towards improving rail services for the travelling public in this country.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, it is very encouraging to hear what the noble Baroness is saying. Can she tell us when these planned engineering upgrades that she is talking about were given the go-ahead, and when they were given the sign-off? I think she will find it was some years ago, under the last Government.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
It is my great pleasure to inform the House that the noble Lord and I have a very long and chequered history—
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Specifically dedicated to improving rail services in this country—that is the sadness of my life over the last however long.
Of course, I understand exactly the point that the noble Lord is making, and it would be churlish of me to say that there have not been any improvements. But we have to have a step change. Too many people are suffering as a result of not having the connectivity we need. Given the noble Lord’s previous role at Transport for the North, he well knows how much investment in public services would mean to the economy and, most of all, to the people across the north of England.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, it is great to hear my noble friend’s tributes to the railway engineers, who keep the trains going at the same time that they are trying to build in many places new rail developments—which is a much harder job than building a new railway on a completely open tract of land. We may be very good, as we are, with those kinds of engineers. However, on the project for HS2 and similar proposals, particularly the line to Manchester, can my noble friend say whether the department has learned any lessons from the failed attempt to build a high-speed rail network? Virtually every other country in Europe is doing it, as are many in Asia, but we seem to lack the capacity. We really ought to be able to learn some lessons from this.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My noble friend makes an excellent point. I pay tribute to everyone who is working on the trans-Pennine upgrade. That project is phenomenal and demonstrates that we can deliver on time and on budget when all the key people pull together and work together. As my noble friend says, the performance that we have had in the past is simply unacceptable. Of course we need to look at that, learn lessons and make sure that we do not repeat the same mistakes in the future.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister realise that, since the new timetable was introduced on the east coast main line, there has been no room to deal with delays such as those caused by broken rails, signal failures and points failures, none of which can be blamed on LNER as they are all the responsibility of Network Rail. Are lessons going to be learned about the introduction of this timetable, which took several years to bring about but reduced services from stations such as Berwick and Durham and left real problems coping with delays?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I will make sure that we follow up the comments that the noble Lord has made. It was my responsibility to be heavily involved when the timetable changes were introduced in 2017, and I would say that, overall, this introduction has gone exceptionally well in comparison to what was experienced in the past. Of course, there will be difficulties, and I will endeavour to get answers to the question that the noble Lord asks.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it has turned out to be a livelier Question than I had expected. I am very grateful to the Minister for being here to answer these detailed questions about broken rails, particular services and so forth as she has today, and she has local knowledge as well, but will she or another government Minister still be here to answer those questions when Great British Railways comes legally into existence? She will agree, I am sure, that the Bill being considered in the other place removes Great British Railways almost entirely from parliamentary and ministerial scrutiny, with the only power left to the Secretary of State being to sack the chairman of the board. Is that really an acceptable way forward?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
We have had many robust debates through the passage of different legislation in this House and I look forward to continuing to do so. Yes, in answer to the first question, we very much do intend to be here to see through the development of the legislation. Of course, it is going through the other place at the moment, and I look forward to the debates that we will have when it comes to our side.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that the welcome growth in passenger numbers on the east coast main line was mainly due to the introduction of Lumo, an open-access competitor?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
It is very interesting that the east coast main line has three open-access operators. There are lessons to be learned from the experience that we have had. Clearly, they have brought an incredible amount. Some 20% of services on the east coast main line have open-access operators. We need to look and learn, and see what we can gain from it.
Youth Unemployment
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the rising level of youth unemployment.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, since May 2022, unemployment of young people has been rising. There are now almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. Young people face challenges such as lower skills, lack of work experience and a rise in reported health issues. In response, the Government are investing an additional £1.5 billion over the next three years through the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy to help young people earn and learn. In addition, an independent review led by Alan Milburn will focus on the causes of youth unemployment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Indeed, and this very morning the ONS announced that youth unemployment has risen yet again. Our national living wage is now approaching that of France, which has a staggering youth unemployment rate of 20%. Even the Resolution Foundation agrees that when the national living wage went up for 18 to 20 year-olds, unemployment went up as a direct result. Have the Government done any risk assessments to see at what point a higher national living wage, especially for 18 to 20 year-olds, affects employment and increases unemployment?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, and as was the case under the previous Government and from the time that the Low Pay Commission was set up, we explicitly asked the commission to consider the implications on employment of recommendations around increases in the living wage. We will continue to do that so that we can both make progress on getting young people back into work and ensure that they are fairly rewarded when they are there.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I appreciate that the Government’s youth guarantee scheme is well intentioned, but would it not be more effective if it applied to those 18 to 21 year-olds who have been out of work and education for six months rather than 18 months—by which time many will have lost hope and confidence, and may have, in effect, checked out? I know from my experience as an employer that the earlier that you hire the young, both skilled and unskilled, the greater the chance of success. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is talking about the Government’s job guarantee, which will come in after 18 months with a guaranteed job for all those on universal credit. However, it is not the case that there is no action under the youth guarantee before that. The new youth guarantee gateway will ensure that if, after 13 weeks, a young person is not earning or learning then they will have a meeting followed by four weeks of intensive support. During this period, they will receive tailored guidance and be offered up to six options, which could be work, work experience, sector-based work academy programmes, apprenticeships, training or learning. There will be 300,000 more opportunities funded by this Government to support young people long before they get to that 18-month point. However, that point is a guaranteed jobs backstop.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, but what assessment has been made of the impact of poor mental health on young people’s ability to enter work? How joined up is the Department for Work and Pensions with the NHS—if it is joined up at all?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There are certainly larger numbers of young people who, by virtue of mental health issues, are not in the labour market. That is why we have asked Alan Milburn to focus on this issue, why the Secretary of State for Health has initiated a review into the growing numbers of young people experiencing mental health problems, and why the Department for Education will ensure that there is a mental health professional to support every single school. That is joined-up government.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the youth guarantee scheme could represent a step change in dealing with profound issues around youth unemployment? Does the scheme include a gender analysis to make sure that young girls get those opportunities, alongside young boys or young men and women?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. We will certainly ensure that we properly evaluate the youth guarantee trailblazers that are currently in place in eight areas, and the much- expanded national youth guarantee that we are now funding, and consider the sorts of impacts that my noble friend has identified.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, some of the best job opportunities are with some of our outstanding engineering companies throughout the United Kingdom, but some schools, colleges and universities do not allow companies involved in defence contracts to attend job fairs. What advice would the Minister give to schools and universities about the appropriateness of defence companies attending job fairs?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My advice would be that the defence industry is an enormously important part of this country’s engineering base. It is one of the eight areas identified in this Government’s industrial strategy and our young people should be encouraged to take advantage of the opportunities that there are in that industry.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will agree that this transition from school to employment is a critical stage in the life of every young person. Could she assure the House that all steps have been taken to ensure that the link between services for children and adult services is reinforced so that children do not find themselves fallen off a cliff at the end of school?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an enormously important point. It is sometimes at the point that young people finish school that they are lost to education or employment. That is why we will also put greater responsibilities on to schools to ensure the destinations of their pupils. We will deliver an automatic guarantee and automatic enrolment for young people into a college, and we will improve the risk of NEET indicators to identify earlier those young people who might end up not earning or learning.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, given that the poorest families in this country cannot afford for their children to do endless training courses, what work is being done to make sure these lead to full-time, proper employment that pays those families who are sending their young people to endless government training courses?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The training courses that will be provided as part of the youth guarantee will not be charged for, and neither will the improved training that we will provide post-16 or apprenticeships, where young people will be earning at the same time as they are learning. If the noble Lord is making a point about the cost of living pressures on young people then I wholly accept that, but our responsibility is to ensure that those young people, through the new, free opportunities provided by the youth guarantee, are set off on a life that will enable them to build a good and high income for themselves and their families.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this initiative and thank the Minister for her responses. Is she aware that opportunities for young people with disabilities are very fractious at the moment? Will the Government ensure that people with all different disabilities, including autism, have the opportunity to benefit from this scheme with the kind of support that is promised?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. As I said in my Answer, it is one of the reasons why young people find it difficult to get into either further training or the workplace. We will certainly ensure, as we are doing through additional support for employers in apprenticeships, that where a young person has a disability, that support will be available to them and to the employer offering them the opportunity to work.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the work that the Government are doing to improve the situation for young people, but businesses are clear that the Employment Rights Act, the Government’s minimum wage rules and spiralling business rates are the direct causes of young people being kept out of the labour market. We can solve this problem only by enabling business to create jobs. How are His Majesty’s Government going to get employers to employ people when the risk environment that has been created is just so high, and what are they going to do to change this problem?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is obviously the case that we need to support employers to take on young people who have been unemployed for a long period, which is why we will fully fund the job opportunities for young people who have been on universal credit for 18 months. But if it were the case that only the actions of this Government had been responsible for youth unemployment then we would not have seen the figures rising since May 2022 and we would not be seeing the same problem around the world. What is important is that this Government are taking action, including providing the financial support, to ensure that young people get back into work. I am glad that the noble Baroness supports those efforts.
Parental Leave and Pay Review
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to conclude the parental leave and pay review, launched in July 2025.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the parental leave and pay review launched on 1 July 2025, and we expect it to run for a period of 18 months. The review will conclude in early 2027 with a set of findings in which the Government will outline next steps for taking any reform forward to implementation.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but does she accept that the case for change is urgent? Most forms of parental leave are unpaid or pitifully low paid: £187 a week equates to less than half the national minimum wage, and many mums and dads and partners simply cannot afford to take the pay cut necessary to spend time with their babies and children. The benefits are clear: there is compelling evidence that if, for example, paternity leave were increased to six weeks at 90% of pay, that would improve economic participation and growth and, of course, narrow the gender pay gap. Will my noble friend agree to consider urgently bringing the conclusions of the review forward so that young families can get the start in life they deserve?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the advocacy not only of my noble friend but of her former employer, the TUC. The Government have met with many stakeholders and had many encouragements to act in lots of different directions. My noble friend is absolutely right that the system needs reform. We know that it does not work for everybody at the moment. Having a child is a joyous occasion, but it is a challenge for many parents. We need to get this right. The Government opened a call for evidence, and we had almost 1,500 responses. We need to consider those carefully and find a way forward that provides a proper balance for employers, employees and the Exchequer. We will get this right.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the call for evidence, which closed in August. I appreciate that there were around 1,300 responses, but it has been five months since then, with not a word of an update from the Government. Could we get an update from the Minister now on progress in that last five months and a clear timetable for what the Government will spend the next 12 months doing?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, we are doing a number of different things. We are engaging in detail with stakeholders. We have already held 12 round tables, and we have engaged with business groups, academics and parent groups, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the TUC, The Dad Shift, Mumsnet, and Maternity Action—lots of them. We are working through this with many academics, gathering all the evidence, finding out what we can do and looking at international comparisons. We are simply not doing nothing for the moment. We have already made a significant number of differences. The Government have introduced a range of things, such as neonatal care leave and pay, and we are looking at paternity leave and unpaid parental leave as day one rights, and at new leave for bereaved parents. There are a number of steps happening now, and we will look at whether there are things that can be introduced, and when, but we do have to get this right.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for all the things that are happening, but can she confirm whether this urgent review—the word “urgent” was used—will look specifically at low-paid and self-employed parents, who are often excluded from adequate support? I did not hear the Minister mention them at all.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important point. I am pleased to say to him that, yes, the review is considering specifically whether the current support available meets the needs of self-employed parents. That is explicitly referred to in the review’s terms of reference. He is right that, currently, self-employed mothers can get maternity allowance but self-employed fathers are not eligible for support. There are some challenges. The bigger challenge is that the scheme goes back to the late 1800s, and a lot of aspects of modern families and the modern workplace are not necessarily reflected in its structure. We are looking at all of that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend has described all the action being taken already on this issue, which was a very important part of our debate on the Employment Rights Bill. We heard some compelling arguments then about the importance of making progress on this issue. In light of all the meetings my noble friend has described, is she prepared to convene a meeting of Peers on a cross-party basis to update us and make sure that the voices around the Chamber are also heard appropriately?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that and pay tribute to all the wonderful work she did on the Employment Rights Bill. The whole country has good reason to be grateful to her. I am sure she still bears the occasional scar, which she may polish occasionally. That is a great idea; we would be happy to have a meeting. I want to manage expectations. We are going to listen to all the evidence and a wide range of voices, but it would be helpful for those voices to come from inside this House as well as outside. I would be very pleased to do that.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, it is anticipated that there will be a chilling factor, with businesses thinking twice about hiring mothers-to-be and fathers-to-be if there are parental rights from day one. Is there not a danger that businesses will find ways of pre-emptively rejecting candidates whom they believe will be in a position to take parental leave immediately or soon after taking up their new roles?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, leave from day one is about the ability to give notice. For statutory maternity and paternity pay, there is already a significant period of qualification of working for the employer. If the noble Viscount is seriously suggesting that businesses would reject all potential mothers and fathers, that is going to leave them with quite a small pool to choose from when they are selecting. The reality is that many businesses already recognise that there are genuine benefits to be had in enabling people to be productive. If people are worrying about what is happening at home, then they are not able to do that. However, we have to get the balance right, so the review will carefully weigh up the benefits for families against the impact on employers and the Exchequer before Ministers decide on any reforms. On that point he is absolutely right.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in order for us to plan our workflow over the next couple of years, can the Minister let us know how many other consultations are still under way and how many more reviews will be conducted before the Employment Rights Bill is enacted?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government will consult with employers and those who are going to be affected to make sure that the implementation of the decisions Parliament has already made is done appropriately. I make no apologies for that, and the House should welcome it.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the evidence needed. When Quebec introduced five weeks of paid paternity leave 20 years ago, not only did it increase the take-up and length of leave taken by dads, but it increased mothers’ labour-market participation by around 7%. Does the Minister accept that, based on the information available to us today and for the last 20 years, six weeks of paid paternity leave is the single biggest policy the Government could implement to close the motherhood pay penalty? There is a good growth case for introducing it and we do not need another 12-month review to reach those conclusions.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Despite discouragement from behind me, I am going to be gentle about this. The noble Baroness makes the important point that there is a lot out there to be learned. We are looking at the international evidence. In Great Britain we tend to be more generous with leave than, for example, other OECD nations, but we do not match up on pay. As part of the review, we have been looking at international comparisons to see what happens, recognising that there are of course differences in labour markets and tax regimes. We must be aware of the impact on our particular context. Certainly, I am hearing a lot of clear voices calling for fathers to have more paternity leave. One of the things we need to be aware of is that when shared parental leave was previously introduced, take-up was very low indeed. We need to make sure the system works well, rather than just diving into making changes.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with me that there is no future for Britain unless it gets out this situation of low skills, low pay, poverty wages and poor conditions, with some of the worst employment and pay rates in Europe?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has been listening to my colleague and noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern. This Government are committed to driving up skills as a way of driving out the growth in unemployment in this country. We must invest in the skills that are out there, making sure our young people get skills, that people have the chance to re-skill, and that we give employers the skills they need. Through our industrial strategy, we are looking at some of the key growth areas, making sure we understand what will drive them, what they need in future staff, and how we invest in them. Better-skilled jobs are good for the economy and good for families. That is the way forward.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, when we dealt with the Employment Rights Bill, just before Royal Assent there was a draft implementation plan, which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to. We were promised that the Government would publish a new, revised implementation plan on or around Royal Assent, but we are still waiting. When is it going to come?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have no idea. I will find out what is happening and, if there is anything out there, I am happy to write to the noble Lord with it. However, I tell him this: we had lots of long battles in this House over the Employment Rights Bill but it is now an Act, and it is surely now time for all of us to make sure that we engage well, listen to employers and take the time to get this right for the benefit of staff and employers everywhere, and of the country.
Maternal Mortality
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take in response to the finding in the MBRRACE-UK report Maternal mortality 2022–2024, published on 8 January, that the maternal death rate in pregnancy rose by 20 per cent between 2009–11 and 2022–24.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, MBRRACE’s report highlights the need to improve maternity safety, to which this Government are fully committed. We have commissioned an independent investigation that will present recommendations in the spring, while the National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State, will transform these into a deliverable national action plan to drive change. In the meantime, we are taking various actions, including piloting Martha’s rule and expanding the maternal medicine networks.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. She will know that the Conservatives promised to halve maternity mortality by 2025. Instead, as the report shows, it has risen substantially, with stark disparities for older women and those from BME and disadvantaged backgrounds. Between 2021 and 2023, over 600 women died either during or shortly after pregnancy—a tragedy compounded by the fact that, in the majority of cases, this was from a preventable complication of the pregnancy itself. I know the Government are taking certain actions, to which she referred. Those are welcome, but they are not being applied consistently in every area. More importantly, trusts are not required to inform NHS England of the plans they are making. In short, I say to my noble friend that there seems to be a lack of robust oversight. How will the Government ensure that the standards and new procedures that they want to implement will be implemented effectively by every trust and in relation to every pregnant woman?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right to use the word “tragedy” in respect of maternal deaths, particularly those from preventable causes. She is also correct that, sadly, most aspects of the maternal safety ambition that was set under the previous Government are very unlikely to be achieved. We have to make sure that, for any future target, the system can deliver. As one example, the maternal care bundle sets clear standards across all services for implementation by NHS providers and commissioners, and is focused very much on the main causes of maternal death and harm, as my noble friend asks for.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, the Government have launched a maternity inquiry, but we have already had lots of maternity inquiries and reports from the charity sector, such as the Muslim Women’s Network— I declare my interest as its CEO—Five X More and Birthrights, all with similar findings and recommendations. Instead of having more inquiries, why do the Government not just get on with it and implement actions? What do they expect to find that they do not already know? Can the Minister share how she is implementing existing recommendations?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand what the noble Baroness is saying and her frustration, which I am sure many of us share. The purpose of the investigation by my noble friend Lady Amos is to pull together all the learning and all the inquiries. She has, for example, given a real voice to those affected, speaking to 170 affected family members. Those voices are what has been missing, and that cannot go on. We are determined to draw a line under where we have unfortunately been and to move forward, while taking direct actions, including, for example, a national programme to support struggling trusts to make improvements.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, recent Health Service Journal investigative journalism has found that the Chief Midwifery Officer wrote to trusts last year identifying gross failures in home births safety, yet the Government have chosen to keep this information private while women are pushed into unsupported births. Is it acceptable for NHS England to hide this evidence of systematic safety risk from the public when the home birth services of 14 trust have effectively ceased to exist, despite the legal duty to provide them?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am not fully up to speed with the article that the noble Lord raises, but I undertake to look at it and get back to him, because this is a very important matter.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, many NHS trusts are facing deficits in midwives. There is not a sufficient workforce. What are the Government doing to tackle this issue? New parents, and new mothers during their birth, are not being supported, and there are significant problems as a direct result of this.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Midwives are absolutely crucial, and I pay tribute to them and to the wider maternity team. As of October 2025, there has been an increase of some 3.6%—that is 878 more midwives—compared to October 2024. Importantly, we are seeing the introduction of a range of initiatives to improve retention in the maternity workforce, including in midwifery. That will include mentoring and giving better advice and support on pensions and flexible retirement options, because we are keen to retain the long years of service that many midwives and other staff have.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, touching partly on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, data from MBRRACE-UK shows that black women are three times more likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth than white women. Do the department and NHS England have any evidence on the reasons for these disparities that the Minister can share with the House? Will she tell noble Lords how NHS England and the department intend to tackle these disparities?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad to say that my noble friend Lady Amos will be very much focusing on this area. I referred earlier to the maternal care bundle, which focuses on the five main causes of maternal death and harm, as well as on setting up best practice. A number of the risk factors are particularly associated with groups who live in areas of greater disadvantage, those who have pre-existing conditions and, as the noble Lord rightly says, sadly, black women, who are three times more likely to die—something that is totally unacceptable in any day and age, but certainly now. We cannot allow this to go on. That is why we have picked up a key recommendation from the Black Maternal Health inquiry for mechanisms for surveillance of severe maternal morbidity. The first data are expected in the summer.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, a confidential inquiry into maternal deaths is a good indicator of the quality of maternity services. The fact that the rate has gone up from 9 per 100,000 in my time to 12.8 now suggests that there is a failure of maternity services. To use an example, 155 women who had a history of psychiatric problems—mental health problems—died within a year of delivering a baby. That compares to the total number of 611 maternal deaths. It is a significant number, and yet the specialist perinatal maternity health services that are supposed to look after women with a mental health history have failed. It should be a duty on ICBs to produce a plan, so that women with a mental health history are looked after and have a care plan during pregnancy.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is absolutely crucial. I welcome that, as of June last year, maternal mental health services are available in all parts of England. We also now have 153 operational mother and baby unit beds providing in-patient care to women experiencing severe mental health difficulties during and before pregnancy. In addition, mental health services are available for women who have pre-existing mental health needs, as well as for those who experience challenges because of their pregnancy or labour. The GP check-up six to eight weeks after birth is absolutely crucial.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, something is happening. In the last decade or so, I have been watching the extraordinary increase in the number of healthy young mothers having C-sections. Why is this phenomenon—if I might call it that, though that is probably the wrong word to use—happening? Is this something that is part of the inquiry? Are people trying to understand whether it is because those in the midwifery world are afraid that natural births lead to more deaths?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This may be something that my noble friend Lady Amos looks at. She is very much focused on maternity services, which will include mortality and looking at the range of options. The noble Baroness will understand that there is an important balance to be struck between the voice and choice of patients, which we respect, and safety, which must be paramount.
Crown Estate (Wales) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crown Estate (Wales) Bill, has consented to place his prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I thank Members on both sides of the Chamber who participated in our earlier debates, and I particularly thank all 22 county councils in Wales, which have each formally resolved to support the objectives of the Bill. Indeed, the Welsh Government have also called for the Crown Estate to be devolved in Wales. If the House allows the Bill to progress, I hope that there will be MPs in the other place who find time to take it forward. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on the Bill getting this far. When the Minister replies, can he say whether this sets a useful precedent in relation to the Crown Estate’s assets in England, including the Duchy of Cornwall assets in England? Do the Government have any plans to bring a similar Bill to allow the transfer of those assets in England to the Government of the day?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, while the Government’s position on this matter has been made clear during earlier stages of both this Bill and the recent Crown Estate Act, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on his Bill. As this House has heard previously, the Government do not support the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales, as we believe the way it currently operates provides the best outcomes for Wales and the wider United Kingdom. The addition of two new Crown Estate commissioners with special responsibility for Wales and Northern Ireland respectively is a positive step and will ensure that the Crown Estate board continues to work in the best interests of Wales. In answer to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we have no such plans that he asks about.
While I commend the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on his Bill, the Government’s position is clear that we do not support devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales. Therefore, I must express reservations on behalf of the Government on this Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for contributing and making the points that they have. I believe that these principles could well apply further afield in due course, though perhaps not immediately. I noted well the points made by the Minister; I only hope that the opportunity will now be given for colleagues from Wales in the House of Commons to make their voices heard from all sides of the House, and perhaps the Government could then think further about it on that basis.
Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we have more bad news this morning from the ONS on job numbers in hospitality. That makes it even more important that we receive clear answers to the following questions. Why did the Government not get the new rating arrangements right first time in the Budget, when we now know that they already had the relevant information on pubs from the Valuation Office Agency? Following briefing to the FT last week, not only pubs but also restaurants and hotels do not know where they stand from 1 April. This is agony for them. When will the Government make a clear statement of their intentions?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, and as I have said before, the previous revaluation was based on property values during the Covid pandemic, which meant that rateable values were much lower. That means that some businesses, including retail, hospitality and leisure venues, are now seeing an increase as a result of this valuation. At the Budget we therefore announced three elements of support at a total cost of £4.3 billion. We implemented transitional relief; we have capped the increase for any business whose value has increased so that they are no longer eligible for small business rates relief; and we have expanded the supporting small businesses scheme.
But, as the noble Baroness quite rightly says—and as I have acknowledged in your Lordships’ House before—the revaluation means that pubs and others will struggle in relation to the business rates applicable to them. That is why we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs. Noble Lords will have heard what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both said on this in recent days. I will not add to that now or comment on speculation. When there are further comments to be made, I am sure I will be back here to discuss them with noble Lords.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, given that grass-roots music venues and recording studios do not qualify for RHL relief because of the way “visiting members of the public” is defined, will Ministers commit to reviewing or amending the eligibility criterion so that businesses integral to the creative economy are not excluded?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I absolutely hear what the noble Lord says, and I understand the points he is making. As I said, noble Lords will have heard what the Prime Minister and Chancellor have said in recent days. I will not add to that now, but when there are further comments to be made, I am sure I will be able to discuss them with the noble Lord.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, when we are talking about business rates, are any of the many thousands of Turkish barbers, as they are so called, vape shops and nail bars—which are all cash only and which have infected our villages, towns and cities—paying any business rates? Are any of them paying tax? We know that most of them are about money laundering, organised crime and county lines drugs. They are getting away for free. The whole thing seems to be for free, and they are laughing at us. Meanwhile, our pubs and our hospitality as a whole are on a knife-edge of existence. How is that fair?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness says. HMRC has announced substantial measures to crack down on some of the businesses she mentioned, and I think she will have seen several of them closing in recent months. She is quite right that more needs to be done. She is absolutely right to talk about the importance of the hospitality industry, and we completely recognise that. It plays an incredibly important role in the UK economy, employing more than 2 million people. It is vital to the life of high streets across the UK, and we will do what we can to support it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will repeat the adage I used formerly: measure twice, cut once. Does the Minister understand that there is real urgency to get response and relief now within the hospitality industry and for pubs, as they face uncertainty? Many, believing that the blows had ended, went ahead and hired or invested and are now unsure whether they are economically viable. Has the Minister looked at the impact of this uncertainty, particularly on the independents, which I understand are disproportionately affected?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I understand and agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness says. It is important that we are able to create certainty for those businesses, but we did spend £4.3 billion at the time of the Budget in support of exactly the businesses she described. We are implementing transitional relief to cap the amount that bills increase for businesses that would otherwise have seen big increases. For any business whose values increase so that they are no longer eligible for small business rates relief, we are capping that increase, and we have expanded the supporting small businesses scheme. As I say, that is at a total cost of £4.3 billion, so we absolutely recognise the issues facing those businesses. The revaluation means that pubs and others will struggle in relation to the business rates applicable to them, which is exactly why we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the retail and hospitality industries are often where youngsters who find it difficult to get into the workplace get their first foothold. Understandably, there have to be increases in the overheads that these organisations are paying, but can the Minister look at ways in which these organisations might be helped to bring some of those people who really need their first job into the employment market?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the important role that those businesses play in giving young people their first jobs, and I agree with her. We are taking significant measures to help the UK hospitality sector, which employs more than 2 million people and is vital to high streets across the UK. Based on recommendations from the licensing taskforce, we published a new National Licensing Policy Framework for the hospitality sector at the time of the Budget. We are exploring planning reforms to help pubs and hospitality to expand, and the hospitality support fund has helped pubs in rural areas to diversify, ensuring that they can continue in their role as vital community hubs.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, on pub companies, there is no doubt that the tenants are facing major problems in the UK, but does the Minister agree with me that, although those pubs are struggling, brewers and pub companies are making record profits? Is it not time they passed that on to the pubs themselves?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is correct to say that pubs have been struggling in this economy for a long time. In the previous 14 years under the last Government, 7,000 pubs closed in the UK, so this is a long-standing issue. On his wider question, I am more than happy to look into that.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, as the former chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association, I am only too conscious of the problems that the hospitality industry has faced over a large number of years. I listened to the Minister’s answers from the Peers’ Gallery in the Commons yesterday, and the unwillingness to give any indication to the industry as to when decisions will be given to it, whichever fields may be covered, means that it is totally unable to plan. The Minister’s answer today yet again gave no indication of whether there will be a response soon, at some time in the next few weeks or before the next financial year starts.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not think I heard a question at the end there. As I have said, we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, given my noble friend’s question, and given the importance of hospitality for employment—and the reference in a previous question to the number of young people who are unemployed—why is hospitality not included in the Government’s industrial strategy?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
That is an excellent question. Of course, we have separate strategies for the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. With the industrial strategy, we are trying to do something different from what that strategy is doing. Just because a sector is not in the industrial strategy, that does not mean we do not value that sector extremely highly and do all we can for it.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, there are many charity shops in the high streets across this country. They receive 80% mandatory relief and often up to 100% discretionary. Many of these charities are actually multimillion-pound businesses. Notwithstanding the pressures on the high street and the pressures on small businesses, obviously, with these forthcoming increases, does the Minister agree that perhaps it is about time that we looked into this issue to make sure that those on the high street are paying a fair rate for their business rates?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not disagree with what the noble Baroness says. It is very important to say that we are fundamentally reforming the business rates system by introducing permanently lower business tax rates for more than 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, funded by a higher rate on the most valuable properties. I think that is absolutely the right thing to do.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower
“Stop and searchIn section 60(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (powers to stop and search in anticipation of, or after, violence)— (a) in paragraph (a) omit “serious”, and(b) in paragraph (aa)(i) omit “serious”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would lower the threshold for stop and search to “violence” rather than “serious violence”.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 411 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. The amendment was championed by my honourable friend Matt Vickers in Committee in the other place.
The amendment alters the statutory threshold for the exercise of the powers under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That section permits a police officer of at least the rank of inspector to authorise stop and search powers within a defined locality for a period of 24 hours. Where such an authorisation has been given, a police officer may stop any member of the public to search them for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments without suspicion of the commission of an offence—so, essentially, it allows for a temporary adjustment to standard stop and search powers.
The current test that must be met is for the officer of sufficient rank to reasonably believe that incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his police area. Our amendment would lower the threshold so that the police would be able to use Section 60 powers where there is a reasonable likelihood of violence, not serious violence. The fundamental principle behind this amendment is that the police should be able to act where there is a threat of violence—any form of violence—without being required to weigh the seriousness of that violence. This would remove the more subjective element of the test.
We know that stop and search powers are highly effective in combating crime and preventing violent offences. In the year ending March 2025, there were a total of 528,582 stops and searches conducted by officers in England and Wales. This represented a slight decrease of 1.4% from the previous year. Of those, 5,572 were conducted under Section 60 powers, which actually represented an increase of 5.4%. This is welcome; I am pleased to see the police making good use of their powers. But, given that there were 1.1 million incidents of violence with or without injury recorded by the police in the year ending June 2025, that the figure that the ONS has given shows no statistically significant change compared with the previous year, and that there were still 51,527 knife offences, there is more work that needs to be done. Lowering the threshold for the use of Section 60 is another tool that the Government could utilise in their efforts to crack down on the use of offensive weapons and the incidence of violence. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench. At this juncture, I also thank the Committee for its forbearance when I was not able to move my previous amendment on mobile phone theft. I put on record my warmest thanks to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for moving it so eloquently on that occasion.
This is an issue about the difference between “serious violence” and “violence”, but the wider context is the fact that the UK has a knife crime problem. In London, the number of incidents up to June 2025 was 15,639, which was an increase of nearly 72% from the data recorded in 2015-16. Unfortunately, it has to be said that the number of stop and search encounters peaked at the end of the last Labour Government and dramatically decreased under the two previous Governments. Between 2003 and 2011, stop and search numbers increased, peaking at 1.2 million, but by 2018 this had fallen by 77%. The number of arrests resulting from stop and search encounters had fallen from 120,000 to 48,000.
The fact is that there is significant evidence that stop and search does demonstrably have an impact on the incidence of knife crime, and therefore reduces crime. In a study released in 2025, the two criminologists Alexis Piquero and Lawrence Sherman analysed data between 2008 and 2023, and found that stop and search encounters were successful in reducing deaths and injuries related to weapons. The conclusion of the study was that
“increased stop and search encounters can significantly reduce knife-related injuries and homicides in public places”.
Evidence from a number of bodies and think tanks, including Policy Exchange, suggests that, while there may be a range of causal factors, a link between rates of knife crime and rates of stop and search exists. As the rate of stop and search decreases, the amount of knife crime increases. As stop and search rises, the amount of knife crime falls. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, Sir Stephen Watson, said last year:
“If you don’t back your officers to do stop and search, they will stop doing stop and search. And if you stop doing stop and search, you’ll see street robberies going up”.
The issue is the difference between “serious violence” and “violence” within that context. My simple point to the Committee is that, if we want to take weapons off the street and prevent incidents of knife crime and other crime, we have to increase stop and search. Therefore, you have to give warranted officers the legal underpinning and the authority to make the appropriate decisions for stop and search. In 2023, there were 5,014 occasions when a police officer found a weapon or firearm when looking for a different prohibited item. In 3,221 of those cases, they were looking for drugs. This is a case of effective policing and not just getting lucky. So, if they could stop for “violence”, they might find weapons that could have led to a more serious situation. If not, there is a potential for people to just walk away.
On that basis, it is wise for the Government to consider this amendment, because it allows flexibility in operational policing. Fundamentally, it will prevent crime and may even in the long run prevent serious injury or death. Therefore, I invite Ministers and the Committee to give this amendment their strong support.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 411, because it brings clarity and accountability to the exceptional power in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This is not a call to strengthen police powers; it is a call to describe them accurately, so the public understand their narrow scope and the safeguards that constrain them.
Section 60 is triggered only when
“a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes”
one of a small number of factors: that incidents of violence may take place in a locality; that a weapon used in a recent incident is being carried locally; or that people are carrying weapons without good reason; and that there has already been an incident of serious violence. The statute requires the authorisation to be for
“any place within that locality for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours”.
These are tight operational limits.
Changing the definition from “serious violence” to “violence” keeps all the safeguards that make this power exceptional rather than just routine: the inspector-level threshold; the written and recorded authorisation; the geographic and temporal limits; the ability to seize weapons; and the requirement to provide records to those stopped. Those are not peripheral details; they are the legal guardrails that protect civil liberties while enabling targeted public safety action.
I simply ask: where is the dividing line between violence and serious violence? If someone gets stabbed multiple times and it is life-threatening, we would all agree that is serious violence, but what about the person who gets stabbed once and suffers a non-life-threatening cut? Is that merely violence and so does not count? That is why we have to change this definition to any violence, no matter how serious it may be called. This is not a wide-ranging opening of the stop and search powers applying everywhere for all time. Using “violence” in operational documents with an explicit cross-reference to the Section 60 triggers reduces confusion with broader strategic programmes labelled “serious violence”. It prevents the normalisation of suspicionless searches and makes it easier for Parliament, oversight bodies and the public to scrutinise each authorisation against the statutory test.
This amendment is modest, practical and proportionate. It highlights the statutory safeguards and does not remove any of them, but it gives the police a sensible power to save lives and prevent injury where they think that there may be more violence. I urge the Committee and the Minister to support Amendment 411.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the wording as it is in the Bill. The word “serious” is quite important. Stop and search, particularly in the London area, has been abused. You are supposed to stop somebody because of “reasonable” grounds to suspect, but as somebody who was stopped and searched six times, and every time I did not have anything they thought I would have, I see it as a sort of overpolicing.
It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is not here, because when he became the chief police officer in this place, he realised that some of this was not working and was antagonising communities, not delivering the result that was expected. The Bill is worded in terms of “serious”; the amendment tries to lower the threshold. As the intention of the Bill is to stop serious crime, “serious” to me is quite important. I do not support the amendment and would like to retain the wording in the Bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and share some of his concerns about this amendment. Before I share those concerns, I ask the noble Lords opposite to explain the relationship and potential contradictions between this amendment and their amendment in the next group on digital identity. It is a shame that these amendments do not sit in a single group, because it would have been easier to expose the thinking behind and relationship between them. That amendment, prohibiting the police requiring someone to show a digital identity document in the event that they are stopped and searched, could have been drafted by my former colleagues at Liberty. This amendment, on diluting protections against arbitrary stop and search, would certainly not have been drafted by my former colleagues at Liberty, so noble Lords opposite seem to be pointing in two different directions when it comes to the relationship between the citizen and the state on the street.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
As usual, the noble Baroness is making a cogent and persuasive case, but I do not think she concedes that we are not talking about suspicionless searches; we are talking about an expectation that violence will happen—there will be a violent incident rather than a seriously violent incident.
I just leave her with the figures: in London, from 2021, there were 311,352 stop and searches, and they had fallen to 135,739 in 2024. At the same time, there was an 86% rise in knife crime. The argument that those of us on this side are making is that there has to be a balance. None of us wants racially profiled overpolicing, but at the same time, we have to find a reason why when we reduce stop and searches, there is an inevitable increase in knife crime.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I hear the noble Lord, but with respect, this provision relates to suspicionless stop and search. That is a term we use to describe a stop and search power that does not require reasonable suspicion that the person who is about to be stopped and searched is a criminal, is equipped or whatever it is.
The power in Section 60, therefore, is a suspicionless stop and search power, which is why it needs to be circumscribed and why there have to be certain conditions met before an area can be designated, because the normal law of the land, as noble Lords will recognise, is that anywhere in the land a constable can stop and search an individual whom they reasonably suspect of carrying a knife or being otherwise involved in criminality.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
Section 60 in and of itself is a special circumstance, so whether it is suspicionless needs to be looked at in that context, and I would just like to offer the noble Baroness this context. There is no such thing as non-serious violence. Let us be very clear, when we are talking about the impact of knife carrying in particular, that any knife that has ended up in the body of a person has been shown to multiple members of the community and been used to create terror before that tragedy has happened. The idea that a stop and search is only potent when it leads to an arrest or a charge is simply incorrect. Having been a youth worker for over 35 years, I have worked with some of the most gang-involved people in the entire country, and they will tell you that they will be armed because they do not believe they are going to be stopped. Every time you do a stop and search, it sends a ripple, particularly to those who need to hear the ripple, that it could happen, so it lowers their propensity to go armed. Just because it does not lead to a charge, that does not mean it has not been effective.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but I return to my central point, which is, as he pointed out in his intervention, that the normal law of the land is for stop and search on reasonable suspicion that the individual in question is a cause for concern: “I have reasonable suspicion that that person may be carrying a knife, et cetera, or otherwise involved in criminality”. These are special powers given to a relatively junior police officer; this is not a chief constable, let alone a magistrate or a judge. It allows a police officer to change the law of the land for a time-limited period for that area, to change what the stop and search regime is in that area. It is quite right that a power of that kind be tightly circumscribed because of the problems that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, spoke about and because citizens do have rights to go about their business without fear of arbitrary stop and search.
This brings me back to my question about the relationship between Amendment 411, which is in this group on its own, and Amendment 415, which noble Lords opposite have in a separate group, and the apparent dichotomy between them. Amendment 415 says that, where there is a stop and search, an officer should not be allowed to require the presentation of digital ID; it does not even say “compulsory digital ID”. So if, as I think the Government now propose, digital ID becomes available to people to partake of, if they want, as a more convenient method of ID, we are going to have circumstances where noble Lords opposite will have more routine stop and search, but when a stop and search happens, an officer would not be able to ask the person searched to identify themselves if all they have with them is digital ID. That seems like a contradiction to me. I, for one, have always been very concerned and opposed to compulsory single identifiers, not least for the reason that they will lead to routine stop and search with people required to identify themselves to the police when they have done nothing wrong. I should be very interested if noble Lords opposite could square the relationship between this amendment and the one that follows.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, there is now considerable evidence about how stop and search powers are used in practice, their impact and long-term consequences, not least in building trust, which is so vital for effective community policing. Stop and search powers, especially under Section 60—suspicionless powers —already fall disproportionately on marginalised communities, particularly black and minority ethnic young men. Lowering the threshold from “serious violence” to “violence” can only increase the frequency and breadth of those powers and with it the disproportionality. This is not an abstract civil liberties concern but goes directly to trust and confidence.
It is also just 18 months since the Home Office accepted the findings of a police inspectorate report that identified serious shortcomings in the use of Section 60 powers, including low arrest and seizure rates for weapons, inadequate training and failures to adhere to statutory duties, such as PACE Code A or voluntary frameworks such as College of Policing APP guidance.
From a Liberal Democrat perspective, the test for expanding intrusive powers is a simple one. Is there a clear and compelling operational case, supported by evidence, that the existing powers are inadequate and that widening them will improve outcomes without unacceptable collateral damage to rights and community relations? We do not believe that the case has been made here. What is on offer is a lower legal bar for the most intrusive stop and search powers we have, imposed on communities that already experience it acutely, with no serious account taken of the long-term impact on policing by consent. On that basis, we cannot support the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting short debate, and I thank my noble friends—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful that we are trying to make some progress—it is really good news—and I look forward to even more progress as we carry on today, but if the noble Lord will allow me, I will respond to the debate first.
The noble Lord has made some points that I accept, and he had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. However, I hope I can persuade him that the amendment is not necessary, for the reasons that I will outline in a moment.
Stop and search remains a vital tool in our efforts to reduce knife crime and protect communities. The Government fully support its use, but, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and indeed the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, said, it has to be done in a fair and effective manner. We want officers to have confidence in exercising those powers, but also for the community to have confidence as well.
The amendment concerns Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which, as was outlined, allows senior officers to authorise searches for offensive weapons without reasonable suspicion for a limited time in a defined area where serious violence has occurred or is anticipated. The powers are purposely tightly framed and tightly targeted. Section 60 is intended for exceptional circumstances where serious violence is anticipated or has occurred. As this is a power to search for offensive weapons such as knives, “serious violence” remains the appropriate threshold. It would not be appropriate, in my view, to reduce that threshold in response to what might be minor scuffles, which is what the noble Lord’s amendment would in practice achieve.
There is no legal evidence that the threshold is an undue barrier to use this power. In 2008-09, under the same rules, police conducted over 150,000 Section 60 searches, while last year there were 5,288, which is a significant drop. That shows that the law has not changed in that period of time, but the issue is really one of proportionality, targeting and police practice. That is the best way forward, which helps give confidence when it is needed but also gives confidence to communities at large; the noble Lord’s amendment would widen the scope considerably. I have to say to the noble Lord that that does not mean that we are not interested in tackling knife crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Bailey—he has gone now; no, he is back, so I will let him resume his place—made a number of points about what we need to do on knife crime. I say to him and to other noble Lords who have raised issues today that the use of smarter policing through hotspot patrols, the strong partnership with communities, and prevention initiatives such as Young Futures panels are all ways in which we can help prevent knife crime without necessarily scaling down the amount of stop and search that happens and making it more available. We can already see that those approaches we have taken have worked: knife homicides are down 20%; overall, knife crime has fallen for the first time in four years; and hospital admissions for knife crime have dropped by 10%. That progress suggests that changes to existing stop and search Section 60 powers would not necessarily make progress on knife crime.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
I wonder whether the Minister could help us. I listened carefully to his remarks but I am not sure that I really understood the difference, as the Government define it, between “violence” and “serious violence”. We all perhaps have some ideas in our minds, and it has been a balanced and considered debate on both sides, but could the Minister help the Committee by helping us to define rather more clearly the difference between “violence” and “serious violence”, and how that might affect the use of these powers? I would be very much obliged if he did that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Section 60 powers are in operation and have been there for some significant time. As I shared with the Committee a moment ago, the use of those powers by police officers was significantly higher in the mid to late 2000s than it is now. That is because we are trying to ensure that there is operational guidance—not ministerial guidance—on the use of stop and search powers. Stop and search is seen by the police as a tool of last resort in an area where there is serious violence. I am not going to speculate for the noble Viscount on what that serious violence barrier is; that is an operational decision for the police at a local level in a particular circumstance.
The legislation is clear. The level of use has dropped because the police recognise that this is a tool of last resort which has to have the confidence of the community. I cannot differentiate between levels of violence in a way that may help the noble Viscount today, but the level of violence must be deemed at the time by a local senior police officer on the ground to be sufficiently worrying that he or she determines an area in which stop and search powers will operate. That may not answer the point, but I hope it is of some help to the noble Viscount.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
On that issue, notwithstanding the fact that these powers have to be sanctioned by a police inspector, they are often accompanied by a public information initiative from the police force concerned, and their time limit is 24 hours. If this amendment were accepted, would it not give the police the opportunity to use these powers at football matches, at which there is a chance not of serious violence but of public disorder leading to lower-level violence? In the last year or so, they have used them 357 times. Therefore, they would not necessarily use the more draconian dispersal orders which are sometimes used at football matches. What this side is asking for is more flexibility not just in respect of knife crime but of public order-related events such as football matches.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say this as best I can to the Committee: to my knowledge, there has been no request from the police for that reduction in threshold to allow them to exercise further stop and search powers. Indeed, as has been shown over the last 15 or 16 years, the use of stop and search has significantly decreased to around the 5,000 figure, as I mentioned earlier. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I am not sure that the police themselves want to exercise that power to control crowds at football matches. I will leave it at that, if I may.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me on this issue? I think he does, because he said earlier, when the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, was momentarily not with us, that minor scuffles are not serious violence and that stabbings and so on clearly are. To my own mind, a common assault between people outside the pub on a Friday night probably does not meet the threshold of serious violence, but knife robbery et cetera does.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I did indicate that minor scuffles would not be seen as serious violence. I am not trying to determine from this Dispatch Box the use of a Section 60 power by a police officer on the ground because of the level of violence the police have witnessed and wish to act upon. If we look at the figure 16 years ago, it was significantly higher than in the 12 months prior to now, at just over 5,000. The law has not changed but, going back to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, police practice and police assessments have meant that they do not need to use that power. In parallel with that, the Government believe that if we wish to make an impact on knife crime, stop and search is a tool in extremis but better education, youth futures programmes and policing hot spots are more effective ways of reducing the problem overall. With that, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has become an even more interesting debate, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Blencathra.
I say to the Minister and to noble Lords that this amendment is intended to help the Government. Regardless of our politics, everyone would like to see a reduction in violent offences, and increasing police use of stop and search is an incredibly powerful tool to do just that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that there is nothing wrong with stop and search. Stop and search is one of the most useful tools in the box. Having spent 32 years on front-line policing in London, I know that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, it is an issue of training and adherence to the codes of practice. There is no question about that in my mind. That is what police need to be concentrating on when it comes to the issues around stop and search.
Lowering the threshold to the likelihood of violence would enable officers to intervene earlier to prevent harm, protect the public and de-escalate potentially dangerous situations before they result in injury or worse, and before becoming serious violence cases. I know full well that officers often face rapidly evolving situations in which it is difficult to draw a clear line between violence and serious violence. I hope that the Government take this away and reflect, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Prohibition on police use of digital ID(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.(2) After section 6 insert—“6A Police not to require digital identity document(1) If, at any time, His Majesty’s Government introduce a digital identity document scheme, a constable may not—(a) require a person to produce a digital identity card on request,(b) ask a person to produce a digital identity document for inspection, or(c) use any information contained within, or obtained from, a digital identity card for the purposes of investigating a criminal offence.(2) In this section a “digital identity document” means a document which—(a) is issued to an individual by a relevant authority,(b) is available only digitally, and(c) contains or records information which could be used to identify the person.”.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it has become a cliché to say that a week is a long time in politics, but it is an idiom that forever rings true. We began a couple of weeks ago with the Government still firmly wed to the idea that digital ID cards were going to save us all, and we ended the week with the policy relegated to a footnote in future history books. As with everything the Government touch these days, the digital ID policy had become completely toxic and incredibly unpopular, forcing them into the U-turn. It is a U-turn I am supportive of, and I am pleased that the Government have finally seen sense and ditched this policy.
I suppose I should be grateful to the Minister for somewhat negating the need for this amendment. It is quite easy being in opposition when the Government do your job for you.
The amendment is intended as a safeguard to prevent the police being able to require a person to show them a digital identity card when—or should I say if—such a scheme is ever introduced. Fundamentally, this whole debate comes down to who we are as a nation. Britain has never been a country where, in peacetime, one must have an identity card simply because the state mandates it.
I heard much Newspeak about the policy from Government Ministers soon after the announcement. Following the immediate backlash, many started claiming that it was not going to be mandatory after all, and that it was simply mandatory if you wanted to work. The Prime Minister said at the announcement of the policy:
“Let me spell that out: you will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It’s as simple as that”.
But requiring everyone who wants a job to have digital ID does make it mandatory—we all need to go to work to earn a living. We heard the justification change more times than we could count. First, it was needed to stop illegal migration and illegal working. That argument was soon blown out of the water by the fact that employers are already required to undertake right-to-work checks, and those who violate the law already were never going to suddenly start conducting such checks simply because of the existence of digital ID. Then we heard that it was necessary for efficiency and joined-up services. I can only wonder what the next justification would have been.
That is why I tabled this amendment. It was always a probing amendment, but we must make these arguments to stand up for the principle. The Government might have U-turned on this now, but what is to say that we do not see this pernicious policy creep back towards becoming mandatory in the future? In such a scenario, having such a legislative guardrail against potential police use of digital ID would make sense.
Fundamentally, the principle is that Britain is not a country where police officers require the presentation of mandatory ID cards. A person should be able, if they so wish, to go about their lives with as minimal interference by the state as possible. Digital ID cards were a wrong-headed and poorly thought-through policy, costing large sums of money that we do not have and coming at the expense of fundamental British values. I am glad to see the back of the mandatory element, but we must guard against any future expansions of this scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am, of course, also delighted that this amendment is now unnecessary and irrelevant, but it fits into some broader concerns that have been expressed in Committee, such as the planned nationwide rollout of police-operated live facial recognition cameras and a whole range of technology used to introduce a surveillance state. The use of digital ID would have not only created that very unpleasant checking of one’s papers by the police but introduced an element of technology which, without being anti-technology, could be seen as problematic.
I noted and would like the Minister’s response to an interview that the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, did with Sir Tony Blair last week, in which she talked about AI and technology having a transformative impact on
“the whole of the law and order space”,
which would therefore mean that digital ID was not totally off the table. The Home Secretary said
“my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times”—
a rather chilling declaration, I must say. At this stage, as we are not going to have to discuss digital ID, that broad use of technology and surveillance might be something that the Minister could reassure us on specifically. It is good to see the back of digital ID, but I am not keen on the eyes of the state being on us at all times as a justification for tackling crime and disorder.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness: I read that quote as well and was very worried about it, and the idea that we should all aspire to total surveillance and living in a panopticon. When I saw that—it has been doing the rounds on social media—I assumed it was fake news. I cannot believe that from a Labour Cabinet Minister, even from a Home Secretary—we know funny things happen to people when they go in the Home Office; I was there myself for a bit. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will assure us when he responds that there is no question of building a total surveillance state or, indeed, Bentham’s panopticon. I share the noble Baroness’s concerns, and I am grateful to her for raising them.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for, I think, answering the question that I put to him in the previous group, which is that his objection is to a single compulsory identifier. I share his concerns if that is the problem. I would not want us all to have to carry a single compulsory identifier, digital or otherwise, which becomes a licence to live that you can have demanded of you at any time. The compulsory element was always the problem, not having an optional identifier —for instance, if you choose to have your passport or driving licence on your phone instead of as a physical document. I understand that even lots of noble Lords now pay for their refreshments with their mobile phone; this is the world that we live in. The problem is with a single compulsory identifier, not with the option of having a digital ID, as opposed to a paper ID. I hope he will nod and indicate that we are in the same place on that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 415 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which seeks to introduce a new safeguard for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 regarding the potential future use of digital identification by law enforcement. I too am grateful for his explanation about the single identifier. I remind your Lordships that there were a number of amendments in some Home Office Bills about three years ago when the Home Office was trying to get access to DVLA data and, indeed, to personal medical data for anyone who might have been present at the scene of a possible crime—not the victim or the possible perpetrator, but anyone who was literally just present. I am glad that, in opposition, his party has decided to change its approach on this. It is very welcome.
I also echo the good news that the amendment is, I hope, fully redundant because of the Government’s announcement, but I look forward to making sure that some of the very minor concerns being expressed are recognised by the Government.
This amendment would provide the protection to individuals, should the Government introduce a digital identity document scheme, that a constable would be expressly prohibited from requiring a person to produce such a document on request or asking for it to be produced for inspection. Crucially, it would also prevent the police using
“any information contained within, or obtained from, a digital identity card for the purposes of investigating a criminal offence”.
That echoes the amendments that our Benches tabled to earlier Home Office Bills.
We on these Benches are fundamentally opposed to any form of compulsory digital ID. We must ensure that a digital identity scheme does not become a tool for “papers, please” policing in a digital format. As organisations such as Big Brother Watch have warned, the expansion of digital identification, such as the proposed access to the DVLA database for facial recognition, risks creating a huge and disproportionate surveillance power that, in effect, places the majority of law-abiding citizens in a permanent digital police line-up without their consent. Can the Minister confirm that it is the case that surveillance will not be used?
The Government have previously suggested that digital ID could serve as an alternative form of ID for specific purposes such as age verification for online sales. However, without the explicit prohibition contained in Amendment 415, there is a significant risk of mission creep. If we allow the police routinely to use digital ID as part of their investigative toolkit, we fundamentally shift the relationship between the individual and the state. This amendment is not about obstructing modern policing; it is about ensuring that privacy rights and civil liberties remain the default. We must codify these protections now to ensure that any future digital identity framework cannot be weaponised into a widespread surveillance system.
From these Benches we are glad about the Government U-turn, but we need more detail to ensure that those protections remain. It is for Parliament and not for operational police discretion to set the boundaries for how the state identifies its citizens. I urge the Committee to support this amendment and hope that the Ministers will give us an encouragement that it is not needed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for setting out the case for Amendment 415. He says a week is a long time in politics, but I am going to take him all the way back to the announcement on 26 September from the Prime Minister that the Government were intending to introduce a national digital ID scheme for all British and Irish citizens and those with permission to be in the United Kingdom.
The national digital ID will empower people in their lives and their interactions with the state. It will make it easier to access public services, cut back on bureaucratic processes and support fairness across society. The national digital ID scheme will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny in due course. In the short term, we will examine options for appropriate oversight and safeguards of the digital ID, with a public consultation set to launch soon.
As has already been said publicly, the digital ID will not be required when a person is stopped by the police using stop and search powers. This was picked up in this debate and the debate on the previous amendment by, among others, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It will not be mandatory for those eligible to obtain the digital ID and, as such, there will be no penalty for not having one.
Law enforcement use of data is governed by Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This places a range of obligations on law enforcement, including requirements that law enforcement processing of data must be necessary and proportionate, for a specific purpose and not excessive. All three noble Baronesses who spoke raised concerns over a move towards a surveillance state—certainly, that was the theme of the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. To be clear, the new digital ID will not be used for mass surveillance of the population and will be designed in accordance with high standards of security and privacy. We will ensure safeguards are in place to make sure that any access to data is both necessary and proportionate.
As I said, the public consultation will be launched in the coming weeks. This will ensure that any legislation includes appropriate safeguards. I am sure that, without much prompting, my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Fox of Buckley, will be first in the queue to contribute to that public consultation.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Can the noble Lord clarify something? Initially, those of us who spoke suggested that possibly this amendment was not needed because digital ID was not an immediate issue and was not going to be brought in as a single identifier. So far, the Minister’s arguments have been a justification for digital ID. Is it back on? It would be useful for campaigners to understand that, let alone those of us here. When campaigners argue that digital ID is part of a surveillance state and so on, one wants to say, “Don’t be too paranoid”. I am now getting paranoid myself, having been told that the digital ID scheme had been put to one side, that it has sneaked back into the House of Lords in response to an amendment that most of us thought was not necessary.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am going to try to stay roughly on the topic of the amendment, rather than turn this into a wider debate on the introduction of digital ID, because I am not entirely sure that my briefing will cover all the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has addressed.
To be absolutely clear, we are not stepping back from the idea of introducing a digital ID. On 15 January, there was an Urgent Question on the issue in the other place that was repeated here. We have been very clear that we are introducing a digital ID programme. There are two core objectives: first, to make accessing public services easier and to make the state work better for ordinary people, and, secondly, to aid with right-to-work checks and catching those who are working illegally. To be clear, that is still happening. As I say, there is a public consultation coming that will set out the scope of the scheme, and those who wish to respond will be able to respond in those terms.
To respond directly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, around the use of ID by policing and enforcement agencies, there are already safeguards in place to ensure that the use of any such measures is balanced against the need to protect individual privacy rights. That will be the same for digital ID as it is for existing police access to information contained within the passport and immigration databases, for example, which is done in specific circumstances where that is lawful, necessary and proportionate. An example of a legal safeguard already in place is contained in the UK Borders Act 2007, which makes it clear that holders of e-visas cannot be required to carry them at all times.
I think I have already touched on the issue of stop and search, but I cannot quite remember because of the flow of the interventions. To be clear, the digital ID will not be used as part of stop and search, and police officers will never demand to see it as part of stop and search. However, consistent with current powers where immigration enforcement are carrying out an enforcement visit or warrant, they have powers to ensure that all those who are employed have the right to work in the UK. These powers include the ability to demand ID, take biometrics, and detain, search and seize property to assist their investigation. I hope that provides some clarity on that point.
Given the considerations that I have set out, particularly the fact that the introduction of the digital ID scheme will require its own legislation in future, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to this short debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
At the time when this amendment was tabled, the Government were pressing ahead with plans that would have fundamentally altered the relationship between the citizen and the state. The prospect of compulsory digital ID, coupled with the possibility of routine police access to digital identity data, raised serious concerns about privacy and subsequent state overreach. It was precisely because of those concerns and the lack of apparent or clear safeguards that the amendment was necessary. Indeed, I am still not clear from what the Minister said in his response as to whether it will be introduced in future or whether it will be compulsory.
Since then, as we have heard, the Government have performed a U-turn, announcing that digital ID will no longer be mandatory. The amendment before us was therefore not speculative or hypothetical; it was a direct response to a live and deeply unpopular government policy. We can only hope that this sudden enthusiasm for reversing course is not confined to digital ID alone. While the U-turn means that the immediate threat that prompted it has receded, the wider issue remains unresolved. The Government’s approach to digital identity remains unclear and may change again before Report. For the time being, I will withdraw the amendment, but it is something that we will continue to consider. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Wearing a face covering while cycling(1) A constable may stop any person to whom subsection (2) applies.(2) This subsection applies to a person who wears a face covering while cycling or riding a scooter in such a way as to conceal their identity.(3) A person who fails to stop when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of their powers under this section commits an offence.(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (or both).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 416 would get around the problem of cyclists hiding themselves from the police by covering their faces when breaking the law.
I was extremely grateful to the Minister for taking time to meet me to discuss the various amendments to the Bill that I had tabled or supported. I endorse much of the Bill, as he knows, in its efforts to prevent and reduce crime. That includes the Government’s new offences on cycling and e-scooters, and the amendments discussed on 15 December and moved by the former Met Commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who, like me, felt that we could go further. I just hope that action will follow.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra, who spoke so eloquently in that debate, may be amused to know that the comparison with the Wild West was a repeat of what I had said many months before. My reference to the Wild West was taken up by, I think, the Daily Mail, only to be requoted by the Mayor of London—no doubt because he agrees that it represents the problem well.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am generally with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and we have done an awful lot together to look at cyclists being held more accountable. On this, however, I am probably going to suggest an amendment to her amendment. As it stands, the problem with her amendment is that the police currently have the power to stop any vehicle on the road without reason. They can stop somebody with or without a mask, or for no reason at all. This power would therefore not add anything, given that the police already have the power to stop any vehicle.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, acknowledged, whether it be in the cool of the winter, or even sometimes on a cool summer’s day, there is a reason to wear a mask or a face covering if you are cycling, because it gets cold. We have probably all been there. However, something to look at in the future—perhaps on Report—is whether someone, having been stopped, can be ordered to remove their face mask. There is not an awful lot of point in stopping them and they can keep their face mask on if their identity is in question. That is also true for motorcyclists, who wear helmets. Their faces are obviously encased in a helmet and there is no power to ask them to remove the helmet. Most of them do, because it gets pretty uncomfortable after a few minutes—in fact, if you prolong the conversation long enough, they always take it off—but there is no power to compel them to do it. That may be something that could be considered in the future.
On the police needing powers to stop cyclists, there is no power to stop an e-scooter, but any vehicle on the road can be stopped by an officer for any reason—not the least of which is that the police are expected to direct traffic. That is one of the reasons that they are given the power to either redirect or stop vehicles. So, as it stands, I am not sure about this amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the excellent and tightly drafted amendment from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I say that it is tightly drawn because proposed new subsection (2) is about concealing one’s identity, not about wearing the clothes themselves: the scarf or the hat. I speak as a cyclist who frequently cycles in the winter, when of course you need to wear protective clothing to keep you warm. However, this is about allowing a police officer, or another person who is entitled to know your identity, to know your identity, and it is about failing to stop when required to do so by a constable.
I am glad that my noble friend mentioned the issue of live facial recognition. I am just about to finish my four-year term on the British Transport Police Authority. In terms of clear-up rates, one of the issues we have in unfortunately failing to tackle violence against women and girls—which, of course, is a government priority and a priority of the Department for Transport—is that we have way too many persistent, repeat offenders on bail who are travelling on the rail network and who are able to enter stations and get on trains. Live facial recognition, were it to be rolled out for a good reason, with proper checks and balances, would significantly reduce the incidence of those people being able to get on trains and Tubes and assault women and girls, and others. Live facial recognition is important because, if people are going to be wearing face coverings, that will naturally circumscribe the powers used in live facial recognition.
Rates of crime on bikes and scooters have gone up. Many people who are committing those crimes are hiding their identity and I believe that, in most cases, there is a legitimate reason for the police to stop them. In 2024, Sky News received figures from FoI requests that showed that crimes involving e-bikes and e-scooters had risen by more than 730% in the preceding five years. These crimes included theft, robbery, burglary, drug trafficking, stalking, rape, violent crimes and weapons offences. In 2023-24, 11,266 crimes were recorded that mentioned an e-bike or e-scooter—up from just 1,354 in 2019-20. These figures do not include data from the Metropolitan Police and the West Midlands Police—I know that West Midlands Police have been busy doing other things, not always to their great credit —so the actual numbers were likely higher.
On 30 December 2025, the Metropolitan Police reported that it had seized 37 e-bikes and scooters in an attempt to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. That resulted in 52 arrests and weapons being seized. Between January and December 2025, Merseyside Police seized 1,000 unregistered vehicles, e-bikes, e-scooters and scramblers. It launched Operation Gears in July 2024 to deal with crime and anti-social behaviour linked specifically to bikes and scooters. In its words, two-wheeled vehicles
“are increasingly linked to serious criminal activity, including violence, robberies, and serious organised crime (SOC) offences”.
The Metropolitan Police has also produced reasonably new data—up to the end of 2023. They show that there were 4,985 cases of robbery and theft of a mobile phone in London using a motorcycle or an e-bike in 2023, and a face covering was worn in over 1,000 of those. These statistics demonstrate that it is legitimate to link bikes and scooters to crimes. Therefore, if someone is covering their face specifically to avoid identity while using these vehicles, it does raise suspicion, and it most emphatically gives police a legitimate reason to exercise their due and proper powers. On that basis, I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as someone who regularly jumps out of the way on a pavement from e-bikes, electric scooters and so on, I think this amendment is probably very sensible, but we should listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, because, as far as I can see, it does not go sufficiently far. We need to add to it, perhaps on Report, a provision that the police can require someone to take their face covering off, because without that, I do not think it goes very far.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, in my experience, the fastest and most dangerous group of cyclists are Deliveroo and Uber Eats riders. That would be the case because they have to get as many deliveries in as they can. In my experience, an awful lot of them wear face masks. I would be interested to hear from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—we have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, had to say—what you would begin to do about that. They have great big things on their backs saying Deliveroo or Uber Eats, but they drive fast and wear masks. Will the police stop them?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and her Amendment 416, because it addresses a very real and rapidly accelerating problem on our streets: the use of face coverings by criminals on e-bikes and e-scooters to hide their identity while committing thefts, robberies and drug-related offences. I did not know that the Mayor of London had stolen my noble friend’s “Wild West” quote; I have lots of pages of newspaper reports on the “Wild West”. We should make sure that it is properly attributed to her; she was the inventor of the slogan.
We are not dealing with petty opportunism here, but with organised, masked offenders using high-powered electric bikes capable of 50, 60 or even 70 miles per hour, weaving through pedestrians and traffic with impunity. That may partly be the answer to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I agree that the amendment may need to be tweaked on Report. We are not talking here about an ordinary man or woman on an ordinary bike pedalling along and wearing a mask to keep out the cold; we are talking about people on big electric bikes, often fat-tyre bikes, belting along at phenomenal speed, wearing balaclavas rather than masks. There is certainly an element of criminality; it is not just ordinary cyclists trying to protect themselves from catching flies while they are riding.
Police forces across the country report that these vehicles are now central to a surge in mobile phone snatching and associated criminality. The scale is stark. Mobile phone thefts have almost doubled to 83,000 a year, with London at the epicentre, recording 65,000 thefts in the last reporting period. The crimes are not only fast; they are deliberately anonymous. Officers and victims consistently describe offenders wearing balaclava masks and full facial coverings. Schools in London have issued warnings about males in balaclavas targeting children for their phones on the way to school. In Newcastle, residents report masked riders armed with crowbars and knives terrorising neighbourhoods, snatching phones and intimidating women walking home.
This is not a marginal issue; it is a pattern. The police are clear: illegal e-bikes and e-scooters are being used for “all sorts of criminality”, including drug dealing, robbery and organised theft. The City of London Police states explicitly that illegal e-bikes are frequently used to commit crimes such as phone snatching, and its targeted operations have reduced such offences by 40% in the square mile. But officers say that identification is the greatest barrier to enforcement. When a rider is masked, unregistered and travelling at 50 miles an hour, the chances of apprehension are vanishingly small. As we discussed the other day, I commend the Met unit using its own fast electric e-bikes to chase these guys on bikes.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, this is somewhat Groundhog Day for the Committee, as we have considered very similar amendments and issues on earlier days. All Peers who have spoken, including my noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, me and many others, have agreed that there is a significant problem—we see it very much in London but also, I am sure, in other parts of the country—of people completely ignoring the Road Traffic Act and the police doing nothing about it, to be entirely frank.
I repeat the assertion that I made from these Benches: I have never, on a single occasion in the last two or three years, seen a policeman stopping a cyclist, an e-bike rider or a delivery rider for riding the wrong way down the street. This happens the whole time; it is now the norm. If you go out after 5 pm—I often walk into the West End from your Lordships’ House to go home—there are limitless delivery riders riding very fast on electric-powered bicycles. As the Committee may know, I ride an electric bike on occasion, but they ride without lights and the wrong way down the road. The police have the powers to stop them, but they do not do it.
I ask for some answer from the Minister about how we square that circle of enforcement, while respecting the division of powers between what the police are charged with—the independence of various police forces —and the will of Parliament. One way or another, we need to get to a point where the House is confident that this problem will be addressed. I am absolutely with my noble friend in what she is trying to do with her amendment, but there are certainly difficulties. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said about how the police already have the power to stop any vehicle.
I am sure we will come back to these issues on Report, and there will be determined attempts to pass amendments to this Bill, but when the Minister winds up, can he please specifically address what confidence he can give, if this House and Parliament as a whole wish this issue to be addressed, about how that will translate into action, while respecting the independence of the police force, which has such a tough job to do, does so much of it so well and has many different priorities?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said, this is Groundhog Day, and I fear we are rehearsing many of the points raised on earlier groups. We on these Benches do not support Amendment 416 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As we have heard, there are many reasons why someone might choose to wear a face covering while cycling or scooting, ranging from the practical to the health related. As we have heard, if it is cold weather, of course you are going to wear a scarf or a face covering to keep yourself warm and prevent wind burn. Quite frankly, in the recent cold weather, that might even prevent you getting frostbite while you are cycling along.
In urban areas, there are specific masks that people wear to tackle the pollution that we still have in many of our cities, to deal with and filter out pollutants, dust and exhaust fumes. How is that wrong? Why would we want to prevent people doing that? Likewise, if we have extreme heat, people sometimes wear masks because they want to block out pollen and other allergens, and also to protect themselves from UV rays. While in this Chamber we have heard often, in my experience so far, quite negative debate about cyclists, there are many cyclists here, and they will know that covering your face prevents bugs, dirt and small debris hitting their mouth or nose while they are riding. I am an occasional cyclist, and I wear sunglasses and wrap up warm when I am out cycling to protect myself from the glare and debris. It is practical. How would we make that a problem? Why is it a cause for concern? It is practical clothing for people who choose to cycle or scoot. Why are we treating those people as criminals?
There is a separate need for management of micromobility, which has come out in all these discussions. It would be good to hear from the Minister when we might expect some legislation around managing micromobility, the explosion of e-bikes and e-scooters on our streets, and the extension of trial after trial by the previous Government. But this amendment treats all cyclists and those riding scooters as criminals, rather than as individuals dressing for their mode of transport. I hope that the Government will agree with me and these Benches that it is disproportionate and not needed in the Bill.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling Amendment 416, which I entirely support. I also thank noble Lords who have contributed, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his contribution.
The amendment, as my noble friend ably set out, would give constables the power to stop individuals cycling while wearing a face covering. Failing to do so would constitute an offence liable to a month’s imprisonment or a fine of up to £1,000. While I know that opposition to this amendment has claimed that this means police powers encroaching into an entirely innocuous activity, it is unfortunately now a necessary measure. What previously would have been a harmless and inoffensive act has been perverted by criminals into a means by which to commit crime and escape justice. We are facing a theft epidemic in this country, largely concentrated in our cities, where youths, often in gangs, shoplift and snatch phones.
Our capital city is now the phone theft capital of Europe, where a phone is snatched every seven and a half minutes. The United Kingdom accounts for almost 40% of all phone thefts on the continent. I task any Member of the Committee to watch footage of these phone thefts and deny that there is a problem with face coverings and bikes. Face coverings mean that they are not detected by CCTV, while electric bikes, often modified, mean that the victim has no chance of chasing and retrieving the stolen property. The same is true for shoplifting. CCTV footage consistently shows offenders using face coverings to evade detection, then using bikes and scooters to flee the scene. The cost to retailers of this shoplifting inevitably is passed on to consumers, and last year amounted to £2 billion.
The police must have the power to stop these criminals, and this amendment provides the grounds for it. It is often impossible to see where a thief has a stolen item on their possession, so we must look for other pointers as to who is committing these crimes. Allowing the police to intervene when they are in public on a bike or scooter is the next necessary step. It would dramatically increase the chances of victims being returned their stolen property and allow the police to begin to tackle the epidemic that we find ourselves in.
I once again thank my noble friend for her amendment, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for tabling Amendment 416. I recognise the concerns that she set out, and those set out very clearly by the many noble Lords who contributed to the debate, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, about the use of bicycles and scooters in facilitating crime and anti-social behaviour.
The Government have committed to the winter of action initiative, which is running from 1 December 2025 to the end of January. This initiative is intended to focus on making town centres across England and Wales safer by building on the safer streets summer initiative and continuing efforts to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, while addressing retail crime and night-time economy offences, particularly during the darker evenings that we have in winter, when there are higher risks to public safety.
I say directly to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that we are setting a framework. We always say, and I think all sides of the Committee agree, that it is for good reasons of operational independence that the police decide their priorities and how they deploy their resources, which will always be scarce however much we want to give them—there will never be enough. These initiatives give us confidence that the police are treating these sorts of offences as a priority and understand the concerns not only of this Committee but across wider society about the sorts of offences that the noble Viscount and other noble Lords set out.
The police do have powers to act here, and we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about police powers to stop any vehicles, which is a good point. However, the powers to which I am going to refer are different, and this goes to the point raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 requires individuals to remove face coverings in designated areas where they are being used for the purposes of concealing their identity and gives police the power to seize the face covering. Areas can be designated when an officer of the rank of at least inspector reasonably believes that crime is likely to take place there. We encourage police forces to make full use of these powers in areas they know to be crime hotspots. This includes any road users or cyclists, including those working for food delivery companies, as my noble friend Lord Shamash set out, when the police have due course, and irrespective of the type of vehicle being used, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, went to some lengths to describe.
In addition, local authorities have powers to make public spaces protection orders, which can prohibit specified acts in designated areas. I understand that a number of local authorities already have in place PSPOs that ban the wearing of face coverings in the area covered by the order, to deal with exactly this kind of anti-social behaviour by Balaclava-wearing cyclists.
This is probably as good a point as any to mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, mentioned live facial recognition. I am not sure that either was in their place for the debate we had in Committee last Thursday, but I reiterate that there is a live consultation on live facial recognition, so I once again encourage noble Lords, if interested, to contribute to that and set out their views on live facial recognition.
There are of course legitimate reasons why cyclists may wear a face covering, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, including health reasons or just to keep out the cold. That is often, but not always, seasonal. Notwithstanding the Stakhanovite efforts made, at least in London by the mayor, to tackle air quality through ULEZ and other measures, it is sometimes about protecting cyclists from inhaling particulates and the like. It would be disproportionate to introduce a blanket prohibition of the kind envisaged by Amendment 416 or, for that matter, to extend the Section 60AA powers, to which I have already referred, to situations where there are no grounds to reasonably believe that criminal activity may take place in a particular location. Given these considerations, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
We are saying here that the requirement to remove this would be accompanied by some sort of reasonable suspicion that that person had been committing a crime, so it is not just a person who has a cough or a cold.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I completely agree. I was talking more about the rationale for wearing face coverings. Without too much speculation, one could contend that some seasonal conditions might pertain to somebody wearing a full face covering or a balaclava. More importantly than anything else, this being accompanied by anti-social or suspicious behaviour would give police the rationale to use the powers I have already set out. I am not in any sense trying to make light of or excuse the situations we are talking about. I am just observing that there are reasons why people would wear a partial face covering, such as a mask, when cycling. It was just an observation; I agree with the point the noble Lord made.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the concern across the Committee—it is a serious problem—and for trying out his winter of action. However, I am disappointed by his response. The existing 1994 Act powers and the local authority arrangements he mentioned are too narrow and specific.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that I am not against cyclists or masks. I am trying to make sure that, where they are being used by criminals to hide from the police, it is easier to take action. It is quite a light amendment. It is stop, not search, which we were discussing earlier.
I am grateful for the support I have had from my own Front Bench: from my very experienced noble friend Lord Davies of Gower; from my noble friend Lord Jackson, whose evidence that face coverings in particular are an issue I liked; from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who spoke about the scale of the problem, of which there are lots more examples; and from my noble friend Lord Goschen, who spoke about his concerns around lack of enforcement, which I know the Government are trying to address but which is a serious priority. I appreciated the moral support, if I might put it like that, of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe. I will take up his offer to talk to him further about the exact character of this amendment before we get to Report—something may need to be added, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. It sounds as if there is a definite lacuna in relation to e-scooters, presumably because they are not usually regarded as vehicles in all legislation. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Review: compliance and enforcement mechanisms in relation to police powers(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a proposal for approval by the House of Commons on the establishment of an independent commission to investigate the enforcement powers of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) in relation to the police.(2) The proposal for an independent commission must include terms of reference, which must include, but may not be limited to—(a) a review of the powers available to other independent regulatory and investigative bodies, such as Ofqual, the Care Quality Commission, the Financial Conduct Authority, and Ofsted, for the purposes of comparison,(b) the lessons learned from other regulatory bodies with stronger enforcement powers, and(c) an examination of whether a statutory framework of coordination between HMICFRS, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and Police and Crime Commissioners, could enhance the enforcement powers available to all three sets of bodies and the accountability of policing in England and Wales.(3) The proposal for an independent commission must set out a timetable for its work including that—(a) the commission should conclude its deliberations within nine months of its establishment, and(b) the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament and ensure that time is made available, within a fortnight of the report being laid, in both Houses for a substantive debate on the report’s conclusions.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Government to publish a proposal for an independent commission for approval by the House of Commons to review the enforcement powers of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), including consideration of a statutory framework to enhance the collective enforcement powers of bodies supervising Police Forces in England and Wales.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is an unusual amendment for me because it is very exploratory. At the end, I am going to ask the Minister three questions, which I would really like an answer to, perhaps in writing if it is not possible today. This amendment is supported by StopWatch, an organisation that seeks accountable and fair policing. This is a crucial element of creating fair policing. When serious problems are found, how confident are we that the system can put them right? The system as it stands is a little jumbled. I suggest that it could do with some streamlining.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services does really important work in shining a light on what is going wrong, but inspection takes us only so far. My amendment asks whether the follow-through is strong enough and whether lessons from other regulated sectors could help turn findings into lasting improvements. In healthcare, education and financial services, regulators are able to require change. Those systems exist because inspection without action does not protect the public. The amendment invites us to consider whether policing oversight could benefit from similar clarity and grip. The amendment also raises the issue of co-ordination. Are HMICFRS, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and police and crime commissioners working together as effectively as they can when forces fail to improve? Would clearer statutory alignment help ensure that warnings are acted on and not simply repeated?
Where concerns about proportionality and legitimacy keep resurfacing, it is right to ask whether the oversight framework is strong enough to drive change. As this Bill and others give more and more power to the police, this is the perfect time to ask. I would welcome the Minister’s response on three points. First, how do the Government judge whether inspection findings are actually leading to improvement on the ground? Secondly, have the Government considered whether closer co-operation between oversight bodies could strengthen accountability? Thirdly, are there lessons from other regulatory systems that the Government believe policing can learn from? I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to continuing this discussion as the Bill progresses.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving her amendment. Noble Lords will recall my work on a particular police force and abnormal loads. I am confused that it was the chief inspector who informed the Home Secretary that there was a big problem. I am grateful to her for dealing with it, but I thought that the IOPC was responsible for dealing with misconduct and that the chief inspector was looking more at efficiency and the proper use of resources. It would be extremely useful to the Committee if the Minister could explain where the dividing line is between the activities of the IOPC, which I see as being concerned with conduct and discipline, and of the chief inspector, who is concerned more about efficiency.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the amendment rightly exposes a serious weakness in our current system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, points out, HMICFRS can diagnose deep-seated problems within police forces but it does not have the power to make sure these problems are fixed. There are simply too few national levers to deal with police underperformance. Labour’s manifesto included a clear commitment to give HMICFRS new powers to intervene in failing forces, and Ministers have signalled that they want to legislate to do this. We welcome that, but the Bill contains no such clause. I appreciate that a White Paper might be imminent. Even so, I urge the Government not to miss this golden opportunity to legislate now for clear, time-bound duties and proper escalation mechanisms, so that police forces are required to act on inspectorate findings.
Amendment 416A seeks to take the Government further by building this question into a wider statutory review of policing oversight. We support that intention, but we part company with the noble Baroness on the mechanism she proposes. Setting up yet another independent commission, with the terms of reference to be devised by the Secretary of State, approved by the Commons and then followed by nine months of deliberation, risks delaying change for at least another year. The evidence base is already substantial. What is missing is not diagnosis but the authority to enforce it. The noble Baroness is quite right that enforcement is a wider problem, one that extends beyond HMICFRS to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, where lessons are not always learned, to put it mildly. I agree with the spirit of co-ordination, but we must remember that the IOPC’s role is distinct—to oversee complaints and investigate the most serious misconduct. It is not, and should not become, a general performance regulator for police forces. That role properly lies with HMICFRS and, ultimately, with Ministers.
From these Benches, our preference is clear: do not commission another review and, instead, move directly and decisively to give the inspectorate the power it so clearly needs. For too long, we have had excellent reports, full of well-reasoned recommendations, almost all accepted by the police and the Government, but nothing happens. That inaction is rarely followed up. Measures that ensure that we no longer see the same failures repeated again and again would be very welcome.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for bringing forward Amendment 416A. While I recognise the intention to ensure that policing is subject to effective scrutiny and that regulatory bodies have the tools they need to drive improvement, I do not believe this amendment is necessary, nor do I think it would represent a proportionate or effective use of time and resources. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services already plays a well-established role in ensuring accountability. It has extensive powers to inspect, report and make recommendations, and these reports are published and robust. They are laid before Parliament and used by the Home Office and policing bodies to drive reform. Where forces fall short, the existing framework already enables escalation, follow-up inspections and external pressure.
I was also worried that this amendment risks duplicating work already being carried out within existing structures. The policing oversight landscape includes His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, police and crime commissioners and parliamentary scrutiny through Select Committees. Co-ordination between these bodies is important, and I suggest it would be more constructive to ensure the better use of these mechanisms rather than create a new independent commission.
It is also worth noting the practical burden imposed by this amendment. It would require the Government to establish a commission, set detailed terms of reference, run a comparative review across multiple regulators, and timetable parliamentary debates in both Houses within a very tight timeframe. That is a significant undertaking that may not be justified, given the absence of clear evidence that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services lacks the necessary authority to fulfil its core function. For those reasons, while I very much respect the motivation behind the amendment, I do not believe it necessary or proportionate and therefore cannot support it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendment 416A. It gives me an opportunity, if nothing else, to pay tribute to His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services for the work it does; she was right to point out its professionalism. Moreover, I want to pay tribute to the current chief inspector, Sir Andy Cooke, who has announced his intention to retire in March. He has served as chief inspector with distinction, has 40 years of service to policing and was Chief Constable of Merseyside. I hope that your Lordships’ House will join me in thanking Sir Andy for his dedicated service.
The Police Act 1996 requires His Majesty’s inspectorate to publish an inspection programme and an inspection framework which, following consultation, are laid before Parliament. The latest versions of these were put before the House on 4 March 2025. As part of its work, HMICFRS inspects every police force as part of its Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy programme, and gives the force a grading on a series of indicators. All these findings are published and are available to chief constables, local policing bodies, the PCC, the public and, importantly, Ministers. HMICFRS also publishes a number of thematic reports covering every aspect of policing, and these form a useful tool for the policing sector to drive performance.
I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that recommendations made by HMICFRS do not just sit on the shelf, are taken seriously and are implemented, and that those affected make sure that the public are receiving the best possible service as a whole. It is important that the three points she mentioned are examined: inspection findings, closer co-operation, and lessons learned. She quoted to the Committee the manifesto, in which we did say we would give HMICFRS new powers to intervene with failing forces. She is right to point to the fact that there is a police White Paper, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also mentioned, which is expected to be published shortly. By shortly—I know this is always a topic of interest to the Committee— I do mean shortly in this case. I encourage your Lordships to study that document carefully when it is published, because it contains a wide-ranging set of proposals for improving policing in England and Wales. I hope it will go some way toward shining a light, at least, on the three questions the noble Baroness has put to the Committee today.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Will the White Paper deal with action rather than consultation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The White Paper will set out a number of proposals that the Government intend to bring forward in policy, legislation or executive action. There are a number of areas around police efficiency—what is done centrally and what is done locally, how it is done centrally and how it is done locally—that will form part of the wider debate on the police White Paper. The noble and learned Baroness will not have long to wait for the police White Paper. When it does come, undoubtedly there will be a Statement in the House of Commons and, as ever, I will have to repeat the Statement here in this House. There will be an opportunity to look at that direction of travel and how, importantly, we are going to implement the measures that we are putting in the White Paper, which, again, will be produced very shortly. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Baroness any more comfort than that.
I share the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that the proposal in the amendment would kick this matter of efficiency, co-ordination, performance and implementation further down the line than is already planned with our police White Paper proposals very shortly. So I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment on the basis of those comments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I take to heart the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Of course I want fast action. I want it all and I want it now—that is my motto for life. It seems that this Committee is always hearing, “Oh, it’s all right, the Government’s dealing with this but you can have it shortly”. It does not matter whether it is talking about protest law or this particular point about accountability and action; there is always a White Paper coming along and we are going to have to wait for that, and why are we doing this Bill now if we do not have all the information we need? Anyway, I do note the Minister’s good intentions, I very much hope to see them put into action, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Acton
“Abolition of non-crime hate incidents(1) Sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (code of practice relating to non-crime hate incidents and related procedural requirements) are repealed.(2) Non-crime hate incidents shall not be recognised as a category of incident by any police authority in the United Kingdom.(3) No police authority or police officer may record, retain or otherwise process any personal data relating to a non-crime hate incident.(4) Subsection (3) does not mean a police authority or police officer cannot record information they regard as relevant about a suspect’s motives in the course of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution.(5) Within three months of the coming into force of this section, any police authority which has retained any record of a non-crime hate incident, save in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4), must delete such record.(6) For the purposes of this section—“non-crime hate incident” means any incident or alleged incident which does not constitute a criminal offence, but is perceived, by any person, to have been motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards a person or group on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity;“police authority” means a person specified in sub-section 158(1);“police officer” means any person acting under the authority a police authority.”
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union, which has been campaigning against non-crime hate incidents for at least five years.
I thought it might be helpful to begin with a definition of what an NCHI is. The amendment itself says that it is
“any incident or alleged incident which does not constitute a criminal offence, but is perceived, by any person, to have been motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards a person or group on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity”.
How many of these incidents have been recorded by the police since the concept of NCHIs was introduced by the College of Policing in 2014? The Telegraph submitted an FoI request to all 43 police forces in England and Wales in early 2020, and 34 of the 43 —about three-quarters of the police forces in England and Wales—responded and disclosed that 119,934 NCHIs had been recorded in England and Wales in the five years from 2014 to 2019. By my calculation, that is an average of 65 a day—and remember, that that is just in England and Wales, and just three-quarters of the real total. There is no reason to think that the number being recorded every day by police forces in England and Wales has declined from that average of 65 since then, in the subsequent six years.
How long does it take the police? How many police hours are spent recording NCHIs? Policy Exchange published a report last November in which it concluded that the police spend 60,000 hours a year—again, that is just the police in England and Wales—investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents. If you factor in that they have been around since 2014, that means the police have spent at least 660,000 hours investigating and recording non-crimes since 2014.
What sort of incidents are we talking about? “Non-crime hate incident” sounds quite serious. I will give just a handful of examples. A man had an NCHI recorded against him after a neighbour complained that his whistling the theme tune to “Bob the Builder” was racist. A woman had an NCHI recorded against her name because she posted on X that she thought her cat was a Methodist. A nine year-old girl had an NCHI recorded against her because she called another girl in the school playground a “retard”. Two secondary school pupils had NCHIs recorded against them for saying about another girl, again in the school playground, that she smelled like fish. This is the kind of thing that the police have been spending 660,000 hours investigating and recording since 2014.
Incidentally, I know of at least one Member of this House who has had an NCHI recorded against her, and a Conservative Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, had an NCHI recorded against her because of a complaint made about the contents of her speech at a Conservative Party conference that she was addressed in her capacity as Home Secretary.
So it seems that it is not terribly difficult to make the argument that the police have been wasting a huge amount of time investigating and recording relatively trivial incidents. Again, I stress that the definition says that if it is merely “perceived”, not just by the “victim” but by any person, as being motivated by hostility or prejudice towards the “victim’s” protected characteristics, it can be recorded as an NCHI. Sometimes, when NCHIs are recorded, the person against whom the NCHI is recorded is not informed—so you might well have an NCHI recorded against you without knowing it.
All this sounds quite trivial, but having an NCHI recorded against your name can be quite serious, because chief constables, at their discretion, can disclose the fact that an NCHI has been recorded against a person when they apply for a job that requires them to do an enhanced DBS check. So, you can end up not getting a job as a teacher or a carer, or a voluntary position with a charity such as the Samaritans, because you have an NCHI recorded against your name.
I will just point out one more, I think unintended, consequence of the NCHI regime, which is that records are deleted after six years. So if you have an NCHI recorded against you at the age of 17, it remains on what is in effect your criminal record until you are 23, whereas quite serious criminal offences, if you are convicted, are spent when you reach the age of majority. The fact that you have committed a non-crime can hang about your neck like a bad smell long after you have reached the age of majority, even if it was recorded against you when you were a child. So, in some senses, not committing a crime and having that recorded against you can have more serious consequences than committing quite a serious crime and being convicted of it.
I believe that I am pushing at an open door. A report on NCHIs has been commissioned by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. They have published a provisional version of the report, in which they declare the NCHI regime unfit for purpose. I do not think that they have submitted the final report to the Home Secretary yet, but I know that, when they do, the Home Secretary is likely to take up the recommendations, and I think we will see the end of the NCHI regime.
I have four issues on which I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance. The first is that, as I understand it, the new regime will be that incidents are no longer recorded as non-crime hate incidents; some cases will be recorded as anti-social behaviour incidents, but they will not be logged on the police national database. I ask for the Minister’s assurance that anti-social behaviour incidents that would have been recorded as NCHIs under the old regime will not, unlike NCHIs, be recorded on the police national database.
I also ask for the Minister’s assurance that, once the new regime is in place, previous NCHIs recorded under the old regime will be deleted and will not hang around for six years as they do currently, given that there is acceptance that the regime is not fit for purpose. If the regime is not fit for purpose, I hope the Minister can assure us that existing NCHIs—it is not inconceivable that they number in the hundreds of thousands—will be deleted. Finally, I seek reassurance that these anti-social behaviour incidents will not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks.
I hope that the review by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council will be submitted and digested in time for the new regime to be put in place on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because we need to move on from the recording of non-crime hate incidents by removing them altogether from police systems.
Non-crime hate recording had an honourable start, following on from the Macpherson inquiry. There were two problems at the time. The first was that recordable crime was lower than it should have been because it was not being recorded accurately, due to misrecording and it sometimes not being recorded at all. This was linked to police performance being measured by the amount of crime in society. Therefore, the police service was incentivised to record less rather than more crime, thereby, ironically, undermining its own bid for more resourcing.
The murder of Stephen Lawrence showed us that, sometimes, before a crime is committed, there are signals that someone may be a racist, for example, and that, if we take the right action, we could prevent those crimes occurring and someone getting hurt or any other crime being committed. That system worked well at the start, because it allowed the police to collect intelligence and spot patterns—for example, by geography, suspect or victims. That relied on the basic repeat offender victim location theory, which shows that 10% of repeat offenders can account for over half of some crimes.
The problem is that the same system is now being used to police the social harms caused by causing offence. Causing offence is not a crime. The internet amplifies the problem—first, because it has a permanent record of the offensive but not criminal behaviour, and, secondly, because it allows millions of people, sometimes worldwide, to see the communication. For everybody involved, it is then very hard to ignore. This has led to some bizarre police interventions—the noble Lord, Lord Young, has already mentioned some—on issues that are not crimes or even non-crime hate. The public have juxtaposed these with significant complaints—such as shoplifting, car theft and other serious crimes—that, meanwhile, the police say they are too busy to deal with, even when a suspect is available to arrest. The two issues do not sit well together.
There is a need to record intelligence about incidents that may later become significant if crimes are committed. This can be on the police command and control log, where the incident can be given an anti-social behaviour coding, or on the criminal intelligence system. The problem arises if the name of a person who is said to have caused offence is recorded. In my view, if the police say that they will record what is being alleged because someone has called the control room and they need to log all calls—the police later denying that a call had come in would not be sensible—then it is necessary to record those incidents in the control room. However, if, on the face of what a person tells the police, they see no crime or incident, they will not investigate and will not record the name of the person the caller says has offended them.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I also very much support this amendment as, I hope, a nudge towards an opening door that the Government are already looking at. Following on from the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, it seems that, quite apart from the recipients of these NCHIs, there are two further issues: the waste of time and the waste of money. The police are always short of money and of time. That is obvious and has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Hogan-Howe. If this was removed, they could get on and do their job. They would save a great deal of money and something even more important, because they would be dealing with the crimes that people really need them to deal with.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this is already proving to be a crucial debate in the passage of this Bill. I support Amendment 416E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Sadly, my noble friend Lord Strasburger is unable to be with us to support the amendment, which he has signed, but I hope that I reflect his views in speaking today.
Non-crime hate incidents, although born from the well-intentioned Macpherson report in 1993—which the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, called “an honourable start”—have morphed into a mechanism that frequently harasses and silences legitimate debate. In doing so, they consume prodigious quantities of police time, as we have heard—time that is desperately needed to investigate the crimes that we have discussed throughout Committee. Non-crime hate incidents, which started from benign motivations in 1993, have morphed into an ugly and frequently used technique for harassing and silencing somebody whose views the complainant does not like. In the process, prodigious quantities of police time are being wasted on non-criminal matters, meaning that real crimes that would otherwise be investigated are being ignored.
The seeds of what has gone wrong were sown by the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The inquiry concluded that a racist incident should be defined as being
“any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.
In essence, that means that anyone—whether involved in an incident or not, whether a reasonable person or otherwise—would be able to determine that an incident, no matter how harmless, was racist in nature. The inquiry went on to recommend that
“the term ‘racist incident’ must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment”.
It is remarkable that the inquiry concluded that incidents which are not criminal offences as defined by Parliament should be investigated by the police with equal vigour as those which are criminal offences. That raises fundamental questions about the purpose of the police and what their priorities should be, particularly in a world of potentially limitless demand and highly constrained resource.
Nevertheless, Macpherson’s recommendations relating to racist incidents and their recording were rapidly accepted and implemented by the police and government. Following a 2006 review by Sir Adrian Fulford, a shared definition of hate crimes and non-crime hate incidents was adopted across the criminal justice system, including by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. This expanded the recording of NCHIs beyond purely racist incidents to cover all those characteristics that are covered by hate crime legislation in England and Wales—race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.
Key to the expansion of alleged NCHIs was the creation, in 2014, of the College of Policing’s Hate Crime Operational Guidance for police forces. Perhaps recognising that the guidance was likely to cause grave concerns to many, the College of Policing made a pre-emptive defence of their policy, saying:
“The recording of, and response to, non-crime hate incidents does not have universal support in society. Some people use this as evidence to accuse the police of becoming ‘the thought police’, trying to control what citizens think or believe, rather than what they do”.
The guidance goes on to say, in relation to hate incidents:
“Where any person, including police personnel, reports a hate incident which would not be the primary responsibility of another agency, it must be recorded regardless of whether or not they are the victim, and irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”.
The use of “must” in the guidance leaves no latitude for police discretion or the balancing of rights exercise, which would be necessary in considering the subject’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
With the advent of social media, the number of NCHIs being recorded has rocketed. Policy Exchange reported in 2024 that over 13,000 are being logged annually in England and Wales, consuming 60,000 police hours a year. Some keyboard warriors with an axe to grind have made a full-time occupation out of submitting prolific quantities of NCHI complaints with little or no justification. These include a disgraced former policeman who prodigiously exploits the system to frequently harass his political opponents. Some incidents have hit the press, such as when Graham Linehan, the co-creator of “Father Ted”, was arrested on the tarmac at Heathrow over an NCHI.
However, many victims of spurious NCHIs are not even aware that a complaint has been logged against their name. One campaigner found out only when the complainant launched a judicial review of the police’s refusal to take the matter further. As we have heard, the impact of having an unproven NCHI secretly logged against your name can be severe and mean that you are refused a visa to visit certain countries, including America, or that you fail an enhanced DBS check for a job in areas such as education or health.
Freedom of information requests to 43 police forces found zero examples of NCHIs preventing crime. The Metropolitan Police announced last October that it has stopped investigating NCHIs entirely. Last month, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing reported to the Government that NCHIs are “not fit for purpose”.
NCHIs must go. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, stated during our debates on the seventh day in Committee that the College of Policing is reviewing this guidance and that we would see this review before Report. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that review will address the chilling effect on free speech identified in the Miller judgment and whether he accepts that the police must prioritise actual criminality over the recording of NCHIs.
I support this amendment as a necessary check on the expansion of the surveillance state. When will the Government act to abolish NCHIs? If the Minister cannot answer that question, we will have to return to this matter on Report.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration in the register of interests that I am chair of the College of Policing.
As I said at Second Reading, we need to remember that there were benign reasons for the introduction of this regime over three decades ago; what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in this regard was helpful. The purpose was to ensure that the police would pursue intelligence that could build a pattern of behaviour that would result in harm to an individual. That was the case not just in relation to the dreadful murder of Stephen Lawrence but subsequently in the case of Fiona Pilkington, where a repeated pattern of anti-social behaviour had been ignored. It was not criminal behaviour—it fell below that threshold—but it nevertheless resulted in a tragic loss of life.
Nevertheless, as has been noted, there has been considerable change over that three decades, with the advent of social media, smartphones and a much more contested policy space in many of the areas relating to hate crimes or alleged hate crimes. There is the risk of a number of consequences. Those have been drawn attention to by noble Lords, but they include the chilling effect on free speech, the tying up of resources unnecessarily —I will come to that—and, I suggest, at least as serious, damage to the reputation of the police, if it is perceived that they are prioritising the wrong things and getting themselves involved in matters that they should not be.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to rise to support my noble friend Lord Young of Acton’s excellent Amendment 416E, which seeks to abolish the non-crime hate incident regime, which is long overdue. The principle at stake is quite simple and fundamental. The state must not brand people as potential wrongdoers when no criminal offence has been committed. So I congratulate my noble friend on moving the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, whose masterful speech made an absolutely compelling case for the immediate abolition of this obnoxious regime.
I am delighted to hear the wise words of my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, in his role as chair of the College of Policing. If it looks like, as the noble Lord said, the regime is not fit for purpose, and if that report gets to the Home Office before Report, we want amendments on Report to abolish it, rather than putting it out to consultation for another three months to decide whether to do it in some future criminal justice Bill. If it is not fit for purpose now, it should not be fit for purpose a moment longer than necessary.
For far too long, under all Governments, this gross abuse of our fundamental freedoms has been tolerated. I cannot count the number of times I have heard police and Ministers justify it on the basis that it is an essential intelligence-gathering tool which would be helpful in heading off future crimes. I strongly believe in intelligence-led policing and recording secretly any information on potential criminal activity. But it is not intelligence if you record it on a database and give it to prospective employers with, in the immortal words of Monty Python, a “nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more” sort of thing.
Recent reporting makes this danger painfully clear. As my noble friend said, we now have the documented cases of a nine year-old boy logged for calling another pupil a retard; two schoolgirls accused of saying someone else smelled like fish; and the extraordinary case of Harry Miller, a former police officer, who was visited at work by Humberside Police because he tweeted this joke:
“I was assigned Mammal at Birth, but my orientation is Fish”—
it is not a very funny joke, but nevertheless—which the force recorded as a non-crime hate incident until the High Court ruled its actions a “disproportionate interference” with his freedom of expression, and rightly so.
The case of Allison Pearson was mentioned by my noble friend: the national newspaper columnist had police officers knock on her door on Remembrance Sunday to accuse her of “stirring up racial hatred” over a tweet she had already deleted. It was never told what she was being investigated for, because no offence had been committed. A person who has committed no crime can be questioned, placed on a police record and left with a stain that follows them into job applications, community life and future interactions with the state.
This is not a harmless administrative note. A police record, even where no offence has been committed, can surface in enhanced checks, damage careers and stigmatise people in their communities. It creates a two-tier system of reputational punishment: one for those convicted of crimes and another, less visible but no less damaging, for those who have merely expressed opinions or made mistakes. That is a grave injustice. The state must not be in the business of branding citizens as potential wrongdoers when no criminality has been established. Recording non-criminal speech as a hate incident treats lawful expression as if it were a criminal matter.
This practice chills debate, deters whistleblowers and journalists, and discourages civic participation. It stops harmless jokes and humour. If this system had existed 30 years ago in the British Army, hundreds of thousands of sergeant-majors would have had millions of records against them, because the wonderful terms of abuse and insults they had for us when we got our marching wrong and made mistakes were absolutely astronomical. I do not think we suffered any harm because of those jokes and humour at our expense.
Amendment 416E restores the proper boundary between policing and free expression. It does not prevent the police investigating genuine criminal offences or using intelligence proportionately where there is a real threat to safety. What it does is prevent the indefinite administrative stigmatisation of people who have committed no crime. It protects employment prospects, reputations and the right to speak without fear of being treated as a suspect.
To me, the key subsection is not on stopping them doing it in future but on purging current records, as proposed new subsection (5) says:
“Within three months of the coming into force of this section, any police authority which has retained any record of a non-crime hate incident, save in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4), must delete such record”.
I agree entirely, but I warn noble Lords that the police, in many cases, will try not to do it. They will find every excuse to hang on to that database and not delete it immediately.
I have tremendous respect for the police and the brave work they do on our behalf, and I pay tribute to the 4,000 officers killed in the last 200 years, since the first salaried officers went on duty. All the police I have ever met have wanted to save lives, crack down on crime and keep the King’s peace—but if you gave them a completely free hand, they would want to collect from every person over the age of five their fingerprints, DNA and biometric data and use them to stop crime. They would succeed—it would make a tremendous difference—but I think that is not the sort of society we want to allow. Therefore, we should not permit the retention of data on individuals who have not committed any crime.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe, said about recording. When I heard the Metropolitan Police commissioner say a few weeks ago that it was not going to investigate non-crime hate incidents and was just going to record them, I thought, “Hang on”. That means that if someone accuses someone else of being racist, the police will not investigate to see whether it is right or wrong but will still record it as a crime. If keeping it recorded means in the call centre, on the record, that is okay, but it should not be recorded on any other database if it is not actually a crime.
I conclude by saying that this reform is practical. As my noble friend said, police resources are finite. Recording and managing non-crime entries diverts police officers from investigating real criminality and protecting victims. If the state wants to monitor tensions, it can do so through proportionate, anonymised intelligence and community safety work, not by placing individuals on quasi-criminal registers for conduct that is lawful. I support my noble friend’s amendment, and I support what my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs said about the College of Policing saying it is not fit for purpose. I therefore look forward to a commitment from the Minister that we will have an amendment on Report that implements what my noble friend Lord Young has said in Amendment 416E.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a freelance journalist and, therefore, somebody who has a very great care for freedom of speech. What a pleasure it is to follow the speech of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, which so brilliantly summarised all the reasons there are to support Amendment 416E in the name of my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the excellent amendment of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. I declare an interest as a paid-up member of the Free Speech Union.
I was brought up in Plumstead in south-east London, as was Stephen Lawrence. I can absolutely understand the horror and the imperative for action that arose from the disgraceful racist murder of that young man in 1993: there was a clamour to tackle the culture that gave rise to five racist thugs taking that young man’s life. That is a very important context, but I am afraid that things have developed in a way that we did not foresee way back in 1993.
In preparing for this debate, I was reminded of the remarks of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, in 2024:
“I had to look up what on earth the term”—
non-crime hate incidents—
“meant—I was puzzled by it”.
Coming from the DPP, that reveals a lot about what a strange anomaly NCHIs have been.
The idea that there is a kind of police record that can result in ordinary people who have committed no crime being visited by police at their home or workplace because an investigation has been launched into whether their views or attitudes may one day lead to criminal activity should be seen as entirely incongruent with British justice and freedom of expression. It brings to mind the film “Minority Report” and the fictional idea of pre-crime. But this is not fiction: it is the real world. The idea that, in the real world, a person could lose their job because an NCHI shows up on an enhanced DBS check ought to be anathema to us.
Mention was made earlier of Allison Pearson. My noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs is absolutely right: it was the Communications Act or another piece of legislation that was involved when Essex Police visited her on Remembrance Sunday 2024. She has nevertheless raised the public profile of the impact of NCHIs on people and, for that, we should thank her, as we should Harry Miller and others.
The Times reported that year that 13,200 NCHIs were recorded by 45 police forces in the 12 months to June 2024. That includes allegations against doctors, vicars, social workers and even primary school children. As we have heard, Policy Exchange calculated that this had amounted to at least 60,000 hours of officer time. It surely was never a defensible use of police time, especially while so many serious crimes such as burglaries and sexual offences remain unsolved and uninvestigated. There are too many stories to tell, but one elderly woman was shocked to find herself the subject of an NCHI after taking a photograph of a sticker which read: “Keep males out of women-only spaces”. She did not even put the sticker up; she just took a photo of it. The 73 year-old received a visit from police officers after she was caught on CCTV taking the photo of the sticker, which someone had put up on an LGBT Pride poster. She said she agreed with its sentiments and wanted to show it to her partner. Apparently, the police thought this made her a likely future criminal.
My noble friend Lord Herbert said that these cases have been bad for public confidence in the service, and he is right. It is therefore welcome that over the last year or so there has been a growing realisation and consensus in the Government that there is a need to address the problem. In particular, I welcome the recent press reports that the college and the NPCC are set to recommend scrapping non-crime hate incidents as a result of the review.
My noble friend Lord Herbert has promised that there will be a sea change. We must wait and see the final detail on how the changes are delivered in practice. I say this partly because what we are attempting to do in turning policing away from an excessive focus on what we might call DEI issues towards the criminal matters that the public care about goes against the grain of the last two decades of police culture. We have seen before how difficult this is to uproot. The previous Government published new statutory guidance on NCHIs in 2023. Training should have been given to call handlers on the raised thresholds and common-sense tests, and we should have seen a reduction in the number of non-crime hate incidents recorded, but, sadly, the report published the following year by His Majesty’s inspectorate, An Inspection into Activism and Impartiality in Policing, concluded that there was
“inconsistency in the way forces have responded to the new guidance”
and that
“We often found that call takers hadn’t received training about NCHIs, and had limited, if any, knowledge”
of the statutory guidance.
First, can the Minister say how we will ensure that police training on the new regime is not undercut by an obsession with DEI issues and the politicisation of policing which has clouded police judgments too often in recent years? Secondly, we need to see a clearer commitment from the Government on how they plan to respond to the NPCC report and what the timelines will be. I know there are ongoing reviews into police discretion and hate crime, and I particularly welcome the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, of hate crime legislation. I hope that he will feel emboldened to address one of the more fundamental issues; namely, the injustice resulting from the creation of a hierarchy of victims by legislating for certain protected characteristics rather than treating all victims equally.
However, these ongoing reviews should not be an excuse for inaction. Will the Minister make the commitment that, should the NCHI review require primary legislation to implement its recommendations, this will be done via amendments on Report—a point made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—preferably adopting my noble friend’s carefully crafted amendment?
While I understand the previous Government’s decision to introduce statutory guidance via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 as a first step towards introducing some common sense in this area, it had the unfortunate consequence of providing a statutory basis for recording NCHIs. If this is to be corrected, the law will need to change.
Again, the devil will be in the detail. The NPCC’s final report has not yet been published, but it did publish a progress report last October. There were a number of points where I would want to see improvements in the final report before I could feel confident that the new system will avoid the pitfalls of the current regime. One of those relates to the NPCC’s recommendation that the Home Office introduce a new national standard of incident recording. As I alluded to earlier, the current threshold, which dates back to 2011, is too low and does not adequately cater for contemporary policing demands.
We ought to think carefully, too, about any new definition. The current draft proposition put forward by the NPCC defines an incident as
“a single distinct event or occurrence which may be relevant to policing for preventing or solving crime, safeguarding individuals or communities or fulfilling other statutory policing purposes”.
This helpfully makes it clear that there needs to be a clear policing purpose for this data to be recorded. I am concerned about the words “may be relevant”. At the very least, would it not be better for it to say, “likely to be relevant”? My concern is that an activist police officer would record practically anything on the basis of “may”. We all know hoarders—the kind of people who keep everything because they tell themselves it may be useful in the future.
Finally, we need greater clarity on enhanced DBS checks. The progress report recommends that the Home Office consider whether there needs to be further guidance, but key questions are ignored. Will the police delete NCHIs that they have already recorded, and will the new anti-social behaviour incidents be disclosable in enhanced DBS checks? I am pleased to support this very good and sensible amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Hogan-Howe, for leading on this. It is telling that there is cross-party support for this amendment. The Government should take note of such rich and excellent speeches from across the House. There is widespread concern for all sorts of reasons, and action should be taken.
I feel a bit cynical because I have celebrated the demise of non-crime hate incidents on a number of occasions in the past. When the Fair Cop founder Harry Miller won his High Court challenge in 2020, the judge declared that non-crime hate incidents had a chilling effect and unlawfully infringed on Harry’s freedom of speech. I remember that a lot of us thought that would be the end of that. I then listened to a number of Home Secretaries declaring that there was a problem with non-crime hate incidents, and I thought, “Oh, good, something will be done”, because politicians like to do something. But I am most reassured, genuinely, by the present Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who seems to be determined to get to the bottom of this and to sort it out. Her emphasis that the police should focus on streets and not tweets is quite a good summation of where we are. However, despite that universal acknowledgement that non-crime hate incidents are not fit for purpose in many ways, I worry that, as with the Greek mythological Hydra, all the various attempts at cutting off the monstrous NCHI serpent’s head will result in another couple of heads growing instead. It is important that we do not just console ourselves with getting rid of the name while allowing the sentiment and the politics of it to remain.
As somebody who has spoken many times on this issue in this House, often greeted by some eye-rolling but also offered endless assurances that it was all being sorted—not by this Government but by a previous Government—I now believe that assurances are not enough, and we need to make this issue watertight. We need primary legislation as a guarantee that there will be no more non-crime hate incidents and a full deletion of the historic records held by the police. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, made the point that when there have been changes in the criminal law, records have not been deleted, but these are not crimes, so they should be deleted. Even if they are not used, the idea that the state has a file on hundreds of thousands of people with the words “bigot” or “hate criminals” across them, even if they are hate non-criminal, is not right and they should be deleted.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, for his contribution because he set out the balance between non-crime hate incidents and non-crime incidents and the difference between the two. One of our concerns on these Benches is that—I am going to use the phrase he used, for which I apologise, but I had already written it down—in looking at this amendment, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is really important, and I will explain why in some detail later.
I remind the Committee that, in considering our two amendments about hate crime last week, I referred to the recommendation Combating Hate Crime by the Council of Europe, which says that
“hate can be manifested with different degrees of severity, ranging from everyday stigmatisation and discrimination, microaggressions and verbal abuse, to violence, terrorism, war crimes and genocide”,
which is an enormous spectrum. The reason why non-crime incidents, whether hate-related or not, need to be recorded is that often, the perpetrators go on to escalate their behaviour.
I have referred before in this House to being stalked by a political opponent for three years. Before we could get the police to take it seriously, we had recorded some 75 incidents, probably half of which were crimes but half were not. As things escalated, it went from minor crimes to the perpetrator using a very large knife on tyres. The police psychologist said, “If we don’t get him now, it will be people next”. It is that entire spectrum of behaviour, with some incidents ending up being part of a crime, that means we cannot just throw out all non-crime incidents.
I am afraid that the same is also true for non-crime hate incidents. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to the appalling case of the antisemitic attacks, because those would go as well if this amendment were accepted, since there would be no capacity for the police to start monitoring and recording such things until they tipped the balance into a crime, even though the damage was done in those earlier incidents, repeatedly to the same group of people. I think of friends of mine who go to synagogue in one town, and of young Muslim friends in my home town of Watford who are shouted at on their way to worship every single week by the same small group of people. Probably neither of those would even get to the first bar of being recorded as a non-crime hate incident; but, if their behaviour follows the typical course and escalates, and the police have not recorded anything, they have nothing to go back over. So I beg the movers of this amendment to—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
What the noble Baroness has described is a crime. Those people shouting racist abuse at Jewish people or Muslims on the way to a mosque are committing a crime under the existing legislation that has been in place for many years. It has nothing to do with the recording of police intelligence, which is unfettered by this amendment, and it is certainly the case that what she has described is de facto a criminal offence.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I referred to the comments made by previous speakers on this group who talked about police wasting their time recording. The two groups of people I have just referred to have tried to report these incidents and have not been able to get them taken particularly seriously. Therein lies the problem. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, that there has to be new, revised, clear guidance about how the police need to process these things. It may be that there will be many that are not now processed, but we cannot just say that we should get rid of non-crime hate incidents in their entirety.
A lot of the other speeches during this debate have talked about the polarisation in our society being because people are now saying things to others, with people becoming offended. We discussed this briefly last week. The things being said to people on the street would not have been said five or six years ago. People might have thought them as they walked past, but it was quite rare. We are deeply offended if it targets us. We often do not recognise when we are being offensive to other people. I say again: there is something about the way our society is working at the moment that means we have to learn to look at ourselves, not just at the others we do not like. The police, who are literally trying to police all this, are in a very invidious position. They need tools to record information because it helps them to assess and understand when other things happen. It is much broader than non-crime hate incidents, as I have alluded to already.
Paul Giannasi OBE, the national hate crime lead for the police, has been reviewing the current protocols and his recommendations for a new code of practice will be very welcome. I am sure, from what the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, has said and from what I have heard elsewhere, that there certainly will be changes. We have to understand that the key issue here is balancing those individual rights: the absolute freedom of expression as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—he and I had a debate about JS Mill last week—alongside the state’s obligation to protect citizens against targeted victimisation. The police must be able to gather intelligence and evidence and log symbolic messaging to targeted groups. All the other things—about whether those end up on DBS—can be looked at as part of this review, and I am sure they will be. But the police need to see that bigger, wider picture.
One of the problems about the Lawrence murder was that the police were not watching what was happening in that community in the months and years running up to it. That institutional blindness was certainly one of the things that came out of the inquiry. As others have said, the monitoring of such incidents was the result of the recommendations by Sir William Macpherson as part of his public inquiry in response to Stephen Lawrence’s murder.
I come back to this point: in terms of practical value, the police must be able to record incidents that do not in and of themselves amount to criminal offence, because many crimes, such as I described with harassment, and indeed with stalking, require evidence of a course of conduct. People say to me, “Oh, but stalking is always about relationships; that’s not about a hate crime”. Quite a lot of stalking is actually non-domestic, and it is targeted at somebody because of a particular characteristic.
I finish on the point I made right at the start about the evidence that police need for this course of conduct if behaviour escalates. If a group of people go out and do things again and again, there is a point at which it is going to tip over. I was party to and a survivor of something that ended up as 132 crimes; once the police saw all the evidence that we had been holding of the earlier non-crime hate, it was extremely helpful when things started to escalate. Reform is absolutely needed. We hope that the review will have recommendations for a new regime. But I also hope that it will not leave victims vulnerable, either from perpetrators whose behaviour escalates or from police who are not quite clear about the role they have in recording non-crime incidents.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this very important amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Young. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs.
The status quo is untenable. It undermines free speech, diverts police resources from real crime and risks criminalising people for behaviour that is lawful and should remain outside the criminal justice system. We on these Benches firmly support the abolition of non-crime hate incidents. Non-crime hate incidents in essence are reports of conduct perceived by someone to be motivated by hostility or prejudice against a protected characteristic which do not meet the threshold of a criminal offence. Under current law, police forces record and retain personal data about those incidents, even though no crime has occurred and no legal breach has been established. That alone is problematic but, in practice, the effects are far worse. Current figures estimate that around 13,000 non-crime hate incidents are logged annually, consuming an estimated 60,000-plus hours of police time that could be better directed to tackling burglary, serious violence, organised crime and other priority areas.
Recording an incident and retaining personal data about motives that are merely perceived rather than proven also has a detrimental and unwelcome effect on free speech. People who express lawful opinions, engage in robust debate or even make clumsy social media posts can find themselves on a police database, not because they have committed a crime but because someone has taken offence to those remarks.
This is not a hypothetical shortcoming of policy: there have been cases where almost trivial or schoolyard remarks became the subject of police records. In one high-profile instance, the arrest of a public figure over a social media post was initially associated with a non-crime hate incident, sparking national debate about policing speech and proportionality. It is no surprise, then, that police leaders and independent watchdogs are reassessing the value of non-crime hate incidents. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary has publicly stated that non-crime hate incidents should not be recorded by police because they risk conflating the offensive with the criminal, diminishing public trust and harming legitimate free expression.
Similarly, the Metropolitan Police recently announced that it will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents, recognising the difficulty that officers face when drawn into matters that are not criminal by definition. The Government’s response to date has been to commission yet another review, with the suggestion that policy decisions should wait until later in the year. But on an issue that so directly impacts both civil liberties and police effectiveness, delay is not a defensible option.
Amendment 416E would go further than reviews. It would abolish the concept of non-crime hate incidents entirely, prohibit any police authority from recording or processing related personal data and require the deletion of existing records. In doing so, it draws a clear distinction between criminal behaviour, which it is right that the police investigate, and lawful expression or debate that should not be subject to police recording or sanction.
We cannot allow a system that treats controversial yet lawful speech as if it were a matter for the criminal justice system. This amendment is a sensible and necessary step to realign policing with its once core mission of protecting people from crime and harm, not policing speech or perceptions. Therefore, we on these Benches very much support this amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for tabling this amendment. This has been a useful debate, and I hope that we can at least look at the common direction of travel on this matter: the need for reform.
I have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, through the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I have also heard from the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Kempsell, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Herbert of South Downs, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss. They have raised a range of issues that, in essence, point to the need for change in this system.
I think it is fair to say, and I hope that the Committee will accept, that the current Government have held office since July 2024. There has been a lot of discussion on the issues caused by, and effect of, non-crime hate incidents since the guidance was published in 2014. I do not want to lose the principle, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Herbert of South Downs, that the non-crime hate incident regime had its genesis in the Macpherson report, and in trying to anticipate and examine where crimes were being committed, potentially in the future, and monitor a range of abuses that were present.
However, I say to the Committee—and I think this was recognised by Members in their contributions today —that how the police should respond to hate incidents that fall below the criminal threshold is a complex and sensitive issue. That is precisely why the then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Normanton, and the current Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Shabana Mahmood, the Member for Ladywood, have asked the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to conduct a thorough review into non-crime hate incidents.
The review is examining whether the current approach is proportionate, consistent and compatible with the fundamental right to free expression—which goes to very point that was made. As the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, said, the review is being led by policing experts and is expected to conclude, in his words, “shortly”. The publication date is one for the College of Policing. We have had the interim report, which has said that there are significant concerns in the way non-crime hate incidents are operating.
Given the points that have been made today, and given that the Government have commissioned a review, seen the interim report and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, expect to receive the final report shortly, I would again ask the Committee to bear with us—I know that I have asked for this on a number of occasions—to examine what professional police officers and the College of Policing are recommending on non-crime hate incidents.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, rightly asked some significant questions. What is happening to database logging of anti-social behaviour incidents? What is happening to people who have previously had non-crime hate incidents put against their name? What is happening with regard to non-disclosure? What is happening in terms of the publication of the report and the Government’s response? Those are all fair and legitimate questions.
However, I say to the noble Lord and the Committee that the current Government have come in, recognised that there is an issue, commissioned the College of Policing to look at that issue and have received an independent report, and we expect a full report on how we can deal with those issues and tweak the regime so that we do not lose the very good things that have sometimes been brought out of non-crime hate incidents and we do not throw everything out immediately. I do not know what the final report is going to say.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, said:
“The review has found that the current approach and use of non-crime hate incidents is not fit for purpose, and there is a need for broad reform to ensure that policing can focus on genuine harm and risk within communities. The recording of hurt feelings and differing views should not continue”.—[Official Report, 16/10/25; col. 406.]
That is a very clear statement. However, in moving from that in the interim report to whatever the new regime might be, it is incumbent on the Government to reflect on what the final report says. I am not ducking the amendment that the noble Lord has brought forward, nor his challenge that we need to make some changes. As he says, there is an open door. If we did not want this to be reviewed, we would not have asked the College of Policing and the Police Chiefs’ Council to review the incidence of non-crime hate incidents. Self-evidently, some of the examples given today are not what the original purpose of that legislation and approach was meant to be.
Going back to the Macpherson report, there was a serious element as to how assessments have been made. In Committee today, Members have talked about anti- semitism, racism and a range of incidents where the collection of information might give a bigger intelligence picture that requires a policing response, but which may or may not be a policing response that requires individuals to have their names put against them.
The concerns of everybody, from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, through to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, are legitimate, and the Government want to look at and address them. I hope that this can be examined. However, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and await the outcome of the police review, so that any reforms are grounded in both robust evidence and a consensus.
Ultimately, the Government must and will take some decisions, and we will be held to account in the House of Commons and in this House as well. In the absence of that detailed response, I am not sure that I can come to this Committee and say, “This is what we will do”, because we need to examine that in detail.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his customary courtesy. I can accept his point that, since the Home Office has not yet received the final report, and Report may start in two or three-weeks’ time, it may not be possible to bring forward detailed primary legislation on Report. However, it seems to me—and perhaps my noble friend Lord Herbert can confirm this—that many of the changes may be administrative matters for the police and may not require legislation. What may require legislation may therefore be quite small. This Government, like the last one, love Henry VIII clauses. So would it not be possible for the Government to accept a simple Henry VIII clause so that, where legislation is required on this, a proper regulation can be brought in in the future, once the Government have consulted on what is required, to implement any of the legal changes necessary to give effect to my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in the nicest possible way, that my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer has given strict instructions to Government Ministers on Henry VIII clauses, and the various statutory instrument committees in this House and in the House of Commons have also expressed a grave view on them.
I put it to the Committee—and I hope that the Committee will accept this in good faith, as I am trying to do it in good faith—that the Government have recognised that there is a problem, and the Government have asked the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to examine that problem. The Government have received an interim report, which the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, referred to at Second Reading. The Government are awaiting the final report, which the noble Lord has said is coming shortly. I have not seen the final report. There may be things in it that maintain, change or revoke altogether the issues that have, quite rightly, been raised. But, if the Government had not realised that there was a problem, we would not have asked for solutions to be brought forward.
I know that I occasionally say, “Something will be happening very shortly”, but I say, in genuine help and support for the Committee, that we know that there is a problem. We want to change that problem, but we are trying to make sure that we get sufficiently robust professional advice to be able to make some political decisions based on the advice that we receive. With that, I have tried to help the noble Lord and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minster as he was getting towards the end of his speech. I have just one point: whatever advice the college gives, there will need to be a litmus test for whether the Government will support it. Whatever advice is given, I encourage the Government to make sure that it is clear, so that officers on the street understand it. If we end up with another series of 20 conditions, that will not simplify things. We must have a litmus test. For me, it might be, “If the officer acted in good faith and within the law as they believed it, we will support them”. I am not saying that that is the answer in this case, but it should be something simple.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, brings great experience to this. In his initial contribution, and in these comments, he gives food for thought as to how we implement the decisions of any review and how Ministers ultimately give guidance to police, which chief constables then put in place for police officers on the ground to deal with. We will look at that. The whole purpose of the review is to simplify this procedure, looking at what is necessary and helpful, and to get the police to focus on the things that really matter. Some of the examples that have been given today are things that the police should not be focusing on because they do not matter at all.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it is important that we look at what the regulations and the review say. We can act administratively on much of what happens. I have no doubt that the Government will do so, once we receive the final review.
I simply ask the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for the moment, to withdraw the amendment. He has the right to bring his amendments back on Report. We will have a clearer picture at some point in the very near future. I hope this has been a helpful debate.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for his gracious response. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for co-sponsoring the amendment and for his excellent contributions to this debate. I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their contributions. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, a speedy recovery. I thank my noble friends Lord Kempsell, Lord Jackson and Lord Blencathra.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra that the police, under very difficult circumstances, do an excellent job on the whole and I admire what they do. But I think he is right that having to record and investigate non-crime hate incidents is as unpopular with ordinary police officers on the front line as it is with free speech campaigners. They do not want to be wasting their time in this way. Many of them have reached out to me to tell me that and to support this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her contribution.
If you look at proposed new subsection (4), you will find that nothing in the amendment would prevent the police recording information they regard as relevant about a suspect’s motive in the course of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. I am sceptical whether the police should be allowed to record incidents that clearly do not meet the threshold of being crimes for intelligence-gathering purposes, not least because there is very little persuasive evidence that that is helpful when it comes to preventing crimes, and I am generally suspicious of the concept of pre-crime—of trying to nip potential crimes in the bud by monitoring carefully incidents that do not quite meet the threshold of criminal offences. However, I am not going to die in a ditch and say that the police should never, under any circumstances, be able to record incidents that do not meet the threshold of being a criminal offence for intelligence-gathering purposes, provided that the recording of those incidents has no adverse consequences for the people they are recorded against.
That brings me to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, which, on the whole, were very welcome. I am pleased that the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council recognise that NCHIs are not fit for purpose and that the regime should be scrapped and replaced with something much better, but I want to respond briefly to two points made by my noble friend.
First, my noble friend acknowledged, I think, that the recording threshold for NCHIs is currently too low, and that when the regime is replaced by another, such as the anti-social behaviour incident regime, the threshold as to what incidents should be recorded will be higher. The implicit acknowledgement that the threshold has hitherto been too low strikes me as a persuasive argument for scrapping those incidents that have been recorded under the lower threshold. If the threshold was too low, that is an acknowledgement that the incidents should not have been recorded. That is a good argument for why they should be deleted once this system has been overhauled.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Herbert maintains that, even though chief constables have the discretion to disclose NCHIs when responding to enhanced DBS checks, the College of Policing could not find a single example of chief constables having done that. If that is the case then there is no cost to the Home Office agreeing that, henceforth, under the new regime, anti-social behaviour incidents—if that is what we are going to call them—should not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks. The fear that they might be—that, not having committed a crime, that is recorded against your name and could stop you getting a job or volunteering at a school or for a charity—is why the current regime has had such a chilling effect on free speech. If none has been disclosed, why not go that one small step further and say that, henceforth, they will not be disclosed?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord is coming to the end of his remarks. When responding on amendments, you are meant to be relatively brief. He has had five and a half minutes now.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I apologise to the Committee for taking up its time. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“Police power to confiscate undocked electric cycles and scooters for hire(1) The police may confiscate any undocked electric cycle or scooter for hire which has been left on—(a) a public pavement,(b) a public highway,(c) any other public place, including pedestrian precincts, or(d) any other place where the owners have not given consent for electric cycles or scooters to be collected.(2) The police must take reasonable steps to notify the hire company responsible for the electric cycle or scooter confiscated under subsection (1).(3) The police may charge the hire company with responsibility for the electric cycle or scooter confiscated under this section a fee of up to £1,000 for the release of the electric cycle or scooter.(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, delegate local authorities or authorised agents to exercise powers on behalf of the police under this section.(5) If the Secretary of State delegates powers under subsection (4), they must publish a code of practice for local authorities and authorised agents on the implementation of confiscation powers and the charging of fees under this section.(6) For the purposes of this section—“local authority” means any council, unitary authority, district or other body with statutory responsibility for highways, public order, or refuse disposal, and“authorised agent” means any person or organisation appointed in writing by a local authority.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will be pleased to know that this is my last batch of amendments on the scourge of illegal bikes scattering our pavements and those big bikes the size of motorbikes mowing us down on the pavement. The Committee will also be pleased to know that, as I am attending the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, this is probably the last speech I will be making on the Bill for a short time.
The problem we face is plain and immediate. Thousands of dockless e-bikes and e-scooters have been dumped across our pavements and public spaces, creating a chaotic, inconsistent and dangerous environment for pedestrians. It is not often that I can agree with the Mayor of London, who described the rollout of these services as having become something of a “Wild West”, a term I understand that he took from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. There has been a rapid commercial expansion of cycling without the regulatory framework or parking infrastructure needed to protect the public and preserve access to our streets.
This is not an abstract nuisance but a daily reality for people trying to get to work, for parents with pushchairs, for older people, and for blind and visually impaired citizens, who rely on clear and unobstructed tactile routes. It is a public safety and accessibility crisis that has been documented repeatedly by local authorities, clinicians and charities, and it demands a statutory response. Amendments 416H and 416I would provide that response. One would create a targeted operator charge to fund enforcement and drive better operational systems; the other would give clear and proportionate powers to remove and permanently dispose of manifestly illegal high-powered machines that pose acute safety and criminal use risks.
The evidence from the ground is clear. Local authorities are already acting because the problem is real and costly. Local enforcement teams in Kensington and Chelsea have seized over 1,000 dangerously parked rental e-bikes this year and recovered more than £81,000 in release and storage fees to fund further enforcement action. They did that after repeated complaints about pavement obstruction and trip hazards. Councils have recovered significant sums in seizure and storage fees and have reinvested that money to expand enforcement activities. These are not isolated seizures but the tip of a systemic problem.
Clinicians are seeing new patterns of injury directly attributed to heavy hire bikes. Trauma and orthopaedic surgeons report a rise in lower leg injuries caused when heavy e-bike frames fall on riders or pedestrians, a phenomenon that has been labelled in clinical and medical circles as “Lime bike leg”. These are not minor bruises: the weight and construction of modern e-bikes, particularly the overheavy Lime ones, mean that even low-speed falls can produce fractures and soft tissue damage requiring hospital treatment.
Charities representing blind and visually impaired people have described how dumped e-bikes block tactile paving and prevent safe access to crossings, forcing people to alter or abandon journeys. One campaigner described repeatedly walking into e-bikes and being “put off” visiting central areas because of the unpredictability and danger of obstructed pavements. Residents and local councillors are vocal. Councils report that residents are “sick” of e-bikes blocking footpaths and that the current situation is undermining confidence in local streets. These are not rhetorical flourishes; they reflect sustained public pressure and the failure of voluntary operator-led measures to deliver consistent outcomes.
So who is responsible, and why have voluntary measures failed? The nuisance is concentrated among a small number of large operators that have scaled fleets rapidly: Lime, Forest, Voi and newer entrants such as Bolt. These companies operate dockless models that rely on users to park responsibly. Where that expectation is not met, the public realm becomes cluttered and dangerous.
Operators have taken some steps—funding parking bays, running in-app messages and offering incentives for correct parking—but these voluntary measures have not been sufficient to prevent widespread obstruction or to ensure rapid removal of dangerous or blocking bikes. The result is a patchwork of local rules and inconsistent enforcement that leaves vulnerable people exposed and councils bearing the cost of removal.
Councils are not standing idly by, but the tools they currently have are reactive and costly. Seizure and storage operations require staff time, secure storage facilities and administrative processing. Councils are forced into an expensive cycle of removal and storage because operators do not consistently prevent or properly remedy dangerous parking. I go further and submit that they simply do not care. They are making big money from e-bike hire, so why should they bother about safe parking when there is no penalty on them for letting their users dump them anywhere they like?
I turn to my Amendment 416H, on the operator charge, its justification and its effect. The proposed operator charge is a proportionate “polluter pays” mechanism that would ensure that those who profit from dockless fleets meet the real costs their services impose on the public realm. Operators make big profits from large fleets and dense urban coverage. Where voluntary agreements fail, statutes should set clear duties to ensure safe parking and fund the use of designated bays, to remove and relocate dangerously parked bikes within a short enforceable timeframe, and to be accountable for repeat non-compliance.
Where operators’ business models externalise the costs of pavement obstruction and enforcement, it is fair and efficient to require them to internalise those costs and pay for them themselves. Revenues from the charge could be used by local authorities to fund enforcement teams and rapid removal to secure storage; invest in parking infrastructure, such as a designated parking spaces, where required; and fund data-sharing and monitoring systems, which would enable councils to identify repeat non-compliance and target enforcement.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I would like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in his Amendment 416I, as the Committee will not be massively surprised to hear, given that we have covered this on previous occasions.
The police are turning a blind eye to the use of illegal vehicles on our streets. Why is that? I should like the Minister to answer that question, if at all possible. Illegal vehicles on our streets should be seized and destroyed. There should be a campaign to do that; if that happened, they would not come back. At the moment, the use of illegal vehicles is tolerated. If people were riding illegal petrol-powered motorcycles around London, they would very quickly find themselves in trouble. If people were driving trucks with no licence plates on them, they would very quickly find themselves on the wrong side of the law. At the moment, the large delivery companies in particular are facilitating this. They are contractors, but, none the less, their agents are using illegal vehicles for commercial purposes. That should not be allowed and the Government should put a stop to it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, that fact that someone has brought forward these two amendments makes me feel like saying, “Hurrah!” It is not just in Kensington and Chelsea. I live in EC4, and I spend my time walking on the road to get round the huge groups of mainly Lime bikes. I have not checked as to whether they are illegal, but the fact is that a great many of them take up a great deal of space and it seems absolutely extraordinary that nothing is being done about it. I watch other people, particularly women with pushchairs—even in EC4 there are women with pushchairs—and sometimes people in wheelchairs, either negotiating gingerly these bikes or walking, as I find myself walking, on the road. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully what is being suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, because this really is a scourge. I say “Hurrah” to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment forward.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, these two amendments after Clause 144 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, are trying to give further powers to address the issue of dockless bikes and scooters, which we have discussed many times in this Chamber and which have become an issue on many streets in cities across the country, whether they are part of a scheme or privately owned. This is a big issue for pedestrians, as we have heard, as they find their route blocked by bikes and scooters, despite a number of local authorities installing dedicated parking places for such micromobility schemes.
We are all aware, as we have heard in this debate, of the challenges that local authorities have faced trying to manage these vehicles on pavements and highways. However, there is a further issue. As City AM reported last month, a London property firm had to invoice Lime for nearly £8,000 for removing, storing and returning dockless bikes left on private land. Despite the ability to geofence where bikes can be left, I understand from reading this article that it took Lime 11 months to fence off this bit of private land as a no-parking zone on its app—and even then bikes continued to appear. This is about the management and regulation of these schemes. There are many stories like this, where riders park up their bikes near stations or other transport hubs, cluttering pavements or indeed parking on private land, causing issues with access and deliveries for residents.
The devolution Bill making its way through the House will start to help with the management of micromobility schemes across the country, some of which, as we discussed earlier in this Committee, have been on trial many times over many years, partly extended by the previous Government. We need legislation on this issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether future legislation will come to tighten up the rules on what is safely allowed on our streets, on how people park and the regulations, and on what a safe and legal vehicle is on our streets.
These amendments are trying to deal with the inevitable consequence of recent Governments not acting to keep up with the explosion of different types of micromobility on our streets. I hope to hear some assurance from the Minister about future legislation to deal with the understandable concerns across the Committee.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has just said, we have spent much time in our previous debates in Committee on provisions regarding the use or misuse of electric cycles and scooters. Much of what can be said has already been said, so I hope not to detain the Committee for long.
As always, my noble friend Lord Blencathra raises a strong argument in favour of his amendments in this group. I thank him for his tenacity in this area. There are strong feelings on this in your Lordships’ House, as many of us have had negative experiences with users of electric bikes and scooters, but these amendments address a slightly different problem.
Amendment 416H would permit the police to confiscate electric bikes and scooters that have been abandoned in a public place. As other noble Lords have said, if one requires any evidence as to the extent of this problem, they need only take a stroll down any major road in London. The pavements seem to have become obstacle courses of undocked electric bikes. All this presents serious challenges; they block users of wheelchairs and parents with pushchairs, as well as those with visual impairments, creating hazards for pedestrians, who may be forced into the road. For this reason, these Benches see no reason to object to the police being given greater powers to confiscate such scooters and electric bikes. If the Government have any objection to this proposal, I look forward to the Minister outlining precisely what they plan on doing to tackle this issue.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I was slightly sad to hear that this is the last of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on tackling e-bikes and scooters and, as someone coined, the Wild West that is our streets. Before he rides into the sunset on this subject, I would like to say that we share the intention behind these amendments, which seek to tackle obstructive parking and other use of hire e-scooters and bicycles. It may not surprise the noble Lord to hear, however, that the Government are not persuaded that these amendments are necessary.
I have to be very unfair before the dinner break and say that, if the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is Butch Cassidy, we had the Sundance Kid of this debate in the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. Once again, he asked about action being taken. I repeat what I said earlier, on Amendment 416, and say to him and to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the police are taking action. I refer again to the winter action initiative, running from the start of December last year to the end of January. That is focused on making town centres across England and Wales safer as a whole by building on the summer streets initiative, continuing efforts to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. This is not an issue that the police are blind to. Ultimately, we cannot want them to have operational independence in theory but not let that be carried out in practice.
I will not detain the Committee any further and will move on to the meat of the amendments. Amendments 416H and 416I would risk creating confusion in an area where the Government are already establishing a clear and proportionate regulatory framework. We are empowering local leaders to license shared cycle schemes, and potentially shared e-scooter schemes, in future through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which, as we speak, has started its Committee stage next door in the Grand Committee. This licensing framework, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred, will empower local authorities to set parking requirements and act quickly and decisively where these are not met. To respond to the noble Baroness directly on micromobility, this is something that we have signalled an intention to act on when parliamentary time allows. I am afraid that I cannot be any clearer on that.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. If the powers exist, are the police actually using them?
Lord Katz (Lab)
They are, but we always leave it to chief officers to direct their police forces to use the full waterfront of different powers and regulations under their purview. We can always encourage them. I am sure that a number of chief officers will be looking intently at the debates in all the days of Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill and will understand the priorities the Committee voices. Certainly, with no little thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others, we have had plenty of debate on this issue and they will have heard that it is one of extreme concern.
Clause 8 will allow the police to act immediately to stop offending behaviour and confiscate vehicles without delay. In addition, the Government have consulted on changes to secondary legislation to enable quicker disposal of seized vehicles, and our response will be published in due course. These measures demonstrate the Government’s commitment to effectively tackling the illegal and anti-social use of micro-mobility devices such as e-bikes and e-scooters without duplicating powers that are already in place.
I want to stress that riding a privately owned electric scooter on public roads is illegal, and the police have powers to take enforcement action against offenders, including seizure of the e-scooter for the offence of driving without insurance or a licence. The enforcement of road traffic law remains an operational matter for chief officers, who are best placed to allocate resources according to local needs, threats, risks and priorities. The Government will continue to support the police with the tools and powers they need, but this amendment would add unnecessary complexity without improving public safety. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords and the Minister for speaking in this short but important little debate on cycling. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—and, for the first time, a Lib Dem spokesperson has supported, in concept, one of my cycling amendments. I am either on the right side, maybe, or I am doing something terribly wrong if the Lib Dems are backing me.
Over the past few weeks, as we debated various amendments that I put down on bikes of all sorts, and looked at delivery couriers cycling on pavements on these big, fast, heavy, illegal bikes, and the scooters and bikes dumped on the pavements, the general mood was, “Well, your amendments are not perfect, Lord Blencathra, but there’s a problem here and something needs to be done about it”. I hear what the Minister has said, as far as these big, illegal bikes like motorbikes are concerned: they are already illegal and the police have power to do something about them. He suggested that the powers in the devolution Bill will deal with all these cycling problems. Between now and Report, I shall look more carefully at the Bill to see if it does cover all the gaps, but it may be that on Report we will still want to bring back some little amendment on one of these issues—possibly on the precarious criminal liability of delivery couriers, which we discussed last time. A lot of colleagues thought this was terribly wrong and that something needed to be done about it. However, if the Government do something about it, I will not need to, but if they do not do what we think we need to do, I will do something on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Atrocity Crimes
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government what mechanisms they have in place to evaluate the risk of potential atrocity crimes occurring, including crimes against humanity and genocide; and what measures they take when such risks are identified.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in welcoming all noble Lords who are participating in this Question for Short Debate on preventing mass atrocities, I begin by thanking the Minister for the interest she has shown in the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes report. I am a member of that group, and I am grateful too for the meeting she had with myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and Dr. Ewelina Ochab last week.
I have the honour to chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights and I am patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response. I co-authored a book on our failure to honour the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide, which gives us four obligations: to predict, prevent, protect, and punish. My fundamental complaint, and that of the standing group, is that we do none of these things well. We have no cross-government atrocity prevention strategy, which the Commons International Development Committee has called for.
We live in a world on fire, yet we often seem incapable of making the link between wars in places like Ukraine, Sudan, the Middle East, Burma and elsewhere, with the more than 117 million people forcibly displaced through conflict, violence and persecution, including the 14.3 million people who have been uprooted in Sudan. Those people often end up in small boats, either in the Mediterranean or coming across the English Channel to our shores. We seem incapable of linking the breakdown of international law, conventions and accountability with the emboldening of dictators and autocrats, and what happens when states believe they can get away with war crimes, the seizure of territory, the abduction of civilians, including children, and the bombing of hospitals and schools.
In 1948, foundations were laid for a new world order. The genocide convention and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights were cornerstones, but we would be deceiving ourselves were we to suggest that this progress is not at risk in this world on fire. In 1959, Dag Hammarskjöld, the United Nations Secretary-General, confidently insisted
“the organization I represent … is based on a philosophy of solidarity”.
Some 80 years after its inaugural session, held just a stone’s throw away from here, Hammarskjöld’s successor says solidarity has been replaced by “powerful forces” that are undermining “global co-operation”.
To challenge this, we should use our place at the Security Council to champion the values of the United Nations charter and the cause of international justice. To do this, we will need to lead by example. We could begin by enacting the all-party amendment currently before the House to the Crime and Policing Bill on universal jurisdiction. We could lead by example by enacting measures to enable the High Court of England and Wales to determine whether a genocide is being committed. I hope the Minister will back these proposals.
Back in 2015, at col. 371, on 19 November, I warned the House of a likely genocide against the Yazidis. In 2019, in northern Iraq, I took first-hand evidence. Notwithstanding that, and 79 Questions and interventions, the Foreign Office declined to act, and it took until 2023 for the FCDO to accept that a genocide had occurred against the Yazidis, and only because a German court concluded that it had—something no British court is empowered to do.
I have repeatedly raised similar threats to Uyghur Muslims, Nigerian Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, North Koreans, Tigrayans, and Burmese Rohingya and Karen. Since the 2017 military coup in Burma, soldiers have butchered men, tortured women, and left over 1 million Rohingya refugees crammed into dilapidated camps in Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar. I saw first-hand in Burma a village that had been torched and heard accounts of mass atrocities. Perhaps the Minister can give us her assessment of the role we are playing at the ICJ in bringing those perpetrators to justice.
Perhaps the Minister will also reflect on where impunity and a lack of justice has led in Sudan, a country which continues to bleed after 1,000 days of war. I first went to Sudan during a civil war which had claimed 2 million lives. After later going to Darfur in 2004, I said, “If this isn’t genocide, what is?” Some 2 million people were displaced and 300,000 people were killed. Omar al-Bashir, the author of these atrocities, although indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide, has never been brought to justice.
Early in 2023, there were reports of new outrages, and later of mass graves. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and South Sudan asked me to chair a fresh inquiry. It led to our APPG report, Genocide: All Over Again in Darfur? It described the consequences of impunity and warned of the impending dangers of inaction. Luis Moreno Ocampo, the International Criminal Court prosecutor who indicted al-Bashir, told our inquiry that for as long as al-Bashir and people like him enjoy impunity, others will think they too can get away with genocide. The United Kingdom should now seek his arrest. In 2023, we concluded that, without justice:
“Whatever happens when the violence in Sudan ends, there will be no lasting and credible peace”.
We said that impunity had to end.
In these 1,000 days of war, 150,000 people have died, either caught in the crossfire or from disease or hunger. Millions are displaced. Christian Aid says that 34 million people are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance, more than 11 million children face a catastrophic crisis of hunger, and at least 770,000 people are at risk of dying from severe acute malnutrition. Last week, there were more deaths and displacements in North Darfur. The International Organization for Migration says that over 8,000 people were displaced from villages in Kernoi locality on Friday alone.
It is outrageous that these corrupt, marauding warlords from both sides, enabled by foreign quartermasters, are also preventing humanitarian aid reaching those most in need. We surely need additional targeted sanctions and a review of UK arms sales to countries that are supplying the SAF and the RSF. We need accountability and justice.
I know the Minister and the Foreign Secretary care deeply about this. I agree with them, but was therefore concerned to read reports that, according to a whistle- blower, Foreign Office officials removed warning of a possible genocide in Sudan from the UK risk assessment. Why and how did that happen?
I hope the Minister will talk about the cuts that are reported to be taking place in the unit dealing with atrocity crimes, and I hope she will look at ways in which joint analysis of conflict and stability reports are made available to Parliament. In our report, we called for early and urgent warning systems to equip local organisations to be able to alert communities to potential threats and provide information on safe routes and shelters.
Between 2000 and 2020, at least 37 countries experienced mass atrocities or had concerns that they could take place, with the highest number of armed conflicts since World War II. We must do more, and I hope our debate will help us to do that.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, in addition to thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely debate, I thank him for all he does in advocating for the rights of those most in need around the world. We are grateful for the challenging and powerful way he has opened this debate.
My focus is on the mechanisms that are in place to assess the threat to life posed by cuts to UK humanitarian aid, and on their compatibility with our obligations under international law. It is a well-established principle contained in the Geneva conventions, most clearly stated in Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, that deliberate deprivation of access to food, medicine and humanitarian aid for a civilian population represents a crime against humanity. But what if this failure to facilitate the humanitarian aid, medicine and food for a starving population was a result of cutting the budgets of emergency aid providers?
Of course, there is absolutely no legal or moral equivalence between the two actions. They different profoundly in terms of intent and jurisdiction, but they differ less in terms of effect. From the perspective of the child in need or the mother who is a refugee, it matters not whether the access to the food and medicine essential to life was denied to them as a result of a warlord with a gun or an official with a pen—the impact for them both is the same.
Tom Fletcher, the outstanding emergency relief co-ordinator at the UN, has warned of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, with 87 million lives at risk this year. That is more than the total deaths in World War II. Who is defending their legal right to life? Who is intervening to stop this hidden atrocity? What happened to the responsibility to protect?
Over the next 18 months, UK aid will be cut by £6.5 billion to £9.2 billion. At a time when the humanitarian need has never been greater this century, our contribution to alleviating that suffering has never been lower this century. UK contributions to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and to the World Food Programme have already been reduced.
An in-depth study published in the Lancet last year forecast 14 million additional deaths by 2030 as a result of the USAID cuts alone, 4.5 million of them young children. Applying that same methodology to the proposed UK aid cuts would mean an additional 3.69 million deaths by 2030, and 1.18 million of those would be children. Who speaks for them? What do Articles 6 and 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child mean for them? What do they do for them?
The Government cannot claim that they are unaware of the effects of these cuts. Their own equality impact assessments of the reductions in ODA, published last year, warned them of the risks to life in cuts to health spending.
On Saturday I had the great privilege of joining more than 2,000 others at Methodist Central Hall to mark the 80th anniversary of the first meeting of the UN General Assembly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General, spoke passionately for the Government about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and reminded us that
“every person, by virtue of their humanity, has protected universal rights”.
But rights do not feed the hungry and heal the sick unless we uphold them and apply them as a measure of our actions too.
My request to the Minister this evening is this: before the revised allocations in the aid budget are implemented for the next financial year, will she ask the Attorney-General to review them to ensure that they are fully compatible with our responsibilities to protect those most in need in our world and our obligations under international law, which we have done so much in this country over the past 80 years to shape and uphold? If she does, perhaps we may rediscover the philosophy of human solidarity of which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us at the beginning of this debate.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and his deep and long-standing commitment to these issues, which serves as a great example to us all in this House.
In one of my unpaid personal roles I chair USPG, a global Anglican mission agency. We are celebrating our 325th birthday this year. We have been operating for a long time, and we operate across much of the globe. It is in that capacity in particular that I have become aware, through the contact we have with people in various jurisdictions, of places not only where atrocities are regularly committed against religious and ethnic minorities—sometimes Christians, but not exclusively—but where the security or the political situation is edging towards a greater risk of atrocity crimes and crimes against humanity in the future.
I am going to avoid the word genocide, because I am cautious about where I use it. If we use it too widely, we devalue a very powerful word that we must save for situations that are absolutely clear.
Clearly, sometimes there are atrocities committed in Britain. In my time as its bishop, Manchester has suffered both the arena attack of 2017 and the murderous assault at Heaton Park synagogue just a few months ago. But my remarks are about the wider global context. They are about places where the situation descends into a context where atrocities become systemic, and we are very much not that.
The one thing I have learned is that there can be so many different reasons why this happens. Some are cases of weak government—think of the eastern DRC, where Christian civilians are targeted by armed extremists, some of them affiliated with ISIS. There are attacks on churches, massacres during worship and killings of whole villages. The DRC is an example of a long-standing weak state. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned Darfur. I will not repeat his comments, but that is a similar example.
For these places, where the problem is the weakness of the governmental institutions, what can the UK Government do? Can we still use soft power as we often have so well in the past to support the establishment of better governmental institutions? How can we help regimes manage their countries better? Sometimes, that is by taking a long view. We have educated many future leaders. They have not all turned out to be good ones, but at least some have. What is it today?
It is not always about weak and ineffective government. Sometimes, atrocities happen where the Government themselves are behind them. Earlier this evening I was at a meeting on the estate discussing Iran. There are lots of Iranian refugees in my diocese. There are several Farsi-speaking clergy and several Farsi worshipping congregations. Perhaps Iran—along with Myanmar, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke about so eloquently—represents what happens when long-standing authoritarian Governments begin to face serious challenge.
One particularly distressing development in Iran is the increased use of maiming rather than killing. Not only does that reduce the fatality figures that inevitably dominate the news cycle but it can be politically expedient. As we have seen in the past in parts of Africa and elsewhere, if you kill someone, you make their family your enemy. If you maim someone, you make their family their carers.
How can the UK Government better support those at risk from the most oppressive regimes? We have debated refugee status so many times in this House— I will not go there tonight—but what can we do to support those at risk from the most oppressive regimes, particularly when those regimes are beginning to collapse?
We need to be alert to a lot of places where perhaps there are not a lot of atrocities committed at the moment but there is great potential in the future. I worry greatly about the situation in India—the increasing violence and the way in which the current regime in India does little to restrict that violence and its more extreme adherents and followers. The situation there has deteriorated dramatically over the last 10 years. Christians, Muslims and other minority groups are often picked on and treated in the most appalling manner. I will not go into a great list. That is an example where I fear that one of the problems we face is that our own commercial interests can trump challenging atrocities.
I remember an OQ that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about a year ago, and I came in behind him. It was about West Papua, and we were told, “Indonesia is an important trading partner; we can’t get too cross with it”. I am old enough to remember the ethical foreign policy of the incoming Blair Government in 1997. That did not last very long, did it? Are we now in an era when UK commercial interest trumps—and the pun is intended—any matters of morality? That was the principle that justified the worst excesses of our own colonial history in centuries past. Does it have to be how we choose to exercise our foreign policy in 2026?
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on introducing this debate. I am incredibly grateful to him for all he does to ensure that human rights are never forgotten in this House. This is an important topic to address, now more than ever. I declare my interest as co-chair of the Women, Peace and Security APPG and a member of the steering board of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, and I set up and chair the Afghan Women’s Support Forum.
The Red Cross reports that the global situation of armed conflict has deteriorated into a world succumbing to war, characterised by more than 130 active conflicts, more than double the number of conflicts 15 years ago. Wars are increasingly protracted, complex and deadly, with 204 million people now living in areas controlled or contested by armed groups. The ICRC warns that the rules of war are being ignored, with civilians bearing the brunt of attacks and women disproportionately affected. It was Major-General Patrick Cammaert who said:
“It is now more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier in modern wars”.
This was brought home to me when I visited Iraq last year. I had the privilege of visiting Lalish, the most sacred temple of the Yazidis. In 2014, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to, ISIL attacked the Yazidi people at Sinjar, destroying their 400,000-strong community, killing many and taking around 6,000 women and girls captive to be used as sex slaves. The UK recognised this as a genocide, and today, nearly 11 years on, a third of the women and girls are still missing.
There are so many other examples, as we have already heard, some of which have already been raised: gender apartheid in Afghanistan, child hostages and the use of rape in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Ethiopia, Haiti, DRC, Nigeria, Myanmar, the Uyghurs in China—all heartbreaking stories.
States have a legal obligation to prevent atrocities, and there are a number of international protection mechanisms in place. However, despite their powerful wording, these mechanisms are globally weak, and often there is a lack of political will with hard-worked-for commitments not integrated into policy or programmes. There is a glaring gap globally between the obligations under the Geneva conventions and action.
I understand that the UK maintains it has tools available to prevent atrocity crimes abroad, including early warning mechanisms, the use of diplomacy to de-escalate and development to address root causes. However, the Trump Administration have slashed overseas development aid. Why have the UK and others followed suit at this critical time, often removing life-saving help from the poorest countries? Most importantly, we should be investing more into conflict prevention so that atrocities are never committed. This would save not only lives but billions of pounds by averting the massive costs of war and fostering stable societies with economic growth and improved livelihoods. Studies show that every £1 invested could save as much as £100.
However, the report by Mercy Corps and Saferworld last year revealed a sharp decline in in the UK’s investment in peacebuilding, violence prevention and conflict resolution in recent years—an area in which it was once a leader. In conflict resolution, it is proven that including women in peace processes is crucial for durable peace, yet women remain significantly under- represented as negotiators, mediators and signatories despite efforts to increase their roles in peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding. The UK has just withdrawn funding for the Women Mediators across the Commonwealth network.
Too often, these crimes are committed with impunity for the perpetrators. In talking to survivors of atrocities, most will say that they want justice, yet the mechanisms for this are ineffectual, and, often, the nations where the crime is committed have no institutions or appetite to address this. How can the ICJ, the ICC and universal jurisdiction become more effective? We must not fall into the trap of mistaking process for progress, status for impact or rhetoric for action. Clearly, we need to try to ensure peace at all costs, yet the UK appears to be cutting its contribution to conflict prevention and resolution and international development at this critical time. Most importantly, we need to stand up to those who wish to ignore and undermine existing international mechanisms and instead help to strengthen them and make them more effective. I leave you with the words of Ernest Hemingway, who said:
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime”.
Lord Rook (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate, and, as others have said, for his timeless commitment to these issues. I direct noble Lords to my interest as a partner of the Good Faith Partnership and as one of the founders of the UK Freedom of Religion or Belief Forum. At the outset, I also want to thank the Minister, my noble friend Lady Chapman, for her leadership on these issues. I met the noble Baroness earlier today and I am hugely grateful to her and her team for their sustained efforts to reduce conflict and promote peace in some of the most challenging contexts around our world.
It is now almost seven years since the FCDO published the Bishop of Truro review, commissioned by the then Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. That report, led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro, now the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, Philip Mounstephen, assessed both the scale of persecution faced by Christians globally and the adequacy of our foreign policy response. Government accepted all 22 recommendations, and an independent review in 2022 welcomed further progress while also identifying the need to strengthen protections for vulnerable communities. Further progress has been made under the current Government, and, in particular, I commend the work of my honourable friend David Smith MP in the other place as the UK’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief. I also want to welcome the FCDO’s strategy for FoRB. Its willingness to identify countries of concern and prioritise specific contexts signals a welcome move towards a more proactive approach, an approach that has already been affirmed on multiple occasions by noble Lords in this debate.
By implementing the Truro recommendations, His Majesty’s Government can go a considerable way in dealing with the issues at stake in this discussion. More often than not, FoRB violations are a symptom of wider sociopolitical problems and instability. Left untreated, these issues all too easily escalate, resulting in wider harms and the potential for greater atrocities. Furthermore, the systems required for early interventions in relation to FoRB violations will increase and accelerate our ability to prevent further atrocities. As with the other 21 recommendations, His Majesty’s Government accepted recommendation 7 of the Truro review in full. There have been valuable developments since. These include the creation of the Office for Conflict, Stabilisation and Mediation and the Mass Atrocity Prevention Hub, and the development of early warning tools such as the Countries at Risk of Instability process and Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability assessments.
In terms similar to those used by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, earlier, the UN Secretary-General has warned that the world is witnessing the highest number of conflicts since the end of the Second World War, with rising identity-based violence and serious violations of international human rights ever more prevalent. In such a fragile global order, readiness to act is essential. My question is therefore focused and simple. How is recommendation 7 of the Truro review being refreshed in practice? What further steps does the Minister believe are now needed to ensure that early warning consistently leads to early action, particularly where religious persecution significantly heightens the risk of future atrocities?
The Truro review gave us a framework. The Government’s FoRB strategy gives us renewed momentum. The task now is to ensure that recommendation 7 is fully realised so that our commitment to prevention is not only principled and aspirational but operational and effective.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this important debate. Truly, he is the greatest parliamentary champion for human rights that this country has had since William Wilberforce. If you want to know just how good he is, he is the only Member of Parliament sanctioned by China, Iran and North Korea. That, to me, puts him on the side of the angels.
Tonight, I want to focus on a group no one cares much about: the genocide of Christians worldwide. The UK and the West rightly reacted strongly over the murder of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in 1995, but since then we have had 8,000 Christians killed every two years—4,000 a year for the last 30 years. That is 120,000 worldwide, with at least 50,000 of them massacred in Nigeria alone.
Persecution of Christians takes many forms: targeted killings, kidnappings, forced displacement, arson and attacks on churches, legal discrimination, imprisonment, and social exclusion. The organisation Open Doors reports more than 365 million Christians facing high to extreme persecution. Persecution is concentrated in several regions and countries. Sub-Saharan Africa is identified as the most violent region for Christians, with extremist religious groups and weak governance driving attacks. Countries repeatedly ranked highest for severity include Somalia, Eritrea, Yemen, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan.
What do these countries have in common? The killing there is done by Islamic extremist Governments or out-of-control Islamic factions dedicated to killing Christians. Islamic extremists are killing Christians at the rate of one Srebrenica every two years. The killing ranges from individual murders and targeted assassinations to mass attacks on communities and churches.
What does the UK do about it? The short answer is absolutely nothing under all Governments for the last 30 to 40 years. Theoretically, the United Kingdom evaluates atrocity risks through something called the Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability, the JACS, which the Government say is a—wait for it—strategic, cross-government assessment used by the UK Government to understand the causes, the actors, and the drivers of conflict in a specific country so as to inform effective policy and drive action, which is early warnings, diplomatic pressure, sanctions and development aid restrictions.
The JACS are not published, and everyone knows that they are useless and never implemented. The Commons International Development Committee has long called for improvements, but they were rejected by the last Government, and this one have said they will not implement them either. The JACs are a big joke, but not for the tens of thousands of murdered Christians or the hundreds of thousands driven from their homes. We do not need early warnings to understand the causes, the actors or the drivers of genocide; we just need to do something about it when we see it under our noses all around the world. How much more understanding of Muslim genocide of Christians in Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan or Somalia do we need before cutting off aid to the countries doing it or doing nothing about it?
Last year, we gave £201 million to Afghanistan, £143 million to Somalia, £142 million to Yemen, £108 million to Nigeria, and £133 million to Pakistan, which, like Nigeria, is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, spending $1 billion on nuclear weapons and $9 billion on defence. UK taxpayers fund that country, which specialises in bombing churches to kill Christians. On Afghanistan, we say that it is focusing on vulnerable women and girls, food security, health, and education. Really? The Taliban have banned girls from education after primary school, restricted their access to healthcare and restricted where they can work, causing poverty.
In September, Germany, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands announced legal action before the International Court of Justice against Afghanistan’s violence against women. Can the Minister tell me whether the UK will join these countries in legal action against the Taliban, or will we just carry on giving them the money? Afghanistan is a thoroughly evil regime which despises everything we believe in, and we just keep pouring in money in the naive belief that we are making a difference and helping women and girls.
If we want to help stop the killing of Christians, let us stop funding the countries that are doing it.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate, and I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his team for their tireless work that focuses on atrocity prevention and human rights.
The question before us is practical and legal. How do the Government assess the risk of genocide and mass atrocities, and what do they do when the risk is evident? Article 1 of the genocide prevention convention is explicit. We undertake
“to prevent and to punish”
genocide. That is a binding obligation which we have signed up to.
History shows that genocide is rarely sudden. It does not start with a mass grave, a massacre or a rape camp. It is preceded by recognisable patterns: dehumanising language, othering, scapegoating of minorities, pressure on independent media and civil society, corruption and state capture, and security forces or militias acting without constraint. Those are the conditions in which atrocity crimes become possible. We have seen this sequence too often, in Rwanda, Darfur, Srebrenica, in the persecution of Yazidis, Christians, as my noble friend said, and the Rohingya—now before the International Court of Justice, alongside allegations related to persecution of Uyghurs—and in Ukraine and Gaza. The common thread is not lack of warning, but delay and the failure of resolve and political will while action was still possible.
Others have already addressed many contexts in which genocide has happened or is happening. I will focus on Bosnia-Herzegovina. Thirty years after the genocide that was committed in Srebrenica, the risk of relapse must be treated seriously. A recent policy briefing on Bosnia produced by the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes—here I declare an interest as one of the members of its advisory board—identified familiar risks: the hollowing of state institutions, normalised hate speech, genocide denial, the celebration of convicted war criminals, corruption and parallel security structures. These are not isolated incidents.
The evidence is clear. Senior political figures in the Bosnian entity of Republika Srpska—ethno-nationalists aligned with the Kremlin—have denied genocide and publicly honoured convicted war criminals, including Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić. In this climate, all the non-Serbs are again spoken of not as equal citizens but as a threat—a threat that needs to be dealt with.
I welcome the Government’s stated support for Bosnia’s sovereignty and the Dayton settlement, and their stated commitment to EUFOR Althea, but the central question is whether this deters those prepared to push the boundaries. Deterrence is not achieved by statements. It exists only when spoilers calculate that consequences will follow from their actions.
With this in mind, I will ask several questions. Recently, the United States has regrettably lifted sanctions on the very people who are looking to destabilise the country, denying genocide and seeking separatist actions. Will the Government state unequivocally that the United Kingdom will not follow suit?
On enforcement, what concrete steps are being taken to prevent sanctions evasion through proxies, front companies and permissive jurisdictions? What further actions will be taken against those who finance and facilitate destabilisation? Additionally, I hope that the review of the foreign influence registration scheme and lobbying rules will look into paid political influence activity carried out in the United Kingdom on behalf of foreign authorities and organisations whose senior leadership is subject to UK sanctions.
On EUFOR, annual renewals at the UN Security Council create a cliff edge and an invitation to brinkmanship. Will the Government press for a more resilient mandate, including longer authorisation, so that the stability of Bosnia is not exposed to predictable yearly risks?
There is also a practical signal available right now. Would the Government consider the deployment of a small UK specialist training contingent to Bosnia, with a readiness to bolster troop strength if required? In parallel, will they also work with supportive states on co-ordinated sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, to secure compliance with international law of those bent on destabilisation?
Atrocity prevention depends on timely decisions, credible consequences and consistent enforcement. I believe that Bosnia is a country where deterrence can still work and where acting now can prevent not only instability but the crimes that so often follow it.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely debate and thank all noble Lords who have spoken in it. The contributions have been extremely thoughtful, especially from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who reminds us that these things do not always happen on the other side of the world; they are closer to home and more prevalent.
We cannot continue to think of atrocity crimes—genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing —as rare events. They are increasingly at the heart of today’s most difficult foreign policy crises, from Sudan to Myanmar, and from Gaza to Ukraine. Identity-based violence has become a weapon of choice for authoritarians and extremists, yet our systems for understanding and preventing such crimes have not kept pace.
The Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s recent report on Sudan made the situation painfully clear. It revealed that, despite clear warnings, the Government have
“opted to take the least ambitious approach to the prevention of atrocities”.
That should trouble us all. When a system fails to generate bold, timely policy options, Ministers are left unable to act with the agency such crises demand. So I ask the Minister: what lessons have been taken from Sudan and how can the Government’s approach change to ensure that early risk analysis now triggers early preventive action?
This matters all the more now, as the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s internal restructuring appears to be placing the very capability to evaluate atrocity risks at risk itself. This is not simply a reshuffling of desks; it has real implications for our ability to detect, analyse and respond to mass violence. Can the Minister show the House that atrocity prevention expertise will be safeguarded and not decreased in this process?
Finally, the whistleblower’s account that references to a possible “genocide” in Sudan were removed from internal risk assessments should prompt the most serious reflection. If officials feel unable to use the very term that describes the gravest of crimes, when the evidence points clearly in that direction, then we must confront why crucial analysis is not guiding timely action. Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons to learn from Sudan must be to strengthen the channels of honesty and accountability?
Watching and documenting atrocities is not enough. Prevention demands more than observation; it requires analysis to drive decisive action, backed by systems and structures strong enough to ensure accountability. Without such commitments, our ability to protect vulnerable populations and uphold our moral responsibilities will always fall short.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on securing this timely debate. In our increasingly unstable world, the incidence of atrocities has grown in recent years, as mentioned by all noble Lords. The noble Lord has long been an effective champion for the victims of crimes against humanity and genocide. In particular, he has consistently stood up for the Uyghurs, who have suffered so much at the hands of the Chinese Government.
The regimes and organisations that commit atrocities invariably seek to hide their crimes through information blackouts and suppression of freedom of speech. Photographic evidence is particularly powerful, and that is why those who perpetrate these crimes seek to suppress images. The importance of image-based evidence was demonstrated in the case of the massacres in Sudan, where the evidence could be seen from space using satellite imaging.
None of us will forget the harrowing images we have seen from Ukraine; and in Iran, despite the regime’s internet blackout, the evidence of murder of protesters is irrefutable. On the situation in Iran, as highlighted by the right reverend Prelate, the Times reported this weekend that as many as 16,500 protesters may have been killed by the Iranian regime. Has the Minister been able to verify any of these reports, and what steps are Ministers taking in response to them?
The systematic mass murder of civilians on this scale must be met with the harshest condemnation. We have debated the plight of the Uyghurs on many previous occasions. Can the Minister please set out what work the Government are doing to verify and monitor reports of abuses by the Chinese Government? When was the last time Ministers in her department raised this issue, and their concerns, with the Chinese Government?
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, is completely right to have triggered this important debate. We do need to monitor risks and rapidly developing situations where atrocity crimes are likely. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin as everybody else has done, by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I know he does not need this, but I will just say how much I respect and value his contributions in this House generally; tonight we heard a particularly powerful speech from him.
By contributing in this way, the noble Lord manages to keep raising the issues of atrocity prevention, genocide determination, and the atrocities that too often we see happening around the world. He brings them to us and makes sure that they are never, ever to be ignored, and that we cannot turn away. I really do thank him for doing that. I did not know he had written a book; I will find myself a copy and make sure that I read it.
I am very grateful for the discussions we have had, not just tonight but in recent months, particularly on Sudan but on many other areas as well. This has to be among the most sobering and serious of subjects that we discuss in this House: the very worst of atrocities that humans commit against each other. I thank everyone for their contributions, although I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not think everybody sees things in exactly the same way when it comes to the role our ODA programmes play; we can come on to that.
I have to begin, as the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, did, with an alarming acknowledgement that across the globe, conflict is reaching record levels, and with it so too is abhorrent violence. The noble Earl asked me if I can verify reports of the numbers coming from Iran. I am afraid I cannot do that this evening, but I am sure that we will be bringing information to the House as soon as possible, as he would want us to do.
I think people across the country are completely horrified at the accounts we are starting to hear from Iran, as well as from Sudan, certainly Gaza, from Ukraine for sure, and the from eastern DRC. We can all list these dreadful contexts. The regularity with which we are hearing such stories can leave the public, as well as us in this House, at a loss as to what we can do. Therefore, it is with a great deal of humility that I set out the UK Government’s position on this. I have met the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, to discuss the specific issue of genocide determination and universal jurisdiction. The situation I am going to lay out is the situation as it is today. That does not mean that there cannot be movement in the future. We take on board the challenge that comes on this critical issue—this is not something that can never change.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, last week, we had a discussion on aid programmes and the decision to cut our official development assistance, which we did because we wanted to spend more on hard power. That was a conscious choice we felt that we needed to make in the context that we find ourselves in. The events of recent days may lead some people to think that that was the right decision. I point out that most ODA spend is not the humanitarian assistance that he may remember as a Minister and which he described this evening. The vast majority of the humanitarian work that we do is done through multilaterals. We are the largest contributor to Gavi and we are a considerable contributor to the Global Fund and to the World Bank’s IDA programme. We are the biggest contributor to the African Development Fund, which is an African-led organisation. It leverages in far more than any programme or ODA budget that we would ever have been able to provide for Africa. We are dramatically changing how we do this. Perhaps I could organise a briefing for the noble Lord to explain this in more depth. Exchanges like this are helpful but I doubt that I would ever be able to persuade him through this mechanism, so a more detailed conversation might be worthwhile.
Identifying the risks of atrocities early, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and others have said, is essential to prevention. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester raised the importance of working on democratic structures and strengthening civil society organisations. I absolutely agree with him on that. Respectfully, I disagree slightly, in that he said that we privilege our economic connections ahead of all other considerations. I do not think that is true. The sanctions that we implement and the positions that we have taken around Ukraine very much do not bear that out. However, I take the point he makes in the spirit that he makes it.
The UK monitors risks around the world. We assess a range of factors, including ongoing armed conflict, a history of unaddressed human rights violations, and, as the right reverend Prelate said, inadequate state structures. Too often, it is states that are responsible for atrocities, but sometimes it is armed groups, such as in Haiti, which was mentioned, and Sudan and Colombia. We fund work with an exceptional organisation, Geneva Call, which attempts to work with these groups. We focus on countries and regions where the risks are most concerning and where the warning signs of imminent violence are strongest. We target UK action where we can help prevent horrific atrocities, including genocide and crimes against humanity, working alongside civil society, academic experts, bilateral partners and multilateral organisations.
I completely share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about the persecution of Christians. However, I assure him that we do not give money to the Taliban. We fund some programming in Afghanistan. It is incredibly limited, because it is a difficult place to operate, but it is humanitarian work around finding ways to fund and make possible the education of girls. We do that with partners on the ground and through the World Service, which has done some amazing, inspiring work that enables that to be possible. Noble Lords should not think that just because money is being spent in a particular geography that it is given to the Government of that country. That is very often not the case.
There are a number of tools that we use. At the forefront are our joined-up assessments of conflict and stability across countries and regions. That is a process that we updated in 2024. Noble Lords have expressed a desire to have those assessments shared with Parliament. We can all appreciate why that might not always be what happens, but I commit to taking that back and re-challenging ourselves on whether we can hold up that decision. I think that is a fair question to ask the Government.
The approach that we have draws together a vast pool of insight and expertise to identify the actors and drivers of conflict and guide our interventions to promote stability, security and peace in the long term. We have our global network of embassies. They play an important role in many aspects of this. An example I would use is our team in Kyiv, supported by specialist technical advisers and analysts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, explained really well the work that is done to help identify and assess risk and then support efforts to keep civilians safe amid ongoing attacks on civilians. She explained how this could have been done in Rwanda. I visited the genocide museum in Rwanda recently, and I recognise what she was saying. Because of time, if she does not mind, I will write to her on the specific issues around Bosnia, partly because I do not know off the top of my head the answers to all her questions, but they are issues that need to be responded to.
It is important that as a founding member and chair of the conference of participants of the register of damage, we hold Russia accountable for its crimes in Ukraine and work alongside fellow signatories to the convention to establish an international claims commission. We worked with the US and the EU to establish the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group, co-ordinating support for the office of the prosecutor-general of Ukraine, and we back efforts—I know the House is concerned about this—to identify the tens of thousands of boys and girls snatched from their families, deported and indoctrinated by Russia in a revolting attempt to erase the future of an entire nation, and help to bring them home, with over £2.8 million committed to that important work. I know that colleagues across both Houses are helping to do all we can to raise awareness of this.
We are strengthening our own systems. On the issue of FCDO 2030, several noble Lords asked about the staffing reductions at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I support the process being undertaken because the truth is that, compared with 10 years ago, even taking into account the merger of the two departments, there are 30% more people working there than before. We really have to challenge ourselves about whether that is the most efficient and dynamic way to run that organisation. We will be making changes, but I can commit to noble Lords that on the assertion that there will be less emphasis, skill and resource put into the work on atrocity prevention, conflict prevention and related issues, the hub is being taken into a wider team—so, in fact, there will be more people working on this important issue.
In response to questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rook, about the review—he specifically asked about recommendation 7—we will continue to develop our capacity to respond to atrocity risks, drawing on expertise across government and beyond, including from civil society, academia, co-operation with bilateral partners and multilateral organisations. We remain committed to this, and we will continue to do the work that is needed. Through the FCDO’s transformation plan between now and 2030, we will be updating how we work because we have to be more agile and more focused on impact.
Finally, I want to just underline the Government’s commitment to this. We will be strengthening our ability to identify risks at the earliest stage possible, deploying our global network of diplomatic and technical expertise and supporting efforts to save lives, uphold international law and break the cycle of violence that drives displacement and instability in the long term. The UK has an important role to play. We will continue to work alongside our international partners because we must do all we can to prevent atrocities wherever we can.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Banner
“Amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to introduce public interest compensation orders(1) The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.(2) After section 133(b) (compensation orders), insert “, or(c) to make a payment to one or more relevant organisations for public interest or social purposes (“public interest compensation order”).(2) In this Chapter, “relevant organisation” means an organisation listed in Schedule 22A (Relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders).”.(3) After section 135 (making a compensation order), insert—“135A Public interest compensation orders(1) When convicting a person of a relevant offence, the court shall consider whether to issue a public interest compensation order, and what the terms of that order should be.(2) In this section “relevant offence” means an offence listed in Schedule 22B (Relevant offences for public interest compensation orders).(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend the relevant offences listed in Schedule 22B.(4) In determining whether to make a public interest compensation order against an offender, the amount to be paid under such an order, or to which relevant organisation(s) the payment(s) should be made, the court must, in addition to the factor in section 135(3), have regard to—(a) the rights of victims of human rights violations (inside or outside the United Kingdom) to receive effective reparation and remedy,(b) the fact that individuals who are not proven to be direct victims of the offender’s offence may nevertheless be victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related,(c) the broader impact of the offender’s offence on victims of human rights violations in the United Kingdom or in other countries,(d) where there is a large number of victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related, the urgency of victims’ needs (which may vary depending on the harms that they have suffered),(e) where the relevant offence is an offence under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the purposes of the relevant regulations and any human rights violations arising in connection with conduct that these regulations seek to discourage, and (f) whether it would be appropriate to make another type of compensation order and, if so, whether the offender has sufficient means to pay both orders, as well as the need to prioritise compensation to direct victims of the offender’s offence.(5) If the court considers issuing a public interest compensation order, the court may (but is not required to) ask the Secretary of State to recommend the relevant organisation(s) to which the funds subject to the order should be paid and if the court makes such a request—(a) the Secretary of State shall, within 90 days (the “relevant period”), recommend to the court in writing one or more organisations to which the funds subject to the order should be paid (the “recommendation”) and in doing so, the Secretary of State must have regard to the same factors as under subsection (4) above(b) the court may issue a public interest compensation order after the earlier of—(i) the court having received a recommendation, and(ii) the relevant period having expired,(c) if a recommendation has been made within the relevant period, the court may take it into account in issuing a public interest compensation order but shall not be bound by it.(6) The court may direct that confiscated funds be paid to a relevant organisation subject to such conditions as it considers appropriate.(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend the organisations listed in Schedule 22A and the Secretary of State shall review the organisations listed in Schedule 22A at least annually.(8) If, under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State recommends one or more organisations that are not listed in Schedule 22B, the organisation(s) recommended by the Secretary of State shall be considered relevant organisation(s) for the purposes of the public interest compensation order at issue.(9) For the purposes of this section, a court may issue a public interest compensation order regardless of whether there is a direct connection between the offender’s conduct and the harm suffered by the ultimate recipients or beneficiaries of the public interest compensation order.”.(4) After Schedule 22 (Amendments of the Sentencing Code and related amendments of other legislation), insert the following new Schedule—“Schedule 22ARelevant organisations for public interest compensation orders1 The following organisations—The Trust Fund for Victims, created by the Assembly of States Parties in accordance with article 79 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.The Register of Damage Caused by the Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, established within the framework of the Council of Europe by Resolution CM/Res(2023)3, or any successor body or attached fund.The United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, established by the United Nations General Assembly through resolution 36/151 of 16 December 1981.”.(5) After Schedule 22A (Relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders), insert the following new Schedule— “Schedule 22BRelevant offences for public interest compensation orders1 The following offences to the extent that they are offences under the law of England and Wales—Offences arising under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to amend the Sentencing Act 2020. It would allow the courts to award compensation orders not only to individuals but also for public interest or social purposes, thereby enabling the proceeds of confiscated criminal assets to be more readily used to compensate victims of offences under the UK’s sanctions legislation.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 417 I will speak to the associated Amendment 419, both in my name and with named support across the Committee. The purpose of these amendments is to provide a clear and easy-to-use legal basis for those found guilty of sanctions breaches and other similar offences to pay compensation in the public interest to specified victims’ organisations listed in the proposed Schedule 22A and any other similar organisations added to that list through regulations.
There is a clear case for legislative intervention in this area. By way of overview, the existing law provides only a very narrow basis for using the proceeds of confiscated criminal assets to compensate victims, and only in straightforward cases. Victims are rarely allocated any share of the sums recovered. Amendments 417 and 419 would empower courts to award compensation for public interest or social purposes, addressing a significant gap in the law by enabling compensation in the more complex cases for which the existing law is ill suited—for example, supporting Ukrainians who are most impacted by breaches of the UK’s targeted sanctions against the Putin regime and its corrupt cronies.
Against that overview, I turn to the main features of the existing law to demonstrate why they do not go far enough. First, compensation orders under the Sentencing Act 2020 are designed to compensate direct victims of criminal conduct. Where a conviction has been secured, the court is empowered to order the offender to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage arising from the offence in question. The courts have, however, held that these kinds of compensation orders are intended only for clear and simple cases, where there is an obvious direct victim and the amount of compensation can readily and easily be ascertained. Thus, for example, a builder may take a £15,000 deposit to complete building work for a home owner and fraudulently make no attempt to carry out the work. There is a clear victim and a clear loss: the home owner and the £15,000. The compensation order is well suited to handle that sort of case.
By contrast, a court is highly unlikely to be able to make a standard compensation order in a sanctions breach or similar case. Sanctions breaches are rarely clear and simple cases because, by the nature of the offence, the consequences are wide reaching, and they can violate the rights of a large number of people. Victims of the breach, or indeed the precise loss or damage suffered, will typically be very difficult to identify or quantify with the necessary precision required by the current law.
Courts are ill equipped to handle victim compensation in such cases, given the vast and multifaceted harms at issue and the indirect connection between the harms and the sanctions breach. The NGO Redress has advised that its experts are not aware of any single sanctions breach case in the UK in which the court has issued a compensation order for victims. I would be interested to know whether the Minister can provide us with any such examples. Such compensation orders are simply not suited to complex economic crime, such as sanctions offences.
The second area of the existing law is confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In the event of a conviction, the court can order the confiscation of a portion of an offender’s assets, provided they have been found to have benefited from their criminal conduct. These confiscation orders are intended to deprive the defendant of the proceeds of the crime, rather than to compensate victims. The amounts confiscated are usually paid to the Government’s bank account and then sometimes shared across certain government departments and arm’s-length bodies. No amount is typically paid to victims, subject to very limited exceptions.
The third category of the existing law is forfeiture orders, also under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In this respect, agencies such as the National Crime Agency, HMRC and the Serious Fraud Office, among others, can institute civil forfeiture proceedings in some situations, in which a court may issue a forfeiture order in respect of funds associated with unlawful conduct. Here too, however, the law is inadequate to deal with sanctions breaches. There is a statutory requirement for funds that have been forfeited under such an order to be paid, again, to the Government’s general bank account, with very limited exceptions relating to situations where someone can show that the amount belongs to them and that they were deprived of it by the offender’s unlawful conduct. Again, that is ill suited to the sanctions context.
Pulling this together, I suggest that, unless the law is changed, in the vast majority of cases judges will have no real ability to award compensation to the victims of sanctions and associated crimes. Not a penny will go to the very people most harmed by the criminal violation in question, not because they are undeserving or have not suffered a harm, but simply because there is a gap in the law that means their position cannot be addressed. This shortcoming is increasingly indefensible in the current world in which we live and will only grow as the UK rightly takes more sanctions enforcement action, most immediately in the context of Ukraine but also in any future cases.
Dealing with the context of Ukraine, the UK positions itself, quite admirably, as a global leader on Russian sanctions. Some 3,000 targets have been sanctioned to date. Yet, when it comes to enforcing these sanctions and penalising any breaches of them, it is the UK, not the victims, that retains the proceeds. Having dedicated unprecedented diplomatic and financial resources to seeking to bring an end to Putin’s war for the benefit of the Ukrainian people, it is striking that the courts have practically no legal basis to channel any of the proceeds of Russian sanctions breaches to Ukrainian victims, whom the sanctions programme is ultimately intended to protect.
I turn to alternatives. In correspondence between Redress and the Home Office, which I have seen, the Minister referred to other amendments proposed to the Bill to ensure that the uplifts to existing confiscation orders can similarly be redirected. However, these are subject to the same or similar limitations as the existing law. In particular, the limitation of the concepts of victim and loss being narrowly defined means that redress is not available for indirect victims. It is that gap that my Amendments 417 and 419 are intended to address.
In the light of that, I stress that my challenge to the Minister is a constructive one, because I want to put on the record the personal experience I have of the deeply conscientious engagement he has had on matters of Ukraine that I have raised with him. I thank him publicly for that, as I have done privately. Can he offer a cast-iron guarantee that the existing law, coupled with any proposed amendments the Government are putting forward, goes as far as Amendments 417 and 419, or does he accept that there is a gap? If he does, can he explain the justification for it? I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I have signed Amendments 417 and 419. The noble Lord has made a powerful, constructive and eloquent case for we should try to tackle the public interest compensation orders and deal with the gap that is left by confiscation orders, compensation orders and forfeiture, which he mentioned in his speech.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
I support the noble Lord, Lord Banner, on Amendments 417 and 419. I will not repeat what I and my colleagues have said many times in this House. I am, however, most anxious about the compensation money that does not go to these countries and these people. We are told that it is in the Treasury in some cases; we ask about interest; and we have had a debate with, and letters from, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. But these amendments could really change things, so that everybody would know where the interest is going, where the money for the victims is going, where it is held, how it is given, how it is sent, and who is in receipt of it. This is vital, because we can see what is happening in Ukraine, which will need much more support; and we know that this is happening in Russia and elsewhere.
Also, we work on the case of the DRC all the time; we know what is happening there and in other countries. It is vital that this be included in the Bill. It would make such a difference to so many people around the world, and it would deal with the perpetrators. So I hope the Government will look at this. Finally, I would like to thank Redress for all the support it has given to us, along with writing to the departments and so on.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I had hoped to speak to this Bill on Second Reading, but was unable to do so; I hope noble Lords will allow me to jump in in Committee.
As has been pointed out elegantly by previous speakers, standard compensation orders are simply not suited to complex economic crimes such as sanctions offences. We now have these two amendments, which seek to ensure that victims are not excluded from receiving compensation simply because their harm is deemed too indirect or too complex for UK law to handle. We also know that it is highly likely that the UK will bring in yet more sanctions, particularly in the context of Russia and Ukraine. It is therefore timely to adjust our laws now.
In the comprehensive briefing that we all received from Redress, of which I am honoured to be a patron, it has been estimated that, at present, there are almost 3,000 targets of sanctions imposed by the UK Government, and more are likely to follow. However, as we have learned, at present the courts have almost no legal basis to channel any of the proceeds to Ukrainian victims, who the sanctions are intended to protect.
Achieving a way to compensate victims of Russian aggression from the criminal assets of oligarchs breaching UK sanctions will be perceived by the Ukrainians as a form of justice that is not to be sniffed at. These amendments would strengthen UK law by empowering courts to award compensation orders for
“public interest or social purposes”
by means of compensation forfeiture orders arising from criminal conduct under the UK’s sanction laws. I thoroughly support these amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 418. I also support Amendments 417 and 419, which were spoken to so well by the noble Lords, Lord Banner and Lord Alton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady D’Souza—powerful testimony. Collectively, these amendments provide a necessary pathway for turning the proceeds of international crime into a force for restorative justice.
Currently, when the Crown Court makes a confiscation order, the primary objective is to deprive a defendant of their benefit from crime. While we support this, a significant gap remains in how these recovered funds are used, particularly when the criminal conduct involves serious human rights violations, mass-atrocity crimes or grand corruption. At present, funds not directly owed to a specific claimant in the immediate proceedings often flow into the general consolidated fund.
The Minister, in his recent letter to the human rights organisation Redress—of which I know there are many supporters in the Chamber today—suggests that current mechanisms are sufficient. He argued that the UK already shares over 50% of proceeds recovered through international co-operation with other Governments. However, as Redress compellingly points out, state-level sharing is not the same as victim redress. When funds are returned to a foreign state, the level of support victims receive depends entirely on the political will and potential corruption risks within that recipient state. Victims of mass atrocities and grand corruption have a clear preference for reparations paid for by their abusers and enablers. It is a matter of human dignity, justice and their own healing journey.
Amendment 418 would give courts the discretion to direct a portion of these confiscated proceeds towards
“public interest or social purposes”.
This is not a mere accounting change but a mechanism to provide support, redress or therapeutic services to victims of international human rights violations who might otherwise have no procedural pathway to compensation. To ensure that these funds are managed with the highest level of integrity, my Amendment 418 would require the Secretary of State to establish a public purpose fund. This fund would be subject to strict regulations, operation and auditing. It would ensure that recovered sums are applied to defined social purposes before any remaining balance reverts to the state under Section 55(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and it would require the court to calculate directives while respecting the duty to ensure full payment of any existing priority orders or compensation directives for direct victims.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 417, from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to which I have attached my name. I think there is very little I can add to the technical, financial and legal arguments in support that have already been made from all sides of the Committee. I will simply confine myself to a diagonal point on the effectiveness of the UK sanctions regime, which is funded by taxpayers’ money. A huge amount of work and official time goes into ensuring that it is effectively implemented, but the funds and the proceeds remain largely in the UK. It would be a better return on the intention of that public time and effort if those funds ultimately reached victims. That is what the public expect when they support a sanctions regime.
I attach to that the recent debate over the effectiveness of sanctions in general. Surely the measures in these amendments would increase public confidence in the overall sanctions policy of the Government, if the public are able to see that victims themselves are truly the beneficiaries of funds sequestered by their use. I consider the current position to be a rationing of justice and, as Sophocles said, there is no justice if it is rationed.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for introducing this series of amendments and congratulate those who supported him. This is an important public policy question that can, from time to time, raise its ugly head—although it is then ignored. I hope that, as my noble friend has so attractively argued for his amendments just now, we will gain some momentum.
I turn to a related but not exactly identical subject: compensation for overseas victims of crimes committed by British defendants. I raised that question during Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill on 16 December, just before Christmas. The Minister there, who is in her place—I think it is the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, who will kindly respond to this group, and I am, as always, grateful to him for bearing that burden—recognised that the question of compensation for overseas victims was a matter of some importance that she would think about. Indeed, she suggested that she might like to meet me to discuss it further. I am open to that invitation, as I am sure would be my noble friend Lord Banner.
My noble friend has opened up a discussion about a lacuna in our law, in that we fail adequately to compensate victims. The victims could be those who have suffered at the hands of the Russians or of those that we, the European Union or the United States have sanctioned. I say in parenthesis that part of my practice at the Bar involves sanctions law, so anything that legislates to increase the size of my practice is to be welcomed. More to the point, it seems to me that we have two parallel streams, which demonstrate that the way we treat victims is insufficient and inadequate.
I thank my noble friend for bringing this to the attention of the Committee and the Government more directly. I trust that, when the Minister comes to respond, he will do so positively. If he is unable to do so, I invite my noble friend to reintroduce his amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill when it comes back to us in Committee at some as yet unannounced date.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their amendments in this group, and all noble Lords who spoke.
Amendments 417 and 419, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, would provide courts with the power to make public interest compensation orders during the sentencing of certain offences. He made a typically eloquent and compelling case for these amendments. He has consistently and powerfully campaigned, especially on Ukraine and the proceeds of sanctions, and I pay tribute to him for that.
Public interest compensation orders would grant the courts the ability to compel offenders to pay money to approved international or public interest bodies that support victims of serious human rights violations, such as torture or aggression. The courts would have to consider relevant factors, such as the broader human rights impact of the crime and the need to prioritise direct victims where relevant.
The amendment also lists relevant eligible recipient organisations with powers for the Secretary of State to update them, creating a structured mechanism for using the proceeds of sanctions-related crime in reparative funding for victims in the wider public interest. The amendment proposes a reasonable and practical process through which courts could divert illegally obtained funds to support victims, and I hope that the Government consider it very carefully. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Amendment 418 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, similarly proposes a mechanism through which the courts could direct a portion of confiscated proceeds for public interest or social purposes. It is very similar in nature to Amendment 417; it differs slightly in that it specifically requires the courts to consider whether the crime in question
“involved serious human rights violations, mass atrocity crimes, or grand corruption”.
But like Amendment 417, it raises very important issues as well as a broader question: if we are to make public compensation orders, what crimes should they apply to? I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on that matter too.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his amendments. He has had a wide level of support today from, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Kempsell, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lady Goudie. They have all spoken well on this series of amendments. I will try to address the amendments, self-evidently, but I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in particular, that I know how committed he is to Ukraine. He has my support in addressing the viciousness of the Russian regime and the international crimes that it has committed by invading Ukraine. There are obviously a number of consequences to that, but the principles that he puts forward today could apply to a number of other regimes as well.
The amendments seek to amend the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to enable courts to issue public interest compensation orders. These orders would be for public interest or social purposes to support those who may be impacted by offences under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, including victims of human rights violations, as well as other offences added by the Secretary of State via secondary legislation. I recognise the intentions behind these amendments and affirm the Government’s support for victims of human rights abuses and our commitment to tackling economic crime.
On Amendment 417, courts already have the power to impose a compensation order on an offender, which would require them to make financial reparation to a direct victim of a specific offence for any resulting personal injury, loss or damage. Therefore, in seeking to amend the Sentencing Act to allow courts to award compensation orders for public interest or social purposes, there is a danger that it would undermine the current victim-centred approach of the legislation to date.
In passing, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that I know he is seeking a meeting with my noble friend Lady Levitt. It may be my fault that it has not happened, because of a diary clash, but we are agreeing to examine that, and either my noble friend’s office or mine will get back to him with regard to a meeting on those issues.
I recognise the critical importance of supporting victims of crime. As noble Lords will know, the victim surcharge is imposed on offenders by the court in the public interest to ensure that they hold some responsibility towards the cost of supporting victims and witnesses. The revenue raised from this surcharge is currently used to fund victim services through the victims and witnesses general fund, so the principle has been established.
The UK provides support for victims of human rights and sanctions violations worldwide. Noble Lords may wish to know that we have committed to provide £22 billion of funding to Ukraine. The Government are currently exploring further avenues—such as the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan to Ukraine—alongside our colleagues in the G7 and the EU. This has seen a $50 billion loan to Ukraine, which—this goes to the heart of the amendments tabled—is to be serviced and repaid by future profits generated from frozen Russian sovereign assets.
Lord Banner (Con)
I thank the Minister for his comments, and indeed all speakers. The force of the unanimity on this issue across the Committee is telling. I hope it is the beginning of the momentum that my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier called for.
With respect to a couple of points the Minister mentioned, the proposal would not distract from the existing law because it applies only to relevant offences, which are defined in the amendment as, essentially, sanctions and money laundering. The option of a public interest compensation order would not be available for the dodgy builder-type case that I outlined before. It would not, in fact, distract from direct victims but, in precisely those kinds of offences where the existing law is inapt, it would provide for a remedy for victims. It is true that this category is relatively narrowly defined, but it is precisely that category of offences where the law is currently deficient.
I therefore urge the Minister and officials to give this further consideration. If he is not sick of meeting me on Ukraine-related matters, I am very happy to meet him again to talk through how the wording could perhaps be tweaked to deal with some of the issues he has outlined. If we cannot reach agreement, I would be inclined to bring this back on Report, and/or in the context of the Victims and Courts Bill, as my noble friend mentioned. Against all that background, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Duty to review treatment of childhood convictions and cautions(1) Within a year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the management of childhood convictions and cautions.(2) The report must consider at least—(a) the prevention of automatic disclosure of childhood conditional cautions;(b) the prevention of adult treatment of offences committed by individuals who were minors at the time of the offences in question taking place;(c) the range of childhood convictions which are removed from standard and enhanced checks after five and a half years.(3) In considering the areas outlined in subsection (2), the report must consider the policy merits of reform of the existing management of childhood convictions and cautions, and which actions would be required in each case for reform to take place.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report reviewing how childhood convictions and cautions are handled within one year of this Act being passed.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in this group on childhood convictions, Amendment 420 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Brinton seeks a general review and report on the management of childhood convictions and cautions. Later in the group, there are four specific amendments. Three are tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with all his wide experience of working as a magistrate, particularly in the youth court, and is also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Spellar and Lord Hampton; the other is tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I support all four specific amendments. They are all consistent with our general proposition that we should be very careful before we mark people out with a criminal record for mistakes committed when they were children.
I am grateful for the briefing we have received from Unlock and Transform Justice. They make a number of helpful proposals for reform. Our amendment calls for a report to be commissioned and laid before Parliament within a year to enable Parliament to be fully informed on the issues and possible reforms in this difficult area —and it is a difficult area. We must not only consider the position of young people who acquire criminal records that may blight their futures but balance their position against the need to protect future employers and others who might be affected by repeat offences in the future, in particular vulnerable children, and society as a whole.
The position of children in England and Wales is exacerbated because we have a very young age of criminal responsibility—10 years old—with the result that, in this jurisdiction, children aged between 10 and 17 can be convicted of criminal offences. This compares with the Netherlands, Belgium, and Scotland, which raised the age of criminal responsibility in 2019, and with Germany, Spain, and Italy, where it is 14, along with many other countries. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires states to set a minimum age of criminal responsibility without expressing what that should be, but the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urges states to raise the age to 14.
The reasons why this matters are not confined to the unfairness of punishing children for crimes when they lack the maturity or responsibility to be held criminally responsible by state laws. The unfairness extends to exposing them to the long-term disadvantage of being scarred with criminal records acquired for childhood offences for longer than is necessary for the protection of the public and often well into their adulthood.
There is a wealth of evidence of the ages at which young people’s brains and cognition mature. Although it differs, the best evidence provides that full maturity is not reached until the early 20s and that full responsibility does not develop until the late teens at least. That matches the obvious and instinctively understood reality that children and young people are that much more likely to get into trouble than adults. Yet, we do not presently match our law on the acquisition, collation and disclosure of criminal records to that obvious reality.
There are many injustices. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds and minority communities are much more likely to acquire criminal records than children from more privileged backgrounds. There is a vicious circle in operation here. Disadvantaged children are overwhelmingly more likely to be in care, to be excluded from school and to develop personality disorders and other mental health issues. Those factors make them significantly more likely to commit offences and get into trouble with the law.
By saddling children with criminal records, we make their disadvantages worse in securing employment or training opportunities, and even in further education. Fines and community orders generally stay on a child’s record for two years on a basic check, and maybe for much longer if an enhanced check is sought, which it is likely to be for any work in a school, for example.
It is not just convictions, though, that damage children. Cautions in childhood can prevent children and young adults securing employment. A basic DBS check provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service, which it is open to any potential employer to seek, will disclose youth conditional cautions, which are intended to be an alternative to formal criminal proceedings. Such conditional cautions can be given to anyone aged between 10 and 17 and avoid the need for criminal proceedings. That is clearly a sensible strategy to provide an alternative criminal justice solution to avoid the need for proceedings and a formal conviction. However, the caution will stay on the child’s record on a basic DBS check for three months or until the conditions have been complied with, whichever is earlier. Even in that time, the caution is capable of being really damaging to that child’s prospects.
Then again, the effect of court backlogs has been, as we know, that convictions are delayed. Such delays may last from the date when a person charged with an offence was a child to a date long after that child’s 18th birthday, so they are then an adult. So, a person can commit an offence as a child and be convicted as an adult but, for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, the date when the conviction becomes spent depends on the date of conviction rather than the date of the offence. So, through no fault of their own, children’s convictions for offences that ought to have been spent are unspent for far longer.
This is an area in serious need of review. We need wider consideration of all the issues concerning the treatment of criminal records acquired for childhood offences, including: whether and for how long children’s offences should stay on their records; how far the seriousness of the sentence passed should be the sole or even the main criterion for convictions becoming spent; what other criteria there should be; whether conditional cautions should be treated as giving rise to a criminal record; how far it should be open to children convicted of offences committed in childhood to apply for their records to be expunged—when, to whom and on what basis; and how far such offences should still be disclosed on standard and enhanced higher-level DBS checks.
These are serious issues affecting many lives that are currently blighted by a past that sticks with them, and they are important to society as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for so fully setting out his and the other amendments in this group. I agreed with his opening points, and I support all the amendments—I suspect all the speakers in this short debate will support them too. In a sense, they offer a range of possible changes, from a broad review to addressing specific anomalies, which the noble Lord did.
I am absolutely confident that our Lord Chancellor would be very sympathetic to these amendments. I know that he has said in recent speeches that he wants to look at criminal records, and those for young people in particular. That is an excellent starting point, and I hope that the Minister can reinforce that point when she comes to sum up.
Touching on the amendments in my name, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lord Spellar, who will speak on these matters as well. My Amendment 476 seeks to prevent the automatic disclosure of childhood conditional cautions in a DBS check by amending the definition of a criminal conviction certificate in the Police Act 1997.
My Amendment 477, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, addresses a clear anomaly in the law as it stands. The amendment seeks to ensure that the criminal record for a juvenile is dated from the offence rather than the conviction date. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, these could be really quite far apart, so the way the conviction is treated will be different, because the young adult will be convicted even though the offence was committed when he was a youth.
Amendment 478 seeks to ensure that custodial sentences, except for the most serious sentences, will be removed from an individual’s criminal record after five and a half years if the offence was committed before the age of 18.
Sitting here earlier today and at previous Committee sittings of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, drew something to my attention which I was not aware of involving non-crime hate incidents. He pointed out that, for youths, a non-crime hate incident is treated the same as for an adult, and that means a six-year retention of the information. That is another example of an anomaly, and I hope, when the Home Office comes to report on non-crime hate incidents, it can ensure that that is tied up with the Ministry of Justice considering the way youth convictions are looked at for DBS checks.
I also want to say something about Amendment 486D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. That is specifically about transport-related convictions of young people. I support what he is going to say, I am sure, but I have to say that, as a youth magistrate for nearly 20 years, I cannot remember ever seeing a young person in court for evasion of a fare. If he has figures—he is nodding his head—I will listen to them with interest, because it is not my personal experience of what I saw in youth court. I tend to see much more serious cases, but nevertheless I will listen to and support what he says with interest.
The overarching point is that this is a difficult area. It is very easy to point out anomalies. I am sure that we have a very sympathetic Lord Chancellor, and I really hope that the Government seize this opportunity to address the overarching issue of the way we treat our young people, so that they are not held back when they go into the adult world and the world of work.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I have been arguing for some years in the House of Commons that the DBS scheme has, frankly, run out of control. I can quote from June 2020, when I said to the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson that it was
“a major obstacle to people turning their lives around. It is inefficient, unfair and, frankly, discriminatory. The Lammy report dealt with this in some depth nearly two years ago, so we do not need any more … inquiries. We need action”.
Reference has been made to the impact in different parts of the country. In smaller police forces, not only are cases often not taken to court but cautions are not issued, and instead people are very informally told to mend their ways. In cities, it can often be very different, and this also still lies on the record. The then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in his reply to me:
“Any MP will have had very hard cases caused by the DBS system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/20; col. 1309.]
I think there is a general recognition at the political level that this is a problem. I have to say from all my experience that there is deep inertial resistance inside the Civil Service to changing this, and I urge Ministers vigorously to overcome it, particularly given the report done by David Lammy, who was commissioned by the then Conservative Government to look into this area.
We also saw similar problems with the first elections for police and crime commissioners. Unwisely, a requirement was put in that someone should have no criminal conviction. We had a candidate who had to stand down as he had been convicted for possessing an offensive weapon when he was 13. We had another candidate who had committed a minor offence 22 years previously. These are people with long records of public service, and in no way should that have been held against them.
Whatever steps we take should also relate to proportionality and relevance. When I was a Transport Minister, there were proposals to introduce DBS checks at airports—I fully understood that—but if somebody had a conviction for an assault outside a nightclub in Southall on a Saturday night, I was not really worried if he was throwing my bags around in the luggage section. I would have been concerned if he had had a conviction for theft or for dealing in stolen goods. That also needs to be taken into account and be put right.
As a constituency Member of Parliament, I also had a woman who had been given a suspended sentence for an assault, age 18, in an argument with another girl over a partner. In her 40s, this was still preventing her. This does not just affect young people; it blights people right the way through their lives—and not just their lives but their children’s lives, as they are not able to provide support for them and have all the frustration of not developing their skills of life. It does not let people move on but also deprives the workforce of talent.
We are told sometimes that DBS checks and the ongoing system are fine, and that employers will look at them and take proportional action. They do not. Once a DBS check comes back with anything on the record, the fact is that people automatically get dropped. What is even more outrageous is that those same employers then go bleating to government, saying, “We can’t get workers here”, and so we have to bring them in from abroad. That was one factor that led to the huge surge of care workers being brought into this country in recent years—a considerable amount of exploitation and fraud accompanied it, by the way. At the same time, people were being kept off work, on benefits, not able to provide for themselves or their families.
My plea to the Committee is to support change and give people hope that they can turn their lives around, to take the opportunity to reinstate what I would argue were the principles of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act when it was first brought forward, and to make some progress. We may need to make further changes in the future, but these amendments provide a very good start.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad that I waited for the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, to contribute to the debate, as I agree with just about everything that he has said. Noble Lords may say that that is not terribly difficult, given that I have co-signed the amendments that he has signed. I share his view that —I am paraphrasing what he said and will probably get it wrong—reviews can sometimes go nowhere. Having listened to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I am much attracted to our amendment.
Equally, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Marks, introducing his amendment, and having studied it a little more closely, I am attracted by his idea that the review should look into what I think we all admit is a quite complicated area, in public policy terms, of discussion. I am attracted to the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Marks. If this amendment is accepted by the Government, we would have a report within a year of the Bill’s enactment—we could be talking about, say, June 2027, by the time the review has taken place and the Government have reported. Further, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 420 begins by saying:
“The report must consider at least”,
and then identifies three broad subject areas. It would be able to take on board the points that the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Spellar, have so far outlined.
A combination of these four separate proposals need to grip the Government’s attention, so that we can come back with a coherent, thought-through and workable set of policies that recognise the need for these two public interests to be borne in mind; that is to say, the protection of the public and employers and so forth, set against the need to allow youngsters who may have made some terrible mistakes to get on and live their lives.
I will finish with an anecdote. I used to make a habit of visiting prisons and so forth, when I was shadow Minister of Prisons—before the ark was set afloat. The adult male prison population was once largely aged between 21 and 30. It was an unscientific approach but I noticed that, since around the first decade of this century, the average age of the adult male prison population has risen, largely because of the conviction of historic sex offenders. People have been convicted in, say, the 2010s, in their 60s or 70s, for offences committed when they were youngsters, so the average age of the prison population has to some extent risen. It is a generalisation, and something that the review could look into, but, by and large, people grow out of criminal behaviour. Once they have found a partner and somewhere to live, and got a job—as long as they have not been ruined by Rehabilitation of Offenders Act antipathy—they will get on, earn a living and live their lives. The stupidity of their teenage years falls away behind them, and it should be allowed to stay there.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments. As is my way, I must sound a note of caution for one group of people. I know that many noble Lords have a problem with our very low age of criminal responsibility, but it affords a level of protection to young children being groomed for gangs. We need to bear that in mind.
I have great sympathy for these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Spellar, spoke about the Lammy review. I was on the Lammy review. I ran a job club for over 12 years, and many of the young men I dealt with were unable to seek employment because of what we used to call a blip when they were younger that was still appearing on their DBS. That small blip often drove them to much more serious crime, because they were older and needed to raise more money.
We should do a review, because it is a complicated area, but there are two things to focus on. First, returning to my theme, the single biggest driver of crime is the idea that you have got away with it. If we are going to remove some of the consequences, we need to think clearly and carefully about how that will be perceived by people who are involved in criminal activity—particularly if they are young and do not have all the experiences to risk-assess their own behaviour. We must bear that in mind, because, inadvertently we might be encouraging them to approach criminal behaviour. The myth on the street will be that when you are 18, it is wiped out anyway. We might argue about the nuance of what we are prepared to wipe out or not, but that will not be the conversation on a dark night in the park when the boys are planning their next manoeuvre. It is important that we bear that in mind.
Secondly, there are people in gangs whose sole job is to recruit young people. One of the big things they say to those young people is, “You are too young to go to court”. We have to be careful about making that true, or at least appear to be true. Removing these spent convictions would be such a powerful thing to help people move on, and I support it, but let us think very carefully about how we talk about it, where we draw the lines, how we explain it and how it is enacted in reality rather than just in concept as we sit in this Chamber.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to all these amendments, particularly Amendments 476, 477 and 478. These amendments highlight how the system of criminal record disclosure, particularly as it relates to children, is complex and very confusing. I am an advocate for criminal record reform, having been a youth magistrate for over 20 years and having been on the Youth Justice Board. Those roles have consistently demonstrated to me how decisions made in childhood, often in relation to relatively minor offences, can have consequences that extend well into adult life, as we have heard this evening.
As noble Lords will know, I recently tabled an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to address the anomaly in youth sentencing whereby the first court appearance, rather than the date of the offence, determines whether a young person is treated as an adult. I am therefore very conscious of the unfair impact these technicalities beyond a child’s control can have on their future.
Although we have had success in reducing the number of children in custody because we wanted to keep young people out of prison, we have at the same time increased the threshold of seriousness of offending in these disposals of conditional cautions over a number of years.
I know that the Justice Secretary has recently acknowledged publicly that aspects of the criminal records and disclosure system are in need of reform. Rehabilitation is about giving people a chance to change, and, where appropriate, we should work to ensure that childhood mistakes do not turn into lifelong punishments, giving them the opportunity to get on with their lives.
I am also attracted to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier referred. It is very important that the Minister view these amendments on childhood as an opportunity to reflect on a broader review of criminal records and the DBS disclosure system, which might now be appropriate.
These amendments highlight just how complex the system has become. Ensuring that the system is fairer, while keeping in mind the importance of rehabilitation and protection to the public, would, in my view, be a worthwhile objective.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendments 476, 477 and 478 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to which I have added my name. I am also sympathetic to the other amendments in this group and declare, as ever, that I am a schoolteacher in Hackney. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Transform Justice.
I rather innocently assumed that one of the cornerstones of the justice system in this country is rehabilitation, but this does not seem to be the case with our young people. As we have heard, every year in England and Wales there are 13,000 convictions of children aged 10 to 17, who are disproportionately from poor backgrounds, minoritised communities, in care or excluded from school. Those convicted acquire criminal records which only add to their disadvantage.
Some of these criminal records remain through life. A child charged for affray for a playground fight would have to disclose that for ever on a standard and enhanced DBS check. Also, currently, as we have heard, a criminal record is acquired on conviction rather than according to the date of the offence itself. This means that many people commit offences as children but acquire an adult criminal record because, through no fault of their own, the hearing at which they are convicted happens after their 18th birthday. This situation has got worse because of the recent delays in the court system. This is patently absurd.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has said, brains do not mature until people are well into their twenties. Also, research has shown that teenagers take more risks when they have an audience. As I see in the playground every week, children are immature and often reckless, not seeing the consequences of their actions.
Our criminal records should allow for rehabilitation in order to allow young people to move on from childhood mistakes. These amendments would mean that young people should be able to be free of their childhood offences at a specific interval after they have finished their sentence, so they do not have to explain old and no longer relevant childhood offences to potential employers—even if they manage to get as far as an interview. We are not talking about the most serious crimes here.
For everyone else, these amendments would mean that childhood offences should automatically be taken off the records five and a half years after conviction. We also propose that a conditional caution, when accepted by a child, should not appear on the records. We propose that those whose conviction is delayed until after their 18th birthday should not acquire an adult criminal record.
With the number of NEETs approaching 1 million, we should be doing everything we can to remove barriers to employment and let rehabilitation of the young be truly part of the justice system.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I am going to speak to Amendment 486D, and I support all the other amendments in this group. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his compelling introduction, and for the other powerful speeches. You may wonder why I have tabled this very specific amendment. The best way I can relate it is to tell a brief story. I was truly shocked when a friend drew my attention to an incident involving his teenage daughter a few years ago, but which, I believe, affects many of our young people, receives very little publicity and ruins many lives.
My friend’s daughter had arrived at a railway station to find that the ticket machines were not working and there was a long queue for the ticket office. Desperate to catch a train to get her vaccinations for charitable work abroad, she foolishly jumped on a train without a ticket.
When she got out at her destination, she offered to pay at the barrier. The inspector told her to get a ticket at the ticket office. However, there was a long queue, so, knowing that she would not have time to do that, she went to the machines, but she found that she could not get a machine ticket for a journey from the station where she had left to the station she had arrived at.
Very naively, she thought she would therefore get the ticket after her appointment for vaccinations, and she left the station in a state of some panic. It was then that she was approached by the ticket inspector and told she was to be prosecuted under Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 for travelling without paying the fare with intent to avoid payment. It was the first time she had ever done something like this. Her ticket would have cost £3.20. That is less than a cappuccino coffee.
I discovered that, if convicted, she might not only face a fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for up to three months, but her conviction would be recorded on the Police National Database and future potential employers would see it after a basic criminal records search for up to six years and for up to 11 years, I believe, after an enhanced check. Through just one moment’s teenage lack of judgment, her prospects of obtaining a job and a career would be blighted during a crucial period when most young people are trying to get on the career ladder—all for a £3.20 fare.
Acting as a friend, I had many exchanges of correspondence with the rail company, all to no avail. The upshot was that I ended up joining her and her desperately worried parents at the local magistrates’ court for her hearing, where I intended to plead the mitigating circumstances of her case. To my horror, I discovered she was one of dozens of other children and young people queuing up that morning, charged with exactly the same offence, which was a regular occurrence at that magistrates’ court, I found. It was nothing unusual. I managed to persuade the train company to drop her case if she paid a fine, but thousands of other young people are not so lucky.
This was a young teenage woman who was on an important journey in connection with unpaid charitable work abroad. Her heart was in exactly the right place. On the spur of the moment, she panicked and thought she might miss her train. She had tried to pay the fare at the train barriers when she arrived, so she emphatically did not intend to avoid it. Of course—and I emphasise this—she thoroughly deserved the fine, but did she really deserve the likely prospect of being unable to obtain a decent job for the next six to 11 years, all for a one-off, first-time offence relating to a £3.20 train ticket? She was no serial offender.
The charity FairChecks has demonstrated that, with a criminal record, young people can be locked out of future employment opportunities and even voluntary work. Research shows that at least 30% of employers automatically exclude a candidate with an unspent conviction. But the facts show that, as we have heard, young peoples’ brains are still developing, which makes them more impulsive and less able fully to understand the consequences of their actions. It is therefore crucial that they be given the opportunity to move on from their mistakes without carrying the weight of those childhood errors during early adulthood. In all honesty, might not many of us say, “There but for the grace of God go our children”?
My amendment would give our children a second chance if they are found without a valid ticket on the railways. They would still be liable for a penalty fare or a fine but, provided it was a first offence, their lives would not be ruined by being given a disclosable criminal record. I emphasise that my amendment would not apply if they were caught a second time. In those circumstances, they would not have learned from their mistakes and potential employers would have just cause in wanting to know they were dishonest.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have signed my noble friend Lord Marks’s Amendment 420 and thank him for his excellent explanation. I am also reminded that our noble friend Lord Dholakia has campaigned for decades for a review of the way in which society deals with children in the criminal justice system. His principal concern, and the subject of a number of Private Members’ Bills, was on increasing the age of criminal responsibility, and we will address that specific issue in the next couple of Committee days. He also expressed some concerns about the treatment that children and young people who had entered the criminal justice system would face later on.
Reference has been made to David Lammy’s review. I also remind the Committee about Iain Duncan Smith’s report for the Centre for Social Justice in 2012, in which he said:
“There is now a significant body of research evidence indicating that early adolescence (under 13-14 years of age) is a period of marked neurodevelopmental immaturity, during which children’s capacity is not equivalent to that of an older adolescent or adult. Such findings cast doubt on the culpability and competency of early adolescents to participate in the criminal process and this raises the question of whether the current MACR”—
minimum age of criminal responsibility—“at ten, is appropriate”. I think that also reflects on cautions and convictions for that age group, although I recognise that my noble friend’s amendment goes right up to the end of childhood.
All the amendments in front of us look at how convictions and cautions are handled and how they are disclosed. Mention has already been made of the organisation FairChecks. It has called for a major review of the criminal records disclosure system. Interestingly, it produced the same evidence as Iain Duncan Smith about the capacity of people of this age to understand and take responsibility for their actions. As has already been mentioned, young people hoping to move on suddenly discover that in trying to get work or a promotion they have to disclose their criminal records, and too often, on top of the almost inevitable rejection letters, their shame emerges once again, destroying their chance of creating a new life once they have served their time.
FairChecks proposes that there should be an automatic disclosure of a caution in criminal records, the slate should be wiped clean for childhood offences and we should stop forcing people to reveal short and suspended prison sentences for ever. But, it says—as has every other speaker so far today—safeguards must remain in place for more serious offenders in order to protect the public. At the same time, it would give individuals the chance to move beyond their childhood criminal record so they could get work and forge a new life as an adult, and the first steps towards that would be a review. I hope the Minister will look favourably on Amendment 420.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for his Amendment 420. In general, of course, these Benches abide by the notion that policy and practice should be guided by the feedback of evidence and outcomes, and the amendment would support that objective with regard to childhood convictions and cautions. I believe the data that currently exists on this would have to be thoroughly analysed to determine whether the measure is necessary, and I hope the Minister can shed some light on that existing evidence in her response.
We have great sympathy with the general thrust of Amendments 476 to 478. I have some reservations about Amendment 476, in that we have already removed the automatic disclosure of youth cautions on DBS certificates and I am unsure whether that should be extended now to the more serious youth conditional cautions, which of course include duties alongside the original caution. But I completely understand the principle behind Amendment 477, in the name of the same noble Lords, and why the legislation as currently drafted may lead to individuals being treated as adults when they commit an offence as a juvenile—all the more so given the backlog that the courts are currently suffering and delays in the court system, as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, pointed out. Likewise, I see the rationale behind Amendment 478, which seeks to ensure that custodial sentences received by youths are removed from their criminal records after five and a half years.
On Amendment 486D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, as others have said, children of course make mistakes, and there is a spectrum of offences, where avoiding a fare payment and travelling without a ticket is certainly on the less severe end. There is plainly a case that, as first-time offences, these do not warrant a criminal conviction certificate being issued.
My only point in conclusion is to echo what my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington said: we have to be a little careful not to increase the incentives for petty crime. As he pointed out, that can perhaps lead—especially with regard to criminal gangs—to a potential for danger. With that said, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Carter of Haslemere, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for tabling Amendments 420, 476 to 478 and 486D. They form a formidable trio in terms of not just their expertise but the respect that they rightly command in your Lordships’ House.
A number of noble Lords have raised the question of the age of criminal responsibility. I hope I will be forgiven for not addressing that now; I know for certain that we will be addressing it at least twice in the days and weeks to come.
The Government acknowledge the principle that underpins these amendments—namely, that having a criminal record will have a significant impact on children and that such a record can, in some circumstances, follow them into later life as adults, again with profound consequences. That said, as I think all noble Lords agreed, it is critical that our criminal records disclosure regime strikes the right balance. On the one hand, we want to support people who have committed criminal offences, either some time ago or when they were very young, to be able to move on with their lives. But there is also a need for appropriate risk management in the public interest, as well as to safeguard the most vulnerable.
I will deal first with Amendments 420 and 476 to 478. The existing regime helps employers make informed recruitment decisions through the disclosure of appropriate and relevant information. This will mean that some serious offences, even when committed as a child, will always need to be disclosed, particularly where a person is applying to work with children or vulnerable adults. As some of your Lordships will be aware, in his recent independent review of the criminal courts, Sir Brian Leveson recommended that the Government review the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. In the Statement I made to your Lordships’ House on 2 December, I said that we will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure that it is both clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.
I would be very happy to meet with any of your Lordships over the coming weeks to discuss this in more detail. It is of the utmost importance to the Government that we work together to ensure that we get this right. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I was very struck by the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, that this is not always as straightforward as it might appear, hence the need to make sure that we do this carefully, in a structured and thoughtful way. As I said, I would be delighted to see any of your Lordships. Given the offer made by my noble friend Lord Hanson in the previous group, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and I may be seeing rather more of each other than perhaps he had intended—but it is always a pleasure on my part.
Turning to Amendment 486D, I am very surprised to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says because the Government’s view echoes what my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said: children are generally treated leniently when fare evasion occurs. This offence is most commonly dealt with by transport staff, so usually no question arises of a child acquiring a criminal record for fare evasion and similar offences. The police usually become involved only in cases of a refusal to pay for a ticket, for repeat offences or because of some other complicating factor. Even when the police become involved, this does not usually result in a prosecution taking place because the Code for Crown Prosecutors requires prosecutors to consider, as a specific public interest factor tending against prosecution, where a child is young or where it is a first offence.
Police officers can give out-of-court disposals, which allow them to respond to low-level offending proportionately and effectively. These out-of-court disposals, of which there are a variety, provide opportunities for children to make reparation and restoration to victims, and to be diverted into courses or services which can help to change their offending behaviour. Most types of out-of-court disposals are not automatically disclosed on criminal record certificates.
The Government believe that it would be very unusual for a child or young person to get a criminal conviction for this type of offence but, were that to happen, the disclosure time limits under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are very different from those that affect adults. Rehabilitation periods for children are typically half the length of those for an adult. For example, if a court were to impose a fine for fare evasion, there would usually be a requirement that the child disclose their conviction for only six months, as opposed to the case of an adult, who would have to disclose it for a year.
For all these reasons, under the existing legislation, the Government’s view is that there is a very small chance of a child who is a first-time offender getting a criminal record for a fare evasion offence in the first place, and an equally small chance of such a conviction following them into adult life. I will, however, make inquiries and write to the noble Lord giving such statistics as I am able to find.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I am extremely grateful. To some extent mine is a probing amendment—I need more facts and evidence around this—but the Minister referred to the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The cases I spoke about were prosecuted by the train operating company. I am not really convinced that it had even heard of the Code for Crown Prosecutors; judging from all the correspondence I had with it, I do not think it had, to be honest. I believe there is something there to be investigated more closely, because I saw the evidence with my own eyes.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I do not think that I can improve on what I have said. I will make inquiries into the statistical evidence that we hold and write to the noble Lord.
I reiterate that I am very happy to meet any of your Lordships, including, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, ahead of Report to discuss these issues in more detail. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support that I have had from across the Committee, and for the very detailed and helpful response from the Minister. I will gladly take up her invitation to have a discussion. It is important that the Government intend to review this area, at least in part. If we can commission a review of the sort that I have suggested, I would be very pleased to help with that. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“Child cruelty offences: notification and offender management requirements(1) A person (“relevant offender”) is subject to the notification requirements of subsections (2) and (3) for the period set out in subsection (4) if the relevant offender is convicted of an offence listed in subsection (6). (2) A relevant offender must notify to the police within the three days of the time of their conviction or their release from custody, and annually thereafter, providing —(a) the relevant offender’s date of birth,(b) their national insurance number,(c) their name on the notification date and, where using one or more other names on that date, each of those names,(d) their place of residence on the date of notification,((e) the address of any other premises in the United Kingdom at which, at the time the notification is given, they regularly reside or stay, and(f) any information that may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.(3) A relevant offender must notify to the police, within the period of three days beginning with the event occurring, about—(a) their use of a name which has not been notified to the police under subsection (2);(b) a change to their place or residence;(c) any other prescribed change of circumstances as defined in regulations made under this section.(4) The dates of discharge from notification requirements under this section are the same as those set out in Section 88B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.(5) The information required by subsections (2) and (3), once received, must be—(a) monitored regularly by the police and probation service, and(b) retained for the purposes of offender management.(6) The relevant offences are—(a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004);(b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933);(c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938);(d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);(e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16;(f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—(i) female genital mutilation (section 1);(ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2);(iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl’s genitalia (section 3);(g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would create notification requirements for people convicted of child cruelty, analogous to the Sex Offenders Register. Their information and personal details would be kept on record by the police for the purposes of offender management, with the aim of reducing the risk to children from future offences.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to move Amendment 420A. Although it is in my name, it is a product of tireless campaigning from my honourable friend Helen Grant MP. I thank her for her long-standing commitment to this issue. It is thanks to her unwavering commitment that we are one step closer to making a child cruelty register a reality.
I thank the Government for their ongoing communication with us on this important topic and their assurances that they would like to implement a policy that supports a child cruelty register. When this amendment was tabled during the passage of the Sentencing Bill in your Lordships’ House, government officials requested that it be reserved for Home Office legislation, rather than that of the Ministry of Justice. That is why I am moving this amendment today.
This proposed register would be very similar in kind to the register for convicted child sex offenders, for whom notification requirements already exist. It would ensure that those convicted of cruelty to vulnerable children must notify the police of their home address and other relevant details following their release from prison. The register would act as a safeguard by providing the police with the oversight needed to manage offenders and reduce the risk to children. It would mean that those who commit cruelty to children in a non-sexual manner cannot simply disappear back into the community.
These provisions already exist for sex offenders, and we see no reason why they should not similarly pertain to those convicted of child cruelty. Although the offence is different, its effects are detrimentally serious in nature. Child cruelty is a heinous crime that can have a lifelong impact on victims and affects the most vulnerable individuals in society.
Common sense requires that those who commit crimes such as allowing the death of a child, neglect of a child, violence towards a child, infanticide or female genital mutilation should not be able to slip under the radar in local communities once their custodial sentence is spent. There should be a centralised mechanism for the police to know where these people live. This is particularly so given that, in the vast majority of child cruelty cases, the offender has parental responsibility for the victim. They are therefore likely to have connections to the child’s guardian, who, in many cases, will be a family member.
There is a clear gap in the child protection systems that unnecessarily endangers children. The child protection system must exist to free children from the conditions of cruelty towards them, but it must also contain preventive measures to ensure that children are not placed in such appalling situations. Child cruelty offences have doubled in the past few years; now more than ever, it is important to act swiftly to curb this rise. Given the Government’s previously stated support for this measure, I hope that the Minister will be equally able to offer her support today.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my colleagues in the Commons very much supported Helen Grant in her campaign for this amendment. I pay particular tribute to Jess Brown-Fuller MP. It is very helpful that it has been directed to this Bill, and we on these Benches are very pleased that the Opposition have laid the amendment to this Bill.
It is getting late, and I will not speak for very long. The only other people we need to credit are Tony Hudgell and his parents. After being taken away from his birth parents, he has lived for many years with his foster parents, who he describes as his parents. He has endured 23 operations after injuries that resulted in him losing both legs when he was a toddler. That is the sort of cruelty—although unusually bad in this case—that the amendment is intended to address. For all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, outlined, we absolutely support the progress of this amendment, and we hope that the Government will look favourably on it.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, notification requirements received attention during the passage of the Government’s Sentencing Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for ensuring this important matter remains firmly on our agenda. I join the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in paying tribute to Helen Grant MP and to Paula Hudgell, both of whose tireless campaigning has done so much to advance the protection of children. As my noble friend Lord Timpson set out in Committee on the Sentencing Bill, this Government are committed to safeguarding children and ensuring robust measures are in place to protect them from those who seek to cause them harm. We are working hard to consider the best way to manage such offenders effectively.
We are unable to support the amendment at present, as further work is needed to determine the most effective way to strengthen offender management. We need to consider fully all aspects of implementation when it comes to adding notification requirements to a new cohort of offenders, particularly in light of the Government’s recently published violence against women and girls strategy, which sets out significant reforms to offender management.
It is right that we take the time to understand the potential impact of these proposals. One of the issues is that adding notification requirements to a new cohort of offenders would involve significant costs for policing. For example, notification duties such as taking biometric data, verifying personal details, recording changes, conducting compliance visits and managing ViSOR data must all be absorbed into the general workload of the police. One of the tasks for the Government is to reflect that this could mean shifting resource from other important areas of police work.
I can reassure noble Lords, however, that since December, Home Office and Justice Ministers have met regularly to discuss options in this space and have held initial discussions with national policing representatives. So, I can add my reassurances to those already given by my noble friend Lord Timpson: Ministers will continue to pursue this issue with vigour. With these reassurances, I hope that at this stage the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and to the Minister for their contributions. I think we can all agree that child protection should be a priority for any Government and that we must ensure that any gaps in the law are plugged with immediate effect.
This amendment, unlike many in this Bill, is not about creating a new category of offender or about an expansion of the criminal law; it simply reflects and seeks to fix the troubling reality that individuals who commit acts of cruelty or violence or neglect do not have a monitoring regime upon leaving custody. That is what we believe needs to be corrected. We already accept, as a matter of principle, that where an offence demonstrates a clear and ongoing risk to children, the state has a responsibility to ensure appropriate oversight in the community, and that is why notification requirements exist for child sex offenders. This amendment merely extends the same logic to offences that, while different in nature, can be as devastating in their consequences and no less indicative of future risk.
I am grateful to the Government for acknowledging the need and the advantages of this amendment both inside and outside of this Chamber. I am grateful for the Minister’s words of support tonight, and I understand the point she made about considering this properly, but the rise in child cruelty offences demands action rather than any kind of delay. Every year that passes without a mechanism of this kind leaves children unnecessarily exposed to harm. Therefore, I want to give, with the greatest of respect, notice to the Minister that unless there is an amendment from the Government on Report that supports the substance of this amendment, it is likely that I would want to bring it back. I re-emphasise my gratitude for the Government’s co-operation on this point, but for present purposes I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“Removal of Chief Constables(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.(2) In section 38 (Appointment, suspension and removal of chief constables), after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Before exercising the power under subsection (3), the police and crime commissioner must consult with His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, or relevant successor inspectorate.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Police and Crime Commissioner to consult with His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services before calling upon a Chief Constable to resign or retire.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 421 is now a hot topic. The West Midlands Police chief constable has resigned, and the Government are pledging to restore the Home Secretary’s power to dismiss chiefs who “fail their communities”. Last week’s events bring the motivation behind this amendment into sharp focus, underlining the need to shield operational policing from political interference.
Contrary to some recent reporting, police and crime commissioners are not required by law to consult the police inspectorate before sacking a chief constable. Although they are expected to seek its advice, it is not a statutory duty. Amendment 421 would put that safeguard clearly into primary legislation, requiring HMICFRS to be consulted before a chief constable is removed.
When PCCs were created, they were given the power to hire and fire the chief officer, but concentrating that power in one pair of hands has had damaging consequences. Across England and Wales, around a quarter of forces now lose their chief constable every year—an astonishing level of churn for such a senior role. That is both wasteful of talent and destabilising for forces. Too often, these departures are driven not by incompetence or misconduct but by political disagreement, with some PCCs permanently in election mode and prioritising their own political agenda rather than responding impartially to the real policing challenges on the ground.
We must never reach a point where a chief constable fears upsetting the Home Secretary, or where any politician can bully a police leader to serve their own political ends. That would take us dangerously close to the American model of political control over policing. In the British tradition, officers swear allegiance to the Crown, not to any politician, and they are expected to act independently without fear or favour. It is a model that has stood the test of time, commands public confidence and deserves to be preserved. Although PCCs have used the formal Section 38 removal process only twice, several more have threatened to invoke proceedings, usually starting with suspension. In all these cases, this has resulted in the chief constable choosing to retire or resign rather than fight a public battle they are unlikely to win.
The Government now propose to move responsibility from PCCs to elected mayors, with council leaders taking the lead elsewhere through new policing and crime boards. On these Benches, we fear that this simply repeats the same mistakes in a different guise. The mayoral route in particular concentrates even more power in a single individual, often elected on a low turnout and with limited day-to-day scrutiny. What replaces PCCs must be better, not just different, and for the Liberal Democrats that means local police boards drawn from councillors and community representatives. Moving powers from one underscrutinised politician to another is not a solution.
Amendment 438EC would allow the Home Secretary to instruct a PCC to begin the dismissal process, effectively giving central government the power to fire chief constables. No individual, whether a PCC, mayor, council leader or Home Secretary, should hold unilateral power to dismiss a chief constable. Dismissal must remain possible where justified, but only through a fair and transparent process, with mandatory independent scrutiny.
That is the role of HMICFRS—to provide an external check, ensuring that decisions are based on competence, conduct and the public interest, not political convenience. I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary sought the inspectorate’s view in the West Midlands case, but that essential safeguard is missing from Amendment 438EC, which allows appointment of a person outside government or policing with too much scope for political influence, and only after the Home Secretary has already decided, making the process look uncomfortably like a rubber stamp. That is what Amendment 421 is designed to prevent.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, if ever there was a pertinent time to debate this matter, it is now. The mechanism by which chief constables can be removed has faced significant scrutiny, given the very controversial actions taken by West Midlands Police in the Maccabi Tel Aviv scandal. I pay tribute to my honourable friend Nick Timothy MP for his tenacity in pursuing the truth of that matter. I think it is now axiomatic that the former chief constable of West Midlands Police failed in his professional duties, and it is welcome that he has now accepted that his position is no longer tenable and has announced his retirement. It is against this backdrop that we discuss the amendments in this group.
On Amendment 421, I am of course aware of the Government’s indication that they will abolish PCCs in due course; that is important context to this amendment. For the time being, of course, they remain in place. I am not entirely convinced about the necessity of Amendment 421. With the Maccabi Tel Aviv affair, it was evident for quite some time that the PCC for the West Midlands should have dismissed the chief constable. As it happens, he did not, but I am not sure that consulting His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services beforehand would have had any bearing on the PCC’s decision. Furthermore, if the PCC was required by statute to consult the inspectorate, would that not have provided further delays to any decision?
Amendment 438EC seeks to grant the Home Secretary the power to remove chief constables. In her Statement to the other place on the 14 January, the Home Secretary said that until 2011, the Home Secretary had the authority to dismiss a chief constable, but the power was removed by the previous Conservative Government. On the face of it, that is correct. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 repealed the direct power of the Home Secretary to remove the chief constable of a police force, and Section 38 of that Act grants the power of dismissal to the PCC of the police area. However, the Home Secretary has the power to give directions in relation to police forces and local policing bodies under Sections 40 and 40A of the Police Act 1996. If, for instance, it was clear that West Midlands Police was failing to discharge its functions in an effective manner, the appropriate measure to remedy that failure would have been the removal of the chief constable. Therefore, according to those sections, the Secretary of State has perhaps an indirect ability to remove chief constables.
In her Statement to the other place, the Home Secretary also said that the Government are going to reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to dismiss chief constables and that this will be part of the Government’s upcoming White Paper on wider police reform, with legislation to follow. Does the Minister have a timeline for when the police reform White Paper might be published, and, if he does not have precise date, can he give us an indication of its rough progress? Will any change in the law be brought forward in time for Report on this Bill, or will we have to wait until the next Session for another policing Bill?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment, which concerns the process by which police and crime commissioners may call on a chief constable to resign or retire. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, has mentioned, the Government’s intention is to replace police and crime commissioners with a mayoral model or, in some cases in which the mayoral model is inappropriate, with a policing board made up of local councillors, and that will be brought forward in due course. Further details will be set out again in the policing White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, asked me when that would be produced. I say again to him the time-honoured phrase of “shortly”, but by shortly I do mean shortly; I hope he will not have too long to wait for the report be published as a White Paper. Self-evidently, it is a very complex document with lots of discussion items in it. Again, any legislative proposals in it will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. I am not trying to short-change him, but we will give that detail in the near future.
As the noble Baroness has explained, the purpose of her amendment is to ensure that, before taking steps to dismiss a chief constable, a police and crime commissioner must first seek the views of HMICFRS. I agree that this is a desirable approach, and I am pleased to tell your Lordships that this is already in place as a requirement. The noble Baroness should know, and I hope that it is helpful to her, that under Section 38(3) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, PCCs may call upon the relevant chief constable to resign or retire. Before exercising this power, and under regulation 11A of the Police Regulations 2003, police and crime commissioners are required to seek the views of HM inspectorate in writing and provide them to the chief constable and the relevant police and crime panel, alongside their rationale for why the PCC is proposing to call for retirement or resignation. I appreciate that it is a confusing landscape to have regulations under the Act and under police regulations. However, the position currently is there in black and white, and what her amendment seeks to do is already enshrined in law.
The noble Lord, Lord Walney, is not in his place so I will not say too much now, if anything, about Amendment 438EC. However, because it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, I want to place on record for the Committee the fact that the Home Secretary has already announced the Government’s intention to reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to remove chief constables. It has been a difficult few weeks in the West Midlands and, following the changes that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, it has highlighted the absence of such a power allowing the Home Secretary to act. We believe that action is needed, and I can assure your Lordships that this is high on the Government’s agenda. The White Paper is due in very short order. It will set out exactly the Government’s intentions in this regard and will be followed by legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, because we need to make changes on a range of matters, not least the abolition of PCCs. I look forward to debating this with noble Lords across the House. However, if the noble Baroness accepts that, difficult though they are to find, the regulations and the requirement are there, I hope she will be able to withdraw her amendment for the moment. I look forward to further discussion when the other matters come before the House at some future point.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
In view of what the Minister has just said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness O'Loan
“Police disciplinary proceedings: use of force(1) Schedule 2 of the The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/4) (standards of professional behaviour) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading “Use of Force”, at end insert—“Where a police officer uses force on the basis of an honestly held but mistaken belief, they can rely on that belief as justification for the use of force only if the mistake was an objectively reasonable one to have made.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to (1) codify the decision in W(80) UKSC 24, that in police disciplinary proceedings involving use of force, an officer may rely on a mistaken belief only if that belief was both honestly held and objectively reasonable, and (2) and enable parliamentary consideration of the appropriate test in this context.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 422 relates to the test used to determine whether an officer acted in breach of discipline when he or she used force in self-defence. We come late to this, but it is a very important issue. Currently, the test used in police disciplinary law is the civil law test. Under the current law, an officer must hold an honest belief that they or others are in immediate danger, must use only proportionate and necessary force, and, critically, where their belief is mistaken, their mistake must have been an objectively reasonable one.
The amendment is necessary because, following the police accountability rapid review report, published in October 2025, a recommendation was made to change the legal test to the criminal test. This would allow officers to rely on an honestly held but mistaken belief, even if it was unreasonable. The Government have said they will implement this change through a statutory instrument without public consultation. At this stage, I thank Justince and Inquest for their research on this matter.
The criminal law test, which the Government propose, would allow officers to rely on a mistaken belief, even if it was unreasonable, so long as it was honestly held. I fully understand that officers are under great pressure when faced with possible or actual violence. Split-second decisions must be made on the ground in the immediate context. That is why it is critical that officers are properly trained and managed. However, it is not a good reason to move from the civil to the criminal law test.
This determination arose from a criminal law test where the Supreme Court made a decision in the W80 case, where an officer shot a man. When misconduct proceedings were brought, he claimed he had done so in self-defence. The IOPC recommended to the MPS that the officer should face misconduct proceedings, the MPS declined to initiate those proceedings, and the IOPC wrote to the MPS directing disciplinary proceedings. That decision was challenged by judicial review. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant’s claim. The IOPC appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the appeal was allowed. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court judges commented:
“This is an area of the law of vital importance to the public and to the police. It is essential that the public and the police should be informed in straightforward terms of the law which applies. We hope that it will now be possible to recast legislation and guidance so as to achieve this result”.
This amendment is not about criminal law, and it is not about whether an officer should be prosecuted for the use of force. It seeks only to provide the clarity that the Supreme Court advocated.
The criminal law test is simply not appropriate for disciplinary proceedings. Applying it would undermine public confidence in the police disciplinary process, weaken accountability and make meaningful scrutiny of police use of force far more difficult. The Home Office’s statutory guidance makes it clear that the disciplinary framework is intended to encourage a culture of learning and development for individuals in the organisation. This focus on learning and development is part of what makes disciplinary procedures distinct from criminal procedures. Misconduct processes are an important and excellent opportunity for forces to identify mistakes, learn from them and prevent recurrence.
The Supreme Court in W80 made clear that the criminal law test conflicts with the fundamental principle of the disciplinary process, which is
“to contribute to learning and development for the individual officer concerned or for the organisation as to the reasonableness of mistakes”.
If the objective reasonableness of an officer’s mistaken belief is no longer relevant, unreasonable beliefs, however dangerous and widespread, may never be identified. Allowing unreasonable but honestly held beliefs to serve as a defence would strip away the incentive to examine, understand and remedy the factors that led officers to hold those beliefs in the first place. For public safety it is essential that unreasonable mistakes and the conditions that enabled them are identified and addressed.
Moreover, the introduction of the criminal law test would risk allowing honestly held beliefs based on prejudice or stereotyping, however unreasonable, to provide a defence following police use of force. Police use of force is continually increasing, with over 812,000 recorded uses in 2024-25, an increase of 9% on the previous year. Police complaints about use of force rarely lead to investigation by the IOPC, because most complaints are referred back to the officer’s force for investigation. Fewer still result in disciplinary proceedings, and hence the opportunity to identify training or management deficiencies to enable institutional learning and improvement is not there.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 423 would implement a recommendation of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in the judgment in the Lee Clegg case in the 1990s. Briefly, the facts of that case were that, on 30 September 1990, Private Lee Clegg was on patrol in west Belfast, when a passenger in a stolen car was shot and killed. Lee Clegg was charged with murder, and his defence was that he fired in self-defence. He was convicted of murder on the grounds that he used disproportionate force.
On an appeal, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords had to decide whether a soldier on duty in defence of the civil power—in a similar position, therefore, to police firearm officers—who kills a person and who would be entitled to rely on self-defence but for the excessive use of force, is guilty of murder or manslaughter. A manslaughter verdict would have meant a change in the law. Lord Lloyd of Berwick said that the arguments in favour of such a change were very persuasive. Quoting from the Court of Appeal, he said:
“There is one obvious and striking difference between Private Clegg and other persons found guilty of murder. The great majority of persons found guilty of murder, whether they are terrorists or domestic murderers, kill from an evil and wicked motive. But when Private Clegg set out on patrol on the night of 30 September 1990 he did so to assist in the maintenance of law and order and we have no doubt that as he commenced the patrol he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone. However, he was suddenly faced with a car driving through an army checkpoint and, being armed with a high velocity rifle to enable him to combat the threat of terrorism, he decided to fire the … shot from his rifle in circumstances which cannot be justified”.
Lord Lloyd continued:
“It is right that Private Clegg should be convicted in respect of the unlawful killing … and that he should receive a just punishment for committing an offence which ended a young life and caused great sorrow to her parents and relatives and friends. But this court considers, and we believe that many other fair-minded citizens would share this view, that the law would be much fairer if it had been open to the trial judge to have convicted Private Clegg of the lesser crime of manslaughter on the ground that he did not kill … from an evil motive but because his duties as a soldier”
meant he had a high-velocity rifle, and
“he reacted wrongly to a situation which suddenly confronted him in the course of his duties … we consider that a law which would permit a conviction for manslaughter would reflect more clearly the nature of the offence which he had committed”.
However, Lord Lloyd ruled it was inappropriate for the courts to change the law, and it was for Parliament to do so.
Here we are, 30 years on, with that opportunity, and the issue has never been more important, given the analogous position of police firearms officers. Since 2010, British police have shot dead 30 people—an average of two a year. Most recently, we have seen the prosecution last year for murder in the case of Sergeant Martyn Blake. Police officers are being deterred from volunteering for firearms training and the National Police Chiefs’ Council says police forces across England and Wales are grappling with a significant shortage of firearms officers, exacerbated by the lack of legal protections afforded to armed officers, particularly regarding criminal and misconduct hearings. The move to anonymity in criminal proceedings is welcome but not enough.
Parliament enacted legislation in 2008, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which set out the law of self-defence in Section 76. This provides that the question whether the degree of force used by D—the defendant—was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, but, crucially, the degree of force used by the defendant is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances if it was disproportionate. Therefore, the upshot is that a police officer cannot rely on self-defence to a murder charge if he used disproportionate force. This is unlike in the case of householders who, since the Crime and Courts Act 2013, will now generally have a defence if the force was disproportionate, but not if it was grossly disproportionate.
This confirms my belief that there is a lacuna that needs to be addressed, just as the House of Lords said in the appeal in the case of Lee Clegg. I should add a brief postscript here to the Lee Clegg case, since I believe he was subsequently acquitted on the grounds of new evidence.
On 23 October 2024, the then Home Secretary made a Statement on the Martyn Blake case. She said that
“the current system for holding police officers to account is not commanding the confidence of either the public or the police”,
and that although the public are entitled
“to expect that when officers exceed the lawful use of their powers … there will be … robust processes in place to hold them to account”,
she continued:
“Police officers who act with integrity and bravery to keep us safe each day need to know they have strong public support. If officers lack the confidence to use their powers … public safety is put at risk”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/24; col. 300.]
My amendment seeks to strike this balance by implementing the recommendation of the House of Lords in the Lee Clegg case all those years ago. If passed, it would not, as in the householder’s case, result in an officer’s acquittal, since I do not think that can be justified in the case of trained firearms officers. There needs to be accountability and a criminal penalty. The House of Lords in Clegg seemed to agree, since it recommended manslaughter, not acquittal, for such cases. I will be very interested to hear the views of the Government on this long-standing issue.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the excellent amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. Firearms officers provide a valuable and necessary service, and are an important part of UK policing. They do a very difficult and dangerous job and deserve our thanks. The current climate is not conducive to good policing and does not support our officers. This amendment is a positive one which will help them.
This is a topical amendment. Several days ago, the Independent Office for Police Conduct ruled on the case of Sean Fitzgerald being shot during a raid by West Midlands Police. He was holding a black mobile phone, which the officer who shot him believed was a gun.
This ruling was the conclusion of a long, complex investigation that included experts whose reconstruction corroborated the officer’s testimony that the phone could have been mistaken for a gun. The director of the IOPC said:
“The determination over whether the officer should face disciplinary proceedings largely came down to a split-second decision in what was a dynamic, fast-moving, armed police operation”.
This was a tragic accident, but it highlights the fact that firearms officers have to make very difficult, instantaneous decisions that can result in life or death. They have to quickly make a call on what is the safest option for themselves, their fellow officers and the public. In order for them to make the best judgments for themselves and for the public, they need to be confident that they will be supported in making that endeavour.
It is striking that in a piece in the Daily Telegraph, former firearms officer Sergeant Harry Tangye said that his and his fellow officers’ main fear was not being shot themselves; it was facing the investigation that would happen after they discharged their weapon while doing their job. The case of the shooting of Chris Kaba demonstrates this. In response to how the officer was treated, up to 300 Metropolitan Police officers stepped back from firearms roles, and the Army had to be put on standby to support the Met.
Firearms officers go through intensive training, including in how to respond in high-pressure situations. These are dedicated people with a strong desire to protect the public and serve their communities. Tangye said:
“But each time an AFO attends a scene, they face an uncomfortable truth: if I get this wrong I could be jailed. In my 30-year career I never once met an officer who wanted to ‘bag’ a scalp; no-one who hoped for the chance to use their gun to bring down a criminal. Most of us weren’t even keen on firearms at all. If you were a weapons enthusiast, you would be viewed with great suspicion by your force and probably removed”.
Authorised firearms officers, or AFOs, he said,
“shouldn’t have to do their jobs in fear of being jailed, or in fear of their careers, their lives, being ruined”.
The Police Federation also shares these concerns: that firearm officers,
“even when they follow the tactics and training they have received, will face significant struggles and hardships over what are usually split-second decisions taken by them in dangerous and fast-moving situations”.
Firearms officers need to be protected in primary legislation to make sure it is certain that they will be treated fairly when they have to make a very difficult decision. This amendment from the noble Lord is not a “get out of jail free” card; it still holds them to account for their actions. It means that officers who do their job properly, who make a decision that would be impossible for most people in this Chamber to comprehend, are protected under the law, and on that basis, I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 423A and will talk a little about the two other amendments.
In England and Wales, police firearms officers have intentionally discharged conventional weapons at people around 120 times over the last 20 years, between 2006 and 2026, so that is a discharge of a weapon at a person about six times a year. This figure represents less than 0.05% of all authorised firearms operations during that period.
In 2024-25—in just one year, the latest—there were 17,249 firearms operations. During that 20-year period, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the police shot dead on average around three people a year, each one a tragedy. There is no way that any officer should celebrate what happened, nor the families, of course, or all the people who are hurt by these terrible things. At the same time, the police injured a further two people a year.
This is not a trigger-happy group of people. They are the only people in this country who can go forward to deal with criminals or situations where a person is armed or similarly dangerous. They are a unique group of around 5,500 people in England and Wales who protect the population of 60 million of us and our visitors, and on our behalf they go forward.
They then expect, as I think we all do, that they will be held accountable. They do not expect immunity in the criminal or any court, but they do have a reasonable expectation that the system will understand the challenges they face, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned. In that fraction of a second, they have to make their decision on whether to shoot.
They suffer from the further challenge that they are only human beings with all our human strengths and frailties. Despite the fact that they are selected from still a reasonably large group of police officers who apply—not all who put themselves forward are selected—and then go through some rigorous training, at the end of the day they remain a human being, with all our frailties, fears and, at times, courage.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I did not say that the noble Baroness did. My point is that after a public inquiry, where it was found that W80 had lawfully killed Jermaine Baker in 2015, and a series of further hearings that led eventually to the Supreme Court, W80 appeared before a gross misconduct hearing by an independent body—nothing to do with the police; it was ordered by the IOPC—and was found to have no case to answer. It was not found that there was an arguable case, or that there was mitigation. There was no case to answer, 10 years later. It had been through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and nobody had noticed that there was no case to answer.
One of the central problems in these cases is that they are rare. Every time an officer waits years to be cleared, there is an outcry asking why they were charged in the first place or why it took so long to resolve. Every Government affected by this has said, “We will review it, and improve”. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has just mentioned the latest example of that.
My broad point is that all the reviews in the world have produced absolutely nothing. Nothing has changed. I have given two examples but there are many more, where people have been waiting 10 years for something to be shown to be not a criminal offence. I am afraid that the reviews have not produced anything, which has led to me tabling this amendment.
The officers are under a triple jeopardy. First, the IOPC considers whether there is a criminal offence or an offence of misconduct. That can take around 18 months. If there is a claim of a criminal offence, that is considered by the CPS, which probably takes another year. In the event that there is a criminal charge, the officer will go to court. During this period, the inquest into the person’s death will have been suspended. If there has been no charge, the inquest, usually with a jury, will be resumed. Those juries can find, and have found, that there was an unlawful killing, which then must be reconsidered by the CPS, usually leading to a criminal charge to go through a criminal court and then back through the IOPC. It has been hard to establish the facts, but by my calculation there have been around five officers charged with murder following cases over the last 20 years, each leading to a finding of not guilty at a Crown Court. The people who seem to be able to appreciate this issue, and deal with it with some wisdom, are called jurors.
My amendment is designed to give some comfort to firearms officers that their case will have to reach a higher bar before a prosecution can be started. It is modelled, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has mentioned—he is the one who pointed this out to me—on the householder defence to murder that already exists in criminal law. If a householder is attacked in their home and, in the process of defending themselves, kills the intruder, there is a higher legal threshold to pass before a prosecution for murder can follow. All I am asking is for the same to apply to a firearms officer.
I have talked to the Attorney-General about this. He reminded me that lawyers generally have concerns about this because it creates a unique group, a group of people who are treated differently by the criminal law, but I have two points in response to that general principle. First, householders are already a unique group. The criminal law has decided that they are a unique group and that is okay, but that it would not be all right for police firearms officers, who—I argue—are also a unique group. Why can we not add one more group? This was decided by Parliament on the advice of lawyers. What is different about this group? More importantly, for the reasons that I have given, they are a unique group. They the only people in society who use a firearm to prevent a crime, save a life or make an arrest. We say that no one can carry a firearm for that purpose, even if they are a legal firearm owner.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I end with this. I know that it is late. All our firearms officers are volunteers. They cannot be ordered to carry a gun. Unlike in the USA, it is not a condition of service. We rely on their honour and willingness to come forward and take on these roles. There is evidence that this is not happening in the numbers we need. There are not many noble Lords in the Chamber, but I ask those who are here whether they would do it. Could they do it? Would they take that responsibility, facing the inevitable inquiries that would follow? It involves not only the officer but their family.
Lord Katz (Lab)
If the noble Lord could conclude his remarks, that would be helpful for everyone.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
There are just too many times when officers are faced with the challenge, which is unfair. The solution I propose is that we should treat firearms officers fairly and differently. I am not a lawyer. The Government may be able to come up with a better proposal, but the position that we have at the moment is untenable and something that I am not prepared to let rest. I ask for support from the Government in some respect.
My final point is that I support, to some extent, the proposal of the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Jackson. My concern is that it might lead to more people being charged more often, and I am arguing that they should be charged less often for doing their job.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, forgive me, if I can beg your indulgence. In order for there not to be any confusion, I neglected to advise the Committee that my brother is a serving Metropolitan Police officer. I should have mentioned that earlier.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, these three amendments raise a difficult but important question: how should the law treat the use of lethal force by authorised firearms officers so as to protect both the public and those officers who act in good faith in dangerous situations?
Amendment 422 would make it clear in the Police (Conduct) Regulations that when an officer uses force based on a mistaken belief, that belief must be both honestly held and objectively reasonable. This reflects the Supreme Court’s decision in W80 and would give bereaved families, and communities that often feel over-policed, greater clarity and confidence in the system.
Amendment 423A would update Section 76 of the 2008 Act so that force used by an authorised firearms officer could never be treated as reasonable if it was grossly disproportionate to the situation as they saw it. That would set a clear upper limit on what can count as lawful force, drawing a boundary beyond which self-defence cannot reach, however real the threat appears.
From these Benches, we understand the intentions behind both amendments: the first writes the W80 test into disciplinary rules; the second provides clearer statutory guidance in firearms cases.
Amendment 423 goes further. It proposes that if an authorised firearms officer kills someone while acting under an honest but mistaken belief that the force used was necessary and reasonable, the conviction should be manslaughter rather than murder. We are concerned that this would, in effect, create a special route from murder to manslaughter for authorised firearms officers, one not available to others who also face life-and-death decisions.
When police use potentially unlawful lethal force, there must be full investigation, prosecution where appropriate, and robust disciplinary proceedings. The central question, then, is whether these amendments strike the right balance between public accountability and fair protection for officers who must make split-second decisions in life-threatening situations.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 422 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has had a detailed introduction, and I would like to abbreviate my remarks as a result.
The issue under consideration in that case was whether, in police disciplinary proceedings, a police officer could have a finding of misconduct against them if their use of force was found to be honest and mistaken but unreasonable. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the appropriate test was the civil law test and that an honest but mistaken belief that the use of force is necessary is justification for that use of force only if the belief is objectively reasonable.
Amendment 422 would place that judgment into statute. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the Supreme Court’s ruling on whether the criminal or civil test should be applicable, I am not convinced that it needs to be codified into statute, because there now exists relevant case law at the highest level which can be applied by the IOPC and the courts in the future. It is not clear to me what benefit there would be in placing this into the regulations.
I would like to concentrate my remarks on Amendment 423 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, because I want to express my strong support for it. I believe firmly that we must support our armed police officers who regularly put themselves in danger. This amendment presents an opportunity to do that. It would create a defence to a charge of murder for authorised firearms officers who used lethal force in the honest but mistaken belief that such force was necessary and reasonable and convert a conviction for murder into manslaughter.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
This is one of my major objections to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, proposes. Can the noble Lord explain to me why a firearms officer would feel more supported by a discretionary life sentence, which is what would be available for the charge of manslaughter, compared with a mandatory sentence of life for murder? I am not sure I would.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
The point I was making is that the prospect of a murder conviction may have an effect on an officer if they feared that an error that they made may result in a murder charge. On the noble Lord’s own amendment, as I said, I listened with sympathy to it, and I await the Government’s response on it and, indeed, all the amendments in this group.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard during this short but important debate, these amendments all relate to the same matter of principle—namely, the legal standard by which an authorised firearms officer should be judged on the thankfully rare occasions when they discharge a firearm.
The Government pay tribute to our armed officers. Theirs is a difficult, dangerous and stressful job. They do it to keep us all safe, and we have a great deal for which to thank them. Of course we recognise that they often find themselves in exceptionally difficult circumstances, having to make life and death decisions in an instant. That said, there is the matter of public confidence in the police. I do not think that any of your Lordships would disagree that confidence in the police is of equal importance. I would not be doing justice to this debate if I did not recognise and mark the fact that some of our citizens feel great anxiety about the accountability of firearms officers. In the past, when there have been high-profile fatal shootings by the police, this anxiety has boiled over into anger and social unrest.
The Government’s job is to balance these factors. We must ensure that the law offers protection to our brave police officers while at the same time providing reassurance to our fellow citizens that, if officers do fire their weapons, their conduct will be rigorously scrutinised. It is only right that the public should have confidence that any officer whose actions fall below the high standards we rightly expect will be held to account in the public interest.
Our conclusion is that we should not create a two-tier justice system where police officers who kill or injure in the course of their duties are judged by a more lenient standard than applies to the rest of the population. Our reason is this: we are confident that the criminal law which covers self-defence, defence of others and the use of force in the prevention of crime already provides sufficient protection for police officers. Because of the lateness of the hour, I am not going to go through the details of this, which I had intended to do, but will move straight to the amendments.
Amendment 423, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, would change the law so that an authorised firearms officer who acts with disproportionate—in other words, unreasonable—force would still be guilty of an offence, but it would be manslaughter, not murder.
I want to say a few words about what the law says about how a jury must consider whether the amount of force used by the officer was reasonable, sometimes described as proportionate. While this is an objective test, if the jury is told that what the officer did in the heat of the moment, when fine judgments are difficult, was no more than they genuinely believed was necessary, even if they were mistaken in that belief, that would be strong evidence that what they did was reasonable. If the jury also considers that the officer may have done no more than was reasonable in the light of what they believed to be happening, they are not guilty of anything. In other words, the law provides a full defence.
It is unclear whether Amendment 423 is intended to replace this full defence with a partial one, or whether, as I think is the case, it is intended to work alongside it in some way. If the noble Lord’s intention is to create a partial defence, then what he is saying is that officers who use unreasonable or excessive force should be held to a different standard from the rest of the population. We cannot accept this because the Government believe that to do so would fundamentally damage confidence in the police and in the justice system.
I turn to Amendment 423A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which seeks to amend Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. As your Lordships have heard, Section 76 deals with householder cases. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to make authorised firearms officers subject to the same standard as the householder confronted by an intruder. The amendment attempts to raise the threshold for when force becomes unreasonable from disproportionate to grossly disproportionate for firearms officers. In effect, this means that firearms officers could rely on the defences of self-defence, preventing crime or making a lawful arrest if they used force that was disproportionate in the circumstances, provided it was not grossly disproportionate.
For the reasons I have already given, the Government are of the strong belief that it would be wrong in principle to authorise the police to use excessive force and that this would be extremely damaging to public confidence. In any event, we do not think there is a proper comparison to be made between householders facing an unexpected intruder and trained firearms officers. The threshold was raised in householder cases to recognise the exceptional nature of being unexpectedly confronted by an intruder in one’s home. The unique stress and shock of a home invasion justifies greater legal protection, allowing a higher level of force than in other self-defence contexts. The same logic does not apply to firearms officers, who are trained and equipped to use lethal force and are deployed only in the most high-risk situations. They are subject to strict command, control and training protocols to ensure that lethal force is used only when necessary and in accordance with the current legal framework.
I turn finally to Amendment 422, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. As the noble Baroness has explained during the debate, her amendment deals not with criminal trials but with police conduct hearings. The previous Home Secretary commissioned Timothy Godwin and Sir Adrian Fulford to carry out an independent police accountability rapid review because it was recognised that there was ongoing complexity and confusion, and that there were concerns that this was having an impact on recruitment and retention of these essential and much valued officers. Sir Adrian and Mr Godwin examined the matter thoroughly and heard evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Their conclusions and recommendations, published in October 2025, were clear that the Government should change the legal test for use of force in police misconduct cases from the civil to the criminal law test.
The reviewers found that police officers need confidence and greater consistency in the disciplinary system and that this would improve fairness and public confidence. The Government have taken on board that recommendation and we are in the process of making the necessary changes to The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. Our intention is that these changes will come into force in the spring. We accept that the amendment is well intended, but I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why the Government cannot support it and, for the reasons I have given, I invite her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has spoken. There is a major issue of public trust in policing which has yet to be fully explored, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.