Business before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
This Labour Government are working in close partnership with farmers to strengthen productivity, resilience and long-term food security. In recent weeks, we have published Baroness Batters’ farming profitability review, allocated £30 million to our farmer collaboration fund, set out plans to simplify the sustainable farming incentive and delivered a £30 million extension to the farming in protected landscapes programme in areas such as the Peak district.
Dr Tidball
I welcome the commitment to extend the farming in protected landscapes funding, which is worth £75,000 to farms in my constituency. Last summer, I had the pleasure of visiting Snailsden moor with Jim Sutton, the moorland manager, and representatives from the Peak district national park, the Moorland Association and Natural England. They raised the high risk of wildfires in local uplands, as a result of large-scale dry spells, that can cause poor air quality and damage to nearby farms. The risk is exacerbated by a lack of a cohesive fire plan and firefighting infrastructure, including water storage. Will the Minister meet me, along with her colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to develop a cross-Government wildfire management strategy to protect against upland moorland wildfires?
Emma Reynolds
I pay tribute to all those who do the dangerous work to bring wildfires under control. As my hon. Friend will know, the wildlife management and the fire and rescue elements of her question are the responsibility of MHCLG, but she is right that my Department is responsible for water. The Water Minister or I would be pleased to meet her to discuss how we strengthen the resilience of our emergency services and our water storage, so that we can get a hold on such problems when they arise.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
We are backing British farmers to build a profitable and sustainable future. We will put £11.8 billion into food and farming in this Parliament, including £200 million for cutting-edge innovations through the farming innovation programme. Last weekend, we announced £21.5 million backing 15 projects to turn new crops and new farm tech into ready-to-use tools that boost productivity.
Sir Julian Smith
The Batters report included a number of good recommendations about productivity. North Yorkshire farmers want to produce food; they are obviously worried about the environment, but the priority is food. After covid, we talked about more UK food resilience, so may I urge the Minister to press forward quickly with the recommendations about productivity in the Batters review? And will she come and visit a farm in my constituency soon?
Dame Angela Eagle
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the Batters review, which is an important part of ensuring that the sector remains profitable. I am always listening to farmers. I have had many welcome propositions to visit farms, and I will see what I can do to fit him into the grand tour.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Last week, I visited Gisburn auction mart in my constituency, with my constituents John Alpe and Graham Young, where I heard the challenges that farms are currently facing with the rapidly dropping milk prices. Indeed, two farmers were there to sell up their farms entirely, while others are pushed into further intensification just to survive. As a former head of innovation, I know that sometimes productivity and innovation can mean bringing back strong old ideas in new ways. In that spirit, does the Minister think that we should consider bringing back the Milk Marketing Board?
Dame Angela Eagle
The milk price has certainly had a very difficult adjustment down, as part of the global glut in milk supply, so having been in a period of high prices, we are now in a different kind of period. What my hon. Friend is suggesting is almost a form of price control. I think the best thing we can do is think about fair-dealing obligations, and ensure that the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator does his job and makes certain that there are no unfair contracts in the market.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Has the Minister had the opportunity to consider the report by the Andersons Centre for CropLife UK? It estimates that if a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union was implemented without a suitable implementation period, it could result in steep drops in UK crop production and a total loss of income of up to £810 million. That is why the Select Committee is today asking for an implementation period of 24 months. Will she impress upon her colleagues in the Cabinet Office the need for that suitable implementation period?
Dame Angela Eagle
The first thing to say is that the SPS agreement is attempting to put right the Tories’ botched Brexit deal, which made it almost impossible for many people to export to our largest market. The idea is that this should be a new, mutually beneficial agreement to remove barriers, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman supports it. I know that the Select Committee report came out last night, and we will certainly respond to it in more detail. We are aware of the potential downsides if wrong deals are done, but we will not sign a deal that is not in the UK’s interests.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Precision breeding is critical to improving productivity. That is why I was so pleased to see so many Norfolk-based research projects, including the fantastic John Innes Centre, receive funding from DEFRA’s farming innovation programme. It is crucial that we protect these advancements, so can the Minister outline what assurances the Department has sought on precision breeding during the SPS negotiations?
Dame Angela Eagle
The agreement between the EU and the UK to search for an SPS agreement recognised explicitly that there is a case for some exceptions, and we are negotiating that agreement as I speak. We are very well aware of the advantages that precision breeding gives to this country, which is why we laid a statutory instrument on plant precision breeding in November.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Farming cashflows are under pressure, and farming businesses need clarity, certainty and clear policy direction from this Government now more than ever. However, with partial U-turns, continuous consultations, new taskforces, road maps, frameworks, reviews and now—finally—an announcement that the renewed sustainable farming incentive will be launched, but not until summer, farming businesses are really struggling to financially plan ahead. In all this confused policy direction, has the Minister decided the budget allocation for the new SFI scheme? How much will be available per farm? What will the assessment criteria be? Given that she wants to open up the scheme first to smallholdings, has she yet defined the definition of a small farm?
Dame Angela Eagle
We have been quite clear that the new SFI should be simpler. We do not want it to be distributed in the way that it has been in the past; under the Conservatives, 25% of that scheme went to 4% of farms. That is why we have decided to open up the scheme first and foremost to small farms. We are in negotiations about the definition. All this will be set out in great detail, and there is transparency and simplicity ahead. We will not fall into the traps of creating schemes so complex that they cannot be properly administered by the Rural Payments Agency—that was the legacy that we received from the Conservatives.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I want to begin by sending my deepest sympathy to everybody impacted by recent flooding; having your home or business flooded is devastating. I pay tribute to the emergency services, the Environment Agency and the communities and volunteers who have stepped up to keep people and communities safe. The latest intelligence I have is that the weather warning remains yellow across much of the south-west. We will keep a close eye on that today.
Claire Young
I draw the attention of the House to my membership of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities. Protecting homes from flooding is vital in communities such as Pilning, Severn Beach, Yate and Chipping Sodbury, yet the CIRIA C790 code of practice for property flood resilience seems to be a well-kept secret. Will the Minister work with the construction and insurance sectors to raise public awareness of the code, and will she consider formalising it through legislation, ensuring that my constituents have the protection and the lower insurance premiums that they deserve?
Emma Hardy
We recently produced a report, through Peter Bonfield, called “FloodReady”, which was exactly about how we incentivise more people to get property flood resilience. It was about working with contractors, manufacturers and everybody involved in the industry to make this a mainstream option for more people. I highly recommend that the hon. Lady has a look at that report; I hope that she and her constituents find it really useful.
Patrick Hurley
Farmers in my constituency report that watercourses are not being sufficiently maintained, there is not enough investment in drainage infrastructure, and there is a limited ability to deal with changing rainfall patterns and rising water tables. They tell me that the creation of an internal drainage board could help with all that. I know that work has been done to establish new IDBs through a statutory instrument, so will the Minister tell us the current status of that work, and will she please expedite it being laid before the House?
Emma Hardy
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the fantastic work of the internal drainage boards in managing water levels, reducing flood risks and supporting communities, businesses and farmers alike. Of course, we are working hard on our statutory instrument. I am sorry that I cannot give him an exact date, but I can guarantee that it is something I am committed to doing.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Last week, 50 mm of intense rain fell across large parts of Somerset and exacerbated the already saturated ground, with a major incident declared on Tuesday. With more unsettled weather in the forecast and high spring tides imminent, residents have told me that they are worried they could be facing a repeat of the devastating 2013-14 floods. With the increasingly unpredictable, intense and changing patterns of rainfall, communities must be given the resources they need to prepare extreme weather resilience plans.
I thank the Minister for her commitment to meet me in Somerset later this year, but will she bring forward that planned visit to Glastonbury and Somerton to witness the devastating impact that flooding is having on my communities while the floodwater levels remain up?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises a really important point—I have been following the situation really closely, and it is devastating. She is quite right to point out the trauma and upset caused by flooding. We invested £80 million in Somerset between April 2024 and March 2025 on flood and coastal risk management, and we will allocate another £75 million to Somerset between April 2025 and March 2026. I will check whether my diary aligns so that I can make an earlier visit.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
This Government are overhauling the regulatory system to deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment. In our water White Paper, we set out plans for a more powerful, integrated regulator with real teeth, introducing MOT-style checks on pipes, pumps and other water infrastructure. Last year alone, the Environment Agency has ramped up enforcement, more than doubling inspections of water company assets.
Rachel Taylor
Affinity Water and Severn Trent are opening their consultation next week on the Grand Union canal transfer scheme. The project will see 53 megalitres of treated water a day pumped into the canal in Atherstone in my constituency to be extracted in the south-east. Residents in Atherstone are concerned about the noise, damage to the environment and disruption that the scheme could create. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that she will work with the water companies involved to ensure that disruption is minimal and the treated water is safe, and will she meet my constituents to hear their concerns?
Emma Reynolds
The Grand Union canal transfer scheme will strengthen the nation’s long-term water resilience and water security. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about her constituents’ concerns, and either myself or the Water Minister will be very happy to meet her to discuss them further.
James Asser
My constituents are plagued with endless disruption and roadworks from Thames Water, which is leading to disruption for motorists, delays in public transport and, in some cases, serious safety concerns for cyclists. Does the Secretary of State agree that such infrastructure works should be properly monitored and inspected so that they are carried out effectively and efficiently—and, frankly, so that our constituents can see some benefit at the end of the disruption?
Emma Reynolds
Under the last Government, we saw water infrastructure crumbling, but this Government are getting a grip of the water system. We are moving away from the “fix on failure” system that we inherited to one that includes proper maintenance and resilience standards to get ahead of problems. I hope that will mean less emergency work, and therefore less disruption for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is lovely to see the Secretary of State; the last time I saw her was in the Strangers Bar, when she was pulling a pint of Rebellion Overthrow—I can’t imagine why that stuck in my mind!
The River Thames scheme has been in abeyance, essentially—in mid-project review—since May last year. Will the Secretary of State please knock some heads together at both the Environment Agency and Surrey county council, and get them to say something about what is happening at the River Thames scheme?
Emma Reynolds
I am slightly put off by the hon. Gentleman’s reference to my brewery—although I thank him for putting on the record that I did indeed succeed in getting Rebellion brewery on tap in the Strangers Bar. I did enjoy pulling that pint, as he witnessed with his own eyes! The Water Minister or I would be glad to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the more substantive, serious issue that he raised.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
During Prime Minister’s questions on 17 December, the Prime Minister promised me a meeting with the Water Minister to discuss the scourge of constant sewage dumping in my constituency and the Lowermoor water poisoning scandal. I have followed up repeatedly, including a visit to No. 10 just last week to speak with the PM’s team, who assured me that they would chase up that meeting as soon as possible—I appreciate that they may be somewhat busy at the moment—and agreed that the delay was unacceptable. The Water Minister is still yet to respond to me, so can I ask the Secretary of State when this vital meeting will take place?
Emma Reynolds
As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Water Minister was on bereavement leave for some time in January. She has received briefings about the situation, and would be happy to meet him to discuss this serious issue in his constituency.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
People have every right to be frustrated about bill rises—years of neglect and under-investment have left our water infrastructure crumbling, and those increases now show the cost of putting that right. This Government are focused on tackling the cost of living, preventing those huge bill increases from ever happening again by fundamentally changing the system, and protecting the most vulnerable by strengthening schemes such as the guaranteed service standards and WaterSure.
Sarah Olney
Thames Water’s typical metered charges increased by 40.7% this financial year, and prices will rise again each year until 2030. While our water companies have been mismanaged and reform to bring down the cost of bills is needed, more can be done to encourage customers to meter their water usage. The average non-metered household in London is charged £81 a year more than a metered household, but that is not widely known, so will the Government do more to advertise the cost-saving potential of water meters? What further steps is the Minister taking to bring down the average water bill?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am a huge champion of water meters, which not only help with bills but help reduce people’s water use. In turn, that helps with abstraction, especially in areas where we have many chalk streams. I am very keen to look at what more can be done in that space. Ofwat has a water efficiency fund, through which it is looking at innovative ways in which we can talk to the public and get them to understand, as the hon. Lady rightly said, the benefits of having a water meter, not only for their bills but for the environment.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Does the Minister have plans to introduce a national social tariff? It was not in the recent White Paper, but Independent Age, which is a national charity based in my constituency, estimates that such a tariff could lift up to half a million pensioner households out of water poverty entirely.
Emma Hardy
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the ability of so many people in both our constituencies to afford water bills. That is why, over the next five years, water companies are going to be doubling the number of people getting help through social tariffs. We have also reformed WaterSure, which provides support to people with disabilities who might require more water use, or those who might require it for various other medical reasons. We are focused on making sure that the most vulnerable in all our communities are able to get the water they need at a price that is affordable for them.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The Conservative Government allowed millions of pounds to be diverted from essential investment and used for unjustified bonuses. We are clear that executive pay must reflect company performance, and support Ofwat’s plan to consult on requiring companies to report publicly the details of all executive remuneration.
Lloyd Hatton
Just last month, The Guardian reported that the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of Wessex Water received around £50,000 in undisclosed payments from a parent company. Just weeks before, it was reported that a former Wessex Water boss was handed a whopping £170,000—again from a parent company. The galling part is that both payments were made in the same year that Wessex Water was slapped with a ban on paying bonuses. With all that in mind, does the Minister agree that if bonuses can simply be rebadged as extra payment from parent companies, we must urgently toughen up the bonuses ban so that we can finally hold failing water company bosses to account?
Emma Hardy
This situation baffles me. It seems simple to me that bonuses should reflect performance, and if performance is not good enough, people should not get a bonus. I am not sure why that seems so difficult to understand. It is not just about the letter of the law, but about the spirit of the law. Ofwat has exposed serious transparency failings across the water sector, and we are therefore tightening transparency rules to shut down any attempt to dodge the bonus ban.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Welsh Water’s chief executive has one of the highest paid jobs in Wales at almost £900,000 a year, and the company is hiking basic pay to get around the Government’s crackdown on executive bonuses, despite being a not-for-profit. That is even though Welsh Water presides over some of the worst sewage dumping and leaks in the UK and sky-high price rises. Will the Minister look into companies trying to bypass the new regulations in that way and ensure that those loopholes are closed?
Emma Hardy
With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has just made the case for why mutualising water companies is not the answer on performance. This Government have already banned more than £4 million in unfair bonuses, which have been blocked by Ofwat for 2024-25.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Pet owners have been facing rising vet costs for years, and that is why we are consulting on updating and reforming the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 for the first time in 60 years to improve price transparency and ensure pet owners get a better deal.
Johanna Baxter
The BBC “Panorama” programme that aired on 12 January reported that some vets employed by the big six veterinary conglomerates felt pressured into upselling treatments and services that may not be clinically necessary for pets. My constituents were shocked and appalled by those revelations. My right hon. Friend will know that I have long campaigned for the Government to tackle the soaring costs of veterinary fees, so can she assure the House that the consultation on reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act will bring in not only much-needed reform to support those who work in the sector, but much-needed protection for pet owners?
Emma Reynolds
The short answer is yes. I know you also have an interest in this issue, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s tireless campaigning on this important issue. The consultation will look at a range of issues, and she is right that that will include modernising the regulation of veterinary professionals. We will also look at requiring vet practices to publish price lists for common treatments and improving price transparency so that pet owners get a much better deal.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We are a nation of animal lovers. When I got married, my wife loved cats and I did not, but I realised that if I loved her, I had to love her cats, and that is how it works. Can I bring to the Minister’s attention one thing that annoys me and my constituents, which is pet insurance? Pet insurance is okay until the day someone goes to claim. When they go to claim, they find out that the small print says they have not got the cover that they thought they had. When she is looking at veterinary regulation, will she look at pet insurance, too?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am glad to hear that his wife has had such a profound influence on his cat-loving habits. We need to look at all elements of price transparency, including insurance.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I declare a professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I welcome the fact that the Government have launched a consultation to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. This necessary and long-overdue reform can deliver significant benefits for animal health and welfare, biosecurity and public health. However, I have serious concerns about DEFRA’s communications, which conflated reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act with the Competition and Markets Authority inquiry, resulting in a media narrative focused entirely on veterinary pricing. That has caused real distress across the sector among frontline vets, nurses and reception staff, impacting on morale and mental health. I have been contacted by voices from across the profession expressing their extreme alarm at this approach. Will the Government reassure us that they will work closely with key stakeholders to get this vital, much-needed legislation right? Can they guarantee that they will prioritise the parliamentary time it requires?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the shadow Minister for his question and for, I think, his kind words that we were doing something that the Conservatives failed to do for 14 years. He brings great expertise to this House, but I would gently say to him that the Competition and Markets Authority’s finding that vet fees have risen at nearly twice the rate of inflation is something that the Government should take into account, is of concern to pet owners across the House and across the country, and is something that, when the CMA comes out with its final report, we will be responding to later this year.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Our animal welfare strategy sets out major reforms to improve the lives of millions of animals across the UK. Building on Labour’s strong record of driving up standards, a key part of this work is ending puppy smuggling. The strategy cracks down on low-welfare dog breeding, raises welfare standards for licensed breeders and creates a proper registration scheme for every breeder.
Linsey Farnsworth
Sticking with the theme of cats, my office was recently alerted to a rather troubling incident involving a cat whose owner had been taken into hospital unexpectedly, and no one was able to access the flat. It took many days for the police to obtain a warrant, and meanwhile all the RSPCA was able to do was post ice and food through the letterbox to keep the cat alive. Animals should not be left to suffer in those circumstances. Will the Minister consider granting the RSPCA limited powers of entry in order to rescue animals faster, without delays caused by constraints on police time and resources?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am sorry to hear about the trauma related to my hon. Friend’s constituent. We recognise the RSPCA’s vital role in promoting animal welfare, but we do not have plans to extend statutory enforcement powers at this stage. Such powers are normally reserved for public bodies that have formal lines of accountability. We want to ensure that any future approach maintains clear oversight while preserving the RSPCA’s important charitable and advocacy functions.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
One of the topics that constituents get in touch with me about a lot, particularly over the autumn, is the impact that fireworks can have on domestic animals—both the number and volume of displays and kids deploying fireworks in the street or their back gardens. Those cause distress to animals, and also to people who have suffered trauma or have served as veterans. I urge the Department to look at limiting the volume of fireworks or restricting their use solely to licensed displays.
Dame Angela Eagle
We are aware of the welfare issues around fireworks, and we are looking at the evidence to see whether any such changes would actually make a difference.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Since the last oral questions, we have published the animal welfare strategy, set out key reforms to the sustainable farming incentive, hosted the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—the international panel on nature—in Manchester and published our water White Paper, setting out once-in-a-generation reforms to our water system so that it is fit for the future and delivers better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
Patrick Hurley
As you will know, Mr Speaker, Southport is a lovely seaside resort and one of the nicest places to visit in the whole of the country, so what recent discussions has the Minister had with United Utilities about reducing sewage discharges, which affect Southport and the wider north-west coast?
Emma Reynolds
The Water Minister and I are working closely with water companies across the country, including United Utilities, to drive them to reform their operations and clean up rivers, lakes and seas. Our water White Paper will replace the one-size-fits-all approach with dedicated supervisory teams at every company. UU is investing £50 million to upgrade Southport’s waste water treatment by 2029 to reduce storm overflow spills and improve coastal water quality.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
The EU reset deal is predicted to slash around a third of the Government’s farming budget from farm profits in its first year, cause higher food prices and lower food production, and sink the UK fishing industry. As the Prime Minister’s authority seeps away, will the Secretary of State insist that this shoddy deal is renegotiated while she is still in post?
Emma Reynolds
Nice try! We are still negotiating the deal, and the whole purpose of it is to bring down the trade barriers that the right hon. Lady’s Government put up during their botched Brexit negotiations.
Victoria Atkins
For goodness’ sake, if the Government are still negotiating, the Secretary of State needs to deal with the matters I have raised. It is not just the farming sector that they are damaging; it is the entire rural economy. Rural and coastal businesses tell me that they simply cannot afford Labour’s high taxes, rates and costs, and they will not survive. In these desperate times, will the Government match the Conservatives’ plan to help rural and coastal businesses by scrapping business rates entirely for our high streets?
Emma Reynolds
I seem to remember that the Conservatives were in power for 14 years, and they did not do what the right hon. Lady has just set out. Her question is for the Treasury, not DEFRA. We are still in the process of negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which will bring down trade barriers for farmers and food producers, helping both those who export to our largest market and those who import, and it will deliver better outcomes for consumers too. I make no apology for clearing up the mess that the Conservatives left us.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Once my hon. Friend gets the letter off to us, she will certainly get a reply. The UK has a robust regulatory framework to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. DEFRA and the Marine Management Organisation work closely with the devolved Governments, local authorities and port health authorities to ensure that documents are appropriately checked and verified on seafood imports from all countries. If she wants to demonstrate cases where that is not happening, I would be very interested indeed to hear from her.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
What steps is DEFRA taking to raise public awareness of the impact of methane-reducing feed additives used in livestock farming, such as Bovaer? What steps is DEFRA taking to ensure that all chemicals and additives are tested and proven to be safe for humans, animals and nature before being approved for use in agriculture and food?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
We have a system. Methane-reducing food products, including seaweed, oils and synthetic products such as Bovaer, are a key tool in reducing emissions from agriculture by up to one third. Bovaer is approved for use in 70 countries, including those in the EU, Switzerland, the US, Canada and Australia. We are building the market for safe, effective options and helping farmers to adopt them. Such products are approved by the Food Standards Agency, and that advice has not been changed. Bovaer has been reviewed by 100 peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on that disgraceful site. The Environment Agency has served a notice requiring the operator to reduce the risk of smells, and the deadline is 9 February. We expect the operator to comply. If it does not, all options, including suspension and closure, remain on the table.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Following Storm Chandra, vast swathes of West Dorset are under water. An amber warning is in place, and we are expecting more flooding. Whole villages have become islands. Eighty-four houses in Yetminster have sewage in them. One family in Maiden Newton had only just moved back into their house following 15 months of repairs after the previous flooding, only to get flooded again within three days. Will the Minister please visit West Dorset and explain to residents how she will get the water companies and the Environment Agency to focus on flood-prone areas?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I can hear the hon. Gentleman’s passion and how upset he is about the devastating impact that repeated flooding has had on his community. We are putting a record amount of money into flood defences and will continue to do so. We are also looking at how we can work more effectively with other agencies in the area. I share his concern that, over the next weeks, it will continue to be quite wet. I give thanks to the emergency services and everybody involved.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. He will have noticed that we published the PFAS—perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances—plan earlier this week, which looks at the issues of chemical pollution and how we can tackle it more effectively. We recognise the serious concerns at Tideswell brook. Through our water White Paper we are reforming waste water regulation and enabling earlier interventions. I will be keeping a close eye on the situation as it develops.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
On 8 January, the United States Secretary of the Interior wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of the big game hunting industry, asking her to ensure that the Government would abandon their commitment to the ban on importing hunting trophies. In her reply, will she give a robust indication that this Government are committed to that ban?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the right hon. Member for that question. We are committed to banning trophy hunting. It is a manifesto commitment, and we will take it forward.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Mary Creagh
We said in our manifesto that we would deliver nine new national river walks—one in every region—to bring nature closer to people and make it accessible to everyone. My hon. Friend paints an amazing picture of the beautiful River Derwent. The first river walk, in the north-west, will be completed in the spring. The locations of the next walks will be subject to a competition later this year. I encourage her and all the partners she mentions to apply.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Government’s own national security assessment warns that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose serious risks to the UK’s long-term food security and may intensify natural disasters. Given that Parliament has not yet had the opportunity to debate this assessment, will the Secretary of State support my call for a dedicated debate, so that the risks and the actions across Government can be properly scrutinised by this House?
Mary Creagh
The Secretary of State and I have just spent a couple of days in Manchester looking at that with the international science panel on nature. We will report on Monday about how business can do better in tackling those risks. We are bringing the nature and climate debates together, and I am sure there will be time to debate them in the House, subject to your approval, Mr Speaker.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Ellie Reeves)
This Government remain absolutely committed to stamping out the appalling crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse. The national inquiry chaired by Baroness Longfield is due to start in March. The Crown Prosecution Service has seen a 25% increase in child sex abuse prosecutions over the past three years. In December, it secured convictions against two men in Bury for crimes during the 1990s, resulting in sentences of 28 and 30 years. We are dedicated to ensuring that victims continue to receive the justice they deserve.
John Lamont
Baroness Casey’s audit of group-based child sexual exploitation found
“a collective failure to properly deter and prosecute offenders or to protect children from harm.”
These crimes happen across borders and in every part of the United Kingdom, so what more can be done to ensure that prosecution services, including the CPS and Scotland’s Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, take a joined-up approach to bringing these vile offenders to justice?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Many of the local services under review in the national inquiry starting in March, particularly child protection and policing, are devolved responsibilities in Scotland and Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the Scottish Government have finally ordered a national review of the evidence on the operation of grooming gangs in Scotland. All parts of the UK must work together to protect children and bring perpetrators to justice.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Government’s strategy to tackle violence against women and girls sets out measures to tackle grooming gangs and support victims of sexual abuse. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to work with colleagues to improve access to justice for victims of rape and serious sexual assault and to implement that strategy?
The Solicitor General
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend on receiving the Ukrainian Order of Merit from President Zelensky for her tireless campaigning for the children of Ukraine. She and I share a number of priorities, and I am proud to sit on these Benches alongside her.
For too long, victims of grooming gangs and serious sexual assault have not been heard. That is why last week I announced the expansion of the victims’ right to review pilot, which will ensure that victims have a second chance for justice, with a second prosecutor reviewing a case before it is dropped by the CPS. This expansion has been driven by victims like Jade Blue—I pay tribute to her campaigning in this area.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
Female genital mutilation is an abhorrent practice and I am determined to see more prosecutions. Earlier this week, I spoke at the Crown Prosecution Service’s second national multi-agency conference on honour-based abuse, where I was privileged to have survivors share their stories with me and was moved by their bravery and advocacy for others. I agree with them that we urgently need to improve the criminal justice response to these cases. Last December I attended the first national honour-based abuse scrutiny panel, hosted by the CPS, and will continue to work closely with the service on this matter.
Patricia Ferguson
By its very nature, FGM is a hidden tragedy for many women and girls, and it is important that prosecution rates are increased. One way to do that would be to emphasise and publicise the use of FGM protection orders, which can help to prevent the carrying out of FGM both here and abroad, and now apply in all UK jurisdictions. Will the Solicitor General advise what action the Department can take to make the possible use of such orders better known?
The Solicitor General
We are launching a pilot in four police forces to test multi-agency approaches to managing FGM protection orders. A whole-system approach is fundamental to tackling FGM and increasing prosecutions. In the spring, the Minister for Safeguarding and I will be hosting a ministerial roundtable dedicated to FGM, bringing together every Department with a role to play to agree collective action to strengthen the prevention, investigation and prosecution of these offences.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Many of the practitioners who sell the heinous crime of female genital mutilation also sell exorcisms of children. Thousands of children have died from these so-called exorcisms over the past 10 years, including from the black African community here in the UK. Does the Solicitor General have any consideration of what needs to be done in the law to protect these children?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. This Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls in every form, which is why we announced our cross-Government strategy for tackling VAWG in December. I will happily speak to colleagues across the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to ensure that her points are properly addressed.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
This Government are determined to make the UK a hostile environment for economic crime. The CPS plays a pivotal role in deterring offenders and bringing fraudsters to justice, with consistently high conviction rates of about 86%. Last year the CPS successfully secured the first prosecution for the breach of financial sanctions, convicting two Russian nationals of eight counts of breaching financial sanctions and two counts of money laundering. The directorate will continue its swift response to the evolving nature of economic crime and maintain focus on delivering justice for the public.
Rachel Taylor
As a practising solicitor for more than 20 years, I am of course aware of the rules and professional guidance on conflicts of interest. Does the Solicitor General agree that the shadow Attorney General recusing himself from giving legal advice to the Leader of the Opposition because he would rather profit from advising Abramovich demonstrates where the priorities lie for this Conservative party when it comes to backing the Government on economic sanctions in defence of Ukraine and our national security?
The Solicitor General
It is utterly indefensible that the shadow Attorney General in the other place is acting as a lawyer for sanctioned Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich. He has recused himself from giving legal advice to the Conservative party on the issue of Ukraine and financial sanctions, sacrificing a key element of his role in order to work against our national interests. The Government are putting national security at the heart of every decision and stands in staunch solidarity with Ukraine.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Solicitor General announced an expansion of the victims’ right to review scheme, allowing rape and serious sexual assault survivors who request a case review by a different prosecutor before a final no-evidence decision is made. That is welcome news. What discussion has taken place with counterparts across the United Kingdom—the Policing and Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular—to ensure that there is a UK-wide path to justice?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the victims’ right to review scheme, which will give victims of rape and serious sexual violence a greater voice in the justice system. Too often, victims feel let down by a system that is supposed to be there to support them. I will ensure that I speak to my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to see what more can be done in respect of Northern Ireland.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Solicitor General
In December, the Deputy Prime Minister set out the measures that this Government are taking to tackle the crisis in our courts. As I have stated in the House previously, jury trials will remain the cornerstone of our justice system, but reform and investment are needed to cut through the backlog, which is approaching 80,000 cases. Some 90% of criminal prosecutions are already dealt with by magistrates rather than juries, and juries will remain for the most serious cases.
Gareth Bacon
The president of the Law Society has described the proposals as
“an extreme measure that goes too far”.
The chair of the Criminal Bar Association has described them as
“a wrecking ball to a system that is fundamentally sound and has been in place for generations”.
He pointed out that the juries are not the cause of the backlogs. The Government’s own Back-Bench MPs have described the proposals as a “dereliction of duty”,
“a ludicrous proposal that will not work”,
and
“a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates”,
which “goes too far” and the consequence of which would be
“to destroy justice as we know it.”
Why do the Government think that they are all wrong?
The Solicitor General
In his report, Sir Brian Leveson estimated that introducing these reforms would lead to a 20% time saving. At the moment, we have a situation in which victims of rape are waiting three or sometimes four years for their cases to get to court. Investment in the system is also important, which is why we have the maximum number of sitting days that we have ever seen, investment in criminal defence lawyers, and investment in our courtrooms. Leveson made it clear that investment alone will not tackle the huge backlogs.
James Wild
Yesterday, a jury failed to reach a verdict on charges against Palestine Action activists involved in a violent incident in which a police sergeant’s spine was broken when she was struck by a sledge hammer. Does the Solicitor General agree with me and law abiding people across the country—
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand that this involves sub judice. Can we be very careful about what we are about to say?
James Wild
Does the Solicitor General agree that, as the Crown Prosecution Service considers whether to bring a retrial, it should bring a retrial on these serious charges, including assault occasioning grievous bodily harm?
Mr Speaker
Order. The idea was not to talk about the particular court case. I think we will leave it at that. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member is struggling with my ruling. The hon. Member was talking about a court case and asking what is going to happen with it. We should not be questioning the position. We are crossing a line that we do not cross—that is what it is. I can reassure the hon. Member that I did not want to pull him up.
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Now we have Sir Brian Leveson’s full review, it is clear that very few of the 180 recommendations relate to jury trials. The most controversial is really the use of a single judge in the new Crown court bench division. Given that that provision will likely not contribute very much to reducing the backlog, does the Solicitor General think that we should look again at that—maybe at the length of sentence that is dealt with by that particular provision?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend, as always, for his insightful comments. In his report, Sir Brian Leveson estimated that the reforms would speed up cases by 20%. The Deputy Prime Minister recently visited Canada, where he was informed that the change could speed up cases by as much as 50%. Any reform must go hand in hand with investment, which is why we have seen an increase in sitting days—now at their highest ever—as well as investment into criminal defence lawyers and the crumbling courtrooms that were left behind by 14 years of Conservative Government.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I know from my experience serving as a magistrate the crucial role that magistrates play in our criminal justice system. They are more representative of our country as a whole and the communities that they serve. We all know the pressures on the courts system, so can the Solicitor General set out the role that magistrates can play in bringing down the backlog and victim attrition rates?
The Solicitor General
Can I start by thanking my hon. Friend for her service as a magistrate? Magistrates have a huge role to play in our criminal justice system. Cases in magistrates courts continue to be dealt with swiftly, despite increased demand. Magistrates hear around 1.3 million cases per year, which normally ensures that there is around six months of work ready for magistrates to hear at any time. We are accelerating our programme to recruit more new and diverse magistrates and are committed to supporting magistrates. They are the backbone of local justice and keep the entire system turning.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Government. The Minister for Courts and Legal Services says that she would scrap jury trials even if there was not a crisis in the courts. The Lord Chancellor says that he is open to a conversation about alternatives and wants the backlog to come down. Which is it? Is it about the backlog, in which case what alternatives to scrapping jury trials are actually being considered, or is this just an unworkable attack on our civil liberties wrapped up in ideology?
The Solicitor General
I would remind the hon. Lady that 90% of cases in this country are already heard without a jury, but I do not think it can be denied that 14 years of Conservative Government left a crisis in our courts. It cannot be right that victims of rape are waiting three or sometimes four years for their cases to get to court. As I have said before, reform on its own is not enough. That is why we have a record number of sitting days, and it is why we are putting £550 million into support for victims and have increased solicitor fees. We have to look across the system at how we can do better, because justice delayed is justice denied.
Helen Grant
That was a very disappointing answer. There is another contradiction too, this time on retro- spectivity. The Courts Minister says that cases already committed for trial at Crown court could be pushed back to swift courts. The Lord Chancellor suggests that the changes would only apply to new cases. That is not a minor discrepancy; it is about people’s lives. The Government cannot champion legal certainty on the one hand and flirt with retrospective decision making on the other. It is absurd. Which version are we meant to believe: the Lord Chancellor’s or the Minister’s?
The Solicitor General
Any changes will need to go through legislation in this House in the normal way and I am sure that the Conservatives will want to scrutinise any proposals that we put forward. I am happy to take away those questions to the Ministry of Justice and ensure that the hon. Lady receives an answer.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Jury trials are not a peculiar way to run a public service; they are a fundamental pillar of our justice system, being eroded under this Government’s proposed court reforms. Serious reforms should focus on reducing inefficiencies that waste sitting days, increasing court capacity and making use of vacant courtrooms, not scrapping the right to trial by jury. If the proposals are intended to reduce the Crown court backlog, should this House not be given clear evidence before core constitutional protections are weakened? Will the Solicitor General please tell us whether the Government will publish an estimate of what proportion of current Crown court backlog would be sent to judge-only trials as a result of the reforms? Also, given that it is Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week, what assessments have been made of how the judge-only proposals will affect vulnerable victims of domestic abuse?
The Solicitor General
The proposed changes would apply to less than 2% of all criminal trial cases. Under the reforms, almost three quarters of trial cases coming to the Crown court would still be heard by a jury, and that includes offences such as rape. There are transparency measures built in to safeguard justice, with judges setting out reasons for their verdicts and introducing recording in the magistrates courts.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
Last April, the Government published a modern slavery action plan to reinforce our commitment to working across Government and with law enforcement, civil society, survivors, businesses and international partners to prevent exploitation, protect victims and pursue those responsible for such awful crimes. The Crown Prosecution Service plays a central role in tackling modern slavery and human trafficking. It works closely with law enforcement and international partners and will prosecute any cases referred to them wherever the legal test is met.
Sonia Kumar
Paige, my constituent, a 24-year-old survivor of human trafficking, was betrayed not only by her abusers but by the very systems that were meant to protect her. When she reached crisis point and attempted to take her life, she was denied continuous medical and healthcare support, while her advocate was excluded from multi-agency meetings. Will the Solicitor General set out what steps are being taken to increase prosecutions for human trafficking and ensure that victims such as Paige receive consistent therapeutic and legal support, from initial disclosure through to the aftercare that follows court proceedings?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I am very sorry to hear about the experiences of her constituent Paige. Modern slavery cases are complex. The CPS will always ensure that its prosecutors share best practice and insights to improve outcomes for victims and, as I said previously, the Government are committed to spending £550 million to support those victims. In May 2025, the CPS established a modern slavery national scrutiny panel, chaired by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, to examine its performance in modern slavery and human trafficking cases. Insights from the process are shared with the CPS network to strengthen decision making, case building and support for vulnerable victims.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
We know that the disgusting paedophile Jeffrey Epstein had thousands of victims across the world who he trafficked. Many of them are British victims and survivors, who would have been thoroughly retraumatised by the events of just the last few days. What steps will the Government take to ensure that all those who aided and abetted the trafficking that Jeffrey Epstein perpetrated are also prosecuted by the British state?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Tackling violence against women and girls is my No. 1 priority in government, just as it was when I was in opposition. I am in awe of the bravery of the victims who have come forward. I am absolutely disgusted and sickened by the revelations that have come out in recent days, and I stand in solidarity with the victims. I will ensure that I am speaking across Government to see what more can be done.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Solicitor General
The suffering in Gaza is indefensible. We have been very clear that Israel has an obligation under international humanitarian law to ensure the provision of aid in Gaza and that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has a critical role. The priority is for aid routes to be fully opened, international aid to get in and international non-governmental organisations to be permitted to operate in Gaza again. UK support so far has meant that over 430,000 people have received essential healthcare and over 650,000 have received food. We are working intensively to support global peace initiatives, and humanitarian aid delivery is an integral part of that.
Iqbal Mohamed
On 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice found that it is “plausible” that Israel’s acts could infringe rights of the Palestinian people protected by the genocide convention. Since then, tens of thousands have been murdered and Gaza has been reduced to rubble. The ICJ has affirmed that states have a duty to act when they learn of a serious risk of genocide and must take immediate and effective proactive measures to protect vulnerable populations. Will the Solicitor General confirm what specific proactive measures the UK Government have taken to fulfil their obligations to prevent genocide under the genocide convention in Palestine and what more they need to do?
The Solicitor General
Since this Government have come to office, we have been very clear that Israel has an obligation under international humanitarian law to ensure the provision of aid in Gaza and that UNRWA has a critical role in delivering that response. The UK remains firmly committed to upholding international law. It is the UK Government’s long-standing position that any determination as to whether a genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court. That is consistent with our obligations under the genocide convention.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this question and for her continued work campaigning on child abduction and domestic abuse. The UK is actively engaged on this issue internationally and domestically. Where a child abduction offence has been committed, prosecutors will always consider the motivations and circumstances of the alleged abduction, recognising that some cases arise from complex family breakdowns. Ultimately, any decision will prioritise the safety and stability of the child.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to the Solicitor General for the work she and others are doing on this topic. I have had previous conversations with Justice Ministers who have outlined plans about initiating qualitative research on the operation of the 1980 Hague convention, particularly in domestic abuse cases, which is welcome for all the Hague mothers and their families. However, many women across the country, including at least two in my constituency, remain in limbo. What discussions has the Solicitor General had with the Crown Prosecution Service about how it co-ordinates with family courts when they are hearing Hague convention applications where domestic abuse is alleged? Could she update the House on what plans the Government have to strengthen legal protections for mothers and children fleeing abuse under the Hague convention?
The Solicitor General
I am very sorry to hear of situation of the hon. Member’s constituents. I am aware that the hon. Member has met colleagues from the Ministry of Justice, and I commend her for her dedication to championing these issues. We are considering further qualitative research on the operation of the Hague convention in cases of domestic abuse, and we will ensure that research is given full and proper consideration. I am not sure of the exact details of her constituents’ cases, but if she writes to me with more detail, I can take it up with the CPS. Alternatively, she may wish to meet the chief Crown prosecutor in her region to discuss it further.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
My constituent had a dreadful experience following her daughter’s kidnapping and assault. The CPS has admitted that the handling of the case was flawed, including through the failure to offer a victim personal statement and by too readily accepting a plea from the perpetrator, which meant that he got just a 12-month referral order. This Government are firmly on the side of victims, so how will they ensure that CPS practice reflects that?
The Solicitor General
I am very sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent—my hon. Friend is a great champion for them. I am not aware of the specific details, but if she writes to me, I will raise the case with the CPS, and, again, if helpful, I will facilitate a meeting for her with her local CPS area.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 9 February will include:
Monday 9 February—General debate on the UK-India free trade agreement, followed by debate on a motion on increasing survival rates of brain tumours. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 10 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, followed by debate on motions to approve the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026 and the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026.
Wednesday 11 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
Thursday 12 February—General debate on LGBT+ History Month, followed by debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House of Commons will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February.
The provisional business for the week commencing 23 February includes:
Monday 23 February—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill.
Tuesday 24 February—Opposition day (18th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
For the convenience of the House, the debates on estimates are expected to take place in the week commencing 2 March.
Jesse Norman
I do not think that this is a moment for normal business. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House and all Members, will join me in taking this moment to remember the victims of Jeffrey Epstein: the young women and girls who were systematically trafficked and abused by him and his associates over many years—both those who have come forward and those who have not felt able to do so.
Today, I will talk about Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House and colleagues across this Chamber feel the same way that I do. He and they will understand that this is a matter that far transcends party politics. Peter Mandelson, when Business Secretary, advised Jeffrey Epstein that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J. P. Morgan, should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor at the time—his colleague, Alistair Darling—over the planned tax on bankers’ bonuses, as Jamie Dimon, still the chief executive of J. P. Morgan, duly did.
Mandelson forwarded market-sensitive information to Epstein that related to the 2009 sale of up to £20 billion in state assets, describing the internal Downing Street memo—internal, I stress—as an
“Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.”
Mandelson gave Epstein advance notice of the EU’s 2010 €500 billion bail-out the night before the official announcement, and he warned him in advance of the departure of Gordon Brown from No. 10 Downing Street —a further highly market-sensitive piece of information.
In 2008, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in Florida under a state plea bargain on two sample felony counts: solicitation of prostitution from a minor and procurement of a minor for prostitution. The Prime Minister was specifically asked at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday whether he knew that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction. He said:
“when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security”.—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]
Unfortunately, that is plainly untrue—it must be inadvertent. When the Labour party presented its Humble Address for impact assessments on Brexit to be released on 1 November 2017, that address did not mention national security at all. The second name on that motion was that of the Prime Minister. I hope the Leader of the House will encourage the Prime Minister to correct the record when he next appears at the Dispatch Box.
The Prime Minister also said yesterday:
“we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]
Let us think about that for a moment. The Prime Minister is saying that if only he had known about the depth and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein as it continued after 2008, he would have rejected the appointment. It was not enough that he knew Mandelson had a continuing relationship with this convicted paedophile and sex trafficker. He knew it—indeed, the fact that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s mansion had been reported to him by public sources, and he ignored it. Not only that, but the Prime Minister had the public information further confirmed and reinforced by the security vetting that was done after the appointment but before Mandelson had signed his contract of employment. That was a further chance for the Prime Minister to reject the appointment, and he ignored that too.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked the Prime Minister yesterday:
“can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 262.]
Those victims are the many dozens—perhaps hundreds—of girls and young women who were trafficked and abused by and through Jeffrey Epstein. It is clear that the Prime Minister did not consider them at all, or he could not have possibly taken the decision he did. So why did he choose Mandelson? Why did he take that decision? He did so because Morgan McSweeney told him to. McSweeney was Mandelson’s protégé, and McSweeney was paying back his long-time mentor and political sponsor for all those good works with his appointment.
This whole episode has done incredible damage to the already fragile nature of trust in politics. Every Labour Prime Minister since 1997 has given Peter Mandelson a senior job and been betrayed by him. The present Prime Minister will be seen to have had his own reputation destroyed by this scandal. But let us be clear: every Member of this House and our entire political system have been harmed by it and will continue to be until effective measures are taken to clean it up.
I ask two questions. Can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the documents to be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee will not be redacted? In order to reassure the House, can he ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the appointment procedure undertaken in this case—both the public due diligence and the developed vetting process—and set out in writing why those failed so badly in this case and how they will be improved?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for the way he has addressed these matters this morning. He is fully entitled to do so. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he is right to do so, because I agree that there is palpable anger, outrage and a degree of sadness about the way these events have unfolded.
I would normally, on such occasions, start by running through the series of events, but today I am going to reverse that order and first deal directly with the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, because they are so important. Then, with your forgiveness and leave, Mr Speaker, I will make some remarks about other matters.
The shadow Leader of the House raises some very important points. He talked about yesterday’s Humble Address and the remarks of the Prime Minister. I think there is an assumption with Humble Addresses—I have drafted a few in my time—that national security matters will be exempted from them, but as I think we found out yesterday, there is a degree of confusion about that. I am grateful that as the debate continued yesterday, we did listen to the mood of the House and ensured that what was put before the House at the end of the day reflected what the House was seeking. So if it was imperfect at the beginning—I gently suggest that the right hon. Gentleman’s motion was also, to some extent, imperfect —we got to the right place. In terrible circumstances, that was a good moment for the House, ensuring that that is what was put before the House.
The shadow Leader of the House asks about the actions of the Prime Minister, and that will, of course, be part of the outcome of investigations and inquiries. We must ensure not simply that a robust inquiry is in place, but that we trust people to get on with it. He mentioned the documents that go to the ISC. I expect the ISC to get whatever it asks for, and in the form in which it asks for it. It may have been missed yesterday, but the National Security Act 2023 states that the ISC can ask for documents. I hope we do not get to this situation, but if the ISC does not get those documents, it ends up in court with a judge deciding on such matters. I would not recommend anybody trying to over-redact or leave out documents, because I think we are in a situation where everything, however painful, needs to be out.
It is important to put on record the actions that have been taken since these further matters came to light. Let me say—I should also have said this at the beginning—that I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House not just on how awful this is, but that the victims of Epstein should always be at the forefront in our deliberations. They are brave, and we must ensure that we rise to the challenge of ensuring that they get some kind of justice at the end of it all.
The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords, and although Mandelson has himself retired, we will be bringing forward legislation to strip him of his title—as ever with these matters, it is slightly more difficult to achieve that than it is for me to say it from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister has agreed with the King that the former Lord Mandelson should be removed from the Privy Council. The matter has been referred to the Metropolitan police. They have requested that they be allowed to get on with the job, and I absolutely endorse that.
Over this week we have had a statement from the Dispatch Box on these matters, then Prime Minister’s questions, which was rightly dominated by them, and yesterday we had the not extraordinary but still unusual circumstances of six hours of debate on them, giving Members the opportunity to have their say. We have listened, and we are listening to the House, and indeed to the country more widely, to ensure that we get to the right place in what is an absolute tragedy, not just for the victims but also for the political process itself. I hope that I have made that position clear.
Let me return briefly to some other points. I pay tribute to Lord Triesman, a former general secretary of the Labour party. As the former chairman of the Football Association, he campaigned against racism in sport and was a vocal supporter of women’s football. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his friends and family.
I pay tribute to Lord Wallace, who also died this week. He was ever-present in Scottish politics for almost four decades, a leading architect of devolution and a tireless advocate for his constituency of Orkney and Shetland for over 30 years. We remember him with fondness and send condolences to his friends and family.
I also pay tribute to the campaigner Nathaniel Dye, who has died after a long battle with cancer. I met Nathaniel Dye. He was a brave and courageous campaigner whose life ended too soon. His family and friends should be proud, even in their grief, that his campaign made a real difference to the future wellbeing of others. Yesterday was National Cancer Day and we published our national cancer plan. It owes much to healthcare professionals, but it also owes much to ordinary people—extraordinary people, actually—like Nathaniel Dye who told their stories, and the stories of their friends and families. The plan outlines how thousands of people will receive more timely treatment, and the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), will make a statement shortly.
We have announced the roll-out of 500 new free breakfast clubs in schools across the country, which will mean a free breakfast club now operates in 1,250 schools and is available for 300,000 children.
Today is Time to Talk Day, which is an opportunity to break through the stigma that often comes with having conversations about mental health experiences. That comes ahead of Children’s Mental Health Week, which is next week. Children’s mental health is crucial for fostering positive life outcomes, and I know that there will be lots of activity in constituencies across the country to raise awareness.
Finally, hon. Members will note with interest that Parliament’s restoration and renewal costed proposals report will be published by the House this afternoon. The Palace of Westminster is part of a UNESCO world heritage site, and it is also a symbol of our democracy. It is in much need of significant work to maintain the upkeep of the building, and to make it safe for people who work in and visit the building. I hope that hon. Members will take time to read the detailed report and, in due course, we will be bringing forward the matter for debate and decision, not just by this House but by the other place too.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I have been working closely with driving instructors who provide tuition to learner drivers in North West Leicestershire. One of them reached out to me earlier this week to share that they had got up at 5.45 am to book a test for a student in Loughborough, but no tests were available. What work is being done to increase capacity in key test centres that serve my constituency, such as Loughborough? May we have a debate in Government time on how we hold test centres to account for some of the supply issues?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the House. It is not the first time that we have heard about these concerns. I look forward to answering business questions when the issue is not raised, because that will mean that serious action has been taken and the situation has improved. I completely sympathise with those impacted by a long wait for a driving test. The Government are taking action to deliver around 10,000 additional driving tests a month, and we will ensure that only learner drivers can book tests to stop the exploitation by online bots. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are heard by the relevant Minister, who I am sure will want to correspond with her.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the shadow Leader of the House about Jeffrey Epstein and his relationship to Peter Mandelson. I do not intend to repeat those words, but as the political discussion intensifies in the coming days, we must not forget the victims, who are at the centre of all this, and their bravery, not only in retelling their trauma but in risking taking on powerful men—possibly some of the most powerful and connected men on the planet—and all those who serve to protect and legitimise them in those behaviours.
I feel a duty to raise some under-discussed issues, including Storm Chandra and its devasting impact on communities, particularly in south-west England, where flooding has damaged homes and a road has collapsed into the sea. It is difficult to know when these storms will hit, but we know that they are going to happen more frequently. That has put more intense scrutiny on the role of the Environment Agency, and I fear that it has been found to be lacking. Last year, the EA gave up on main rivers maintenance, saying that it could no longer afford to do it. That is just part of a pattern of the EA not being equipped any more to do its job.
In my constituency, I can think of at least two major failures in the last couple of years. This time last year, there was a major diesel spill in my local river, the River Wandle. Some 4,000 litres were spilt, which were suspected to be from a nearby bus garage. The EA was sent to investigate, but one year on, we still do not have its report and nobody has been held to account.
We also host an incinerator in my constituency. If regulated properly, an incinerator is better than landfill, but over the last 18 months there have been hundreds of emissions breaches, and the EA has failed to punish the operators sufficiently. In fact, the EA says that it is minded to approve an expansion in the capacity of the incinerator, despite strong opposition from me, the local authority and apparently the Government, who have stated publicly that they think we have reached capacity for incineration in England, yet still nothing can be done. When I challenged the EA on this matter, it said it feels that it does not have the legal grounds to object to the expansion. I ask the Government: what is going on? Can the Leader of the House organise a debate to ensure that we can hold the EA properly to account?
Sir Alan Campbell
Despite the hon. Gentleman’s understandable concerns, the Environment Agency does vital work, managing our rivers and protecting our environment. We need to recognise the work of people at the Environment Agency, who are out doing their very best as we speak, but I understand the concern expressed not just by him, but by other hon. Members. As he says, severe weather, including this winter, makes the challenges even harder.
Under this Government, we have increased the Environment Agency budget by £188 million, and our flood budget of £10.5 billion is a record investment—the most that has ever been spent on flooding. I accept that this is a matter of great importance, particularly to rural areas, and it interests and concerns Members across the House. I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and his request that these matters be the subject of debate in this House.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Saturday marks the two-year anniversary of the publication of the Hughes report, which set out how the Government should offer financial compensation to those irreversibly and avoidably harmed by the mesh and valproate scandals. To not have an official Government response after two years is frankly insulting to the thousands of women and children whose lives have been changed forever through no fault of their own. These women have been systematically gaslit and have endured so much, all for trusting healthcare professionals, as we all have done and would do. Does the Leader of the House agree that the time for thinking is now over, and that the Government must provide an urgent response to this House?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this important matter. These are complex issues, and the Government’s response needs to be fair, balanced and sensitive to everyone affected, but I appreciate Members’ frustration about the timescale, and the need for clarity for everyone affected. There is a Westminster Hall debate on the Hughes report next week, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to speak in it. I will raise her concerns directly with Ministers, because she asks reasonable questions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, on Monday the Procedure Committee is due to give a statement on its report on call lists. As that is not a day for Backbench Business debates, a motion from the Leader of the House will apparently be required to allow the statement to take place, and I hope that he will enable that to happen. On Thursday 12 February, there will be a Select Committee statement on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on its recent report. On Thursday 26 February, if we are given the day, there will be a debate on St David’s day and Welsh affairs.
In addition, the business in Westminster Hall next week will include, on Tuesday, a report on the Independent Water Commission’s final report and, on Thursday 12 February, a Select Committee statement on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, followed by a debate on Government support for healthy relationships—just in advance of Valentine’s day—and a debate on onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry. On Tuesday 24 February, when we return from recess, there will be a debate on Government support for the healthcare system in Gaza, and on Thursday 26 February, there will be a debate on Eating Disorders Awareness Week, followed by a debate on the impact of VAT on independent faith schools.
Eagle-eyed individuals who follow the Order Paper will know that there will be no second debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon, and I should explain why. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) was granted that debate three weeks ago, and the Government were given notice that it was being held. On Tuesday, however, the Minister with responsibility for public health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), apparently informed the hon. Member that she would not be available to answer the debate.
As the Leader of the House will know, it is not acceptable for the Government to determine that only one Minister can answer a debate. Another Minister, or even a health Whip, could have answered. We must give the Government 48 hours’ notice of debates, and we offered the slot to five individuals, but unfortunately they could not change their plans for this afternoon. I am sure that Members will want to defend the right of Back Benchers to hold the Government to account.
Fly-tipping in Harrow has been a scourge for most local residents. I am pleased that the council has taken many steps to combat it, including fly-tips being reported within 24 hours, free bulky waste collection, enabling multiple trips to the waste recycling centre and CCTV at fly-tipping hotspots. Recently, though, an illegal waste dump was set up on private land. Harrow council officers have been through that waste, and they have been able to identify it as the waste of 40 individuals, who have been issued with fixed penalty notices for giving their waste to illegal waste collectors. This is a warning that people should not do that. However, there is now a problem across the country with illegal waste collectors using private land to carry out these criminal actions. Can a relevant Minister make a statement on what action the Government will take to support local authorities in opposing these waste collectors, and warn individuals that they should not use them?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and the work of the Backbench Business Committee, and for his update. His first question was about the statement on the Procedure Committee report requiring a motion. The answer is yes—I will bring such a motion forward, even though the circumstances are slightly unusual.
The hon. Gentleman’s second question was about the cancellation of a debate. Sometimes it is difficult to ensure that a Minister is available. There are lots of draws on Ministers’ time, not least statements or whatever, but my strong view is that such debates are a priority for Ministers, and they should be present for them. I am very sorry to hear of the circumstances, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman and others that what has happened is not acceptable. I cannot do anything about these situations if I am not fully aware of them. If any Member finds that there is any doubt about whether a Minister will be present for their debate, they should come and see me, so that I can ensure that an appropriate Minister is available—as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, in some circumstances it could be a Whip; they are also Ministers—and debates can go ahead. I apologise for that, and we will do everything we can to make things better in future.
As the hon. Gentleman said, fly-tipping is completely unacceptable and a blight on our communities. We are giving councils new powers—for example, to crush the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers—and we are bringing in prison sentences of up to five years for those transporting waste illegally. I am a firm believer that a law should act as a warning, and if it is ignored, action should be taken, so I am pleased if that has happened. As for a possible statement in future, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to the attention of Ministers, or he may wish to apply for a debate on these matters—he is uniquely placed to ensure that he gets one.
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not know about the issue that has just been raised; I am very concerned about it. I thank the Leader of the House for his answer, but I want to know why I was not told, so I will take this up.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Leo Barber from Beckenham tragically took his own life in November 2023, aged just 16, after suffering months of poor mental health. The recent inquest into Leo’s death found that he had been failed by multiple agencies, but that his mental health issues were also linked to screen use and exposure to harmful content online. Leo’s parents, Jo and Chris, have spoken devastatingly about the difficulties families face in protecting vulnerable young people in an online environment that is insufficiently regulated and characterised by addictive features, such as infinite scrolling and forums promoting suicide. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the Government’s recent action to ban smartphones in classrooms, and their consultation on young people’s use of social media, including a possible ban for under-16s—important steps to keep young people safe, and to hopefully prevent tragedies like Leo’s in the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I extend my deepest sympathies to Jo and Chris and all their family in what is an unimaginable situation. Every life lost to suicide is a profound tragedy, and we are committed to delivering the five-year suicide prevention strategy. As my hon. Friend says, we are also determined to keep young people safe online, and I obviously join him in welcoming our consultation on children’s use of technology. Once that consultation has concluded, we will update the House.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Pride in Place funding is about £5 billion directed at our most deprived areas. I think it is worked out on a constituency basis, and that constituencies have to hit a point on two indices of deprivation to qualify, and must therefore be what the Government call “double deprived”. I have significant pockets of deprivation in my constituency, particularly in parts of Stanwell, yet they do not qualify for Pride in Place funding because it is calculated on a constituency basis, which seems pretty unfair to me. Will the Leader of the House allow Government time for us to debate the Pride in Place funding formula, so that we can understand it, and bring such anomalies to the attention of the Government?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in his analysis of how funding is allocated. Certainly in my local case, the allocation is not actually to the poorest neighbourhoods; it is to neighbourhoods that are poor, and are left behind on certain indices. It is a different way of calculating than might previously have been used.
The hon. Gentleman is right, though, to point out that the Government are putting more investment in through Pride in Place. We will continue to do so, but this is not only about the investment that goes in; it is about putting local people in charge, because it is not just that some communities look like they have been left behind, but that people feel that they have been left behind. The Government obviously wish to see this scheme rolled out further, so I hope that he is more successful in future. I will do everything I can to ensure that we get an opportunity to debate these matters, because we have a good record and a good story to tell, and he will be able to make his concerns known then.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The yearly Linlithgow marches organised by the Deacons Court is a 16th-century tradition marking the boundaries of the ancient and royal burgh. The marches celebrate civic pride. There are floats, parades, and much merriment from early in the morning. Last year, the court celebrated its 50th anniversary with a special service in December, which was attended by Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal and Vice-Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Deacons Court, and perhaps join me for a glass and some merriment at this year’s marches?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the Linlithgow marches. Such events play an important part in bringing people together and promoting pride in local communities. I wish this year’s march well, and thank my hon. Friend for inviting me to attend. I would love to join, if my schedule allows.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank the Leader of the House for his comments about the Westminster Hall debate. Yesterday, the Government finally launched a national cancer plan, which contained many ambitious targets. However, that plan requires us to have firm checks in place, so that we can ensure that promises on paper are delivered in practice. The plan states that
“A reformed National Cancer Board”
will
“provide regular updates to ministers.”
However, Parliament and MPs also need regular updates, so will the Leader of the House commit to ensuring that there will be regular opportunities for MPs in all parts of the House to scrutinise the delivery of the national cancer plan, perhaps starting with an update before the summer recess?
Sir Alan Campbell
There will be a statement later on the national cancer plan, where the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise his concerns directly with the Minister. It is an ambitious plan, and it is absolutely necessary, and the Government are committed to making sure that Parliament is kept abreast of these matters as we go on. I would certainly bear that in mind.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Before Christmas, I raised the poor standard of service by the Royal Mail in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney. Despite our excellent posties, constituents still report delayed deliveries leading to missed appointments and worse. Ofcom should hold Royal Mail to account on the universal service obligation, yet I have received no response from Ofcom for almost two months. Can we please have a ministerial statement on the performance of Ofcom? All our constituents should receive the level of service that they have been promised.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend again raises these matters, which have been raised consistently in the past few weeks by Members across the House. I hope that the Royal Mail, which listens to these matters, has heard what he has said. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has discussed Royal Mail’s performance with the chief executive, and the fact that it needs to do more to meet service delivery targets. Ofcom has fined Royal Mail three times on its service levels, and it is investigating Royal Mail’s compliance with its service quality obligations. My hon. Friend is right that it does not matter where someone lives; they deserve a good postal delivery system. Ofcom needs to continue to hold Royal Mail to account.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Much has been said, rightly, in support of the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Epstein. Another group who must not be forgotten are the dozens of young women who were raped and sexually assaulted by Mohamed Fayed. Fayed is dead and has been judged in a higher place, but those who aided and abetted him are still under investigation by the Metropolitan police, and they must be brought to justice. That investigation is taking too long. Will the Leader of the House please invite the Home Secretary to make a statement about the progress of that inquiry and to indicate when some action may be brought in support of these ladies?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this terrible case. Simply because the perpetrator is no longer here does not mean that the suffering gets any better for the people who have been affected. I am sure the Metropolitan police will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s comments this morning, but I will raise the matter with the Home Secretary to see whether further progress can be made.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Churches are at the heart of our communities, and I have heard from residents who go to St Peter and St Paul’s in Wingrave, St Michael’s in Aston Clinton and St Mary’s in Aylesbury, among others, about the importance of the listed places of worship grant scheme in helping to preserve historic church buildings. Can the Leader of the House therefore confirm whether that funding will be continued? What steps will be taken to protect smaller congregations if so, and can he ensure that this House debates the importance of churches in our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I have said from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions just how important churches are to local communities, and historic churches, whether in rural or urban areas, have a particular role to play in communities and in our proud history. I will get an update for my hon. Friend from the relevant Department about the future of that programme, because I know it is of importance to many churches and Church organisations across the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am going to run business questions until midday or thereabouts, so please help each other. A good example will come from James Wild.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Leader of the House referred earlier to mental health and Time to Talk Day; I will be running the London marathon in April for the 8:56 Foundation in North West Norfolk, which does important work on men’s mental health. Will he join me in paying tribute to charities across the country that are doing so much to improve people’s wellbeing?
Sir Alan Campbell
I wish the hon. Gentleman well in running the London marathon, and indeed everyone who is involved in that and in raising money for such an important cause. I praise mental health charities, wherever they are—in his constituency and others; they are so important to our local communities.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I held a meeting for my constituents in Silkstone and Silkstone Common last week, and they raised with me the lack of NHS dentistry spaces locally. Some are having to travel 20 miles, taking up to an hour and a half, to get to an NHS dentist appointment. This issue affects people right across my constituency, with many being forced to go private, pay additional transport costs or go without an appointment until they need urgent hospital treatment—all pushing up their cost of living. Will the Leader of the House advise me how I can work with Health Ministers to ensure that my constituents can access NHS dentist appointments in their communities, particularly in rural areas?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these matters; she is a doughty campaigner for her constituents. We are very aware of the challenges facing dentistry, particularly—but not exclusively—in rural areas, which is why we are rolling out 700,000 more urgent dental appointments from April. I encourage my hon. Friend to attend the Adjournment debate on NHS dentistry later; perhaps those concerns can be addressed there. If she wishes, I will get her a meeting with the relevant Minister to see what further can be done for her constituency.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Ever since Australia banned social media for under-16s, my office has been inundated by appeals from parents for action here in the UK. They see the very real risks of a social media wild west; they fear for their children and want to say no, and are simply asking for the Government to have their backs. As a parent of an eight-year-old, I share their fear. I am pleased that the Government have launched a consultation and I look forward to hosting listening sessions across Rossendale and Darwen. This is a complex issue; there is much to be considered. We have to get this right. Would the Leader of the House agree to an early debate in Government time to allow Members to fully explore how we best meet this generational challenge?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the Government’s consultation into children’s use of technology, potentially including a social media ban. This subject is really important to parents; I think all our inboxes will have been filled with such concerns over the last few weeks. It is a complex matter, which is why the consultation is the right way forward. Although, for understandable reasons, yesterday’s second Opposition day motion on social media was not debated, there will be a Westminster Hall debate on young people’s screen time next week, which he may wish to attend.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
A young woman, Savannah Victora-May, is in a critical condition due to very severe ME, compounded by inadequate treatment in hospital, where she has been for 11 months, since March last year. One of the few and welcome commitments from the Government’s final delivery plan for ME was to explore whether a specialised service for very severe ME should be prescribed by the Secretary of State. The ministerial foreword acknowledged that avoidable deaths of people with ME should “become never events”, but in the continued absence of specialist provision, it is difficult to see how situations like Savannah’s can be prevented from recurring. Will the Leader of the House request an urgent update on any progress made in respect of this commitment and on when a recommendation will be made?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is distressing to learn of Savannah’s situation. I am sure the House wishes her well. I am pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes Government action on these matters, but if she wishes to explore what more can be done, I can arrange for her a meeting with the relevant Minister.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Several of my constituents in Salisbury have recently retired from the civil service. When they have contacted Capita, they have not been able to obtain their lump sums, so are getting into debt and have lost out on interest. Others have been cut off and ignored. Could we have a statement or a debate on this matter? It is only right, if people have worked so hard for so many years, that they should be able to access their pension as they anticipated.
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the delays are unacceptable. It is not the service that people deserve, and resolving these matters is a matter of urgency. I understand that there was a debate on these matters yesterday, but I am sure there will be applications and questions as we go forward. The Cabinet Office is working hard to resolve the situation, and has put in place an expert recovery team to work with Capita and make sure things are in place to address such concerns. This issue is of concern not just to his constituents, but to other Members’ constituents too.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Many of my constituents face lengthy delays in securing their Transport for London private hire licences, with some complaining about delays of up to 18 months and unclear communication. Many of their concerns are simply being ignored. As the Leader of the House will be aware, our private hire drivers rely on those licences for their household livelihoods, helping to put food on the table and to pay their bills. Will he raise this matter with Ministers and ask them to engage with TfL, so that resources are made available and the unacceptable delays are finally addressed?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. I agree that these are important matters for drivers themselves and for their families’ wellbeing, and taxi drivers also provide a very important service to our constituents, so these matters need to be resolved. I will draw this issue to the attention of the relevant Minister and get my hon. Friend an update on what can be done to resolve the situation.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Hundreds of my constituents work at the Scunthorpe steelworks, which, as the Leader of the House will know, is under Chinese ownership. When the Prime Minister reported back earlier this week, I asked him whether he had engaged in related negotiations during his visit to China. It is disappointing to note that he did not respond to that question. Clearly, the long-term future of the plant is important to thousands of people. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to update us on how things are progressing?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is not just a matter of concern locally for the hon. Gentleman; the Prime Minister is very committed to the future of the steel industry, and to the workers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and the surrounding constituencies. I am not sure why he did not get a direct answer to his question, but I will make sure that he gets a readout from the Prime Minister’s visit, so that he can see what took place and what assurances the Prime Minister was able to get. The Prime Minister is absolutely committed to the workforce.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I would like to place on the record my disappointment that today the Government have chosen to make two oral statements, both of which are of huge significance—on Sudan and on the national cancer plan—when so many Members will be absent from the Chamber. As co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, may I put on the record that this shows disrespect to Members seeking to participate in today’s Backbench Business debates, particularly the one on the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Over many months, the Government have failed to respond to the decisions of the International Court of Justice and the UN commission of inquiry, and they have now squeezed the time available for Members to discuss that with the Minister. This is a gross discourtesy to this House, and to the millions of Palestinians impacted by Israel’s actions. Can the Leader of the House prevail upon Government Front Benchers to provide us with adequate time to debate this key issue in this place as soon as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
There is a perennial problem with timely statements and the effect they have on the business of the House. The national cancer plan is of huge significance and is timely, and Sudan is an extraordinarily important matter. It is important that the House gets an update on these matters. There will be some pressure on time today, but I hope that Members, including my hon. Friend, are able to get their points across. If that is not the case, I will certainly consider what further time could be made available.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
On 11 September last year, I stood in this House to request time for a debate on the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. In the light of the serious concern arising from the release of the Epstein files, the links to the retired Lord Mandelson and the current Government’s knowledge of those links, I am once again here to ask the Leader of the House to grant time for such a debate. This is necessary not only to restore public trust, but to make clear the standards of conduct that every Member should adhere to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I advise Members that questions need to be short because time is short.
Sir Alan Campbell
The issue the hon. Lady raises and has raised before is precisely why there is an investigation and an inquiry. There are various facets to that, but when the investigation is complete, I am sure the House will be given adequate time to discuss the outcome. It is precisely at that point that the principles she refers to will be central to the discussion.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please advise me on the best way to get the concerns of Grimsby businesses on Cleethorpe Road considered in detail and perhaps reflected in the Government’s planned high streets strategy? They are facing a severe economic impact from the council’s plans to remove parking for a bus lane that will save only 15 seconds on a journey. Is there an opportunity for a debate on council responsibilities to local businesses?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the actions the Government are taking to support small businesses and high streets, because they are a very important part of local communities. Local authorities have a crucial role in shaping the trading environment for small businesses, and I hope her local authority has heard her concerns about the parking issues and everything else. We want local authorities to work in partnership with businesses, not in tension with them. I am grateful to her for raising this example, which I hope her local authority has heard, and I will raise these matters with the relevant Minister.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The father of one of my constituents died unexpectedly, which was itself shocking and distressing for his family, but that distress has been compounded by the difficulties they have faced in getting access to vital information held on his mobile phone, computer and via online services. Indeed, the only way they can open his phone is by returning it to the manufacturer’s settings, which would lose everything stored on it. Does the Leader of the House agree that our use of technology has moved on but the rules and regulations on access to online material when somebody dies have not developed at the same pace? Will he bring forward a debate on this important matter so that these issues can be fully explored?
Sir Alan Campbell
I appreciate that this complex issue engages a range of policy areas across Government, because as the right hon. Gentleman says, technology moves on. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 clarifies that certain digital assets can be included as personal property, and some digital services have added a function to allow contacts to be nominated and have selected data sent to them. I will, however, ensure that his constituents’ case is heard by the appropriate Ministers, that they consider the issues carefully and that, should it be appropriate, they bring forward a statement or we find time for a debate on these matters.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Our country, and Harrow certainly, benefits from the hard-working Romanian community. Many Romanian families would welcome the chance for their children to supplement their normal school exams with a GCSE in Romanian. Given that no exam board currently offers a GCSE in Romanian, may we have a debate on how we can put that right?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House and for his work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Romania. As he says, languages are a vital part of our curriculum and can open doors for young people across the country and, indeed, abroad. Decisions about which languages are offered at GCSE in England are matters for exam boards rather than central Government, but I am sure the boards will have heard his question, and I hope they give this matter their consideration.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the Countryside Alliance’s annual “Rural Oscars” awards. I am delighted that eight of the finalists come from my constituency: Briggsy’s Butcher, the Allanton Inn, the Buccleuch Arms, the Blackadder in Greenlaw, the Gordon Arms, Fine Feathers, the Ancrum Pantry and the Oxton Community shop. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating those businesses and in wishing them well in the public vote?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating all the finalists in his constituency; they are so important in making community work in his part of the world. The Government are committed to supporting small and rural businesses through our small business plan, saving them time and money, boosting their access to finance and opening new opportunities. There are some fantastic businesses across his constituency and they deserve to be recognised, so I wish them all well.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Following local closures, residents in the north of Dudley currently have no accessible household waste site, forcing them to make lengthy and costly journeys to the only remaining sites in Stourbridge, which is leading to fly-tipping across the borough. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the Conservative council to reinstate Anchor Lane accessible waste disposal services in the north of the borough, and will he agree to a debate on this matter?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the House. Local authorities are legally required to deliver waste collection services to households in their area. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has issued guidance for local authorities on factors to consider when delivering those vital services and around waste sites. My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her constituents. I am sure Dudley council will have heard her remarks; I hope it takes them into account and acts in the interest of its residents.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Nearly four years on from the outbreak of the war, our Ukrainian friends have formed ever closer bonds with our communities. Last week I was at the opening ceremony of Bath’s Ukrainian education hub, which is part of a global network of 84 such hubs. The hubs are places for classes and courses, but they also provide space for adults and young people across cultures to learn from and support each other. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Bath Ukrainian education hub and all those involved, and will he wish them all the best for the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do indeed congratulate those involved in the education hub and thank them for all the work they do. I also thank the wider community across the hon. Lady’s fantastic constituency, who have been so welcoming to Ukrainian families, for all they do and wish them well in the future.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Last Tuesday I was delighted to see the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announce £8.14 million in funding for Scotland through the multi-sport grass- roots facilities programme. I have already heard from organisations in my community that are keen to apply, including East End football academy, which runs weekly football sessions, but it is concerned about the condition of its pitch. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of access to good-quality sports facilities, particularly in the country’s poorest areas?
Sir Alan Campbell
Grassroots sport is vital to our communities and high-quality facilities are vital too—when they work well, they literally change people’s lives for the better. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the funding announced for Scotland; we are ambitious for sport right across our country, and I hope the SNP Government are equally ambitious in what they do. This would make an excellent topic for a Westminster Hall debate and I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for one.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Last week I visited Gina and Vincenzo, the owners of a fantastic local Italian restaurant in Hornchurch, whose much-loved business is struggling under the weight of extortionate business rates. They used to pay £2,200 a year, but are now having to pay around £6,800; however, according to the calculator on the Government website, they will have to pay an astonishing £19,000 in business rates in the future. The Leader of the House must know that pubs and restaurants across the UK are being ruined because of the Government’s anti-business policies, so will he at least make time for a debate on business rates reform? Can he really blame the owners of Umberto’s for banning Labour MPs from their premises?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The message about short questions does not seem to have got through. Can Members please shorten their questions, because we do not have much time?
Sir Alan Campbell
I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that when he sat on the Conservative Benches rather than with Reform, 7,000 pubs were closed. This Government are committed to supporting pubs, which is why we have announced 15% off their new business rates bills. That does not underestimate the challenge that some still face. It is important that they get support from Government, and that is precisely what they are getting.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituency has been well served for 35 years by the West Midlands Air Ambulance Service, but there is now the Stoke Air Ambulance. Yesterday, the fundraising regulator published a damning report about the new boy in town, because, despite raising hundreds of thousands of pounds, it does not have a helicopter, a paramedic, pilots, Care Quality Commission registration, or a launch pad. The West Midlands Ambulance Service has publicly said that it will not task the Stoke service with jobs. The Charity Commission opened a statutory inquiry yesterday, but getting to that point was quite difficult. Will the Leader of the House bring forward two debates: one on the powers and resources of the Charity Commission, to make sure that it can tackle these charities; and another to celebrate the good work of the proper charities that look after our constituents across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should celebrate the work of our air ambulances when they do a fantastic job, but he is also right to raise the doubts that prevail about that service on behalf not just of his constituents but of his region. I will raise this matter with the relevant Department, but I hope that the Charity Commission has heard his comments.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Yesterday, I hosted the Farm Safety Foundation in Parliament to launch the ninth year of its Mind Your Head Week campaign. Although there has been progress in talking about mental health in farming, we lose too many people to suicide every year. That must change. Can we have a debate in Government time on suicide prevention and mental health and wellbeing in farming and rural communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I have said previously, the Government are very committed to tackling this matter wherever it prevails, and the hon. Member may wish to raise it directly with Ministers at Health and Social Care questions. However, if she wishes to speak to Health Ministers, I will endeavour to get her a meeting.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Residents in Stoke, Holy Cross and Upper Stoke in South Norfolk have been terribly let down by Anglian Water. The company digs up the road every two seconds, which has meant that residents are cut off from the only bus service to Norwich. Can we have a debate in Government time about companies such as Anglian Water, which keep letting down our villages by doing bodge jobs rather than doing the job right the first time?
Sir Alan Campbell
That important matter has been raised with me previously. The previous Government should never have allowed the water sector to get into this state, because my hon. Friend’s constituents and all of our constituents deserve better. The water White Paper sets out our major reform plan, which secured £104 billion of investment to rebuild crumbling pipes and sewage works nationwide. I will ensure that Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers hear my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Late last week, it was with great sadness that Brummies learned of the passing away of Councillor Waseem Zaffar MBE. He was only 44 years of age and served the people of Lozells and the wider Birmingham area for 15 years. During our time together—both within and beyond the council chamber—we had our political differences, but what was never in question was my admiration for his tireless efforts to champion our city and its residents. Given the immense contribution made by Councillor Waseem Zaffar to local democracy, will the Leader of the House agree to make time for a debate on local councillors and activists, so that we can find more ways of recognising their contribution?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the contribution not just of the councillor he refers to but of all councillors. They are absolutely crucial to our local communities. He has placed that matter on record and I am sure the local community will have heard what he said.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Later this month, Northumberland Park, a key interchange between rail and metro, will be the latest station opening on the Northumberland line. The completion of the line and station has been made possible thanks to a £17 million investment from this Labour Government and £10 million from the Mayor of the North East. Can we have a debate on how this Government are supporting regional transport, such as through the opening of Northumberland Park?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning efforts on regional transport, whether it is the metro, rail or, indeed, roundabouts in her constituency. I have to say, she has done better on Northumberland Park than the previous MP—that was me, in case anybody was wondering. [Laughter.] Connecting the country through public transport is vital to growth, and I welcome the investment that has been announced. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for what I am sure will be a popular Westminster Hall debate.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
In yesterday’s debate about Lord Mandelson, we heard a lot about the despicable crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. We also heard about Mandelson’s lobbying through his Global Counsel organisation, through which he introduced the Prime Minister to the chair of the company Palantir. Yesterday the Cabinet Office denied me permission to even see the background papers on an hour-long meeting that took place between Palantir, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and Dominic Cummings in 10 Downing Street. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee is concerned about the use of Palantir in the NHS, where we have a £330 million contract with Palantir. We also have a £250 million defence contract with the company and a potential contract for the new national police service. Will the Leader of the House please allow Government time for a debate on the suitability of Palantir as such a critical aspect of our national infrastructure?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise concerns, but as I said, there is an inquiry into the whole influence of the former Lord Mandelson. I assume and hope that all these matters will be considered. The House will then get an opportunity to see the outcome of the inquiry, and I am sure at that point the House will want to debate the matter.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Rokeby school in Canning Town has just received national recognition from the Department for Education for its exceptional achievements among disadvantaged pupils. This is an incredible achievement for the school and the local community, where families and children face many disadvantages and challenges. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Rokeby on its success, and does he agree that when we are discussing education we need to find opportunities to shine a light on such successes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I of course join my hon. Friend in congratulating all of Rokeby school’s staff and pupils on that huge achievement. I absolutely agree that we should take every opportunity to celebrate the great work of our schools.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Last October’s National Audit Office report into ECO4 wall insulation found extensive evidence of fraud and cowboy workmanship. Consumer Energy Solutions of Swansea went into receivership last month, and I have received scores of complaints regarding air source heat pumps and solar panels installed by that company and others, with some people having no heating or hot water. Could the Leader of the House advise me what parliamentary measures are available to me to ensure that there is an independent inquiry into fraud and misuse of taxpayers’ money with ECO4?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Lady could ask for a debate in which she could raise the issue of whether or not an inquiry is appropriate and get a response from the relevant Minister. If she wishes to draw attention about this issue directly to the Minister, I will arrange for a meeting.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that Parliament is sovereign when it comes to the legislative framework of this country. With that in mind, I would appreciate his views on the actions of a small number of unelected Members of the Lords who are blocking the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill rather than seeking to improve it. Can we have a debate in Government time on how the reputation of our parliamentary democracy can be protected in the face of such actions?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand, and to a large extent share, the frustration of my hon. Friend and many Members across the House, because the position of this House on the Bill was made very clear. The Government’s position has not changed: it is not a Government Bill, and the Lords have every right to scrutinise. But I again ask them to do so responsibly, because this House made its position very clear.
I hope that progress can be made. Once that has happened, I will find time in this place, if necessary, to debate those amendments, because the will of the House was very clear. Perhaps after that has been decided and the Bill has been dealt with—whatever the outcome—we need to reflect on some of the procedures that get us into this situation.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The 2024 Labour general election manifesto promised
“Immediate reform of the House of Lords”,
noted that
“reform is long over-due and essential”,
and said,
“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber”.
Given the Mandelson scandal and the unacceptable spectacle of a tiny number of unelected peers blocking the will of the majority of elected Members in this House, may we have an urgent debate in this Session and in Government time on how the Government will bring forward and realise their promises of fundamental Lords reform so that we can begin to rebuild trust in our country’s democracy?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committed to wider reform of the House of Lords and the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill is the first step in that process. We remain committed to that. However, I gently say to the hon. Lady that, to some extent, this is more complex than many people think. There are many priorities for this Government, not least tackling the cost of living and the terrible situation that we found our public services in when we came into office. To spend a great deal of time, at this juncture, talking about House of Lords reform is timely, costly and an extraordinarily difficult thing to achieve—I know that from experience. That does not mean that the Government will not address what we promised in our manifesto and bring about House of Lords reform at some point in the future.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Last weekend, I joined a thanksgiving service at Huddersfield parish church that paid tribute to local volunteers and residents who organised donations to Jamaica and the Caribbean islands following the devastation of Hurricane Melissa. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to those residents in Huddersfield? Will he set out how the UK Government are supporting relief efforts in the region?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to celebrate those local Huddersfield volunteers. I am sure that the whole House will join me in praising their efforts, which remind us of the deep relationship between the United Kingdom and the Caribbean. We have committed up to £2.5 million to support the humanitarian response to devastation caused by Hurricane Melissa. I encourage my hon. Friend to participate in Foreign Office oral questions at the beginning of next month to discuss how we can better support the volunteers going forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to raise concerns about the treatment of the Shi’a Muslims in Saudia Arabia. There have been long-standing reports of systematic discrimination, including restrictions on religious practice, unequal access to employment and limits on political participation. Such reports raise serious concerns about freedom of religion or belief and equal treatment under the law. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what assessment the Government have made of those concerns and how they are being raised with the Saudi authorities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all. He will know that the Foreign Secretary has had considerable engagement with the Saudia Arabian Government. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a response to the issue he raises.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
My son has just started his second term at university. His cohort will be hearing the current debate and media coverage about student loan balances spiralling and many will be worried about what that means for their future. Further, sixth-form students at New College, John Leggott, North Lindsey and Doncaster College will all be worried about what that means for them. I never want any of my residents to feel that their ambition has been priced out of reach, so will the Leader of the House make time for a statement or debate on student loan interest rates and the impact of compounding interest on graduates, particularly those from more deprived backgrounds?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We are making the tough but fair decisions needed to find a balance between value for money for taxpayers and for students and graduates. We are supporting graduates with the cost of living and protecting lower earners by lifting the threshold this year, but I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and his constituents, because they will be shared by many of our own constituents. I encourage him to apply for a debate to raise those concerns and hear from Ministers directly.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last week, at a City of Wolverhampton council meeting in my constituency, when discussing the removal of face coverings under a public space protection order, a Reform councillor asked a hijab-wearing Labour cabinet member, Obaida Ahmed, whether the order extended to the removal of religious garments like burkas for the identification of criminals—comments that clearly shook Councillor Ahmed. Will the Leader of the House please join me in condemning such disgraceful and divisive questioning, and stand in solidarity with Councillor Ahmed and all those from whichever party who refuse to let prejudice and discrimination undermine efforts to make our communities safer?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and absolutely condemn the language that he describes. It is incumbent on all elected office holders to consider the language they use. I want to recognise the contribution of those who work tirelessly to ensure that prejudice and discrimination do not undermine efforts to make our communities more inclusive.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
I take this opportunity to commend the outstanding work of the team behind Coopers bar in Southport for all the work they do to support the grassroots music scene in the town. They are now further strengthening their contribution by expanding their offering, with a new venue on West Street due to open later in the spring. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the importance of grassroots music venues to our towns across the country, so that the contributions of places like Coopers can be properly recognised?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in praising the work of Coopers bar. As I have said before, bars and live music venues are cornerstones of our local communities. Our creative industries sector plan includes a £30 million music growth package to support small venues. If he were able to secure an Adjournment debate on this topic, I am sure that it would be a popular one.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Workers in Suffolk Coastal have been let down badly after carrying out their jobs in good faith only to be denied wages that they earned. After multiple failures to be granted the money they earned, employees of the Orwell hotel in Felixstowe were forced to gain employment tribunal judgments confirming that the money is owed to them, yet many are still waiting to be paid. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister to engage with me urgently on this case and on the wider failure to ensure that employment tribunal awards are properly enforced?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter, and I understand that it must be deeply frustrating for the workers affected. I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets her to discuss this case.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of poverty and helped break down barriers to opportunity by introducing child trust funds, giving every single 18 year old savings regardless of their background. However, on turning 18, a disabled person will find that if they have a care package, their child trust fund will be counted in the financial assessment. Can the Leader of the House please make time for a debate on how we can ensure that the child trust funds benefit every single young person regardless of whether they are disabled?
Sir Alan Campbell
Child trust funds have helped parents and carers invest in their children’s futures, and we are committed to ensuring that every disabled person has access to the care they need. I will arrange a meeting for my hon. Friend with the relevant Minister so they can hear her concerns at first hand.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Families in Kidsgrove are understandably annoyed that the playground at Clough Hall park has only recently reopened, having been cordoned off since last May. I raised the matter with the Conservative-led Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council, as did local councillors, yet it took eight months to bring it back into use. Does the Leader of the House agree that the borough council must start listening to residents because high-quality playgrounds must be available to all regardless of where they live?
Sir Alan Campbell
Playgrounds are a vital part of our social infrastructure, and the Budget committed £18 million to revamp playgrounds across England. I am sure that the Conservative council in Newcastle-under-Lyme will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments. It is time that it listens to residents, or will it turn out to be just like Reform: over-offering and under-delivering?
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
With the cancer plan, we have made great progress this week on how we plan to tackle terminal illnesses in this country. On Tuesday, I had the privilege of visiting my constituent Alfred Whalley, who is currently living with terminal pulmonary fibrosis. After serving 20 years as a paramedic, he wanted to share with me his disappointment at his experiences at the very dated Royal Preston hospital, where one night he was moved five times as they juggled beds—though he is keen to stress that all staff were doing an incredible job. Does the Leader of the House agree that while plans for future terminal patients are welcome, we cannot forget the experiences of patients now and must find ways to invest in hospitals like Royal Preston which will be waiting at least 12 years to be rebuilt? Will he join me in sending best wishes to Alf and his wife Wendy and join their call for one of the Health Ministers to visit Royal Preston hospital to see the conditions for themselves?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the arrival of the national cancer plan, and in sending our best wishes to Alfred, Wendy and their family and friends. We have made progress in improving the lives of patients with terminal illnesses, with 230,000 more diagnoses arriving in time and £70 million invested in cutting-edge radiotherapy. However, as my hon. Friend points out, there is a lot more to do. There will be a statement on the national cancer plan later. Should she wish to meet Ministers to make a specific case, I will ensure that she gets a meeting.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Linsey Farnsworth.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I am glad to end business questions on a joyful note. Just before Christmas, I launched Amber Valley’s business awards, and encouraged people to nominate their favourite local businesses and to shop locally. After hundreds of nominations, the winners are now in: Basilia and 47 Degrees Coffee in Langley Mill; By HeatherMay and Amber’s Beauty in Ripley; and Beth’s Groom Hut in Waingroves. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the winners, and will he update the House on the support given to small businesses and high streets?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for the businesses in her constituency. I will absolutely join her in congratulating those winners, whose awards are, I am sure, well deserved. We are committed to small businesses through our small business plan, which will help to save them time and money, and open up new opportunities. Out there in all our constituencies, businesses need our support. I am sure that they can go on to even better things.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That concludes business questions. We have made a note of those Members who were not called today.
Sudan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I wish to update the House on the situation in Sudan.
On Tuesday night, I returned from the border between Sudan and Chad, where I witnessed from the camp of 140,000 people in Adré—85% of them women and children who have fled the most horrendous violence and violations—the devastating human toll of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. In January, Sudan passed 1,000 days of conflict between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces. This is a regionalised conflict of power, proxies and profit, defined by unimaginable atrocities, by millions pushed into famine, by the horrific use of rape as a weapon of war, and by suffering that should strike at the core of our shared humanity.
That should mobilise the world’s resources and resolve, yet too often the response is to hold back and look away—catastrophically failing the people of Sudan, and Sudan’s women and girls. I am determined that we do not look away, and that we put the spotlight firmly on Sudan. That is why this week I travelled to the region to see at first hand the extent of the crisis, to listen to the testimony of traumatised women and children whose lives will never be the same again, to see how UK support is making a difference, and to see what urgently needs to be done by the international community to help arrest the spiral of bloodshed and drive urgent momentum towards peace.
In Adré, I met families who had been torn apart, mothers who had survived appalling violence only to find their daughters missing, and frightened children who had travelled vast distances in search of some semblance of safety. I met teachers, nurses, students, market traders, small businesswomen and political activists—impressive women whose lives and livelihoods back home had been stolen from them.
I met a mother separated from her children who told me she still does not know where they are and whether they are alive; a young woman who told me that most of the women she knew had been through “bad violence” on their journey, but they would not talk about it “because of the shame”; and a Sudanese community worker who told me she thought more than half the women in the camp had directly experienced sexual assault or abuse. I have heard from others in recent weeks, including a Sudanese emergency response room worker who described three sisters arriving at the response room who had all been raped. The oldest was 13, and the youngest was eight. This is a war waged on the bodies of women and girls.
But here is what I also saw: an incredible group of Sudanese women who have set up a makeshift support centre for women who have suffered sexual violence and for children with trauma. They have activities for children and support for mums. More survivors need that kind of help, so this week I announced that the UK will fund a new £20 million programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan, enabling them to access medical and psychological care, given the terrible stigma endured by survivors and children born of rape. That is part of our international action to tackle a global emergency of violence against women and girls.
What I did not see in Adré is just as disturbing: the fathers, husbands and brothers missing, either killed, drawn into the fighting or migrating further and leaving family behind. Reports from El Fasher after the RSF attacks were of atrocities so appalling that they could be seen from space—blood-soaked sand, multiple piles of bodies and mass graves—but aid agencies are still facing barriers to getting in. There are reports that the Sudanese Armed Forces are refusing to let desperately needed humanitarian aid through, even though right now some 30 million people need lifesaving assistance due to this war, and up to 7 million face famine. That is nearly equivalent to the entire population of London—every person across the entire city we stand in today.
In December, the UK provided an additional £21 million for food, shelter and health services, and we have committed £146 million to support over 800,000 people this year alone. Since the conflict began, we have reached over 2.5 million people, delivering water and medicine to hard-to-reach areas. We will continue to make Sudan a top priority for UK humanitarian support, and we will support reforms such as the steps advocated by UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher and the International Rescue Committee to strengthen prioritisation and closer work through local partners on the ground. But for aid to save more lives, the deliberate barriers to humanitarian access must be lifted.
Aid alone will not solve this crisis; we need an immediate and urgent ceasefire, we need those responsible for these atrocities to be held to account, and we need a pathway to peace. There is no military solution to the conflict—that only results in devastation for Sudan—yet the military men driving this conflict still refuse to agree a truce, and there is disturbing evidence that they are seeking and getting hold of ever more dangerous weapons.
This crisis is compounded by regional rivalries and vested interests, with the real risk of further escalation within Sudan and beyond as fighting spreads to the Kordofan regions. I am very fearful that the RSF advances on the city of El Obeid risk turning it into another El Fasher. Co-ordinated and determined international pressure are needed to halt this bloodshed and pursue an immediate truce, with a halt to the arms flows, tangible pressure from all those who have backed the RSF and SAF or who have influence upon them to deliver a ceasefire, and pressure from the entire international community too.
The US has been working intensively to secure a truce, drawing together other Quad countries—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—and discussing humanitarian support, military withdrawal, civilian transition and action to stop arms flows. I am in close contact with all members of the Quad, including Secretary Rubio and the President’s senior adviser on Africa, as we urgently push for a way forward. The UK is particularly involved in a process to support Sudanese civilians to build their capacity.
African partners in the region also have a critical role. In Addis Ababa earlier this week, I met Foreign Ministers from Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, Chad, and the African Union’s chairperson and peace and security commissioner, to discuss what more can be done by border countries, and their assessment of the action needed to achieve a ceasefire. We need to build the same focus and momentum behind a peace process for Sudan as we had last year around Gaza, with countries from across the world coming together to back a ceasefire. That is why I am so determined that the UK will keep the international spotlight on Sudan. This month the UK holds the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, and we will use it to press for safe, unimpeded humanitarian access, accountability for atrocities, and international co-operation for a ceasefire. We will use it to ensure that the voices of Sudan’s women are heard in the Security Council Chamber.
As we look to the third anniversary of this devastating conflict in April, the UK and Germany will jointly convene a major international conference on Sudan in Berlin. In November, UK leadership at the UN Human Rights Council secured international agreement for an urgent UN inquiry into crimes in El Fasher, following its capture by the RSF. Later this month we will receive the report of that UN fact-finding mission, because as well as pursuing peace, we must also hold the perpetrators to account.
Today I can announce new action that the UK is taking to apply pressure deliberately on the belligerents, with fresh sanctions targeting senior figures in the SAF and RSF who have committed atrocities across Sudan. We are also targeting a network of individuals operating behind the scenes to procure weapons and recruit mercenary fighters. These designations send a clear message that the UK will hold accountable those suspected of perpetrating and profiteering from the most egregious violations of international humanitarian law.
To look away from crises such as Sudan is not just against our values but against our interests. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause harm to civilians, because their destabilising effects ripple across borders and continents through migration and extremism. Let 2026 be the year that the world listens to the women of Sudan, not the military men who are perpetuating this conflict. Let 2026 be the year that the world comes together to drive urgent new momentum for peace. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The situation in Sudan is serious and deadly, and Members across the Chamber want this awful, barbaric war to end. Millions are suffering, displaced and malnourished, and an estimated 150,000 people have been killed, including in massacres such as El Fasher. War crimes are being committed, and appalling acts of sexual violence are being perpetrated against women and girls. UK leadership is needed to make a difference to the humanitarian situation on the ground, and to support every international diplomatic effort to end this awful and deadly conflict.
I must ask the Foreign Secretary, however, how she can come to the House to talk about such barbaric sexual violence against women and girls, when the Prime Minister knowingly let his friend, Peter Mandelson, a friend of one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles, into the heart of Government and her Department. Is she not ashamed and concerned that our country’s credibility and record on this issue has been damaged because of the Government’s poor judgment, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing Mandelson, knowing his links to Epstein? With Mandelson putting his interests first, has she assessed the damage that his actions have caused to the UK’s international and reputational interests, including our essential work to address the situation in Sudan? To her knowledge, did he at any stage mislead our US ally on national security and foreign affairs on key decisions such as Chagos, which impact our security partnership? This morning I am sure the Foreign Secretary will have seen reports that Secretary Rubio warned the Labour Government over the appointment of Lord Mandelson. Can she confirm whether she or her predecessor were aware of that? The UK’s credibility has been damaged by the Prime Minister and her Government’s appalling judgment. That is why answers are needed.
This week, the UK assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how we will use that position rightly to advance efforts to negotiate to end this conflict? US-led peace efforts are reportedly building momentum, with a text being prepared of a plan to try to stop the fighting. Has she seen and inputted into that text, and what are her views on it? Has she set parameters to decide whether the proposals are the right ones, and has she spoken to other Sudan Quad countries about it? If acceptable, what pressures will be put on the warring parties to agree it? What is her assessment of any progress made since the statement at last April’s Sudan conference in London, and who will participate in the conference in Germany?
We welcome the new sanctions of the RSF and the SAF, but can we expect further action against the leaders of those barbaric groups, their key operators and enforcers, who were all responsible for administering vile brutality on innocent people in different parts of the country? We all back the sanctions announced in December, but we need stronger action with robust consequences that deter the entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain this awful war.
Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on how the UK is using international courts to pursue those responsible for these atrocities being committed, and to gather evidence? We note the £20 million of humanitarian funding announced by the Government for women and girls, so will she confirm whether that is drawn from money already pledged, or whether it is additional new funding? Which organisations are providing the programmes funded by that money, and what are the mechanisms for how the support service will work?
As well as supporting women and girls affected by sexual violence and the stigma attached to children born from rape, is the Foreign Secretary working to help male victims, where there is also stigma that prevents them coming forward? More broadly, can she update us on the volume of British aid that has managed to get over the border since the escalation of this awful conflict towards the end of last year? What information has she received about what aid is getting through, and whether it is getting into the right hands?
The war in Sudan is a stain on the world’s conscience, and Britain must exert every ounce of its influence and leverage to get the warring parties to lay down their weapons immediately and to secure a lasting peace.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary’s words on Sudan. It is the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century, and the whole House should be united in wanting it to end. She asked about the work being done through the Quad, and the work led by the US. I am in close contact with the US special envoy, Massad Boulos, and I am keeping in close contact with Secretary Rubio on this issue. I have also been involved in discussions with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A lot of work is being pursued by the Quad, but, linked to that, the UK and Norway are also pursuing further work, particularly to build civilian capacity. We all want this to move towards a civilian political transition, but we need to build up the capacity of Sudanese civilians, who have faced the most horrendous devastation and had to flee their homes as a result of this conflict, and they need support as well.
As I said in my statement, we believe that this has to be an international effort, in the same way as in the run-up to the Gaza ceasefire, where there was work by the Arab League to say that Hamas should play no role, work by the UK, France and other countries to recognise the state of Palestine, and work by different countries to put forward potential reform plans during the summer, all of which was ultimately drawn upon in the 20-point plan put together by President Trump last year. We need the same intensity in relation to Sudan, with the same level of international engagement. That is what I want to see, and it is why I spoke to so many African Foreign Ministers in neighbouring countries this week. It is why I have been speaking to the African Union, and why I will be raising the issue not just at the UN Security Council when we hold the Chair this month, but at the Munich security conference, and as part of the Berlin conference. It is crucial that we keep that focus and energy in relation to Sudan. The £20 million announced this week is new money that will be used, in particular, for the survivors of sexual violence.
The right hon. Lady mentioned Peter Mandelson. As the House will know, I withdrew Peter Mandelson from his role as ambassador to the United States less than a week after I was appointed as Foreign Secretary. I am clear that his actions are completely unforgiveable. Given that at the heart of what Epstein did was the grave abuse and trafficking of women and girls, this is particularly disturbing. I will say something else: I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the height of the financial crisis, when everybody was busting a gut to rescue the savings and livelihoods of ordinary people across this country, so the idea that a senior and experienced Cabinet Minister, working alongside us, could instead be behaving the way we have seen is truly shocking. It is right that a police investigation is under way.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for her impactful visit and for the sanctions that she has announced today. Earlier this week, the all-party parliamentary group for Sudan and South Sudan met the Somoud civilian coalition. It stressed, as she has done today, that it is often civilians who are delivering humanitarian assistance, and it was civilians who were ejected from Government by the two generals who are currently slogging it out, at the expense of thousands upon thousands of slaughtered civilians, and millions of hungry and displaced civilians. She talked about the UK and Norway being focused on developing civilian capacity, but does she agree that cannot be a separate track to what the Quad is doing? Civilian voices must be involved in peace processes. We cannot see an empowerment of the generals, who have caused the crisis in the first place, which is what will happen if civilians are not engaged in what the Quad is doing now.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s points and pay tribute to the bravery of Sudanese civilians, especially those who continue to run the emergency response rooms, providing urgently needed support for desperate people in Sudan. She is right that civilian capacity has to be a central part of the peace process. In fact, members of the Quad have specifically asked us to play a role in developing that as part of the peace process. I also discussed that with the African Union this week, because we believe that civilians can only be supported with the assistance of the countries bordering Sudan, and with the African Union.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The situation in Sudan is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis. I welcome the increased funding and the sanctions, which are long overdue, but why do the sanctions still fall short of the EU action? Why do they still fail to target the heads of the SAF and the RSF? Why has it taken this long? Will the Government now target those profiting from Sudan’s gold trade, which continues to bankroll the war economy?
Humanitarian aid must flow freely and independently. In its role as the United Nations Security Council penholder, what steps are the Government taking to secure a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can get through, and to expand the arms embargo beyond Darfur to the whole country? Will the Government expand their aid provision and ensure that aid delivery, including from UK taxpayers in my constituency of Esher and Walton, is distributed through the UN and the international non-governmental organisations, or through localised efforts, such as the emergency response rooms, and that the UN system is not undermined?
I welcome the steps that the UK has taken to ensure that Sudanese pro-democracy actors are not sidelined by external powerbrokers. Will she reaffirm the UK’s commitment to a civilian, non-military end state in Sudan? What is being done to prevent parallel diplomatic tracks from undermining UN-led peace efforts? Will the Government suspend arms exports to the United Arab Emirates, given credible evidence of its role in fuelling the conflict?
What discussions had the UK held with partners to ensure that humanitarian assistance is not being used to mask responsibility? How will accountability for atrocities be safeguarded with any peace process supported by the UK, including support for international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court? The UK has a long legacy in Sudan, and with that comes responsibility. Sudan’s civilians cannot wait. I urge the Government to act with ever more urgency and focus.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for her commitment to reaching peace in Sudan and her comments on the horrendous nature of the crisis. The sanctions that we have now issued bring us broadly in line with the EU. The US has gone further, so we are continuing to look at the issues. We are seeking to link our sanctions to the evidence on atrocities, to the evidence on arms flows and, crucially, to the peace process and the peace discussions that we want to take place.
I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of the UN. A few weeks ago, I met the UN Secretary General and the UN emergency co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, to discuss Sudan and the importance of the work that the UN is doing. The UN is in close touch with the Quad on these discussions and is pressing for much greater humanitarian access. We certainly need to move towards a civilian Government. We need a political transition and a process to get there, but that has to start with a humanitarian truce. We have to start by silencing the guns and, as part of that, we need an end to the arms flows. I have seen evidence of a whole series of countries being involved in the arms flows to different sides, and we need action against that.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, her visit and her announcement about new money and the sanctions. Children are being deliberately and systematically targeted by both sides in this conflict: boys are being forcibly recruited, girls are subject to sexual violence, and even infants have been raped. Will she confirm that what we have seen during this conflict are not spontaneous acts of violence by the warring parties, but the orchestrated, industrial-scale use of rape as a weapon of war, deliberately designed to strike fear into the civilian population? Will she confirm that she will ensure that women are at the table during the peace negotiations?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have heard the most disturbing stories about the impact on children. Mums describe how their children just stay in their tents, even though they have reached the relative safety of the camp, because they are terrified to go out because of everything that has happened to them. We have also heard terrible stories about young children being raped and facing the most horrendous sexual assaults. I strongly agree that not only do we have to pursue peace, but we need to hold to account the people who have inflicted those atrocities on children.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I commend the Foreign Secretary for her proactive engagement with Parliament on this issue, because that is part of the way we will shine a light on these horrendous circumstances. I concur with the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about the importance of civilian engagement, that any ceasefire is linked to the development of a political process, and that perhaps there can be civilian engagement at the Berlin conference. Will the Foreign Secretary say more about how she intends to engage the African Union? There is a general view that if the African Union were more engaged, it would be a lot harder for Russia to veto UN Security Council resolutions.
Yvette Cooper
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about civilian engagement. I assure him that we plan for civilian voices to be heard in the discussions at the UN Security Council, where I strongly believe we need to hear the voices of Sudanese women, and as part of the Berlin conference. He asks about the African Union, which is a priority for us. One of the reasons I went to Addis Ababa was to meet the head of the African Union and other representatives to discuss exactly how we can work with the African Union, and how Foreign Ministers from neighbouring countries can work together. They all desperately want to see peace in Sudan, because they can also see the destabilising effects of what is happening there on their countries and across the region. So yes, we need to work strongly with the African Union too.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me say to the Foreign Secretary that that was the most powerful statement this House has heard on Sudan over the 1,000 days of the conflict. I thank her for all her work in this area, but we know that this war is being fuelled by external actors with an interest in their own profligacy in Sudan. Can she say how she will engage with those actors, many of which we have trading relationships with? What leverage will she use to ensure that they withdraw their weapons and the supply of mercenaries into Sudan, which is fuelling this conflict?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. External countries and actors are fuelling the conflict through the support that they are providing to the warring parties, and that has to end. The reason why the warring parties are refusing to accept what everybody knows to be the case—that there is no military solution to this war—is that they keep thinking they can still secure additional weapons and advantage. That is why an end to the arms flow has to be part of this process, and why we are raising and discussing this issue in all the international discussions.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
How are the Government engaging directly with Sudanese civilian coalitions, including the Somoud coalition, to ensure that their proposals inform international mediation efforts?
Yvette Cooper
We are engaging directly with a range of civilian groups and seeking to provide support and bring them together. We are working with Norway to do that. This work is still at an early stage. Although we have kept in close contact with civilian groups throughout this process, we are now seeking, alongside the work of the Quad, to draw up a stronger process for the future to help to build that capacity among civilian groups. That is needed if we are to get a transition to a civilian Government.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
May I say how great it was to see that the Foreign Secretary was in Chad this week in support of Sudanese refugees? I particularly support the remarks at the start of her statement, when she said:
“I am determined that we do not look away.”
Can she tell us more about UK efforts to get our humanitarian aid to the millions who need it?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right to say that, because we cannot look away. I fear that it has been too easy for the international community and for people across the world to look away—in particular to look away from the plight of women and girls and the way in which rape has been used as a weapon of war. That is why we are announcing the dedicated funding for survivors of sexual violence as part of the more than £140 million we are providing for Sudan. We are ensuring that that reaches local groups and organisations that can better deliver support on the ground.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, for her travel and for the prominence that she has given to this issue. May I thank her especially for her engagement with the victims of the conflict, not least the women and girls?
I welcome the action on sanctions, but obviously state and non-state sanctions and sanctions on individuals have to be a dynamic process. Can she assure us that she will engage with the civilians affected by the conflict and with civil society, which has worked on this issue for a long time? Will she also engage with this Parliament, because so many people across the Chamber have been engaging with this issue for a long time?
Yvette Cooper
The simple answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is: yes, I will. We will continue to look at the issue of sanctions and what more we can do, and we will certainly continue to engage not just with the House, but with anybody and everybody who has evidence that can support that process.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for such a strong statement this afternoon. She has rightly highlighted the disgraceful use of rape as a weapon of war in this conflict, but it happens in many other conflicts around the world, from Ukraine to Myanmar. May I urge her to use her office to lead international efforts to bring the perpetrators of this disgraceful violence against women and girls to justice, wherever that violence may be happening and no matter how long the process takes?
Yvette Cooper
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It was 25 years ago when the UK led the drawing-up of the resolution on women, peace and security at the United Nations. Since then, successive Governments have highlighted the issue of violence against women and girls. I want to ensure that that is at the heart of our foreign policy not just in Sudan, but more widely. It was devastating to hear from one aid worker who told me that—although she had worked on conflicts for 20 years and had experience of dealing with sexual violence in conflict for very many years—this instance was by far the worst. She talked to all the women arriving at the camp, and she said it felt like almost every one of them had a terrible story of sexual violence to tell.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Over the last two-and-a-half years, there has hardly been a week when we have not had an urgent question, statement or debate on the situation in Gaza, yet the situation in Sudan has often been overlooked, despite the fact that at least three times as many people have been killed in Sudan as in Gaza. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but the key here is to ensure that an arms embargo exists across the world. Can she update the House on how many of our allies have agreed to such an arms embargo? What action will be taken against those who are frankly not our allies to try to prevent those arms from getting into Sudan?
Yvette Cooper
The energy that we have had on Gaza and the work that took place last summer are really important. They have helped to achieve a ceasefire that is still fragile, but a ceasefire nevertheless, and a peace process that is moving forward. We need that same urgency and intensity on Sudan. This needs to be global; we need the same sense of countries coming together internationally. That is why we will continue to maintain the spotlight on it.
Restricting and preventing arms flows has been central to many of the international discussions and some of the discussions in the Quad, and countries have made commitments about ending arms flows from neighbouring parties. My personal belief is that there is much more work to do in this area, given the number of countries involved in these arms flows.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for shining a light on the horrendous suffering of women and girls in Sudan. Does she agree that rape should never be used as a weapon of war? To use rape against children is a heinous crime. Children have special protected status under international law. Will she pursue the perpetrators in the international courts? Can she say more about the rehabilitation support that we will provide to those children?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to refer to the truly horrendous crime of rape against children. Rape that takes place against young girls and boys causes deep trauma not just at the time when the crime is committed, but for many, many years afterwards. That is why we want to support the work that I have seen being done on a very small scale already to provide support for children and mothers who have been victims of sexual violence, but we want to go much further. We want to ensure that there is psychological and practical support for those who are victims of these terrible crimes.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement today, and particularly for her engagement with the African Union and regional partners. I know that she will be concerned by the possibility of broader destabilisation as a consequence of this conflict. In the light of reports of renewed clashes in Blue Nile state and the mobilisation of armed groups in the southern and western parts of that state, what is the view of Ethiopia and South Sudan on the actions that need to be taken to limit the destabilisation? What role, if any, can the UK Government offer to play to support them?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is exactly right to raise the risk of destabilisation. The impact is not just on the Blue Nile area, which he referred to; we have seen soldiers being killed in Chad as a result of incursions over the border. Many of the Foreign Ministers I spoke to, including the Ethiopian and South Sudanese Foreign Ministers, spoke about their deep concern that vacuums can be exploited by extremists, so regional destabilisation is a significant risk that they are concerned about. We discussed exactly how Foreign Ministers across the region can work together. Their understanding of and expertise in the dynamics within Sudan are crucial to the peace process, and they were all keen to be part of those discussions.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Sudanese diaspora in Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme will welcome the statement today, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for her leadership in travelling to the region—we have to be seen to be believed.
I welcome the programme of sanctions that has been announced, because we must do whatever we can to end the murders, the evil and the bloodshed. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary met the African Union and regional Foreign Ministers, which is something for which I have pushed for several months, alongside other colleagues, when discussing these issues, and I thank her for unpicking those conversations. She has mentioned Germany and Norway, but can she further unpick what our European allies—France, Italy, Spain, Ireland and the rest—are doing to help us end this war?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that this must be treated as an international issue. I have discussed this matter directly at the G7, which includes France, Germany and Italy, and I have spoken about it directly with the French Foreign Minister. We are planning to use the Berlin conference as an opportunity to involve many other European countries and international partners. My hon. Friend will know that the Norwegians have a long history of working in Sudan to support civilians. There has to be strong engagement from every continent.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary rightly spoke of the need to halt arms flows, and I listened very carefully to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). May I focus on one specific country? There is significant evidence of the use of Chinese-manufactured arms, such as the FH-95 strategic drone, in Sudan. How much time was dedicated to raising that matter with the Chinese during the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China? Has the Foreign Secretary spoken to her Chinese counterparts about it? What reassurance can she give the House that it has not become an inconvenient truth in the Government’s attempt to reset the relationship with China?
Yvette Cooper
All I can tell the hon. Member is that we believe a whole range of countries have been involved in the arms flows in some way—whether it is in their manufacture and sale, in purchasing and financing or in transit routes. We continue to raise this matter in all our international engagements. I am particularly concerned about the use of drones and some of the more serious weapons; there is increasing evidence that they are being procured for use in Sudan. We continue to pursue this matter, and we are pursuing it with every nation.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for the sanctions she has announced today. Her account of the impact on civilians is devastating, with more than 21 million people facing high levels of acute food insecurity and 9.5 million internally displaced. What representations does she continue to make to parties to the conflict to secure unhindered humanitarian access, particularly for neighbouring countries that face destabilisation?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right, and we will continue to maintain the pressure because there has to be access. There must also be continuing support, which is why, in the run-up to the Berlin conference, we will discuss how we can ensure that there is also funding for the humanitarian support that is needed. One of the issues I heard about when speaking to people earlier this week was that families are still going hungry, and nobody should go hungry in the 21st century.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I very much thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, her visit, the new sanctions and aid that she has announced, and for her clear, personal passion to keep the spotlight on the horrific suffering of women and children, in particular, in this conflict, as well as her clear determination to bring together the international community and this country to do what we can to reach a ceasefire.
I draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention specifically to the role of gold in financing the conflict. It is reported that, since the war began, gold production has grown more than tenfold, and that the vast majority is being smuggled out of the country, illicitly financing the arms imports fuelling the conflict. The countries involved include cross-border flows to Egypt and the UAE. What concrete measures is the UK taking—diplomatic, regulatory, sanctions—with partners, including those two countries, to highlight, call attention to and stop the illicit gold trade that is fuelling this horrific conflict?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady is right to raise these issues. We held an event with a group of Foreign Ministers and ambassadors from a range of countries neighbouring Sudan at which we discussed the economics of the conflict and the dangers of allowing a vile conflict to take such deep root over an extended period of time that too many players in the process end up profiting from something that is destroying lives. Therefore, part of the response and peace process must be to target those routes for profit, as well as the routes for arms flows, to bring this conflict properly to a close.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The situation in Sudan is deplorable. Sadly, as is too common, women and girls are being terrorised and rape is being used as a weapon of war. The United Nations has reported that, horrifically, infants as young as a year old are being raped. This is hell on earth. The Secretary of State has mentioned that she is working with our African partners. Can she discuss what healthcare support will be provided to women and girls, from medical aid to paediatric care for children born from rape?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because sexual violence in conflict has too often been ignored, and it has been too easy to turn away from the women and children who are victims of these truly horrendous crimes. We are determined to ensure that that is not the case. I also visited, in both Ethiopia and Chad, some of the clinics and support services for victims of sexual violence, as well as some of the other services for which the UK continues to provide support and funding. We need to ensure that those services can also be provided to the victims in Sudan.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. Nobody could fail to be moved by the horrific tales from Adré. As she has said, accountability is crucial, and a future ICC court case will rely on incredibly hard work being done now to secure witness statements, preserve digital files, build structured casework and put in place strict and disciplined chain-of-custody mechanisms. All of that requires skill and expertise on the frontline. What is the UK doing to support the international effort to preserve and verify now, so that a future court case is possible and the perpetrators of these appalling crimes can be truly held accountable?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s incredibly important question. This is exactly why in November, at the Human Rights Council, the UK led on a resolution to establish a fact-finding mission into El Fasher. Teams have been sent to pursue and gather exactly that kind of evidence, and we are expecting their fact-finding report before the end of the month. While we continue to hold the chair of the UN Security Council, that report will inform our discussions. I do not yet know what it will have found or how much progress they will have managed to make, but from everything we have seen so far, I fear that its conclusions are likely to be truly damning and disturbing.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I greatly welcome the statement made today and the actions the Government have taken in response to the conflict in Sudan, including sanctions against individuals linked to the most horrendous atrocities and sexual violence. The situation in Sudan is a devastating reminder of how often sexual violence against women and girls is used in both conflicts and peacetime. As a relative newcomer to this place, I am very concerned that, across the world, we still do not treat violence against women and girls as the dealbreaker it is. Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that in wider diplomatic engagement with international partners, including when negotiating trade deals, this Government will always consider a country’s attitude to girls and young women?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend about the way in which violence against women and girls has too often been discounted. Too often, people look away; we need to ensure that is not the case, which is why I have been clear that violence against women and girls and issues of equality for women more widely should be central to UK foreign policy and the discussions we have across the world. It is also why, as my hon. Friend knows, we have a domestic ambition and mission to halve violence against women and girls. We are now working with other countries to share experience globally, working together to tackle what is not just a national emergency but a global emergency.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I salute the Foreign Secretary’s commitment and passion on this topic, and congratulate her on her recent efforts. She has already mentioned the UK’s role as the penholder at the UN Security Council. With that in mind, I am sure she agrees that without the inclusion of Sudanese civic society, a long-term, peaceful and democratic resolution simply cannot be achieved. However, is the Foreign Secretary planning to support the African Union-led quintet initiative—which involves multilateral organisations, including the UN—to bring together Sudanese political parties and civil society to agree a joint position on a peaceful, civilian-led political transition? If so, what steps is she taking to support that initiative?
Yvette Cooper
That is exactly why I had meetings directly with the African Union, to make sure that the work to support civic society involves the work it is doing locally and also involves neighbouring countries directly. The hon. Member is completely right to say that if this simply becomes an ongoing stand-off between two military-led parties, we will not get a secure and sustainable peace for Sudan. The first stage has to be the humanitarian truce, but we have to have that civilian transition.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement today and commend her on her leadership, particularly in travelling out to Sudan to see at first hand the atrocities that are being committed. We all know that in conflict innocent civilians will always get caught up in crossfire, but the distinction in this case is that children are specifically being targeted—children being raped as a weapon of war and young boys being kidnapped and forced to bear arms. I am sure the whole House welcomes the additional support we are giving in the form of financial aid, but it is a drop in the ocean given the challenges faced in Sudan, so what more are we doing with our allies to ensure we can maximise the aid that gets into Sudan? Also, given that we are now in pole position as president of the United Nations Security Council, is there any prospect that we can get UN troops to protect the civilian population, and children in particular?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Member’s points about the horrendous way in which children are being targeted. Some of the most disturbing reports are of children and women who have managed to flee from one of the cities under siege. They are leaving—they are fleeing, they are running away—yet on those journeys, they are stopped and face rape, sexual violence and kidnapping. The most terrible crimes are being committed, so we are working on how we can strengthen support for children and use not just the work of the UN Security Council or that of the UN more widely, but any international forum we have, to raise the plight of children.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary very much for her tone, her words and her obvious empathy and compassion for the Sudanese victims, which are greatly appreciated by us all.
The UN’s presence in famine-stricken Kadugli in South Kordofan and risk zones in Darfur and Kordofan in order to prevent mass atrocities and widespread sexual violence against women and girls, and a substantial increase in UK and international funding, are needed to avert catastrophic further loss of life and what the UN describes as the world’s largest and most neglected humanitarian crisis—I think many Members of this House, including the Foreign Secretary, would say that that is exactly the case. Millions have been displaced, famine has been confirmed in multiple locations, and over 12 million people are in desperate need. What can be done to help provide the humanitarian and medical aid that is needed, including to address the psychological impact on those women and girls? I cannot begin to try to comprehend that, but I think the Foreign Secretary acknowledges that and understands it better than most.
Yvette Cooper
One of the disturbing things about El Fasher is that aid agencies said they expected to see thousands of people arriving who had fled El Fasher as a result of the siege. They never arrived, and no one yet knows what happened to so many of the people in El Fasher who did not arrive at neighbouring camps and safe places. I really fear that there is a risk of another El Fasher—that in the Kordofans, if there is not urgent action to establish a ceasefire, we will see more of those atrocities take place. That is why I continually say it is important that the world hears the voices of the women and children of Sudan, not those of the military men who are simply perpetuating this war.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I asked the Leader of the House my question this morning, I believe I should have declared that I am the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis. I apologise to the House for omitting to say that—I was in a bit of a rush, because everyone was being hurried along.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for notice of her point of order. While it is not a matter for the Chair, she has now put her remarks on the record.
National Cancer Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s national cancer plan for England.
A cancer diagnosis changes you forever. When I was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer 18 months ago, I did not know whether I would be alive today, never mind standing at this Dispatch Box announcing a national cancer plan, but one year ago almost to the day, the Prime Minister asked me to do just that. Since the Government took office, over 212,000 more people are getting a cancer diagnosis on time, over 36,000 more are starting treatment on time, and rates of early diagnosis are hitting record highs. Despite those vital signs of recovery, though, the NHS is still failing far too many cancer patients and their families. That is why first and foremost, this plan is a break with the failure of the past 15 years.
In 2011, the coalition Government published “Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer”. That strategy was followed in 2016 by “Achieving world-class cancer outcomes: a strategy for England”. In 2019, the long-term health plan for England made cancer a priority and included a headline ambition to diagnose 75% of cancers at stages 1 and 2. However well-intentioned they were, not one of those strategies has lived up to its promises. Cancer mortality rates in the UK are much higher than in other, comparable countries, while survival rates are much lower. Cancer incidence is around 15% higher than when the 62 day standard was last met, and working-class communities are being failed most of all. The most deprived areas, including rural and coastal communities, often have fewer cancer consultants, leaving patients waiting longer. This all adds up to the chilling fact that someone living in Blackpool is almost twice as likely to die young from cancer than someone living in Harrow. Wherever in our country a person lives, they deserve the same shot at survival and quality of life as everyone else. Wealth should not dictate their health, and neither should their postcode.
Behind these statistics are real people. I have heard from those whose care lacked empathy and dignity, from those whose cancer was missed or whose test results were lost, from those who were passed from pillar to post and kept in the dark about their condition, and from those whose loved ones died before their turn came for surgery because the wait was too long. Those experiences are unacceptable—they are devastating. From day one, I was determined to put their voices front and centre of our plan. Over the past year, we have listened to and learned from cancer charities, clinicians and, most importantly, patients and their families. Every action is a response to someone’s lived experience. Every commitment is a promise to transform someone else’s life. Their stories have become the blueprint to make the biggest improvement in cancer outcomes in a generation.
Three major themes stood out from the 11,000 responses to our call for evidence, some 9,000 of which came from patients and their carers: core performance standards, improved survival, and quality of life after diagnosis. Those are not radical ideas, but unlike previous strategies, this plan is not limited to incremental improvement. Instead, it is an ambitious, bold plan to save 320,000 more lives by 2035, which will be the fastest rate of improvement this century. We will do that by modernising the NHS, harnessing the power of science and technology, putting our patients at the front of the queue for the latest medicines, and helping them to live well after diagnosis, not least for people diagnosed with stage 4, metastatic and incurable cancers—people like me.
How do we get there? We are placing big bets on genomics, data and artificial intelligence, as set out in our 10-year plan for health. We will hardwire the three shifts of our 10-year plan into cancer pathways. First, on moving from analogue to digital, we heard from patients about the importance of clinical trials, so we will make the UK one of the best places in the world to run a trial with a new cancer trials accelerator. We will start people’s care earlier using liquid biopsy tests, which can return results up to two weeks faster than conventional testing. We will harness AI to read scans, plan radiotherapy and identify the right path for each patient. We will harness genomics so that every eligible patient has access to precision medicines. We will harness data to make sure that all metastatic disease is counted properly—starting with breast cancer—so that people with incurable cancer are properly recognised and supported. When people are not counted, they feel like they do not count, but we will end that.
Innovation will also help us fight inequalities and make the shift from sickness to prevention. We will turn the NHS app into a gateway for cancer care. By 2028, it will host a dashboard for cancer prevention, with access to tests and self-referral. By 2035, it will bring together genomic and lifestyle data with the single patient record to advise every patient according to their risk. That will benefit people in rural and coastal communities who can find it difficult to access specialist care simply due to geography.
Finally, we will use the neighbourhood health service to make the shift from hospital to community. That will mean more care, from prehabilitation to recovery support, delivered closer to home. We will help people live well with cancer through tailored support closer to home. People will be given personal cancer plans, named neighbourhood care leads and clear end-of-treatment summaries so that no one feels abandoned after their treatment.
For too long, those with rarer cancers have seen little to no progress for many of their conditions. They told us we need a special focus on these cancers, and our plan sets out how they will benefit from the deployment of genomics, early detection and the development of new treatments. That was asked for by patients and will be delivered by this Government. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her campaigning in memory of her late sister Margaret. We should also remember that the late Tessa Jowell raised this issue in 2018, and her family have campaigned ever since.
Our plan also gives pride of place for children and young people. We will improve their experience of care at every level, from hospital food to youth worker support and play support. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for his campaigning on that point. Our children and young people cancer taskforce asked for support with travel costs, because when someone’s child has cancer, the last thing they should worry about is how they will pay for their train ticket. Today, I can announce that we will fund those travel costs.
Alongside rare and less common cancers, we will make research for children and young people a national priority. I take this moment to thank the children, young people and families who made up our children and young people cancer taskforce. It was a pleasure and a privilege to meet them earlier this week. I thank the many families and loved ones of people lost too soon who continue to fight to make change for others. I am so grateful to them, and I want people to hear their voices as they read the plan, because it is rooted in the voices of patients, families, clinicians and charities. It will turn cancer from one of this country’s biggest killers into a chronic condition that is treatable and manageable for three in four patients. It delivers the ambition of the 10-year health plan, embodies this Government’s three shifts and sets a clear path towards earlier diagnosis, faster treatment and world-leading survival rates by 2035.
This plan does not belong to the NHS, and it does not belong to the Government; it belongs to us all. We all must play a part in making it work. Over the past year, I have met the patients, families, carers, clinicians, researchers, cancer charities and voluntary groups who all contributed to our plan. This Government is on their side. We wrote this with them, and we cannot deliver it without them. Let us do it together. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. May I say right at the outset that we share the ambition to improve cancer survival and outcomes? Almost every family in Britain has been touched by cancer, and patients deserve timely diagnosis, treatment and proper support. I also recognise the Minister’s personal experience and the commitment that she has clearly brought to this agenda. We on the Opposition Benches wish her every success for the future. I also join her in thanking all those who have taken part in the shaping of this plan. It makes a big difference when we hear the voices of patients and families who have been through these experiences.
The national cancer plan sets out major commitments, including on early diagnosis, improving performance against cancer waiting time standards, the faster set-up of clinical trials, and the national roll-out of targeted lung screening. It also talks about modernising services through technology and innovation. Cancer Research UK has said there is “much to welcome” in the plan, but it is right for it to say that delivery, funding and accountability will determine whether patients see change. Too often, plans sound impressive on paper but fall short when it comes to clear published delivery milestones and accountability. In many respects, this plan mirrors the ambitions of the 10-year NHS plan: it is strong on aspiration, but light on the detail of how change will actually be delivered on the ground. My first question is simple: when will the Government publish clear, funded milestones showing how and when patients will see improvements in the next year or two?
We welcome investment in diagnostics, technology and innovation. It is also right to recognise that this plan builds on the significant expansion of diagnostic capacity delivered by the last Conservative Government, including the roll-out of more than 160 community diagnostic centres. Earlier diagnosis on this scale is only possible because of that foundation, but technology is only meaningful if it translates into real capacity and quicker treatment for patients. That is why radiotherapy matters. Radiotherapy UK is right that it is a core part of modern cancer care, but it relies on up-to-date equipment and a skilled workforce. My second question is this: will Ministers set out how the plan will expand radiotherapy capacity in practice, including equipment replacement and the workforce, so that patients can benefit in reality, rather than the plan just being something written on paper? Are we learning the lessons from the Danish example? They invested in radiotherapy and saw significant improvements over a period of years.
That point brings me on to the workforce. The success of this plan depends on cancer nurses, radiographers, pathologists and oncologists who are already under immense pressure. We have heard big promises before, but less clarity on delivery, so my third question is this: where is the fully funded long-term workforce plan to deliver the staffing needed to expand diagnostic and treatment capacity and to make sustained improvements, including in neighbourhood health centres? Will the Government explain clearly who will staff them and how they will be funded? Blood Cancer UK has highlighted the importance of ensuring that blood cancers are properly recognised in planning and that patients receive consistent support from the point of diagnosis, including access to a named healthcare professional. That underlines why delivery and accountability across the system matter so much to patients.
I also welcome the commitments in this plan to children and young people. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who I know did some incredible work in this area. Having worked in children and young people’s hospices, I will never forget the journey that those children and their families go on, and I am really grateful to the Government for having a big section on that in the plan.
My fourth question is about life after—and at the end of—treatment. The plan rightly talks about improving quality of life and support after treatment, including personalised support and rehabilitation; we all want people to live longer, but for many patients and their families, hospice and palliative care are essential. Yet hospices across the country are under severe pressure, with many now in crisis, exacerbated by recent Government tax rises hitting staffing and running costs. Hospices are also notably absent from today’s statement. Will the Government urgently convene a crisis meeting with the hospice sector and set out what immediate steps they will take to stabilise services and expedite delivery of the palliative care plan?
We will support any serious, deliverable reforms that improve earlier diagnosis, speed up treatment, strengthen the workforce and improve patient experience. But we will also hold Ministers to account on turning long term ambitions into real improvements now, because we want to see patients getting the care that they need.
Ashley Dalton
I thank the right hon. Member for his statement and questions, and particularly for his personal wishes.
Overseeing delivery is absolutely crucial. It is great that we have written a plan, but what matters is delivering it. We started delivery even before we had finished writing this plan; we are not waiting. We have already put £200 million directly into cancer via cancer alliances. We have recruited 2,500 more GPs. We have already put in place 28 cutting edge radiotherapy machines and are rolling out lung cancer screening. We have opened more community diagnostic centres at evenings and weekends. We said we would deliver 2 million more appointments; we have already delivered 5 million more appointments. And we have put £25 million into the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s brain tumour research consortium.
Steps are already being taken, but it is really important, as the right hon. Member points out, that we are held to account and that people keep our feet to the fire on delivery. That is why we are setting up a brand new cancer board of charities and clinicians, which will oversee the delivery of this plan and keep our feet to the fire.
On workforce, we know how important it is to make sure that the cancer workforce is grown and developed, not only in terms of numbers but in having the resources and the support to use their skills to the utmost. The workforce plan that the Government are developing will also include cancer and will be published this spring.
I was delighted to hear the right hon. Member mention rare cancers and children and young people. This is the first ever cancer plan with a chapter on rare cancers, and the first ever cancer plan with a chapter on children and young people, and I am really proud of that.
On radiotherapy, as I said, we have invested £70 million into 28 new linear accelerator—LINAC—radiotherapy machines. We have also listened to stakeholders in the radiotherapy community. We are investing in new technology, including those radiotherapy machines, and in AI to assist the oncology workforce to reduce the time it takes to plan and then deliver treatment. By April next year, we will streamline the process to make it easier for radiotherapy centres to use cutting edge stereotactic ablative radiotherapy—SABR—which is crucial to many patients. We will also ensure that the payment system associated with this treatment incentivises rapid adoption.
The right hon. Member mentioned hospices, something that I know is very close to his heart and his experience. We are delivering the biggest investment in hospices in a generation. We have provided £100 million to upgrade buildings, facilities and digital systems, and we are giving a further £26 million to children’s and young people’s hospices, ensuring that they can continue offering specialist, compassionate support. More broadly, we are developing a palliative care and end of life modern service framework for England. That is currently being developed alongside our stakeholders, with a planned publication date of autumn 2026.
I hope that addresses most of the issues raised by the right hon. Member, but I am more than happy to speak with him further after the debate.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I really welcome this plan, and the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister and right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in putting it together. I will just raise one credit and one request to go a bit further.
First, when I had my cancer treatment eight years ago, I thought I knew my way around the NHS, but it is a completely confusing organisation for anyone involved in it. One thing that really helped me was having a specialist nurse appointed at the beginning. That specialist nurse got my chemotherapy ready on a Monday before I came down to London, and then on a Thursday when I came back. That sort of organisation and help is vital, so I really welcome that proposal.
Secondly, when I had my stem cell transplant for myeloma, my own stem cells were harvested and used, but many young people with complicated blood disorders need stem cells to be donated. So will the Minister work with the Anthony Nolan trust—I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on stem cell transplantation and advanced cellular therapies—to ensure that more young people donate their stem cells so that other young people can have a life to look forward to?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, for his expertise and for all that he has shared from his experience to help us develop this plan. I note how important specialist nurses are, but we are also doing more to help people navigate the NHS. I know exactly what it is like; I think I have in my Filofax—I am that retro!—about 38 email addresses and phone numbers of the various people I have to contact in order to project manage my treatment. We are going further and ensuring that the NHS app can handle all that information. Cancer patients will have the ability in their hands, or in their pockets, to manage scans, appointments and test results directly through the NHS app.
I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Technology, Innovation and Life Sciences is already looking at the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) raises around blood products and donations, and is working with the Anthony Nolan trust on those. I will be more than happy to work with my hon. Friend further on those issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for her personal experience that has gone into this plan. After the Conservatives failed to invest in our NHS, it is no surprise that cancer survival in the UK is still around 10 to 15 years behind leading countries, with worse survival rates for some cancers than Romania and Poland. I am therefore pleased that this Government listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and brought this national cancer plan to life, because cancer touches everyone.
One of my residents, a mum with a young family, discovered a lump in her breast. Despite attending the one stop breast clinic on four separate occasions, it took two horrendous years for her to be diagnosed with breast cancer. When she was finally diagnosed, the cancer was aggressive and required a mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation therapy. That is why I welcome the Government’s target on meeting all cancer wait time standards by 2029, but the aim to halve the backlog in three years’ time is not ambitious enough. Will the Minister go further and back a Liberal Democrat plan to write into law a guarantee for all cancer patients to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral?
The focus on ending delays in cancer care is a step forward, but funding 28 new radiotherapy machines is not enough when the treatment is so cost effective and successful. We need to end radiotherapy deserts, so will the Minister extend her ambition to 200 extra radiotherapy machines?
The Minister says that the plan will turn the NHS app into a gateway for cancer care, but how will she support older people and the digitally excluded? The plan promises to drive up productivity, end the postcode lottery, expand NHS diagnostic capacity, introduce personalised cancer plans and more. That is optimistic and will require more investment to increase NHS capacity, but without clear funding and capacity building plans, is it realistic?
Labour was right to put patients at the heart of this plan and incorporate the Liberal Democrat’s calls for a specialist cancer nurse for every patient. We costed for 3,000 extra cancer nurses; how many additional cancer nurses does the Minister believe are needed?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that the plan’s annual summary of progress will be reported in the House for Members to scrutinise?
Ashley Dalton
We listen to a lot of people on the need for a cancer plan. I want to take this opportunity to say that our friend Nathaniel Dye, who sadly died last week from stage 4 bowel cancer, challenged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bring forward a cancer plan when we were in opposition. The Secretary of State made that commitment, and we have brought forward the plan 18 months after coming into government.
The hon. Lady mentions the NHS app, which we understand is not necessarily relevant for people who are digitally excluded. One reason we are bringing that forward is to open up capacity within the rest of the system, so that those who can use digital tools can do so. That will free up capacity for the one-to-one, face-to-face support that many people need, but every cancer patient will get support under this plan, whether that is through the app or through their named lead clinical specialist in their neighbourhood, who will support them throughout the process, including after treatment. We are working with NHS England to identify the appropriate number of people for the cancer workforce, and we will be able to announce more about that as the workforce plan develops.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Three hundred and eighty-eight days ago, the words were uttered to me, “You have stage 2C skin cancer.” I have had 388 days of scans, operations and treatments that did not need to happen, because preventive care could have stopped me getting skin cancer. That is why today’s statement is so important. Action 30 in the plan focuses on melanomas and skin cancers, and it means a huge amount to me personally that the Government have taken this issue so seriously. My ask of the Government is that when we undertake the reviews into UV and preventive skincare, we should look at the examples of Australia and other countries that take this seriously, so that we can ensure that our young people and adults know how to stay safe in the sun.
Ashley Dalton
I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing in this area while going through treatment for skin cancer. Action 30 is really important, and we are also committing in this plan to tackling under-age sunbed use. We are committing to look at what more we can do to combat dangerous sunbed use, and to promote prevention when it comes to skincare in the sun. We will explore what more we can do about that, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to do so.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
While cancer incidence in Lincolnshire is about average, premature mortality is higher than average, and we only have to look at a map of England to see the north-south divide and the rural-urban divide. I want to ask about prostate cancer. I do not want to get into a debate about national screening, because that has been well aired, but it is not generally known by men that any man over the age of 50 can go to his GP and demand a prostate-specific antigen test. It seems to me that, as part of this programme, we should encourage all men every year to ask not just for a PSA test, but for a general blood test. Women should do similar. Irrespective of national screening programmes, everybody should do that, given that survival rates for conditions such as prostate cancer are incredibly high if there is early detection. Is that not something that we should be encouraging?
Ashley Dalton
I agree with the right hon. Member that prevention is absolutely key. We cannot prevent all cancers, but we can do much to prevent cancers from being caught late and to get to them when they are more treatable. We encourage all eligible people to access the tests and screening that are available to them. Through the new NHS app, each individual will be able to get a personalised risk factor to identify what they may be at risk of, and to nudge them towards which tests and screenings they should ask their GP for. That is something that we are looking to develop for all cancers, including prostate cancer. We are also expanding access to the life-extending prostate cancer drug abiraterone—I had to practise saying that; I can say mine, which is capecitabine. That will get thousands more men effective treatment earlier, which can significantly improve their chances of long-term survival. Through this plan, we intend to prevent and catch cancer early. Included in the plan is raising awareness of cancer across all communities to ensure that people access the screening and early tests that they are entitled to.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
This Tuesday would have been my brother Alex’s 54th birthday, but sadly we lost him to cancer last year. That is why I am really proud that this plan will revolutionise treatment, care and research into cancer, as well as focusing on rare cancers, such as the one that killed my brother. Although I pay tribute to the doctors and nurses who were responsible for looking after my brother, I think it is fair to say that sometimes people with cancer get treatment but not care. One of the most exciting things about this plan is the section on getting cancer treatment to fit around people’s lives, because Alex spent too long waiting for letters and being his own advocate—a professional patient. Will the Minister please explain what more we are going to do to ensure we not only treat the symptoms but care for the patient?
Ashley Dalton
I commend my hon. Friend for the campaigning that he has done in his brother’s name in the area of rare and less survivable cancers, including brain tumours. We are putting patients at the centre of this plan, which says not only that every patient will have a personalised cancer treatment plan, but that patients will be at the heart of deciding those plans. Alongside their clinicians, they will have a role to play in deciding what treatment works for them. I know personally what that means. When I got my diagnosis, the immediate suggestion was that I would have intravenous chemotherapy. I was able to engage with my oncologist and say, “I’m not sure that that works for my lifestyle. I want to be able to live my life.” We were able to work together to find the right treatment that fits in with my lifestyle, and which allows me to come to work and do this job. That is what we want for every single cancer patient in this country. Their treatment should be about not just keeping them alive, but extending and maintaining their quality of life.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The league table of NHS trusts shows that the percentage of patients starting treatment for cancer within 62 days in Mid and South Essex is 21%, which puts it bottom of 121 trusts. Can the Minister say what additional help will be given to the Mid and South Essex NHS trust to recruit the additional staff it needs, and to help it to meet the targets that she has just set out?
Ashley Dalton
The trust to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is the trust where I had my primary cancer treatment, so I am acutely aware of the challenges. We have set a really clear and simple ambition: to get cancer patients the timely care they need, and to meet all waiting time standards by the end of this Parliament. That means that by March 2029, 80% of patients will get a diagnosis or the all-clear within 28 days, and 85% of patients will start their treatment within 62 days of referral. Some people have asked me why the figure is not 100%. It is not possible to make it 100%, because not everybody’s cancer is simple or easy to identify, and sometimes it takes longer. We want to ensure that the only reason for delays beyond 62 days is the complexity or specifics of someone’s cancer, not the inability of a trust to meet the targets.
We are going to cut waiting times by giving trusts and cancer alliances detailed practical information and granular data on individual cancer types so that we can highlight real-time pathway insights through a federated data platform, and by streamlining the cancer metrics so that we can shine a light on unwarranted variation in care. We are providing information and best practice, thereby taking the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. We are linking up professionals and clinicians across the UK, so that they can share their best practice. Trusts can help and support each other to reach the targets.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
What a brilliant plan, and I congratulate the Minister on bringing it to the House this afternoon. However, cancer trials need clinical academics, and we have a crisis in clinical academic recruitment, retention and funding. Does she agree that we must find ways to encourage young clinicians into academic and research roles?
Ashley Dalton
Yes, I do agree, and we are working on that. We are establishing the cancer trials accelerator programme to increase the speed, scale and reliability of cancer trials, and we will use the new health tech access programme to make it quicker. We will also be supporting the development, through the workforce plan, of all the clinicians required, including academics.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
This weekend, I got the devastating call about my brave and wonderful sister Dawn, loving mother and carer to Ella, who, after a dash to A&E, was diagnosed with late-stage pancreatic cancer and given just three to six months to live. What links less survivable cancers is their late diagnosis. Does the Minister agree with my amazing sister Dawn and me that we need to be more proactive about early diagnosis of less survivable cancers, such as through annual screening of those with a family history or high-risk genetic factors, to improve the ability to detect and remove tumours early and improve the five-year survival rates—sadly, hers is not—to over 50%?
Ashley Dalton
I offer the hon. Member my deepest condolences on the news that she has shared with the House. I share her concern that we have to reach others. Some less survivable cancers can be tackled if they are caught early, and we have specifically committed in the plan to reducing significantly the number of rare and less survivable cancers that are diagnosed in an emergency setting, which she described as happening to her family. Primary care is where most people first raise concerns. GPs rarely see rare cancers, because they are rare, so we are rolling out AI-driven decision support tools to help GPs think cancer sooner, think cancer earlier and make decisions about referral more quickly.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, thank the Government for bringing forward this cancer plan. I visited York Against Cancer’s Leveson centre last Friday, and I really welcome the holistic care it gives to cancer patients. I want to highlight prevention. We know that four in 10 cancers are preventable, and the right interventions can be transformative, particularly for people from low socioeconomic communities. Will the Minister talk a little bit more about the public health approach that will be taken? In York we have seen a 30% cut in our public health budget over the past 10 years, which means less resource is available to prevent cancers.
Ashley Dalton
Prevention is a key part of this plan. As I have mentioned, we are doing an awful lot on that—for instance, on illegal under-age sunbed use. We are also eliminating cervical cancer through HPV vaccination and tackling obesity. Fundamentally, we are creating the world’s first smoke-free generation with our groundbreaking Tobacco and Vapes Bill. We do not ignore the communities hit the hardest, and the cancer alliances are promoting new schemes to enable young people to catch up on vaccinations, such as HPV, that they may have missed. We are tackling harmful alcohol consumption by introducing new mandatory health warnings and nutritional information on alcohol labels. We have reformed the public health grant in recent years—we have wrapped it up—and many places have seen an overall increase. We are also giving local authorities more flexibility in how they use their public health grant and, for the first time in many years, multi-year settlements so that they can plan.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will know that this statement is on a very important, sensitive and sometimes personal subject, but I remind them that after this we have two debates that are also important, so please keep questions short.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Further to the exchanges about radiotherapy, I understand that the national figure for access to radiotherapy is 53%, which itself does not seem particularly high. However, the figure for my Brigg and Immingham constituency, which falls in the Yorkshire and the Humber region, is only 35%. Could the Minister give some assurance to my constituents about progress on increasing that figure, and when does she think we can reach the national average?
Ashley Dalton
Through the spending review, providers have been allocated £15 billion in operational capital for local priorities and £5 billion to support the return to constitutional standards on radiotherapy. Responsibility for purchasing new machines sits at local level, and we expect local systems to continue to invest in new machines to meet the ambitious targets and to meet their local needs.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I really welcome the national cancer plan and the Minister’s clear personal determination to bring it to fruition. Does she agree that local innovations are going to play a key part? Such an innovation is the prehabilitation service in Colchester, which gets patients ready for treatment before their treatment begins. Would she and her team like to visit that and other local services to see the impact for herself?
Ashley Dalton
Yes, I do agree. This plan is about ensuring that wraparound care is there from the very beginning, and I would be more than delighted, if my diary allows, to visit the service that my hon. Friend mentions.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Yesterday, for World Cancer Day, I hosted here in Parliament Walk the Walk, a national charity that I am proud is based in my Woking constituency. It has raised over £146 million to fight cancer and to help people live healthy lives. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is no longer in his place, but will the Minister ask him to choose his favourite bra and join me on a Walk the Walk—with he in his favourite bra and me in mine—so that we can raise awareness for “mannogram” testing? Will she also ensure that mammogram testing is extended to the under-40s and the over-70s?
Ashley Dalton
Ministers quite like making promises from the Dispatch Box on behalf of our Front-Bench colleagues, but in this case I think I will just gently encourage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to join the hon. Member, if he is able to do so—I look forward to seeing the photographs.
We are exploring opportunities for breast cancer screening. There are difficulties in early screening because of dense breast tissue, but we are expanding screening where it provides support. In particular on breast screening, we are monitoring the emerging evidence from BRAID—breast screening risk adaptive imaging for density—trials, which target programmes at women with greater risk. We are also considering the findings from the £11 million EDITH—early detection using information technology in health—trial, testing how cutting-edge tools can be used to catch breast cancer cases earlier, particularly in younger women, like me, for whom a mammogram was not successful because of dense breast tissue.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I join others in thanking the Minister for all the work on the national cancer plan. Last week I was lucky enough to visit the brand-new NHS community diagnostic centre on the national health innovation campus at Huddersfield University. Diagnostic radiographers are being trained on the second floor of that building. I also welcome the work of Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS foundation trust, which is ranked as one of the best performing trusts in the country for meeting cancer waiting times. How will we learn from that best practice across the country?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting such amazing work happening in her constituency. From the very beginning, we have said that this Government’s approach is to take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. Using the NHS app and the new national co-ordination of activities, we hope to share some of that best practice a lot more widely.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the plan. I see the Minister’s commitment to it, and in the interests of all our constituents, I absolutely hope that it works and comes through. In the last Parliament, I did a lot of work on the all-party parliamentary group on minimally invasive cancer therapies—the group no longer exists—which, notwithstanding the commitment to innovation and technology that the Minister has outlined, is one area I have not heard much about. Could she outline to the House how this plan will bring through faster, and on a less of a postcode lottery basis, the new minimally invasive therapies?
Ashley Dalton
Harnessing technology right across the cancer landscape is what this plan is about. Where it is appropriate for less invasive treatments to be used, we are looking to explore how we can roll them out across the country, regardless of postcodes. Lots more people are surviving cancer with treatment, but what is important is that the side effects of invasive cancer treatment can be significant—I know: I have several of them—so, where possible, we want to use innovative, less invasive treatments so that people can live longer, more fruitful and less painful lives.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her powerful statement. There are clearly differences in cancer treatment depending on where someone lives, whether a rural or coastal community. My semi-rural constituency sits on the edge of three hospital trusts, leading to difficulties such as those highlighted by a constituent who attended my coffee morning earlier this week. She spoke of the difficulties she faces in getting consistency in her cancer treatment, as she sees a Leicestershire GP but gets care from the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS foundation trust. Will the Minister set out more on the neighbourhood element of the treatments addressed in the national cancer plan?
Ashley Dalton
The cancer plan sets out policies that have been developed specifically to tackle geographic inequalities in cancer care, with increased medical training places in rural and coastal areas, improved data transparency on the quality of care and performance of trusts, and investment in cancer alliances that proactively support local communities, while treatment support from neighbourhood care leads will help people to navigate their cancer pathways. Cancer outcomes should not be dependent on someone’s location in the country, so we are working to bring postcode lotteries to an end. We are using the NHS app so that patients can manage their cancer treatment themselves. More widely—this relates to what we announced in the summer for the 10-year health plan—single patient records will also allow patients to access services more easily, particularly across different ICBs.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the Department have a procurement strategy to ensure security of supply of medical radioisotopes, which are so critical for diagnosis and treatment? Could the Minister provide details of the co-operation and assessments made by her Government with the Welsh Government on Project ARTHUR, the isotope reactor scheme at Trawsfynydd?
Ashley Dalton
I understand that the right hon. Lady has already met the Minister for health innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), to discuss these issues, and that he will continue to work with her on them and to explore them further.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on this excellent plan and invite her to congratulate Young Lives vs Cancer, which has long campaigned for the travel fund for children and young people with cancer. I have joined the charity in its campaigning and am absolutely delighted to see the travel fund in place. Can she confirm that she will continue to work with Team Margot and Anthony Nolan to increase stem cell donation from people from ethnically diverse communities, where there is a shortage, in memory of Margot, who died from leukaemia aged two?
Ashley Dalton
Yes, I can confirm that we will continue to work with cancer charities. I am particularly delighted with the work we have done with Young Lives vs Cancer and other young people’s cancer charities, which have brought amazing insight and basically written the chapter on children and young people with cancer with the team. I would be delighted to continue that work.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I was the first MP in this Parliament to call for a national cancer plan back in October 2024, so I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for publishing the plan. There are some good things in it: the concentration on children and young people’s cancers; the concentration on rare and less-survivable cancers; and more desperately needed screening. Targets in the plan are also to be welcomed, but if they are to be met, there is a need for workforce expansion, especially in oncology, pathology, radiology and clinical nurse specialists. The extra cash that the Secretary of State has obtained for the plan from the Treasury is not enough to achieve all his ambitious plans right away. How will the Secretary of State and the Minister get from the Chancellor the money needed to make this plan a success?
Ashley Dalton
As I have already stated, the workforce is key. The workforce plan will be published in spring this year. As of November 2025, there are now 70% more staff in the key cancer professions of clinical oncology, gastroenterology, medical oncology, histopathology, clinical radiology, and diagnostic and therapeutic radiology than in 2010—we are starting to make inroads, although we know there is further to go. We will be driving that forward through this plan and the workforce plan, due in the spring.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my constituents, including Melissa from Guisborough, who campaigns on lobular breast cancer, Georgia from Hemlington, who campaigned on cervical cancer, and Peter from Coulby Newham, who campaigns on prostate cancer. What assurances can the Minister give them that resources will be put into communities like mine to tackle health disparities and make sure that everyone, no matter where they live, can get the cancer care they deserve?
Ashley Dalton
I commend the campaigning work of my hon. Friend’s constituents and say to them that their voices run through this plan; they have written this plan with their campaigning activity as much as we have. The James Cook university hospital in my hon. Friend’s constituency has had funding for two new LINAC machines—medical linear accelerators—which is helping to ensure that people get access to treatment. The plan will ensure that postcode and geography will not get in the way of the treatment people receive, and I look forward to working further with my hon. Friend and his constituents on how we can make that a reality.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on this excellent piece of work. It is crucial to my residents in west Norfolk, where we have statistically the worst hospital in the country at the Queen Elizabeth in King’s Lynn—not in a big city, but in a rural part of west Norfolk. I ask the Minister to reassure my residents that unlike what happened under the previous Government, who created a postcode lottery in which many more rural communities missed out, this will be a truly national cancer plan that covers all parts of our great country.
Ashley Dalton
We recognise that the provision of cancer services varies significantly across the country. This plan sets out how we will end that variation by bringing healthcare to the community and ensuring that everyone, no matter their postcode, has access to high-quality cancer care. I want to assure everybody that cancer outcomes should not be dependent on someone’s location in the country and that we will make timely access to high-quality diagnostic and treatment services a reality for anyone and everyone who needs it.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I welcome the statement and the plan, and salute the Minister’s bravery; I wish her very good health.
My constituents do not get a particularly good deal: when measured against the 62-day target, 47% meet the target for radiotherapy, 62% for drugs and 73% for surgery. However, looking at just the first treatment masks the true picture, as a combination of treatments is often crucial to survival, and if people wait six months for their second treatment, it is really poor. Will the Minister consider bringing in measurement of secondary treatments? We know that radiotherapy can reduce a tumour and that surgery comes later, but if someone has to wait six months for surgery, they are in trouble.
Ashley Dalton
Yes, we are aware of that. We are looking at the existing metrics and at what we can do to improve them to ensure that they are actually making a difference to people’s outcomes.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
In welcoming the national cancer plan, I want to pay tribute to my phenomenal Auntie Hillary, who passed away in September 2020. A GP practice manager, her selfless focus on ensuring that her elderly and vulnerable patients were okay during the first lockdown meant that she put off getting the early symptoms of her own cancer checked out; she got rapid treatment, but sadly it was too late. Will my incredible hon. Friend confirm that the direction and investment set out in this plan will ensure that hundreds of thousands of families a year will be celebrating all-clears, not mourning losses?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and offer my condolences on the loss of his Auntie Hillary. Yes, this plan is designed to ensure that an extra 320,000 people at the end of the course of the plan will have had their lives saved or be living well with cancer after their five-year diagnosis. We want to make sure that everybody gets that opportunity, regardless of where they live.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I welcome the national cancer plan, and in particular the Minister’s focus on early diagnosis and ending the scandal of postcode inequality. Cancer Research UK has highlighted that limited funding could significantly impact on progress against the plan, so can the Minister assure us that she is allocating funding in order to meet her own rightful ambitions, and say whether she is engaging with Cancer Research UK and others in the sector on the funding that is needed?
Ashley Dalton
Yes, I can confirm that, but it is not always about throwing extra money at things. It is about using the resources that we have in a better, more targeted way to be more impactful. I have worked with Cancer Research UK from day one of developing this plan and it has run right the way through it. We continue to work with the organisation as we move forward to make the plan a reality.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
This week marks 17 years since my mum died of lung cancer. She was just 58, and I was just 15. Last week, when I visited a local lung cancer screening service in Bracknell and heard how it is using AI to speed up diagnosis, it was personal. Can the Minister say a bit more about what we are doing to roll out schemes such as that to make sure that more families like mine do not have to suffer the loss of a loved one to this terrible disease?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Lung cancer has impacted on my family as well. Yes, we will be rolling out lung cancer screening nationwide by 2030, because we know that it has a huge impact on outcomes. I have seen how amazing the AI tools are at identifying discrepancies in lung CT scans. I found out that I had an untapped talent, as I was quite good at identifying those discrepancies as well. AI means that we can catch lung cancers sooner. They are often not caught until they are at stage 3 or 4. Using AI means that we can get them at stage 1 or 2, we can treat people early and we can save lives.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome the Minister and thank her for presenting this national cancer plan. Her conviction, enthusiasm and passion for the subject are clearly seen from the Dispatch Box. She talks about regional disparity, but we also have disparity within constituencies. My constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr operates 20% below the national average, so I am pleased that the Minister will be addressing that. It has been reported that 64 radiotherapy machines are running over their 10-year lifespan, which has cost the NHS 87,000 appointments. We know that we have 28 new machines. What will the Government do to get more new machines?
Ashley Dalton
As I have set out, we have already invested £70 million in the new LINAC machines, and we are using AI to support oncologists to use those machines more effectively. Through the spending review, we are providing £15 billion in operational capital for local priorities. It is down to local ICBs and local trusts to identify what they need and what they want to purchase in their areas, but we are providing the support and guidance to help them do that.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I wish to thank NHS cancer teams in Sunderland for doing such incredible work in my constituency. Other Members have mentioned the unacceptable variation in NHS performance against waiting times, and I commend the Minister’s focus on that. Can she say a little about the variation in waiting times by tumour site? In November last year, 82% of skin cancers were tret within 62 days, but for gynaecological cancers, the figure was only 58%.
Ashley Dalton
This is a key issue. Some cancers are an awful lot easier to get at, and so they are a lot easier to diagnose sooner. We are looking at how we can roll out screening wherever appropriate and increase access to tests such as liquid biopsies, which I talked about in the statement, so that people can get their diagnoses sooner.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I thank the Minister for her announcement today. At the end of the day, cancer will affect one in two of us—those are the statistics now. May I also thank colleagues for highlighting the difference in treatment between rural and urban areas? In Wales, we do not even have a plan yet. Without urgent action, there will continue to be inequalities and long waiting times for the people of Wales. That is why, with input from the European Cancer Organisation, Plaid has developed its own cancer plan. What does the Minister make of the decision of Welsh Labour colleagues not to implement a plan in Wales, and why do we not have parity with the rest of the country?
Ashley Dalton
I can assure the hon. Member that we are working with our Welsh counterparts to make sure that there is equity of access to resources and to information, and we will continue to do so.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The reality is that if someone lives in a big city with access to a university teaching hospital, their access to cancer treatment will be different from those who live in a town or small city like Carlisle, where we face challenges in recruiting and retaining specialist consultants. Does the Minister agree that this plan, combined with the pioneering approach to training doctors at the new Pears Cumbria School of Medicine, will begin to fix those inequalities that my constituents experience?
Ashley Dalton
That is absolutely the case. This plan will support people in my hon. Friend’s constituency by expanding access to community diagnostic centres and personalised neighbourhood-based cancer care. We are also focusing on recruiting more cancer specialists for rural and coastal areas, and are supporting that through the workforce plan.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Minister’s statement, which I found quite emotional. I know that many of her friends are pleased to see her making it today. She said that cancer mortality is higher and survival is lower in Britain compared with other European countries. What that means is that cancer patients such as Charlotte Montague have to go abroad to seek treatment themselves and then come back and advocate for that treatment to be incorporated in the NHS. What will the plan do to bring Britain more in line with European countries, so that people do not need to go abroad to seek treatment?
Ashley Dalton
We are learning from comparable countries. By looking at what they have achieved, we have begun to put together this plan. We want to make Britain the place to come to for clinical trials of new innovative treatments. We are looking not only to learn from other countries about the treatments they already offer, but to have our own home-grown new treatments and innovations through our clinical trials accelerator in the UK.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on this ambitious and much-needed plan. She met my constituent, Lorraine. Lorraine lost her daughter Milly and set up Milly’s Smiles, a charity that offers to families arriving at hospitals across the country a welcome pack of essential items to help them on their journey. I know that she will welcome the reference to improving non-clinical and supportive care for children in the plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only by working together with charities, families, researchers and the health service that we will deliver on this plan for everybody across the country?
Ashley Dalton
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It was my pleasure to meet Lorraine. I will, if I can, say very quickly that when we met her, she was explaining to officials how she did not have what she needed for her daughter when they were sent to the specialist care unit straight from A&E. One official said, “Why couldn’t you go and get what you needed?” We all looked at him and said that nobody was going to leave that child. That is why this cancer plan recognises the importance of wraparound care for children and young people, so that parents can support their families best.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on this excellent and ambitious plan. If we are to achieve its targets, improvements need to be made on delivering earlier and better diagnosis, particularly for cancers with extremely low survival rates, such as acute myeloid leukaemia, which has a five-year survival rate of just 22%. In my West Dunbartonshire constituency, 46 people have lost their lives to leukaemia in the past five years. I have lived with leukaemia over the past 18 years. Can the Minister confirm that, as part of this plan, improvements will be made in the survival rate for acute myeloid leukaemia?
Ashley Dalton
As my hon. Friend knows—I do not need to tell him this—brain tumours, leukaemia and other less stageable cancers cannot be assessed in the usual way, so we need different measures to understand how early they are being caught. That is why this plan commits to the regular publication of data on emergency cancer diagnoses as a key indicator, exposing where these cancers are picked up too late so that we can drive earlier detection and focus attention where it is most urgently needed.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Minister saw yesterday at first hand the amazing care and support that Maggie’s centres provide to not only patients and survivors but their families. What role will charities and voluntary organisations such as Maggie’s play alongside the NHS in delivering improved care for cancer patients and their families?
Ashley Dalton
Organisations such as Maggie’s play a crucial role. That is why we chose to launch our national cancer plan at a Maggie’s centre yesterday. We cannot do this alone. Charities, support organisations, family groups, and the tiny little charities run from a back bedroom by the family of somebody who suffered a very rare cancer, all have a role to play in how we bring forward the cancer plan. I am most proud of the fact that this is not the Government’s cancer plan but the country’s cancer plan. Every voluntary-sector community organisation and charity has a role to play, and I look forward to working further with them all.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for this excellent plan. In 1989, my wonderful mother Margaret passed away from bowel cancer. She died about six weeks after she was diagnosed. She had not wanted to go to her GP because she did not want to be a burden on the already overstretched NHS. Will the Minister join me in encouraging anyone who fears that they might have bowel cancer to see their GP, and will she provide assurances to those people regarding screening and early diagnosis for bowel cancer?
Ashley Dalton
We have extended NHS bowel cancer screening to cover people from the age of 50, and between now and 2028 we will be increasing the sensitivity of the faecal immunochemical test—otherwise known as the FIT test—and rolling it out nationally by 2028. Combined with increased uptake, that will deliver 17,000 earlier diagnoses by 2035 and save almost 6,000 lives.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
This plan gives so many people so much hope, and it was great to see it delivered with so much passion and energy. It is clear why the Minister is really respected by many people right across the sector. I have to say that I have never seen a statement delivered with so much energy—more of that, please. I also thank the Minister for her leadership and for supporting my Rare Cancers Bill from her very first day in office. She has found a place in the plan for my Bill, and I really do thank her for that.
I have three questions. Will rare cancers be recorded and reported separately as part of the plan? What influence will the cancer board have over the delivery of the plan? I think that point is quite important. Lastly, others have spoken about community organisations. In Gorgie in Edinburgh South West, we have the House of Hope, led by Lisa Fleming. She delivers a fantastic support service for women who have a breast cancer diagnosis. The next time the Minister is in Edinburgh, will she visit Lisa and her team?
Ashley Dalton
I commend my hon. Friend on all the work he has done, particularly on the Rare Cancers Bill, which the Government are delighted to support. Not only does this plan have the first ever chapter on rare and less-survivable cancers, but we will be appointing the first ever clinical lead for rare cancers, whose job it will be to make sure that rare cancers are properly counted, registered and that we continue to deliver in this area. I would be delighted to visit the House of Hope next time I am in Edinburgh.
Economic Security
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee. Liam Byrne will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the Minister, though they may well be on the Front Bench. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Let me first express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this short statement today as the Business and Trade Committee publishes the Government response to our flagship report on economic security, which was published in the summer last year.
I want to start not with Committee papers but with people—with workers and businesses. It was just in April last year that we found ourselves in this place on an unusual Saturday sitting to ensure that British Steel was kept alive. Not long thereafter, our agencies were supporting the high street retailer Marks & Spencer as it suffered one of the worst cyber-attacks in our country’s history. Not long thereafter, the Exchequer was required to underwrite the Jaguar Land Rover supply chain to the tune of a billion pounds as it suffered a cyber-attack of unprecedented proportions. All of that took place while our allies in Holland were battling over Nexperia chip supplies and our allies in America were battling China over rare earth restrictions.
Five shocks but one message: economic security threats are now a concern to this country’s security. The message from our Committee is that those threats are going to multiply significantly in the years ahead. The combination of AI-powered weapons, the advent of hostile states, the reality of unpredictable allies, and the need for us as a country to mobilise something like £100 billion of new foreign direct investment means that the threat surface confronted by our businesses is about to multiply exponentially.
That is why we need new economic security defences. If we have learned one lesson from Russia’s illegal invasion in Ukraine, it is that economic security is the foundation of national security. Just as we need a whole-of-society approach to defence, so too do we now need a whole-of-society approach to our economic security.
That is why the Business and Trade Committee undertook its review last year. Our conclusions were stark: we found that the institutions, policies, posture, funding, laws and regulation that we now have in place means that this country does not have an economic security regime that is fit for the future. We set out to provide a blueprint for how the Government can overhaul the system that we have in place.
We recommended, like our allies, putting our regime on a statutory basis with a cross-Government Minister for economic security and a proper centre for economic security at the centre of Government. We then made a number of recommendations, including on how we can improve the diagnosis of threats that we confront, how we develop the sovereign capabilities that we need as a country, how we diversify our supply chains and sources of critical minerals, how we defend our critical national infrastructure against new perils, how we deter those seeking to damage us economically, and—crucially—how on earth we are going to dovetail the efforts of His Majesty’s Government, the private sector and the work of this country and our allies around the world. Those were the recommendations that we made to Government, and today we published the Government’s response to our report.
Let me start by saying to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), on the Front Bench that we welcome the constructive tone that the Government took in response to our report. We realise that this is a novel, fast-moving field of policy, and where we end up at the end of this Parliament will be very different to where we are today. The Government have clearly accepted four of our recommendations and partially accepted 11. But I lament that they rejected 10 of the recommendations. For the benefit of the House, let me canter through them very quickly.
What we felt was good about the Government’s response was that there are some clear principles that will guide our economic security policy for the future. We had lacked those until today, so I am glad that we now have them in black and white. We welcome the commitment that the Government have made to stronger alliances. We welcome the promise of tougher deterrents to bad actors, particularly from Companies House, and we welcome the slightly half-hearted commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of this field of policy in the future.
In some areas, the Committee concluded that the Government have made some progress but not gone far enough. First, although there is a promise to improve forecasting of future threats led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we felt that the commitment was a little too vague for our taste. Secondly, we are sorry that the national exercising programme does not have a clear commitment to bring together the public and the private sector to wargame the kind of threats that we know will come together. We are not going to face one threat after another; they will compound and hit us all at once. That is why we need business and Government to be working together to scenario-plan for the future.
We welcome some of the progress on critical minerals, but frankly we do not think that the money or strategy put in place is up to scratch, so the Committee concluded in a report it published earlier this week that one of the inquiries we undertake this year will be an inquiry into critical minerals security. In the field of cyber-security, we do not think that the recommendations on software and cyber-security standards were really heard, and we would like to see more progress on mandatory reporting of cyber-ransom attacks. We did not feel that the Government have yet made a clear commitment to developing anti-coercion systems or instruments. We welcome what the Ministers have said about the need to get something in place. Our allies already have that infrastructure in place. We welcome Ministers’ recommendation that they will listen to us in this House and our Committee, but we would like a little more specificity from them.
Finally, we simply do not think that there has been enough progress on controlling foreign subsidies. The Competition and Markets Authority has been endlessly consulting on that for the last two years. At a time when Chinese industry is six times over-subsidised compared with European industries, we do not think that there is a strong enough regime for policing a level playing field in competition and that imperils our manufacturers. We do not think that the Trade Remedies Authority is fit for the modern day and we believe that significant reform will be needed.
We most lament the instances where the Government rejected our recommendations. As a cross-party Committee, we felt that we had some common-sense proposals for Ministers to consider. We regret that there is no clear plan to overhaul Government co-ordination and leadership, as there was for counter-terrorism policy after 7/7 and, indeed, for economic security policy back in the 1920s and 1930s.
There is a resistance to publishing a clear list of the sovereign capabilities that we will need as a country. I understood from Defence Ministers at the time of the defence industrial strategy that there would, indeed, be a clear list of sovereign capabilities that we as a country would need to develop. Today’s Government response says that no such list will be published.
We regret that the managing public money framework will not be updated to take into account the need for investments in resilience. The Government response said that the current regime was adequate. That is clearly a nonsense. When ministerial directions are needed to ensure the subsidies that were delivered to British Steel or the underwriting that was delivered to the Jaguar Land Rover supply chain, it is quite clear that the managing public money framework does not give Ministers or officials the right framework for balancing the security needs of our country and the growth objectives of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister.
We remain concerned that the tax incentives for improving the resilience of small business are not adequate. We lament that there is no backstop for the cyber insurance market and we regret that there is no extension of the brilliant Pool Re to provide that insurance for the future. It is also quite obvious to us that the pay scales for our frontline specialists in the war on economic crime are simply not adequate.
We look forward to continuing the dialogue constructively with Ministers and I welcome the tone that they struck and the progress that we have made. However, let me conclude with this. Over the last year, as we have set about our work, we have heard consistently from our allies fears and concerns about the economic security regime in this country. We have heard loud and clear from them that they worry that the UK is the weak link in the western defence when it comes to economic security. If we believe, as I think we should, that economic security is the foundation of national security, that is not a position that can go on. The fact that our allies tell us on the Committee that they worry that we are the weak link is not something that our country should put up with, and it is not something that this House should ignore.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman, with his Committee, has given a thoughtful series of recommendations. On his specific point about trade remedies and countries that are over-subsidising, such as China, and the electric vehicles flooding our and European markets, how much of that is being led, in terms of joined-up Government, by a foreign policy that just does not recognise economic security and which prioritised, as in the Prime Minister’s recent trip to China, trying to reset relations with some countries while regarding economic security as an inconvenient truth?
Liam Byrne
It is an open secret in this House that every day, every week, there is some controversy between the growth Departments and the security Departments in government. If we are to stand on our feet in the years ahead, we have to make sure that our industry is fighting fit and not undermined by unfair foreign competition.
We were grateful to the OECD, whose representatives met the Committee in Paris last week. They set out in black and white the sheer scale of over-subsidies in China—that Chinese industry is subsidised six times more than industry in Europe tells us that the playing field is not level. Yet the CMA has been consulting, without conclusion, on control of foreign subsidies for almost two years. We heard loud and clear from allies in Europe that the divergence of UK policy on China from that of Europe may indeed confound the ambitions of some of us to draw closer to the European Union in future. I know that is not a view that is shared across the House, but it should give Ministers pause for thought.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work on the Business and Trade Committee, of which I am a proud member. Does he agree that an increasingly competitive and uncertain world defines the UK’s sovereign capabilities, and that supporting them through the national wealth fund is vital to strengthening our industrial resilience and securing our supply chains—including critical minerals—to protect the British economy?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is right. I salute her work on the Committee, which is far stronger for her contribution. The bottom line is that the Government has said, in strategy after strategy, that sovereign capabilities are important and that they need to be developed. What we have in the response that has been published today is a clear statement that those capabilities will remain secret, that we will publish a few of them in the defence industrial strategy and maybe if a defence equipment plan is ever published, we might see more in there too.
The point here is quite stark. If we are to ensure our economic security is stronger in future, we have to mobilise the private sector and private sector investment consistently and at scale over a long period of time. It is impossible for us to mobilise that money unless the private sector knows where to invest. If we keep the list of sovereign capabilities secret, how on earth will we send the right signals to the private sector to invest in the future?
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for an excellent report that speaks to some very real issues. We have an opportunity later this year when the defence readiness Bill comes before Parliament for consideration. Does he have any recommendations on what he would like to see in that Bill, and are he and his Committee talking with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that some of that gets into the Bill?
Liam Byrne
When we published the report, we sought to compare the regime that we have in this country with the regimes that are in place among our allies in Japan, Europe and the United States. It became clear that, unlike our allies, we have a loose collection of strategies—some might unfairly label them strategy by stapler—that are basically collated together but which lack any statutory basis to ensure consistency and persistence over time.
Again, we must remember what we are trying to do. We are trying to ensure that public and private sector are able to work together on big risks over a long period of time. If we leave policy unpredictable, inconsistent and subject to the changes of wind each day, we cannot provide that signal. Ensuring that there is a proper statutory basis for economic security in the way that the hon. Member suggests and our allies have actioned would be a significant step forward in the Bill that he refers to.
Point of Order: Rectification Procedure
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Charlotte Cane on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure to declare.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when tabling three written parliamentary questions to the Treasury and one written parliamentary question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. When I tabled those questions, I inadvertently failed to declare a relevant interest: the receipt of hospitality from the Jockey Club. That was in breach of the rules and I apologise to the House for this error.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. There will be no further points of order on this issue.
Road Safety
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Anna Dixon, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered road safety.
Road safety is a personal issue for me. My grandfather Herbert Bilsby moved to Ilkley in 1952 to take up a post as a geography teacher at Ilkley grammar school. Aged 62, he was looking forward to retirement: more time to enjoy his passion for hiking; more time to spend time with his grandchildren; and more time to visit family in Australia and Zambia. He never got that time.
On 6 December 1969, my grandfather was driving with my grandmother to deliver Christmas presents to her family at the family farm in Cumbria. Just north of Hellifield on the A65, he got stuck behind two lorries—a common experience even today. He saw an opportunity to overtake and pulled out. At that moment, the lorry pulled out, and my grandparents’ car was pushed off the road and into a stone gatepost. My grandfather was killed outright, and my grandmother suffered head injuries. That fatal collision shaped my family’s life. I never knew my grandfather. My grandmother was widowed and disabled. My dad moved jobs, and he and my mum moved to Ilkley where I was born and raised. My mum then continued to care for my grandmother for nearly 30 years.
It was a time before seatbelts were compulsory, before sections of the A65 were widened to create overtaking lanes, and before airbags. Today’s cars and roads are safer than they were in 1969 thanks to new laws, investment in our roads and the use of technology in the design of cars. Yet, four people still die on our roads every day and 76 more are involved in collisions that leave them with serious injuries. In my own constituency of Shipley, 180 people were injured in road collisions in 2024 and one person tragically died. Across the country, over 1,600 people were killed and nearly 28,000—yes, 28,000—people were seriously injured on our roads. Road collisions happen in a split second, yet their impact can be life-changing and felt for a lifetime. Parents lose their children; partners lose their soulmates; the unborn miss out on knowing their relatives—the human cost of road collisions is colossal.
But it does not have to be that way. A wealth of evidence shows us what the causes of death and injury are—we know what to do. Through the work of road safety groups, researchers and the police, we understand there are five causes of deadly crashes—the fatal five. They are speeding, antisocial driving, mobile phone use, alcohol and drug use, and not wearing a seatbelt. We must continue to tackle the fatal five if we are to reduce the death toll on our roads.
Ahead of the road safety strategy, I wrote to the Minister calling on the Government to include harsher penalties for speeding, to strengthen post-test requirements to protect newly qualified drivers, to lower the maximum legal drink-drive limit and to introduce points for passengers not wearing seatbelts. I therefore very much welcome the many measures in the road safety strategy, which the Government are now consulting on. Those measures include a minimum learning period for learner drivers; lowering the drink-drive limit; reviewing penalties for drink and drug driving offences, including—importantly —bringing in new powers to suspend licences for those suspected of committing serious driving offences; introducing penalty points for not wearing a seatbelt; and taking tougher action on those who fail to stop and report collisions, those who drive unlicensed or without insurance, and those with no MOT.
The strategy also addresses the growing problem of illegal number plates—so-called ghost number plates—which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) has campaigned for extensively. She was sorry to not be here today for the debate, but I am sure she would join me in congratulating the Government on taking action on this issue. The Government’s strategy is the first of its kind in a decade, and it sets out a plan to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 65% by 2035.
In West Yorkshire, a more ambitious goal has been set as part of “Vision Zero”, striving for zero deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 2040. It was launched in 2023 by our Labour West Yorkshire mayor, Tracy Brabin. “Vision Zero” brings together the combined authority, local authorities, emergency services, National Highways, victim support services and road safety campaigners, and it is producing results. In just the first year of the strategy, 7,500 dangerous drivers were brought to justice, almost 40,000 fixed penalty notices for traffic offences were issued and 13,000 children across West Yorkshire were part of an innovative educational project.
I pay particular tribute to Alison Lowe, the deputy mayor for policing and crime in West Yorkshire. Under her guidance, the combined authority and West Yorkshire police have taken a proactive approach to improving road safety. Alison, whose own sister was killed by a speeding driver, has listened to the community and effectively targeted police resources. West Yorkshire has introduced community concern sites. These are locations flagged by local authorities based on data and community feedback that receive greater police attention. This innovative scheme has led to 467 new enforcement locations, and over 46,000 speed offences were detected in less than a year.
Another successful example from West Yorkshire is Op Snap, which allows the public to submit dashcam footage of driving offences. There were almost 9,000 submissions just in the second half of last year, and 70% resulted in further action being taken. I hope the Minister can set out how good practice such as that in West Yorkshire can be supported and spread to other parts of the country.
This is only the beginning; far more needs to be done to end deaths on our roads. In 2024, young drivers aged 17 to 24 were involved in 11 of the 40 fatal collisions in West Yorkshire—around 20%, despite making up a much smaller share of road users. I would like to see stronger measures to protect newly qualified drivers. I was interested to see that the Northern Ireland Infrastructure Minister recently announced plans to introduce graduated driver licensing. GDL has already been adopted by other countries with success. Victoria, Australia introduced it in 2007 and, by 2013, saw fatal collisions reduced by 30%. I welcome the Government’s proposed mandated learning period for new drivers, but why not be more ambitious? There is good evidence from other countries. Why should young drivers in Northern Ireland get protections that young drivers in the rest of the UK will not? I urge the Minister to remain open to look at other effective measures to support young and novice drivers, such as limits on the number of passengers and restrictions on night-time driving, which we know from evidence have the biggest impact on reducing death and serious injury.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
That ambition is fantastic, and I wonder whether we could be more ambitious on the drive-drink limit. Pilots cannot fly if they have any alcohol in their system. Why is it not the same for drivers?
Anna Dixon
I agree that it is important that we consult the public on looking to reduce the drink-driving limit to the lowest possible level, and the Minister has heard the hon. Member’s remarks about a possible zero tolerance to drinking alcohol while driving. I hope that on this measure and others the Minister will agree to meet me, other MPs, campaigners and families affected, particularly on the issue of young drivers, to discuss such additional measures, which have widespread public support.
Road safety is also a local issue for residents across the Shipley constituency, who regularly raise road safety issues with me. Residents in Harden and Cullingworth are terrified by rural roads being used as racetracks. Parents in Baildon and Burley in Wharfedale are concerned about their kids crossing the road. School leaders in Cottingley and Wrose are concerned about parking and dangerous driving outside schools. Working with the local police, Bradford council’s highways team, local Labour councillors and West Yorkshire’s deputy mayor, we are making some progress, with new speed cameras on Bingley bypass, local speed watch in hotspots of community concern, the introduction of a 20 mph zone in Menston, reduced speed limits between Bingley and Shipley, and the installation of speed awareness signs.
But there is only so far we can go locally, and that is why I am pleased that this Labour Government are taking action to make our roads safer. The road safety strategy is ambitious and comprehensive. It takes a systems approach and includes all road users. I urge the Government to move swiftly to implement the measures they are consulting on, and I hope the Minister will set out in her response which ones will need primary legislation and when she expects parliamentary time to be given to implement them.
People up and down the country continue to be killed and seriously injured by dangerous driving. As the campaigning organisation RoadPeace and others have identified, dangerous driving is no longer a rarity but an embedded cultural phenomenon. Many people feel able and entitled to drive dangerously, and do not fear the consequences of their actions. That must change so that other families do not suffer the life-changing impact of a fatal road collision, as my family did.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members will know that two debates are scheduled this afternoon, which will necessitate a very tight time limit of three minutes from the get-go.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who made a powerful speech, particularly in relation to the impact of dangerous driving on her family.
As the hon. Member said, more than 1,600 people tragically lost their lives on our roads in 2024, and 60% of those fatalities happened on rural roads such as those in North West Norfolk. Indeed, there has been a worrying rise in road casualties in Norfolk: in 2024, a 17% increase took the number of people killed or seriously injured to 555. I welcome the publication of the Government’s road safety strategy, and the ambition to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65% by 2035. However, a few things are worth highlighting.
Awareness of the highway code remains far too low, and people do not refresh themselves on what is in the code—that must be improved.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Driving instructors and cyclists in my constituency have contacted me because they are concerned that experienced drivers are not aware of the 2022 changes to the highway code. Does the hon. Member agree that a campaign for greater awareness among experienced drivers would be welcome?
James Wild
I agree. In the context of the debate, and following contact from constituents, I have been refreshing myself on the highway code, which I admit I had not done before even though I should have done. Awareness is important.
Speeding continues to be a major cause of accidents. However, many residents, Speedwatch groups and parish councils tell me that the process for reviewing or reducing speed limits on dangerous roads is too slow and too expensive, so I look forward to the Government’s new guidance on setting local speed limits, which I hope leads to genuine improvement.
Change needs to be driven by evidence, and in that context I refer to the proposal to reduce the drink-driving limit. Offences are typically caused by people who have greatly exceeded the limit, not by people who have had just a pint, so we must consider that proposal very carefully.
Young people are already waiting too long for driving tests, so I am concerned about the proposal to put in place a minimum six-month learning period. People who take intensive courses can be good drivers. The proposal could make the situation worse.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
James Wild
I will not, given the time available.
A number of constituents who ride horses have contacted me with concerns about a lack of driver awareness and the prevalence of speeding and dangerous driving. They face heightened risk, particularly given the limited number of bridleways. The roads connecting bridleways have become more dangerous, too, with over 3,000 incidents in 2024, 80% of which were attributed to drivers passing unsafely. That is unacceptable, and it is why I support the proposals introduced by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), which include setting a required speed and distance for passing horses, and teaching equestrian safety in driving education. I hope that the Government will look favourably on those proposals.
I turn now to a topic that I have raised repeatedly in the House: sentences for driving offences, which must be tougher. In 2022, Parliament legislated for a maximum sentence of life in prison for death by dangerous driving, but sentences remain far too short, as was demonstrated in a case in which three members of a constituent’s family were killed. Dangerous driving should also result in longer disqualification. Less than 1% of those convicted of dangerous driving were banned from driving for life. Will the Government commit to a review of the sentencing guidelines for all dangerous driving offences, and consider how the Sentencing Council is applying those guidelines to reflect what we in this House consider necessary?
I am grateful to have had this opportunity briefly to speak about this important topic, and I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my points.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Backbench Business debate on road safety. I welcome the Labour Government’s new road safety strategy.
In my remarks, I will focus specifically on Sharlotte’s law—a campaign that began with a tragedy in my constituency. Sharlotte-Sky Naglis was only six years old when she was killed by a driver who was drunk and under the influence of drugs—someone who should never have been behind the wheel. Sharlotte, who lived in Norton Green, was a bright, happy child with her whole life ahead of her.
The perpetrator was taken to hospital and was in a coma. Under the current law, a blood sample can be taken from an unconscious person—and in this case a sample was taken—but it cannot be tested until the individual gives consent. The fact that the current system relies on consent being given by the suspect meant that the investigation was held up. For Sharlotte’s family, that delay made an awful and impossible situation even worse. It slowed the process down, delayed answers and put off accountability while they were trying to grieve for their daughter.
That case shows that justice delayed is justice denied. When such serious cases are held up, the families and victims suffer the most. Sharlotte’s law matters, as it aims to fix gaps in the road traffic law so that those who kill or seriously harm others while driving under the influence cannot gain from delay, and so that the justice system can work quickly and fairly.
Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, I have raised this case in Parliament and spoken about the matter regularly with the Minister, who I thank for her continued engagement. However, I must be clear that the real strength behind the campaign has been Sharlotte’s mum, Claire, whose work has been tireless. In the face of unimaginable loss, she has shown true strength and dignity, driven by the idea that no other family should have to go through what hers endured.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the danger to our county in not taking this issue seriously. I know that he shares my horror about the case of my constituent, who was knocked down as he took his daughter to school in December 2025. Luckily, he pushed his daughter away, and he was not killed, but it was very close indeed. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging Staffordshire county council finally to get a grip and ensure that roads in our constituencies are made safe?
David Williams
I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning hard on this matter—we have discussed that case. I absolutely encourage Staffordshire county council to take action.
The Government’s consultation on road traffic offences really matters. It gives us a real way to learn from cases such as Sharlotte’s, so that victims and families are put first. I therefore encourage people across Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove, Staffordshire, and indeed the whole country, to take part in the consultation and support amendments to the law. I also urge colleagues from across the House to back the aims and principles behind Sharlotte’s law. If we get this right, Sharlotte-Sky Naglis will be remembered not just for the tragedy of her death, but for the change that her legacy brings, and justice will no longer be delayed for families who deserve better.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
A year ago in my constituency, Lewis Knox, aged 16, Fergus Ward, aged 17, and Jordan Cameron, aged 17, went off the road and died—no other car was involved. It was an enormous shock for the area. Lewis Knox’s father, Alan, is the head of the ambulance service in the area. He and his wife, Elizabeth, are calling for graduated driving licence schemes, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon).
When I was a young lad, I drove like a complete idiot. I have four sons, and I am fairly certain that they did the same. For young men—young boys—this is a particular problem. When they drive, they show off—bravado and all that sort of thing. The statistics are horrifying. Approximately one in five new drivers are involved in an accident within their first year of driving, and drivers under the age of 24 make up 6% to 7% of licence holders but are involved in 22% of fatalities and serious injuries.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
We spoke about the graduated driving licence scheme in a Westminster Hall debate and referred to the situation in Western Australia and Victoria. Does the hon. Member agree that the lessons we can learn from there have absolute relevance to the situation here?
Mr MacDonald
All the evidence shows that graduated driving licence schemes work extremely well in reducing the number of serious incidents.
I have one more statistic to finish with. In 2024, 1,602 kids aged between 17 and 24 were killed or seriously injured in Great Britain. According to international figures, if we introduced a graduated driving licence scheme, that number would drop by about 30%, so it is well worth the Minister considering this.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
In my constituency, road safety is now the No. 1 issue raised with the police. Just in the last year we have seen fatalities, injuries and countless near misses across Rossendale and Darwen. My inbox is filled with emails from people telling me that the roads just do not feel safe, which is why I warmly welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, and we now must turn its ambition into reality.
Let me begin with delivery. Road safety is, by necessity, delivered locally. Road safety partnerships are theoretically the main forum for this, bringing together councils, police forces and other services. Some partnerships, such as the one in Warwickshire, have shown the success that this model can bring; chaired by the PCC, they have the political backing to deliver the change we need. However, in too many parts of the country these partnerships are without that buy-in, with councils and police forces siloed and unwilling to meaningfully share resources. That is very much the picture in Lancashire, with the result being an underfunded and reactive approach to road safety that relies on outdated processes and fails to listen to our communities.
To give one example, William Cartwright, an 11-year-old boy in my constituency, did not feel safe crossing a very busy road on his way to school and launched a petition asking for a zebra crossing to be built, which gained over 1,400 signatures. Despite the mass of evidence showing that the community did not deem the road safe, the Reform leadership at the county council rejected the proposal because they said too few people had been killed or seriously injured there to merit an intervention.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that there does not need to be a certain number of incidents outside a school gate, or indeed on any road, in order for local councils to intervene? It is a myth that we need to bust.
Andy MacNae
Absolutely; I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. It is outdated guidance, and it is used as an excuse to avoid taking the action that people need to see.
It does not have to be this way. Neighbouring authorities—we have heard about the example of West Yorkshire—proactively listen to schools and their communities. That community-led approach must become our baseline, because listening to communities is vital. Partnerships also need resources to deliver the change we need; too often they are constrained by low levels of funding. Allowing councils to retain the fees from road offence fixed penalties, which in some cases raise millions of pounds each year, would make a real difference if ringfenced locally.
Nationally, we must be strategic and dynamic with our interventions, aiming for the greatest impact by focusing on higher-risk groups. An empowered road safety board and the new road safety investigation branch could be vital in keeping policy responsive. It would be good to hear from the Minister when the board will be established, what its powers will be and whether she expects it to meet more regularly than once a year.
With speeding being a key factor in 56% of all fatal collisions, this is an area where targeted action is essential. The Minister has committed to update the guidance on speed limits and enforcement, and the need for that is urgent. Just last week I was with residents on a road notorious for speeding, looking at three wrecked cars on the spot where a fatality occurred last year. Everyone knew it was only a matter of time before we saw another crash. They had spent the year calling for speed cameras, yet nothing was done. The message here is clear: communities know where the risks are, and we need to listen.
That is why last month I launched a road safety campaign in Rossendale and Darwen, calling on Lancashire to adopt a new road safety approach that properly resources our road safety partnership and acts to identify and address high-risk roads before incidents occur. Our survey has already had hundreds of responses, and this coming weekend I am hosting roundtables across the constituency to bring together residents, councillors and police to identify the high-risk areas and discuss how we can make them safer. I really hope that Lancashire county council will now listen to residents and work with me to deliver safer roads and save lives.
To conclude, we must end the road safety postcode lottery. Strong national leadership that sets clear expectations will be essential in supporting delivery for every community. That needs to be complemented by steps to genuinely resource delivery on the ground. If we can get this right, the road safety strategy and the lives it saves will be a legacy of which we can all be proud.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this important debate.
Since 2018, there have been 1,506 casualties on our roads in South Cambridgeshire and 34 fatalities, which we all know is 34 too many. Road safety is often discussed in terms of behaviour, speed or enforcement—issues we have heard much about today—but for many of my constituents, the danger begins with the road surface itself. Potholes, worn carriageways and crumbling edges are not just a sign of successive Governments’ failure to invest in our roads and highways but a real safety risk, particularly for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and drivers forced to swerve to avoid damage. I hear regularly from constituents whose tyres have blown, wheels have cracked or bikes have been thrown off balance because of the unsafe roads beneath them.
This is a recurring nightmare for all councils. I want to take this opportunity to place on record the work of Cambridgeshire county council, which, as the highways authority, is doing everything it reasonably can in very difficult circumstances. Just last night the chair of highways, Councillor Alex Beckett, was out checking the round-the-clock patching of potholes on Cambridge Road in Great Shelford village, following repeated calls from residents and local councillors highlighting just how dangerous this road had become. In the same village, Farhan Hussain, an award-winning curry takeaway owner for whom I recently presented an early-day motion, found a different way of raising awareness: he went viral with a video of himself placing the largest naan in East Anglia in a pothole. To be fair, the council did get it mended within the week.
Under Liberal Democrat leadership, the council’s investment in capital maintenance has more than doubled, and it is delivering tens of thousands of pothole repairs every year. The council is also challenging contractors who do shoddy work, and work that does not meet the right standard is being redone at no extra cost to the taxpayer. However, even with that effort, this situation is untenable. Cambridgeshire’s roads were not designed for the volume of traffic they now carry, let alone the growth planned for the Greater Cambridge area. This is where the Government must take responsibility.
Local councils are legally required to keep roads safe, but they cannot do so without fair, long-term funding. It is like an old pair of trousers—the limited funding given to councils is forcing them to patch the patches, rather than buy the new pair of trousers that is needed. I urge the Government to recognise that proper, scheduled resurfacing is safer, cheaper and longer lasting and will keep people safe on our roads.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this important debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. With over 1,624 people killed in collisions on our roads in 2023, something simply needs to change, and today that has come to the forefront.
I welcome the Government’s announcement of a new road safety strategy, which is much needed and has the potential to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 65%. The proposals in the road safety strategy will address a number of issues that my constituents raise with me regularly, particularly the new guidance on local speed limits and enforcement. The issues of speeding and unsafe junctions routinely come up in my constituency work, and they directly affect constituents, whether it is speeding on Lead Road in Greenside, through the village of Dipton, or along the A694, where residents in Ebchester have been campaigning for safer road crossings and better speed enforcement. These issues plague the daily lives of my constituents and cause real concern, so it is welcome that the road safety strategy will look at them. It would be great to know how residents can have a greater and more meaningful say on the concerns they have about the roads in their communities.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
There are schools and nurseries in my constituency, such as Jigsaw nursery on Wrexham Road and Delamere Academy, which is just off the busy A556, where children have to navigate fast-moving traffic. Does the hon. Lady agree that proximity to schools and nurseries should be treated as an essential consideration when determining safe speed limits on roads?
Liz Twist
Yes, of course. I believe that that is an important factor in setting speed limits, and it is certainly something that affects my constituents as well as those of the hon. Lady. There are also other places where we must take account of speed limits.
I want to speak briefly about one particular aspect of road safety that was raised with me by my constituents, John and Karen Rowlands, who lost their son Andrew in a road collision in 2020. The driver of the car was underage, uninsured and unlicensed. Sadly, that situation is all too common, and families are left to pick up the pieces, while dealing with unimaginable grief, due to the fact that the laws of our roads, and those affecting vehicles, have not kept up with changing times. Right now in the UK, car insurance costs £562 a year on average, while the penalty for being caught driving without insurance is only £300. The mismatch is simply outrageous.
I welcome the announcement in the road safety strategy that the Government will look again at tougher action against those who choose to drive unlicensed or without insurance, and those with no MOT. A stronger deterrent will help to stop such unlawful practices, and go some way towards preventing further tragedies like Andrew’s.
I believe, as do the Rowlands family, that to improve road safety we must also look at car ownership. Although the correct checks are in place within the car dealership industry, it is simply too easy to buy a car online, with no prior checks taking place on the person purchasing the vehicle or on the vehicle itself. While the deterrent of tougher action is welcome, that loophole still has the potential to cause irreparable harm on our roads. Online car sales are linked to crime, allow unsafe vehicles to remain in circulation, and enable people who do not have a licence to purchase and use cars on our roads. I welcome the fact that the Minister has met the Rowlands family, and will be doing so again shortly.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I wish to open my contribution to the debate with a tribute to a young man from Pwllheli who was killed in a hideous two-car collision on the Porthmadog bypass just days before Christmas. While we await the inquest, I hope it is some comfort to his family that so many people in our home community want to see changes to the law as a memorial and mark of respect for the life of Mathew Hardy. He was 34 years old and the only child of Simon and Glenys. Mathew’s partner, Mari, is expecting a baby in three months’ time—too many lives shattered by irreplaceable loss. While many of us treat the right—the license—to drive a car with a familiarity verging on contempt, such tragedies remind us how dangerous vehicles can potentially be for all road users. Heaven knows, as Mathew’s father says, that people lose their gun licences, their guns and gun paraphernalia at any suggestion of police concern, but people keep their driving licences far, far too easily.
It is a sad fact that inexperienced young drivers remain disproportionately at risk of being killed or injured on the roads. We had the tragic case in my constituency of Harvey Owen who was a passenger in a car driven by a friend, along with two others, all of them teenagers, who lost their lives in 2023 when their car came off the A4085 near Llanfrothen and overturned in a ditch. Harvey’s mother Crystal—I am sure many Members will know her—is campaigning for graduated driving licences.
Northern Ireland has just committed to a full graduated driving licence system from October this year, which includes post-test restrictions that are designed to reduce exposure to high risk situations, such as carrying peer passengers. Evidence from other countries shows that graduated systems significantly reduce young driver casualties, and they save lives. Safer roads mean fewer accidents, and they also mean lower insurance premiums for young people, which is a message the Government should engage with. The Government should monitor Northern Ireland’s approach as a pilot for the rest of the UK.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
My colleague in the Scottish Government, Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, has indicated a strong willingness to engage with the UK Government and other relevant bodies to trial things such as graduated licences and other road safety measures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is something the UK Government could proactively engage with to make positive progress across the home nations?
Liz Saville Roberts
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful suggestion. It is interesting that we are all talking along the same lines.
I welcome that the road safety strategy includes consultation on proposed changes to penalties for motoring offences. For families who have lost loved ones to repeat drink-drive and drug-drive offenders, it is incomprehensible why those drivers do not lose their licences at the point of providing a positive test. At the very least, that should happen automatically at a second or further offence. Such a policy would ensure that there was swift preventive action when there is clear evidence of risk.
My last example is that of Amanda Peak, who lives in Brithdir, near Dolgellau. She lost both her sons, Arron, aged 10, and Ben, aged eight, and her husband was badly injured. The driver who inflicted this on the family was drunk and driving at speed. Amanda begs the Government to bring down the alcohol limit and to address sentencing. When the drunken driver was sentenced, Amanda was told that this man would not even have been sentenced to imprisonment if he had killed only one child. Imagine that—it took two children to be killed for this man to be sentenced to imprisonment. I urge the Minister to meet lobbyists and to meet families as well, because this might well be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a change that will benefit very many people’s lives.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Prior to my role as a Member of Parliament, I was pleased to serve as a Norfolk county councillor for 12 years. In Norfolk, each time somebody is killed or seriously injured within a council division, the relevant councillor is informed. Clearly, nobody ever wanted to receive such an email, but all too often a message would arrive in my inbox. I recall vividly the email that informed me of the tragic death of 15-year-old Salvador Modke, on London Road in Thetford.
Salvador stepped out on to a crossing, just a short distance from his home, on a Saturday afternoon. He was hit by a car and tragically killed. The coroner’s report detailed evidence that had been received during the inquest, highlighting that the crossing contained minimal facilities for pedestrians and no signs on the approach to alert drivers. I pay tribute to Salvador’s family and friends who lobbied for safety improvements in the area following his death. I am pleased that Norfolk county council will be using money provided by the Government to undertake a full assessment of safety measures. I will do whatever I can to ensure that money is found to enact whatever recommendations are made.
As a member of the county council’s transport committee, I would routinely review performance indicators that tracked the number of people killed or seriously injured on the county’s roads. It was always a statistic of great concern, with a significantly high number of incidents. Sadly, the most recent Department for Transport data released in November indicates that road casualties have risen more in my county of Norfolk than anywhere else in the country, with the number of people killed or seriously injured rising from 470 in 2023 to 555 in 2024.
It is worth noting that across the country, 10 times as many people die on rural roads as on motorways. The view of road safety charity Brake is that rural roads are the most dangerous roads for all users. Many do not have cycles lane, pavements or bridleways. Many rural roads are narrow, with blind bends and limited safe places to pass. There is often much that obstructs the driver’s view and, all too often, there are animal collisions, particularly with deer. Deer are a constant risk around Thetford forest, in my constituency, which is the UK’s largest man-made forest.
Worryingly, in a Brake and Direct Line survey, 68% of drivers said that they felt it was acceptable to drive above the speed limit on a rural road, and nearly half of drivers said that they had driven faster than the speed limit on a single-carriageway rural road in the past year. Drivers are openly admitting to speeding on the most dangerous roads. I welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, and I ask that serious thought be given to the specific circumstances and opportunities to improve safety on our rural roads.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. After the next speaker, I am going to have to drop the time limit to two minutes, because there is a very important debate on Gaza that I would like to start by 3.30 pm.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this important debate and sharing her own family’s story. I dedicate my speech to a close and dear friend, a councillor in Richmond upon Thames, who lost her adult son in a road traffic collision on the A31 in Hampshire just before the new year. I am thinking of her and all her family as I make these remarks.
Every life lost on our roads is tragic, so I welcome the publication of the new road safety strategy. It is vital that we explore how our roads can be made safer so that lives can be saved. Young people are disproportionately involved in road traffic accidents. Drivers aged 17 to 24 represent just 6% of licence holders but are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions, so I am pleased that the Government have recognised that that statistic must be addressed.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
May I join the hon. Member in what she says? Just last month, three young members of the community in Bolton, in the constituency next door to mine, lost their lives in a road traffic accident. A 17-year-old and two 18-year-olds were killed, as well as one of my constituents, Masrob Ali, who was 54 and out there working as a taxi driver.
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; it is tragic to hear about all those lives lost.
Consulting on measures to reduce the number of accidents involving young people is a really positive step. Not only is it vital for the obvious safety reasons, but it will make driving more affordable if insurance companies subsequently reduce their fees for 17 to 25-year-olds if they are involved in fewer accidents.
The THINK! campaign was launched at the turn of the millennium and presented a strong message to young adults about the dangers of drink driving, but 17 to 24-year-olds are still involved in a disproportionate amount of cases. As we have heard from other contributions, in the UK it is still seen as somewhat acceptable, especially among young people, to drive while over the limit.
However, drunk drivers can also be confident drivers, who, after three pints, would rather not have the inconvenience of having to book a taxi or leave their car parked elsewhere overnight. There can be lots of reasons why people think that it is acceptable to drink and drive. Will the Government commit to examining the perceptions of drunk driving, along with exploring the use of new preventive technology?
We should also examine road safety through the lens of everyone who uses our roads. Last Friday, I met a constituent who had been hit by an e-bike being ridden on the pavement. While e-bikes should certainly not be ridden on pavements, my constituent was actually very understanding of the fact that the reason why so many riders choose to do so is that they are so concerned about the dangers of cycling on our roads.
The 2007 national safety camera programme provided guidance that cameras typically should be installed only on stretches of road that experienced at least three deaths or serious injuries in the past 36 months. I have heard from other Members that that guidance can be overridden locally, but will the Minister commit to re-examining the guidance? Anyone who cycles will tell us that there are stretches of road and corners that present specific dangers to them, but experienced cyclists will anticipate that and consequently not suffer serious injuries. We need to encourage more cycling, particularly in our cities, and improving road safety for all road users is a huge priority in ensuring that that can happen.
Reviewing the guidance on safety cameras could really go a long way in encouraging all our road users to use the roads more safely. We want to see our roads safe for all users and to reduce the number of deaths on our roads.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I very much welcome the steps that our Labour Government are taking to improve road safety. From record funding to improve road conditions to the publication of the road safety strategy last month—the first of its kind in a decade—there is a clear commitment to deliver on our manifesto commitments and set out vital reforms to make our roads safer, particularly as the UK has slipped from third to fourth in Europe’s road safety rankings.
One of the key issues that I will highlight is tackling drug driving. Data from the Department for Transport shows that although alcohol remains the leading cause of impairment-related collisions, the gap between alcohol-related crashes and drug-related crashes has narrowed over the last decade. Between 2014 and 2023, the number of drivers killed in fatal collisions with drugs detected rose by more than 70%. I welcome the Government’s decisive steps to give the police additional powers to act at the roadside, including immediate licence suspensions to remove dangerous drivers from our roads, as well as the commitment to explore alternative testing methods such as saliva-based testing and improved processing, including increased roadside testing.
In the short amount of time that I have, let me say that road safety must include pavement safety. I really welcome the work that our Government are doing to bring forward measures to tackle the enforcement of hugely inconsiderate pavement parking. Many of my constituents tell me about the danger it poses, particularly for people who have children in pushchairs, use wheelchairs, or are visually impaired and use a guide dog. They often take the risk of walking into the road simply to go about their day.
The existing legislation restricts the powers of local authorities outside London and Scotland. When will the Government introduce interim secondary legislation, so that local authorities can enforce against unnecessary obstructions on the pavement? I encourage all my constituents to sign my petition on pavement parking.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this debate. I also thank Alan Faulds and Melanie Mitchell for inviting me to a Safe Drive Stay Alive event last week, where emergency service workers shared real-life experiences with local secondary school children about working at collisions and dealing with the aftermath of what has happened.
As a parent, it was John Galloway’s contribution that I have thought about most this last week. John told the story of what happened in 2001 to his son, David, who was then an 18-year-old with his entire life in front of him. He was involved in a road traffic accident—one that was entirely avoidable. John detailed the accident and how David was hospitalised for two years, as well as the pain and heartbreak that John and his wife felt, and continue to feel. It was full of raw emotional trauma.
David then came on to the stage in his motorised wheelchair, and John explained how he struggles with swallowing and must now be fed through a PEG—percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy—in his stomach. After the event, I had the honour of speaking with the Galloway family. The Galloways have been attending Safe Drive Stay Alive for nearly two decades now. They go and share their story because they do not want other families to experience the pain they have.
Safe Drive Stay Alive costs around £36,000 a year to run—Clackmannanshire council provides £3,000, Falkirk council £5,000 and Stirling council £10,000. The rest must be made through donations from local businesses and individuals, and I give credit to Air Products, which has a site in Alloa, for getting behind the campaign and making a donation. The three councils are facing financial issues, and when we consider the fact that each road death in Scotland costs approximately £2.8 million, they feel that they might not be able to step up and fund Safe Drive Stay Alive going forward. We really cannot put a pound sign in front of that.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this debate.
Parish councils across my constituency have been raising the alarm on road safety for years. In Bradley, residents and councillors continue to push for a reduction in the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph, and for action to stop inappropriate heavy goods vehicle traffic on the really narrow village roads. Despite clear signage, 44-tonne articulated vehicles still pass through regularly, causing severe damage to road surfaces, verges and drainage, worsening potholes and flooding, and creating a real danger to pedestrians, as Members have said throughout this debate.
In Eccleshall and surrounding villages, speeding hotspots are repeatedly raised on routes such as the A519 through Slindon, where multiple accidents occurred in a single summer, and on rural narrow lanes near schools and homes, where there are no pavements at all.
I also want to highlight the experience of one of my constituents, Diana Kynaston, who is a motorbike rider from Stafford. For motorcyclists, potholes and crumbling road edges create a serious threat to life and limb. She has highlighted the route between Doxey and Astonfields industrial estate, where uneven surfaces, deep potholes and damaged corners force sudden manoeuvres and increase the risk of losing control, particularly for learner riders. I have heard reports across the constituency—from Norbury to Cold Meece, and from Bishop’s Offley to Great Bridgeford—about potholes going long unrepaired, and this includes stretches of major roads.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my other constituency neighbour for giving way—there is a theme about the quality and condition of our roads in Staffordshire. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the situation in her constituency, and I just want to make it clear that the same situation is also happening in Newcastle- under-Lyme and other parts of north Staffordshire.
Leigh Ingham
Something that all Staffordshire MPs have in common is our absolute despair at the state of our roads. The Government have allocated additional funds, which is really important and will make a significant difference to what we can achieve. However, to put it in perspective, Staffordshire is the slowest authority at repairing potholes. If a snail started off in Stafford town centre when a pothole was reported, it will have moved 22 kilometres by the time the pothole is repaired, which is ridiculous.
I ask the Minister what mechanisms the Department has in place to ensure the additional road maintenance funding is being used effectively by councils and is translating into safer, better-maintained roads, and how it supports local authorities to take a joined-up approach to road safety that includes both speed and road maintenance. When funding rises—which I am very grateful for—but safety does not, how can the Minister tackle that in her role?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Just two weeks after my election, I was contacted by my constituent Julie. Her husband Kevin was a devoted husband and grandfather, and was dedicated to keeping us safe on our roads as a traffic management officer. On the morning of 26 February 2022, Kevin was parked up in a closed lane, completing checks between junctions 14 and 15 of the M6. While he was there, a stolen Audi travelling at over 100 mph and being actively pursued by police entered that closed lane and collided with Kevin’s vehicle, killing him instantly.
Julie was told that the police pursuit had been authorised to protect the public and that although officers were aware of a coned-off section of the motorway, that did not feature in the risk assessment because there was no indication that road workers would be present, but Kevin was present—he was authorised to be there and was working. Julie has never sought to apportion blame, but has consistently asked for answers about the protocols and lack of communication that led to Kevin losing his life. In her words,
“Kevin looked out for everyone’s safety, but who was looking out for his?”
A member of the public stopped in the same place where Kevin was working would rightly be considered at serious risk, yet Kevin’s only physical protection was plastic cones, and he had no radio link to the regional operations centre.
I welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, which recognises that road workers are among the most vulnerable people on our roads and commits to harnessing technology, data sharing and improved enforcement to protect them. Julie believes that a simple message on the gantry signs could have saved Kevin’s life, but there is currently no requirement for communication between the police and National Highways when it comes to traffic control officers, as there is for those working on repairs. My team and I are engaging with National Highways about this issue, but it would be very welcome if the Minister would also consider it.
I pay tribute to Kevin’s widow Julie, and thank her for her courage in repeatedly telling his story. I urge the Government to work with families such as Julie’s to make sure those who put themselves at risk to keep us safe are respected and protected.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome today’s debate on road safety, which is a subject of deep concern in Colchester and across Essex. In our county, we have seen a year-on-year increase in deaths on our roads, rising to 58 in 2025—too many of those have been young lives. In Colchester, we are marking a terrible anniversary at present: the moment that four young people lost their lives in a single crash. In April last year, an 18-year-old was killed on the A12. In the previous September, a 13-year-old was struck and fatally injured on Mersea Road. The deaths of these young people must be a call to action.
Residents regularly raise concerns about the A12 and the A120, where frequent incidents and congestion contribute to these horrors. I would like to highlight the need for better road infrastructure and traffic management on those stretches. As an Essex MP, I am committed to working with Essex Highways and Essex police to develop measures set out in the road safety strategy, particularly the mandating of safety technologies in new vehicles, taking tougher action against drink and drug driving and improving driver testing and learning periods, especially for young drivers.
Linsey Farnsworth
Dave, a driving instructor in Amber Valley, contacts me regularly about road safety—he is a passionate advocate. However, he is concerned about the consultation in the road safety strategy on a three-month or six-month minimum learning period. Does my hon. Friend agree with Dave that structured training and lesson time is just as important as a minimum time period?
Pam Cox
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am sure the Minister has heard that point and will respond to it.
Far too many people die on our roads—we really must act to save lives. I will close by asking the Minister what new funding will be available to help us in that key endeavour.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Road safety is one of the top issues that constituents write to me about. That is why I took the opportunity to hear from nearly 1,000 Bracknell Forest residents on this issue over the summer, as I conducted my summer campaign on road safety. Those conversations and speaking with many incredible charities and organisations in Bracknell Forest and beyond impressed on me the need for greater action on uninsured drivers.
Those who drive uninsured are statistically more likely to be involved in road accidents, as well as to commit other risky offences on the road, including hit-and-run incidents and speeding. Towards the end of last year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to bring in tougher measures, and I thank the Minister for listening to my constituents and launching a consultation on a review of the motoring offences framework, which has not been updated since 1988.
Uninsured driving was not the only issue raised with me by residents. Speeding is a concern for so many who use the roads responsibly. They see it happening, and they know that they and their loved ones are put at risk by this dangerous behaviour. In fact, more than 70% of respondents to my road safety survey agreed that people drive too quickly down residential and main roads in Bracknell Forest. I am therefore pleased that the Government are publishing new guidance for setting local speed limits and updating guidance on the use of speed cameras and red-light cameras.
I pay tribute to the work already undertaken by Thames Valley police on vehicle offences more generally. Vehicle crime in Bracknell Forest is down 14% compared with the end of 2024, and I know that our local policing team has been working hard to crack down on offences including illegal car meets and uninsured driving. We have already heard from many Members about potholes, so I will quickly welcome the nearly £17 million invested by this Government in our local roads over the course of this spending period.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate? I congratulate the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who secured it, on her powerful speech. She, like many other Members, rightly focused on the appalling human cost when road safety goes wrong. So many Members spoke powerfully with stories from their own lives or from their constituents of people who have lost their lives or been injured and the impact that has on families—that has to be where we start from—and the emergency services.
On road safety, we must start with our own human shortcomings. Few of us are, generally speaking, the skilled and wise drivers and road users that we often tend to think we are. It remains to be seen whether driverless cars will save us from ourselves. In the meantime, we need to tackle a whole range of factors, as well as the fatal five factors that the hon. Member for Shipley outlined in her introduction. We need to address culture and attitudes to speeding and drinking.
A number of hon. Members referred to a particular problem with how young people, in particular young males, can drive. We need to think about the design of our roads and the lack of safe walking and cycling infrastructure. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, the A417 and A338 are very busy A-roads. They have no viable alternative for people cycling and lack cycle paths, as would be common in Germany, the Netherlands and many other places. Potholes and poor road surfaces are the bane of all road users’ lives, and there is a link there to wider policy, given that upper-tier council authorities are seeing more than half their budgets consumed by statutory requirements such as adult social care. Road safety links to a lot of other policy areas.
We need to think hard about enforcement, whether that is cameras or the human interface. We need to continue to expand cycle training, particularly the Bikeability programme for young people, and we need better training and support for new drivers, particularly young ones. The recent Government announcement on pavement parking is welcome, but I hope the Minister will say something about how she intends to implement that. I note that Lord Blunkett in the other place tabled an amendment on that subject.
We must, however, look to ourselves as well as to others. Pedestrians should think carefully before crossing the road at an inappropriate place, and we all need to get out of our phones and look around us. Cyclists need to be consistent in obeying rules and signals and respecting pedestrians, and drivers need to have good vehicle maintenance and be mindful of the power of their vehicle. Nobody should want to be the cause of the human harm we have heard about today, and we should all think about that the next time we attempt to behave badly on the roads.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
First and foremost, I thank Members from across the House for taking part in this debate, and I particularly pay tribute to all those mentioned who tragically lost their lives or faced life changing injuries in road accidents. It is right that we do all we can to stop such terrible incidents occurring again in the future.
The ability to travel in our cars and on the roads is integral to the vast majority of people’s everyday lives. Not only is it the most popular form of transport, but it is a lifeline for many people, so all motorists and every other road user, whether they are lorry drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or others, deserve safe journeys.
In considering the Government’s road safety announcements, the Opposition support and welcome some elements of the strategy, while the effectiveness of other measures remains in question. We strongly support measures such as stronger fines for those who commit egregious offences and action to combat ghost number plates. However, the overwhelming sentiment, which I hope the Minister adopts when putting into practice the policies set out in the strategy, is about enforcement. One of the worst things to hear when there has been an accident is that it involved people breaking existing laws, putting themselves and others in danger.
Unfortunately, since the Government released the strategy, we have seen further decreases in police officer numbers, with a decrease of more than 1,300 officers between September 2024 and September 2025 and further decreases occurring before that date. How can we expect the Government to enforce our wide range of existing road laws, let alone new ones, if there are insufficient police officers? It would be useful to know what discussions the Department has had with the Home Office to ensure that sufficient officers will be allocated to police our existing road laws and any additional ones the Government might bring forward. Also, I understand that the Government’s police performance framework says that there is a target to “decrease” the number of
“People killed or seriously injured in road traffic collision”,
but does not actually say what that target will be.
To improve enforcement, we must have a targeted response to problem drivers, who put everyone on the road at risk. One issue that demands an even greater focus is drug driving. The Government’s consultation acknowledges that some police forces are arresting more drug drivers than drink drivers, and that there has been a steady increase in the number of people convicted. Although that represents some progress, I would call on the Government to go further. Data shows that, in 2023, 22% of deceased drivers tested positive for impairment drugs, an increase from 11% in 2014. Among the youngest cohort of drivers—those most likely to get into terrible accidents—the vast majority of cases involved illegal drugs only. While there are sensible proposals within this strategy about testing and looking at further fines, the Minister must work with the police to ensure they are doing more to target drug driving and not relying on tests after the fact.
In addition, I hope the Government strongly consider any further measures that stop those committing these terrible crimes on our roads from being able to avoid punishment, whether that be due to testing or statutory limits, which, in particular cases, have enabled those who have committed the worst crimes on our roads to avoid the full weight of the law.
To conclude, for road safety measures, I believe that the Government must bring drivers with them in any changes and measures that they take. Where drivers do not feel that those road safety measures actually help them—such as with 20 mph limits—they will not take them seriously. This is a strategy that must be delivered, and delivered well, but with drivers, not just against them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Minister, who I am told is aware of how much pressure there is on timing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for her powerful and moving speech in opening today’s debate, and thank so many Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful and heartfelt contributions. I wish we had more time for the debate; I know I will not be able to respond to all the points raised, so I will endeavour to write to people if I do not manage to answer their questions today.
It is evident from the discussion that road safety is a subject that affects everyone. Members have shared the effect of road collusions on their constituents and on themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is one of too many people who have lost family members on our roads, and I extend my sympathies to her and to all constituents whose tragic cases have been raised by hon. and right hon. Members. I have met many bereaved families, and it is without doubt the hardest part of my job, but I will continue to do so.
I am proud that this Government have published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, which sets out our vision for a safer future for all. Although Britain has some of the safest roads globally, the last 10 years of complacency mean that our road safety record has dropped. As we have already heard, four people are killed on our roads every single day. It is not acceptable, which is why we have set ambitious targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65%, and by 70% for children, by 2035. The strategy is rooted in innovation and underpinned by the “safe system”, which recognises that although driver error is inevitable, deaths and serious injuries on our roads are not. A new road safety investigation branch will analyse data to identify causes of danger, and to generate safety solutions, in order to cut deaths and serious injuries.
Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), have spoken about the need for action to reduce speed. We will update guidance for local authorities, which have the power to set speed limits on their roads, to inform decision making at local level. It is for councils to determine what measures are appropriate, because they have local knowledge. It is right that they focus on areas of highest risk, which may be where fatal collisions have occurred, but there is nothing to stop them implementing road safety measures elsewhere. I can assure the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) that we have already committed to updating the guidance on speed camera deployment.
The enforcement of road traffic law is the responsibility of individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners, taking into account the specific local problems that they face. We are investing in additional police officers, with 3,000 to be recruited by the end of March and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. Like my hon. Friend for Shipley, I pay tribute to Alison Lowe, the deputy mayor for policing and crime in West Yorkshire, for her personal commitment. Last month I visited West Yorkshire to see at first hand the work being delivered, and last week I joined the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to talk about our strategy and how we can work together.
Tragically, as we have heard, young drivers are over-represented in the number of people killed and seriously injured, and crashes involving young drivers also result in deaths and serious injuries among other road users. This issue was raised by numerous Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), and the right hon. Member—I will probably murder the name of her constituency—for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).
Graduated driving licences vary around the world, as does how they are implemented; there is not one standard type. For England, Scotland and Wales, we are consulting on introducing a minimum learning period to ensure that learner drivers get the necessary time and training to prepare themselves for a lifetime of safe driving. We have to strike a balance between protecting young people and impacting their opportunities to get to work, education and social activities. We already have a two-year probationary period for all novice drivers once they have passed their test, and we are now seeking views on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers in England and Wales. I am very aware of the recent announcement in Northern Ireland, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned. My officials regularly meet their counterparts in Northern Ireland, and I have asked them to keep me updated on the progress and on the impact of the measures once they have been implemented.
At the other end of the spectrum, drivers aged over 70 account for around 24% of all car drivers killed in 2024. That is why we are consulting on mandatory eye tests for drivers in this age group, and we are also exploring cognitive testing. As well as improving safety, these measures could support families to broach difficult conversations with older relatives who are still driving.
Drink-driving continues to cause too many deaths and injuries. The drink-drive limit has not been lowered since it was first legislated for in 1967, and our understanding of impairment has developed. To support a shift in social acceptability, we will work with our THINK! campaign and alcohol brands to encourage people to choose drinks with 0% alcohol content. Drug-driving has also increased, without sufficient measures in place to curtail it, so we are consulting on alternative methods of testing for drug driving and on licence suspension for those suspected of the most serious offences. There is so much more I would like to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but may I just say that we are seeking opinions on tougher penalties for motoring offences? usbI thank my hon. Friends who raised those issues, in addition to raising the issues of pavement parking and vehicle safety.
Although the Government are leading the charge, this will be a collective effort in partnership with local authorities, the industry, the emergency services, communities and the devolved Administrations. I assure everyone in this House that action is beginning now to make our roads safer, as we put the commitments in the strategy into place. I will chair a new road safety board that will be set up in the coming months to support and monitor the commitments, and we will announce further details of its membership and other arrangements in due course.
Finally, as hon. Members are aware, many of the measures on which we are consulting will require primary legislation, and we intend to bring this forward when parliamentary time allows. However, where we can deliver change faster through secondary legislation, we will do so. I encourage hon. Members to respond to our consultations. We will listen to this feedback, alongside evidence and recommendations from the Transport Committee’s inquiry.
I again thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, and I look forward to updating the House when we have considered the findings.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered road safety.
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Brendan O’Hara, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I put on record my thanks to the Speaker’s Office for working so hard to ensure that we have time for the debate this afternoon? Given the pressure on time, and in order to allow as many Back-Bench speeches as possible, I will not take any interventions.
In his book, “One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This”, the Egyptian-Canadian novelist and journalist Omar El Akkad wrote:
“The moral component of history, the most necessary component, is simply a single question, asked over and over again: When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power? What makes moments such as this one so dangerous, so clarifying, is that one way or another everyone is forced to answer.”
That question will have to be answered. That may not be today or even this year, but at some point all of us, particularly those who hold positions of power or have a public platform, will have to answer that fundamental question: which side were we on? Were we on the side of justice, or did we side with the powerful?
When asked, each of us will have to answer: did we speak up for the tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children who were killed; did we use our platform to actively oppose the forced displacement of millions of Palestinians from their homes and communities as they were reduced to rubble, and condemn unequivocally the collective punishment imposed on an entire population when the basics necessary to sustain life—water, electricity, food and medicine—were deliberately withheld from them; or did we, either by what we said and did, or by what we did not say and did not do, side with the powerful, look away because it was in our political or financial interests so to do, and give political cover and legitimacy to the Netanyahu regime as it carried out its genocide while our Government supplied it with the weapons and military intelligence to do so?
The Hamas attack of 7 October was utterly appalling, and no right-thinking person could excuse or condone what happened that day. Neither, however, could any right-thinking person excuse or condone the Israeli response, which has been not just disproportionate, but brutal and relentless. Israel’s response has been carried out in such a systematic manner that, in my opinion, no reasonable person could deny that what we have witnessed in Gaza over the past two and a half years constitutes genocide.
The Government have denied, and continue to this day to deny, that it is a genocide. It is a decision that the Government will have to explain, and with which they will have to live. Today, however, I am not here to play ping-pong with the Government on the legal definition of what does and does not constitute genocide.
Instead, I want to focus on the mountain of evidence that says there is at least a serious risk of genocide occurring, and that serious risk should have triggered the UK’s legal obligation to act under the terms of the genocide convention, as explained by the International Court of Justice in its 2007 Bosnia ruling—an obligation that comes into effect long before any determination of genocide has been made by a court. The standard of serious risk is designed to be an early warning that ensures that states and international bodies act to prevent a genocide from occurring. In the case of the Palestinian people of Gaza, the UK has clearly and undeniably failed abjectly to meet its legal responsibility when alerted to there being a serious risk of genocide.
When the UK signed the genocide convention in 1948, it promised to prevent and punish this most heinous of crimes. Now, with more 71,000 people dead and 200,000 people injured, Gaza reduced to an uninhabitable wasteland, its population in the grip of a man-made famine and its medical infrastructure obliterated, hundreds of journalists murdered, water and electricity used as a means of coercion and punishment, food and medicine denied to the starving and the dying and the repeated forced displacement of millions of civilians, it is surely beyond any dispute that the minimum requirement for the UK to act to prevent and punish the crime of genocide has been met.
Arguably the most damning indictment, however, is that more than 21,000 children have been killed by the Israel Defence Forces since October 2023. Let us not forget that in November 2023 the UK Government formally intervened in the case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar at the ICJ to argue for changes to the definition of genocide that included lowering the threshold when damage was inflicted on children. If it is appropriate for the UK to intervene to protect children from the bombs and bullets of the Myanmar military, why is it not appropriate for it to intervene to protect Palestinian children from the bombs and bullets of the IDF?
Of course, genocide is not and never has been about numbers. The numbers killed, while shocking, do not in and of themselves necessarily prove genocide; there are other methods, including
“deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
That is why it is important that we look at what else has happened in Gaza since October 2023. Over the past two and a half years, Israel has obliterated the agricultural sector; the fishing industry has gone; the road network has been wrecked; agricultural wells have been demolished; most crop land and greenhouses have been rendered unusable; the vast majority of livestock have been killed; and the vitally important and culturally significant olive tree crops have been targeted and destroyed.
Such is the devastation that a Guardian journalist on board a Jordanian air force plane wrote:
“Seen from the air, Gaza looks like the ruins of an ancient civilisation.”
And he added that Gaza was razed by an Israeli military campaign that has left behind a place that looks like the aftermath of an apocalypse. That does not happen by accident, and it is impossible to view this as anything other than a premeditated attempt to erase Palestinians from their land by making it impossible for human life to survive.
By any measure, collectively, all of that constitutes unimpeachable evidence that there has been a serious risk of genocide. And that should have triggered a UK Government response to prevent that becoming a full-blown genocide, but is has not. It is not as if the Government can say that they did not know or that they were unaware, because, time and again, statements made from that Dispatch Box, including from the former Foreign Secretary and the current Prime Minister, have conceded that they knew exactly what was happening, but they have chosen to do nothing about it. They have accepted and have publicly condemned the siege tactics, the denial of humanitarian assistance, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, the use of evacuation orders, the denial of water, food and electricity, the targeting of journalists, the destruction of healthcare, the astronomical number of civilian casualties, and the deliberate dehumanising of the Palestinian people.
In their own words, the Government have denied undeniable proof that war crimes are being carried out, that mass atrocities are being carried out, and that civilians are being denied the basics to maintain life. A quick trawl of Hansard will reveal that as far back as January 2024, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said that
“85% of the population are displaced and millions face the risk of famine.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 622.]
Two months later he said that
“famine in Gaza is imminent... but what distinguishes the horror in Gaza from what has come before is that is it not driven by drought or natural disaster; it is man-made.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 806.]
And in May 2024 he said that
“aid is reportedly being blocked and northern Gaza is now in full blown famine”.—[Official Report, 7 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 443.]
A year later, in May of 2025, he openly acknowledged Israeli war crimes against the civilian population when he said:
“The whole House should be able to utterly condemn the Israeli Government’s denial of food to hungry children. It is wrong. It is appalling.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 927.]
And then he continued that
“what we are seeing is inhumane, it is deadly and it is depriving Gazans of their human dignity.—[Official Report, 21 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 662.]
It is there in black and white. The Government have acknowledged it. And the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition in October of 2023, acknowledged that serious risk, saying:
“Civilians must not be targeted. Where Palestinians are forced to flee, they must not be permanently displaced… International law is clear. It also means that basic services, including water, electricity and the fuel needed for it, cannot be denied.—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 593.]
And as Prime Minister he said:
“We continue to see mounting evidence of appalling atrocities against civilians and unacceptable restrictions on humanitarian access.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 806.]
There are so many more examples of the Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary and other Ministers admitting from that Dispatch Box that Israel was using food as a weapon of war, that it had manufactured a famine, that it was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, that it was committing war crimes, and that it was stripping Gazans of their human dignity. Yet it remains the official position of the UK Government that none of that—none of it—meets the threshold for there being a serious risk of genocide.
I ask the Minister whether we are being asked to believe that, even when the Israeli Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, said:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed… We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly”.
Did that not trigger within the Government the thought that perhaps there was a serious risk of genocide? Finance Minister Smotrich said:
“Gaza will be entirely destroyed; civilians will be sent to...the south…and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries.”
Did that not trigger the thought that, perhaps, there was a potential risk of genocide occurring? The Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, said:
“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”.
Did that not suggest to the UK Government that perhaps Israel’s response to the atrocities of 7 October was going to be disproportionate, brutal and illegal; and that continuing to sell weapons and maintaining a “business as usual” relationship with Tel Aviv might put us in grave danger of breaching our obligations under the genocide convention?
Despite Israel making its intentions unambiguously clear from the very start—that it was going to ethnically cleanse Gaza, would do so using whatever means necessarily and would do so indiscriminately—it appears that the UK Government made the political choice to deliberately ignore their obligations so that they could continue a business-as-usual relationship with Netanyahu’s Government.
I will finish where I began, with that powerful quote from Omar El Akkad:
“When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power? What makes moments such as this one so dangerous, so clarifying, is that one way or another everyone is forced to answer.”
This UK Government and the Government who preceded them have chosen to side with power over justice, and history will judge them accordingly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Because I want to get everyone in before we finish at 5 pm, all Members are on a three-minute speaking limit.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for bringing forward this most important debate.
This is a debate on an obligation to assess the risk of genocide. Who could disagree with that? There has been a terrible war in Gaza, and although there is a ceasefire, loss of life continues. It was sparked by the 7 October attack in 2023 and the taking of the hostages, which was the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. This was not a war of Israel’s seeking. The aims of the war were to secure the release of the hostages and to prevent Hamas from ever repeating their attack, which they had promised to do on many occasions. As the Chief Rabbi said,
“If Hamas lays down its arms there will be no fighting… If Israel were to lay down its arms there would be no Israel.”
Genocide is a legal description of the intentional, systematic destruction in whole or in part of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as defined by the 1948 UN genocide convention. The concept was defined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer from Lviv/Lwów/Lemberg—much in the news—in the aftermath of the war. I first heard of Lemkin in the marvellous book “East West Street” by Philippe Sands, who will deliver tonight the Alf Dubs lecture in Battersea.
“Intent” is the crucial word. Britain and its allies are not accused of genocide for the strategic bombing of Germany, despite the hundreds of thousands who were killed. It is a matter for a court to decide on genocide, and despite the many debates about it in this Chamber, we can all agree that this is not a court.
We know that there has been massive loss of life and destruction in Gaza, but I simply cannot believe that it was the stated intention of the Government of Israel to completely destroy the population of Gaza. We do not have any means of independently verifying anything, since we are left to rely on news from the Hamas-led Health Ministry and the Israel Government’s spokespeople. I directly asked the President of Israel, Mr Herzog, twice about allowing in independent journalists, such as those from CNN or the BBC, and I was twice informed that it was too dangerous. Is that still the case? I doubt it now that there is a ceasefire.
The word “genocide” has been used to rally protest all over the world, but we have seen where some of that has led. If we allow this most significant of words to be bandied about with such certainty, do we not risk undermining the words that are needed to describe the Holocaust, which was the intentional and systematic murder of 6 million European Jews by the Nazis; the Rohingya being expelled en masse, raped and slaughtered; the Uyghurs being subjected to mass internment, forced sterilisation and cultural erasure; or the mass murders in Rwanda?
Genocide is a quite specific crime, and frankly it is not my belief that this was the intent of the Israel Defence Forces. But I do agree that there is an obligation for this to be assessed.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
We are witnessing in Gaza a catastrophe that was not only foreseeable but preventable. For over two years, the UK Government have hidden behind legal sleight of hand while a genocide has unfolded in Gaza. The definition of genocide set out in article II of the genocide convention is precise. It involves specific acts
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
First, article II(a) prohibits killing members of such a group. As of January of this year, 71,500 Palestinians have been killed, including 570 aid workers and 1,700 health workers. That is not collateral damage; it is the destruction of a people and it is sickening.
Just yesterday, during the current supposed ceasefire, the BBC reported that at least 20 Palestinians, including several children and a paramedic, had been killed and almost 40 others wounded in Israeli strikes in Gaza, according to hospitals in Palestine. The response from the Israel Defence Forces stated that they had carried out “precise strikes”—so precise, apparently, that they had to further state,
“The IDF is aware of the claim that several uninvolved civilians, including a medical staff member, were hit in the strike.”
That is a familiar trope that they have used throughout the conflict. If those were the reactions of our own military, the standards we would apply in investigation and response would be rigorous and likely lead to court martial because it is not even close to our, rightly, highly robust rules of engagement rooted in moral integrity.
Secondly, article II(b) prohibits
“Causing serious bodily or mental harm”.
We know that over 143,000 people have been injured, with many maimed for life, and the population has been subjected to torture and arbitrary detention. Thirdly, and perhaps most damningly, article II(c) prohibits
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”.
Amnesty International has found that Israel has systematically destroyed life-sustaining infrastructure, including water, sanitation and energy grids. By creating a so-called buffer zone, Israel has razed 59% of agricultural land in that area and, as of last month, 81% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged, and all the while it has severely restricted vital aid and supplies. This is the deliberate erasure of the means of survival, which has led to widely reported and verifiable famine.
When Israeli leaders describe Palestinians as “human animals” and speak of “flattening Gaza”, and then proceed to destroy 19 hospitals and block essential aid, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is the “intent to destroy” the group, as per the definition. Even now, despite the UN commission of inquiry finding in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide and Amnesty International confirming that the genocide continues despite the October ceasefire, the UK refuses to act.
History will judge this Government and this Parliament for their—
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I am honoured to serve as co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group.
We face a stark legal reality: the UK’s duty to prevent genocide is triggered the moment a serious risk becomes evident. The International Court of Justice made that clear in January 2024. Judge Joan Donoghue stated that the Court found
“a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention.”
The Court issued provisional measures directing Israel to prevent genocide—measures that Israel has ignored.
Words matter too. Israel’s President Herzog declared,
“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible.”
Under international law, such statements are evidence of intent. The UN commission of inquiry confirmed that the ICJ’s provisional measures placed all state parties on notice of a serious risk of genocide in Gaza, triggering legal obligations on third states, including the UK. As its chair, Navi Pillay, stated,
“Israel has flagrantly disregarded the orders for provisional measures from the International Court of Justice…and continued the strategy of destruction of the Palestinians in Gaza.”
Yet in September 2024, UK Government lawyers concluded that there was no serious risk of genocide occurring. That defies the Court, the commission and the law.
The UK itself has argued that genocide is not limited to killings, but includes forced displacement, serious bodily or mental harm and deprivation of food, particularly when children are targeted. Despite that, the UK has failed to acknowledge the risk, failed to respond to the ICJ or the commission and failed to act as it has elsewhere. I ask the Minister what evidence would be required to accept the risk of genocide if neither the ICJ nor the UN commission of inquiry suffices, and why, when the UK has argued that acts against children and forced displacement are indicators of genocidal intent, it has not applied that standard here.
History will judge whether we acted when the warning signs were crystal clear. I urge the Government to acknowledge the risk and meet their legal duty to prevent genocide.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
All of us are here in this Chamber because of the horror we have at the events of 7 October, and the atrocities that have taken place thereafter and that continue to take place. Many of us are also here because of a profound sense of shame—shame at the way the last Government and this Government have conducted themselves throughout this entire affair. Among the many shames that we will all have to bear is the Government’s reluctance to vigorously and assertively participate in the international rules-based order which we built to prevent exactly this kind of eventuality.
As other Members have said, I do not understand what the Government think the ICJ was doing when it ruled that there was a plausible case for genocide. Did they not think that it was triggering exactly the obligations that other Members have mentioned? Those obligations are not rhetorical; they are operational, real, obligatory. We have to act to prevent; we cannot facilitate. Yet time and again, the British Government have done absolutely nothing. From arms to intelligence sharing and diplomatic cover, we have continued as normal.
I am left wondering what it is this country stands for, because it is not just on this obligation that there has been nothing. On the torture convention, even when the reputable Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has just published a report saying that Israel is running
“a network of torture camps”,
there has been nothing from the British Government, notwithstanding their international obligations. On the settlements in the west bank, a hundred parliamentarians wrote to the Government and the ICJ has ruled, yet the Government have done the bare minimum they could get away with to enforce those obligations. There are even the individual cases we have seen on our telephones and on social media: Dr Adnan al-Bursh tortured to death; Hind Rajab, who the world heard as she lay dying in a car, left alone at the age of six; the ambulances ambushed; the hospitals flattened; the schools crushed. Even when British citizens are slaughtered—surely we have an obligation to them if we do not feel that we have one to anybody else—the Government have done nothing. This is a monstrous abdication of duty.
In this regard, the law is not unclear. The facts are not hidden. Daily, we hear Israeli Ministers boasting about what is being done in Gaza. What is missing is political will. It is about time that the Minister and his superiors realised that history does not just judge what Governments do; it judges what they allow.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We have seen UK recognition of Palestine become a reality and a Gaza ceasefire under Labour, but still 70,000 Palestinians have been killed—a figure now accepted by Israel—including 500 people since the ceasefire. We have seen repeated forcible displacement and whole neighbourhoods gone. Is this genocide, like Srebrenica and Rwanda? The ICJ will take years to determine that, but the UN commission of inquiry and the International Association of Genocide Scholars say yes. How does Joe Public decide? With 37 non-governmental organisations, including Oxfam, effectively banned and international media excluded, the external mechanisms that should help us make that assessment are gone. Targeted measures are rendering it impossible to judge. The civilian/combatant line is blurred given the deaths of women and children, making the IDF claim that it always minimises casualties questionable.
The very risk of genocide raises Britain’s obligations under the 1948 convention to prevent genocide or risk complicity.
Although we have allowed children to travel to the UK from Gaza for medical care, and allowed students in, we have also seen Gazan hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, universities and refugee camps destroyed. That biblical devastation is man-made.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
We are here to discuss genocide. As my hon. Friend says, 20,000 children have been killed, 95% of hospitals have been destroyed, and food has been blocked to the point of famine. Does she agree that the House of Commons—and, indeed, the world—cannot stand by and let that happen?
Dr Huq
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He used to work for Save the Children, which has also been de-registered—the shame of it. We must act.
There has been a systematic discrediting of the UN. United Nations Relief and Works Agency buildings have been destroyed, and Francesca Albanese has been accused of being a witch and sanctioned by the US. And what has been proposed in place of the UN? The Gaza board of peace, headed by Donald Trump, which costs $1 billion to join. The board has zero Palestinian representation, but Putin, the President’s son-in-law and Netanyahu all have seats, and its founding charter does not mention Gaza. The UK must not give that vanity project any credence.
Extremist Israeli Ministers have been sanctioned and 30 arms licences suspended, but, as the facts worsen on the ground, we must ramp up our support for real peace efforts, as opposed to grubby real estate deals that are void of international law and bypass Palestinians. Even the ceasefire negotiators were bombed in Qatar. Of course, the acts of Hamas on 7 October must be condemned, but Netanyahu’s war cabinet has since gone way beyond self-defence. Starvation, and the erasure of the international presence to gather evidence on what might or might not be a genocide, must set off alarm bells and requires urgent action for us to be on the right side of history. We must say no to the board of peace. We need a toughened sanctions package and arms embargo, and a full ban on trade in settlement goods—not just the present situation of tariff reductions.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The recent events we have seen unfold in Gaza have been horrific. They are without doubt some of the worst atrocities to have taken place in modern times, carried out by Israel and centred in one small region. The targeting of civilian infrastructure has caused maximum suffering for the civilian population. Medical professionals have been imprisoned. As recently as last month, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that 1,700 aid and health workers have been killed.
Now, during a period of ceasefire, the Israeli Government continue to severely restrict the entry of nutritious food, medical supplies and materials to repair and rebuild civilian infrastructure, and over 400 Palestinians have been killed. Palestinians continue to face famine and forced displacement. Their homes are flattened and their friends and family killed.
Upwards of 250 journalists have been killed. Entire news crews have been wiped out by airstrikes and targeted shootings. The people sent to the frontlines to document and report are struck down beside those they tried to help. I urge the Government to take proactive steps to secure the release of Palestinian medical professionals held in Israeli prisons—they should be free to care for the injured and sick—and to guarantee the safety of journalists reporting in Gaza. Without people to document the unfolding events in conflict zones, we are left without the evidence necessary for reconciliation, civilians are left without the first safeguard of international law, and aggressors feel a sense of immunity.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Israeli Government have committed a genocide in Gaza, and that those responsible must be held to account. Looking forward, we have a responsibility to protect those in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Government have been too slow in reacting to events in Palestine and the west bank. They must step up to their duties under international law by acknowledging the risk of genocide.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Questions of genocide are among the gravest that Parliament must consider, and I thank the many constituents who have written to me in advance of this debate. In the case of Gaza, the International Court of Justice ruled two years ago that there is a “real and imminent risk” of genocide. The Court is still deliberating, with a final judgment expected next year, but in the meantime, this risk requires action.
In the short time I have, I would like to focus on one of those actions. There is a strong case for the Government to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements on the west bank. No further legal judgment is needed to do that. Although global attention has focused rightly on Gaza, settlement expansion, land confiscation and violence have continued on the west bank and in East Jerusalem. More than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed there, and economic activity linked to settlements risks undermining the UK’s long-standing position on their illegality and on the viability of the Palestinian state. The Minister has been clear that settlements are illegal, and I thank him for meeting me to talk about this previously.
The mechanism exists to do this. The UK-Israel trade agreement already differentiates settlement goods, denying them preferential tariffs—postcodes are already provided to show exactly where goods come from. The Government should now consider moving from differentiation to prohibition, using legal tools already available under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, as we have done in relation to Crimea. There is legal precedent, and there is the technical ability to do it.
Palestinian civilians—Palestinian children—have endured extraordinary suffering, displacement, hunger, trauma and loss. They are entitled to not only charity but the protection guaranteed under international law. A ceasefire alone is not enough. The absence of bombs is not the presence of justice. Without reconstruction, accountability, justice and a viable political and economic path, the suffering will continue.
I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the UK will now support the collection and preservation of evidence of war crimes that will be needed for the justice system to do its work, and when the Government will introduce the legislation that is needed—perhaps secondary legislation—to stop trade with illegal settlements on the west bank, in line with the UK’s stated policy and international legal obligations.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The question was asked at the start of this debate, “Whose side are we on?” Let me make something very clear: I am on the side of the people who suffered one of the most horrendous terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023, when their citizens were raped, burnt, taken into captivity and killed in cold blood, and their killers boasted about it and stuck it on the internet. I am on the side of those people who since then have suffered the most sectarian abuse because they are Jews and happen to live in this country.
Members have asked how we can ignore the ruling of the International Court of Justice. First, it has not said there was any intent. Secondly, the judge who decided in that case was twice a candidate for Prime Minister of Lebanon, with the support of a terrorist group, so I do not think we can see the International Court of Justice as an independent body here.
The fact is that Israel took every attempt to reduce the civilian casualties in Gaza. One only has to look at the ratio of civilian casualties in Gaza to those in Iraq or Afghanistan and the actions that Israel has taken, even putting its own soldiers at risk by leafleting, telephoning and using UN co-ordination to say when it will strike and withdrawing some of its strikes when it did. Who put the civilians in harm’s way? Hamas made it quite clear that civilians being killed would put blood into the veins of resistance. That is the kind of enemy Israel is up against. Even if there were an investigation, I do not think it would find that Israel was reckless in the way it has responded to a terrorist attack on its own civilians.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
There is never any justification to kill the number of civilians that have been killed. This is a genocide, and it is not just the ICJ that said it. What about the UN special rapporteurs, UN independent experts, the UN commission of inquiry, and Amnesty International? What about Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and the 600 senior lawyers in the UK, including Lady Hale and Lord Sumption, and many others who call it a genocide?
Sammy Wilson
Hamas would disagree with the hon. Member, because Hamas boasted that the killing of civilians would help to increase the resistance and put some fire into it. Before accusations are made against Israel, let us look at the record of Hamas on putting civilians in harm’s way, and basing their rockets and firing points in hospitals, schools, civilian infrastructure, and therefore inviting the retaliation, based on the fact that Israeli armed forces had to take action. The rules of engagement were such that even the former supreme chief of NATO was able to observe that when it came to the way that Israel engaged the enemy in Gaza, its standards were higher than what we would have expected even of the British Army in such circumstances.
My concern is this: the motion, and this demand—
Sammy Wilson
No, I will not give way. This demand will be used to justify the intimidatory marches that we see week after week throughout the United Kingdom. It will be used to justify the barricading of Jewish businesses, the banning of Jewish students and academics from universities, and even the banning of Israeli sports fans from sporting events in the United Kingdom. This is part of the campaign to justify the sectarianism, which is now creeping into the debate in the United Kingdom—
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for laying out so powerfully the extent to which our Government have failed in their responsibilities to assess the serious risk of genocide, and our legal obligation to act under the genocide convention. Since the latest US-brokered so-called ceasefire took effect, Israeli forces have killed more than 500 Palestinians. The genocide is far from over.
Comrades from across the House will rightly speak about accountability today, so I will focus on our complicity. I am extremely concerned by the Government’s apparent move towards unblocking the already insufficient 29 out of 350 arms licences to Israel that were suspended in September 2024. It was the Government’s own assessment that there was a serious risk of British-made weapons being used in violation of international law, yet on 12 January 2026, in an interview with The Jewish Chronicle, the Secretary of State committed to revisiting both UK-Israel trade discussions and the decision to pause arms export licences, adding that the two matters were “intrinsically linked”. Such a claim is entirely at odds with the Government’s legal obligations under the UK’s own strategic export licensing criteria and international law, including the genocide convention. In addition to the continuous supply of spare parts enabled by the F-35 carve-out, last month three new F-35s were transferred from the UK RAF station at Mildenhall to Israel. Palestinians continue to be failed by our Government, and the Government must not renege on their arms export control criteria now that Gaza is away from the front pages.
If the Government were to weaken their commitment to international law in order to secure a trade deal, that would frankly be shameful. I said in June during my Adjournment debate that this Government’s approach to export licensing was deeply troubling. Seven months after questioning the Minister’s claim about so-called third-country re-exports, I am still awaiting a response. This week I have written again to the Government about the changes to arms licences and the F-35 transfers. I sincerely hope that a reply will come more promptly.
The testimony of Mark Smith, former diplomat and policy adviser at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, sheds light on the disturbing level of access and influence that the arms industry holds over Government decision making. That influence buys Government complicity, and makes a mockery of international law to safeguard profits. As he put it,
“the system is not designed to hold itself accountable—it is designed to protect itself at all costs.”
I once again call on the Government to suspend all arms exports to Israel.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for getting this debate and to all those who have spoken in it. We are having this debate against a background where 71,000 people are known to be dead in Gaza as a result of Israeli bombardment, with many thousands of bodies lying under rubble that will no doubt become the foundations of the casinos and hotels that the Trump plan is visiting on the people of Gaza.
I had the privilege of attending the South African application under the genocide convention at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. It was a deeply moving experience hearing the South African application and the bravery with which they put it and thinking, “This is the country that threw off the yoke of apartheid and had the courage then to stand up for the Palestinian people, facing genocide as they are.” The conclusion by the eminent judges was that there was a credible case that genocide had been committed, and they are going through many details on it.
Following that, last year I introduced a ten-minute Bill in the Chamber calling for this country to set up its own tribunal of investigation on its participation in arms sales to Israel and the bombardment of Gaza. Unsurprisingly, it was blocked. Through the Peace & Justice Project, I then established our own independent Gaza tribunal, which we held over two days in Church House Westminster. I was joined by Shahd Hammouri and Neve Gordon, who assessed a great deal of detailed evidence.
In the one minute and 15 seconds left to me, I cannot go through that evidence, but I will simply say this. There was powerful evidence of doctors in tears because they did not have the equipment to deal with the horrendous injuries that they were asked to deal with in hospitals without electricity, anaesthetic, antiseptic or even clean water. The legal evidence given and the evidence given by former Foreign and Commonwealth Office official Mark Smith was very powerful, as was the evidence about the supply of weapons to Israel through RAF Akrotiri. The matter has now been taken up by a group of UN member states in the Hague convention, who will carry on with it.
Let me conclude with this. As was pointed out earlier, this country was involved in supporting and establishing in the 1920s the International Court of Justice. We pride ourselves on being the custodians of international law and order. This country is making itself complicit in the genocide of the people of Palestine by its supply of weapons. It is time to stop.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for bringing forward this vital debate.
To many of us, it has always been abundantly clear that what is taking place in Palestine does indeed constitute a genocide. Since the Israeli attacks began in 2003, more than 70,000 people have been killed and entire bloodlines have been wiped out. We have witnessed targeted attacks on civilians and journalists, the forced displacement of people from their homes, the obstruction of humanitarian aid, the weaponisation of starvation and the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools and universities. Taken together, those actions demonstrate a clear and deliberate attempt by the Israeli Government to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land.
Since the ceasefire was announced in October, hundreds more Palestinians have been killed. Aid continues to be blocked from entering the region, and there are severe restrictions on the number of sick and wounded people permitted to leave for medical care. Let me be clear: even if Israel had fully complied with the ceasefire agreement, ceased all attacks today and allowed the unconditional flow of aid into Gaza, none of that would undo the suffering already inflicted on the Palestinian people or negate the fact that what has taken place constitutes a genocide.
It is vital that we use the correct language. History will not describe what is unfolding in Palestine as a war, an invasion or just an occupation; it will describe it as a genocide. The questions that future historians will ask are, “Why did the international community fail to recognise it? Why did we do nothing to stop it?” There is a growing body of evidence and a clear consensus among UN experts, human rights organisations and genocide scholars that Israel has committed and continues to commit acts of genocide. The UK has a legal obligation not to aid or assist violations of international law, including a duty to take all possible measures to prevent genocide once a risk has been identified, yet we continue to sell arms to Israel that are undoubtedly being used to attack civilians. I therefore hope that, when the Minister responds, he will explain why the Government believe that it is acceptable to continue the sale and trade of arms that aid Israel’s actions, including with illegal settlements.
It is our moral duty, as a nation with historical responsibility in the region, and as advocates for human rights, to ensure that the Palestinian people are granted the justice, freedom and dignity they deserve.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for securing this important debate, and I highlight that this is only the second time that a Backbench Business debate on Gaza has taken place in this Chamber.
The reaction of the UK Government since they came into office has been, at best, supine, or at worst, grossly negligent. They have responded to UN independent international commissions of inquiry in other contexts, such as Ukraine—and rightly so—but they have failed to do so on Gaza. Back in September 2025, the UN’s “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory” found that Israel had committed a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
On 2 October, as part of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I voted in favour of a resolution on the “devastating humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza. Paragraph 8 of the resolution referred to the UN Human Rights Council’s finding that genocide was taking place, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and it highlighted the obligation of all state parties to prevent genocide under article 1 of the UN convention. Would the hon. Gentleman also welcome a comment from the Minister on the UK’s response to that Assembly resolution?
Seamus Logan
I completely agree with the hon. Lady.
In recent days, we have learned that the IDF has admitted its role in the death of at least 70,000 Palestinians. Meanwhile, Secretary-General António Guterres warns us that, as we enter 2026, the clock is ticking louder than ever, with conditions on the ground in Palestine remaining perilously fragile.
Only yesterday, a UN committee mandated to promote the realisation of Palestinian rights reaffirmed calls for a two-state solution, which Secretary-General Guterres endorsed as the only viable path towards achieving long-lasting peace and security between Palestine and Israel. However, in this context, at least another 449 men, women and children have been killed by Israeli forces during the so-called ceasefire.
Why can the UK Government not see what the UN can? Why do they accept the UN’s reports on Ukraine, but not Gaza? Why do they not accept the conclusions of UK-based lawyers, including Supreme Court justices, who signed a letter to the Prime Minister in May last year to confirm that a genocide is being perpetrated?
I wish to turn to the letter that I and 57 other parliamentarians have signed, led by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), explaining to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade that we are extremely concerned by the Government’s apparent move towards unblocking arms licences to Israel, which they had suspended in September 2024, and the transfer of new F-35s from a British airbase. This is at odds with the Government’s international legal obligations, including the genocide convention. I hope the Minister will be able to explain that decision, given the ongoing violation of the ceasefire by Israeli forces in Gaza, which is continuing the genocidal horror of these past two and a half years.
When talk of peace involves the perpetrators of violence and not the violated—not the voices of those who have lost so much on all sides—war crimes will go unpunished and festering wounds of injustice will lead to further conflict. The Prime Minister, as a former human rights lawyer, must understand that. Why then, given everything that we know, and all that we have witnessed, do his Government remain in a state of ambivalence on assessments of genocide under international law in Palestine? Does the clue to the answer lie in this Government’s protection of trade and diplomatic ties to Israel and the US?
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
What the Palestinian people have endured is cruel, inhumane and completely unacceptable. We know that, last year, it was an Israeli Government blockade that led the United Nations and others to declare a famine in Gaza. We know that the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu for war crimes. We know that more than 90% of the homes across Gaza have been damaged or destroyed.
The UN’s “Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory” concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza strip under the 1948 genocide convention, and human rights organisations such as the International Association of Genocide Scholars—which has already been mentioned—Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Oxfam have expressed the view that genocide has been committed by Israel under international law. Israel has also recently revoked the licences of 37 international NGOs.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
From working with the Norwegian Refugee Council, including my constituent Amelia Rule—who is its head of shelter and settlements—I know the vital work that charity is doing. As my hon. Friend has said, though, in January it was banned from operating in Gaza, along with 36 other NGOs and aid organisations. This move is plainly an attempt by the Israeli Government to circumvent international institutions and accountability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government and the international community should attempt to use all their influence and leverage to push for that ban to be rescinded, so that aid organisations such as the Norwegian Refugee Council can continue their lifesaving work?
Warinder Juss
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
It seems quite clear that the reason the licences have been revoked is to prevent aid from going through, which leads to the assumption, at least, that there might be a risk of genocide taking place.
The UN genocide convention requires states
“to prevent and to punish”
genocide. I will repeat the definition in article II of the convention, which is that genocide is any act
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”—
I emphasise the words “in whole or in part”—
“a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
We cannot stand by and pretend that it is for an international court to decide whether or not genocide has occurred in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and we cannot turn a blind eye as innocent Palestinian people continue to suffer. We are fortunate to have enough distinguished lawyers in this House to decide whether there is at least a risk of genocide having occurred and to conduct that risk assessment, as has been requested in this debate. When do we decide that enough is enough? When do we decide that enough innocent people have been killed and enough suffering has occurred for us to consider that an ally of ours, Israel, may be committing genocide under international law, and to take decisive, concrete action to prevent that genocide by the Israeli Government?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing today’s debate. In June last year, I secured a debate in Westminster Hall on the same topic, and the arguments that I set out at length then still hold; indeed, they have been deepened and strengthened by events since. The Green party has long been clear that the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza constitute genocide, but I agree with the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) that it is important to be clear about language, so I will make very specific arguments with respect to the genocide convention.
Under the convention, the UK has a legal obligation to assess the risk of genocide, and to act to prevent it when that risk is clear. Article I specifies that the contracting parties undertake
“to prevent and to punish”
genocide. By definition, prevention has to happen before an event has happened, or before it is completed; it cannot wait for a court case after genocide has conclusively taken place. Does the Minister therefore accept that the UK has a duty under article I of the genocide convention to prevent genocide when a serious risk is identified?
Article II sets out a range of acts that, if
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”
a specific group, constitute genocide. Five acts are specified; only one of them needs to be occurring for it to be concluded that genocide is taking place, and there is very widespread agreement that at least four of those acts are happening in Gaza. They include
“Killing members of the group…Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”
and
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
What else is cutting off water and preventing the delivery of food, lifesaving medicines, fuel and power? The fourth is
“Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”.
The wholesale destruction of healthcare in Gaza is clear evidence that this is occurring.
It is not just me or the International Court of Justice who says that; the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Médecins Sans Frontières, Amnesty, B’Tselem, Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, the UN commission of inquiry and hundreds of British lawyers say it, as we have heard. Why does the Minister not accept the conclusion of that wide swathe of people that genocide is indeed taking place, or at least that there is a plausible risk, which therefore entails his obligations under article 1?
Article III(e) of the genocide convention specifies that complicity in genocide is punishable. Let us be clear about UK complicity: we have the export of arms, including F-35s, the sharing of intelligence and continued participation in settlement trade, which is participation in the proceeds of crime—that is, land seizure. What more evidence do the UK Government need that genocide is taking place and that we are complicit in it before they take the long-overdue actions that are in their power?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this debate and for so clearly and accurately setting the scene. The awkward truth for many in this Parliament is that genocide has occurred in occupied Palestine for decades, and the silence from the international community has allowed and enabled Israeli Governments to persecute and oppress the Palestinian people. It has emboldened Netanyahu and his murderous regime to commit the genocide that we have all witnessed in Gaza.
Israel commits different types of genocide. Last November I was fortunate enough to be in the west bank, and I heard of the cultural genocide that is taking place, with students and lecturers unable to go to university because of roadblocks and checkpoints. I heard about the universities, colleges and schools that have been flattened throughout Gaza, with lecturers now giving classes in tents as makeshift classrooms. How on earth do we expect Gaza to be rebuilt when Palestinians are unable to be educated?
Netanyahu’s Government have also by design crippled the Palestinian economy by impacting on Palestinians’ ability to trade, making them reliant on Israel for goods, produce and, ultimately, their very survival. Israel uses economic terrorism as a tool of subjugation. With the seizures of Palestinian farms, and by making it almost impossible for those who remain to trade, Israel impoverishes Palestinians. There is a concerted international effort to normalise Palestinians’ reliance on Israel to be the provider of lifesaving aid, while making it near impossible for Palestinians to be self-sufficient, driving Palestinians to starvation.
As well as this collective punishment of Palestinians, another goal of this broader plan is to impose capitalism through the imperial project that the Israeli Government promote. That is all wilfully aided by western democracies. Shame on any Government of any party of any nation who have allowed and been complicit in these awful atrocities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If interventions are made, not all colleagues will get in. Please consider that.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this crucial debate. As he said, any person of conscience can and must condemn both the illegal actions of Hamas on 7 October and the illegal actions of Israel in its response for the 850 days since that horrific day.
Despite the plausible risk of genocide inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian people having been identified by the ICJ, the UN and multiple other agencies and experts, successive UK Governments have consistently refused to acknowledge that risk, and they have failed in their obligations to take immediate, proactive measures to prevent a genocide of the Palestinian people.
Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back Hind Rajab, her six family members or the two paramedics who tried to save her. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the 2,700 family bloodlines wiped out at Israel’s hands, or the relatives of more than 6,000 sole survivors. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions genocide or not, it will not bring back the parents of a new generation of Palestinian orphans created through Israeli slaughter, such as the three-year-old Wesam, who was left with a lacerated liver and kidney after an Israeli airstrike that killed her five-year-old brother, her pregnant mother, her father and her grandparents.
Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the almost 300 journalists assassinated for trying to report Israeli war crimes in real time. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the more than 100 Palestinian hostages executed in Israeli detention centres in the last two and a half years. I regret that I do not have time to pay tribute to each and every individual murdered by the genocidal Israeli regime, who will not be affected by this Government’s decisions.
The point is that accepting the irrefutable and serious risk of genocide would oblige the UK to hold Israel accountable. It would save lives in the present by creating legal obligations for the UK Government to cease arms exports, impose sanctions and prosecute those committing war crimes.
I end my speech with a quote from Francesca Albanese:
“The ongoing genocide in Gaza is a collective crime, sustained by the complicity of influential Third States that have enabled longstanding systemic violations of international law by Israel. Framed by colonial narratives that dehumanize the Palestinians, this live-streamed atrocity has been facilitated through Third States’ direct support, material aid, diplomatic protection and, in some cases, active participation.”
The UK has aided and abetted this genocide—
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The reason we are here is that there is a profound responsibility on us, as Members of Parliament in particular, to ensure that our Government act in accordance with international humanitarian law. There are two questions that we need to pose time and again. First, what evidence would it take to convince the Government that there is a risk of genocide? That means evidence not that there is genocide, but that there is a risk of genocide. Secondly, what process should the Government use to determine that?
On the first question, I am absolutely perplexed as to why the evidential methods that we have used in the past, when we have determined that there have been genocides, are not simply being accepted by the Government at the moment, given the loss of life—the 70,000, as has been said—and the way in which the genocide has been perpetrated. There are the attacks on health workers and doctors, with 1,700 killed that we know about, and at least 100 who have been imprisoned, tortured, denied access to medical facilities, and even to their own families.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
John McDonnell
No, I cannot accept any interventions.
There is also the number of journalists killed—more than 300—because part of this genocide is to prevent the reporting of the genocide. And, yes, there is the forced movement of people, with 9,000 prisoners in Israeli prisons, 100 of whom have died in the past two years. That is the evidence we present time and again. It is the same kind of evidence we have used in the past to determine genocide, so why is it not acceptable now?
The second question is about the process. I will just say to the Minister that time and again we have had these debates. People have lost confidence in the process that the Government are using to arrive at their determination of whether there is a risk of genocide. I am afraid that not only have Members of this House and the wider public lost confidence in the internal processes, but that is what is forcing people out on to the streets and into forms of direct action, because they have lost confidence in the Government’s own objective assessment.
I therefore suggest this to the Minister: why not establish an independent commission? Use people such as Philippe Sands and others, and let the House determine who sits on that commission, so that they can report back to the Minister on the evidence available. I think that the Government, once they see the evidence, will have to accept that there is at least a risk of genocide, and that will have to determine their actions. Some of those have been set out today: the end of trade, the end of the arms sales, and the prevention role that we have to play in securing peace and justice for the Palestinian people—and yes, for the Israeli people—for the long term.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Since the beginning of this latest catastrophe, following the horrors of 7 October, those of us who have been asking for balance, respect and nothing more radical than a justice-based international order have been castigated, and some of us have even been criminalised. We are now 26 months into this horror, and we are still asking for the same thing. We are pleading for the principles on which we as a country agreed following two wars—after humanity confronted its own capacity for evil and promised, “Never again.” We built structures to ensure that this would never happen again, yet Gaza has stripped away any remaining illusion that this rules-based order still exists.
Let us be clear about what we are discussing today. As defined in international law, genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a people because of who they are. Measured against this definition, the Government’s position on Gaza is not cautious; it is morally incoherent. At least 71,000 Palestinian men, women and children have been murdered. We have witnessed this in real time, yet we are told to wait and not to jump to conclusions. Where were the systems that were meant to guide us when humanity crossed the line once more?
Let us start with the media, the purveyors of the truth. Foreign media are not allowed into Israel, so what has happened? Three hundred Palestinian journalists have been killed. One of them was Anas Al-Sharif. Before he was murdered, he said:
“I never once hesitated to convey the truth exactly as it is…hoping that God would bear witness against those who stayed silent in this world”.
Staying silent is precisely what too many people have done.
What of the international rules-based order? The International Court of Justice is hearing a genocide case. Advisory opinions have been issued, and the law is trying to work, yet when the International Criminal Court seeks accountability, which is what it has done before, the response is not support but hostility. Sanctions are imposed, and threats are made. In fact, our Foreign Secretary allegedly threatened the ICC’s chief prosecutor by saying that accountability would be like dropping a hydrogen bomb. I ask plainly: are international courts only legitimate when the accused are Africans?
Journalists have been killed, courts have been intimidated and international law has been subverted to feed a genocide. More than 1,500 aid workers have been killed. Surgeons have been crying in front of the children they are trying to save. If they were in this country, they would be able to save those children, who are dying right in front of them. This is just daily life in Gaza, and we have no political will.
I will end with this. This weekend I watched “The Voice of Hind Rajab”, which is about a six-year-old who became the voice of the children of Gaza. She was trapped in a car with her family. She cried out to the world that night, “It’s getting dark. Please come and save me.” Nobody came for her. It is getting dark for the world, and we must lighten up the world for them.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this important debate. Like many Members, I have received many emails from my constituents, and I speak today to give a voice to their concerns.
It is difficult to put into context the sheer scale of death and destruction that we have seen in Gaza over the last two years. We all know the figures: one in every 33 people has died since the start of the assault, and over 90% of homes have been damaged. As the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) highlighted, behind the statistics are real human stories. We have heard from doctors in Gaza who have been operating without anaesthetic and performing emergency C-sections on women without painkillers, and there has been a rapid increase in child mortality. We have heard of children who have been shot by snipers not once, but twice. It is sometimes easy for us to become desensitised to what we are seeing, but we must not stop calling it out.
The world-respected peace charity Doctors Without Borders has been banned from operating in Gaza and the occupied west bank following its refusal to hand over a list of its staff. What does it mean if lifesaving organisations that carry out work in war zones are being banned? The UK must be very clear about this. As a signatory to the genocide convention, we have a legal obligation to call out and prevent genocide, as do the other 153 states that ratified the treaty. For the treaty to be effective, and for us to stop not just this but future genocides, we must speak with one voice. We must listen when the United Nations tells us that
“Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.”
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a Select Committee Chair, for giving way in this important debate. As she points out, one in every 33 people in Gaza has been killed and one in every 14 has been injured. Does she agree that the sheer colossal scale of the assault on the Palestinian people demonstrates the mass and indiscriminate nature of the action, and indicates a clear risk of international law violation and genocide?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important intervention. I think that is what we are all trying to get at, and Members from right across the House want answers on that.
It is imperative to listen and act when such respected bodies speak with one voice. It is vital to our ability to stop future genocides. Genocide is not something we can recognise only when it is politically convenient; we must call it out, without fear or favour, whenever and wherever it is occurring. What we are seeing in plain sight in Gaza meets the definition of genocide. I urge the Minister to listen to the powerful voices from across the House—in the way he has listened to us on the many occasions when he meets us to hear about our constituents’ concerns—because there must be a reckoning for what is happening before our eyes, and history will judge us for anything less.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Andrew George to speak for two minutes.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) on bringing this issue to the House. I was worried that we would concentrate primarily on the jurisprudence—on the merits of the arguments over whether the threshold in the definition has been reached. We are politicians and do not have—I certainly do not have—the skillset to make such an analysis. I find that arguments are advanced, as they were by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley)—very eloquently, of course—that engage in the political sophistry of the issue itself, and that worries me.
The bottom line is that what has been happening in the middle east is appalling, and the level of death and destruction has shocked the world. Of course, the horrors of 7 October 2023 were absolutely appalling, but we all need to reflect on the overwhelming response of the Netanyahu regime, which has taken such advantage of the opportunity for retribution. This is not just about the mass murder in Gaza itself but, as Members have said, about the murder of our aid workers, including Cornish aid worker Jim Henderson. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said that the strikes have been careful, but they have not been careful; the strikes have been indiscriminate and certainly amount to clear murder.
I just hope that the Government will stop doing the minimum they can get away with—stop the trading, stop the excusing, stop the support of the Israeli regime—because it is in the interests of the international world order, of the Palestinians and Palestine, and of Israel itself to get this sorted.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you very much. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to speak for just a few minutes.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
What we have witnessed in Gaza is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. It has been a catastrophe both for the hostages who have endured Hamas’s brutal captivity and for the millions of Palestinian civilians whose lives, homes and communities have been devastated by Israel’s military offensive, so let me be absolutely and unequivocally clear about the Liberal Democrat position. Alongside global NGOs, aid organisations, Israeli human rights organisations and the UN commission of inquiry, we consider there to be credible evidence that the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza during the military campaign have amounted to genocide. For the avoidance of any doubt, Hamas are a terrorist organisation whose crimes on 7 October were acts of mass human atrocity that we continue to utterly and categorically condemn.
Given that reality, what matters now is accountability on all sides, which is why access to Gaza for journalists and human rights organisations is so fundamentally important. I am reminded that British journalist Ed Vulliamy exposed the existence and brutality of Serb- run detention camps in Bosnia. His reporting later contributed to the proceedings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, forming part of the evidentiary record for prosecutions that included findings of genocide. It is imperative, therefore, that we do not allow evidence in Gaza to disappear, damage to be cleared away or truth to be lost before accountability can be pursued.
However, accountability in itself is not enough, and that must sharpen our focus on what is required to move beyond the repeated cycles of violence. Only genuine progress towards a two-state solution can deliver lasting security and dignity for Palestinians and Israelis, so the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to rule out ever participating in Trump’s board of peace. Reconstruction must be co-ordinated by the United Nations with the involvement of the Palestinians, who have been excluded from Trump’s proposals. Aid must be allowed in at scale and rapidly. Hamas must be disarmed; there is no place for a genocidal terror group to take part in Palestine’s future. The UK should ban all trade with illegal Israeli settlements. Finally, the UK must deepen its engagement with the Palestinian Authority following the recognition of the state of Palestine.
International law underpins our shared liberal values and, indeed, our British values. It exists to constrain power, uphold accountability and protect civilians across the world. I urge the Government to act now.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Before turning to the legal issues, it is important to begin with the fundamental moral reality of this conflict. I want to be clear: we welcome the release of the surviving hostages, who returned home to Israel after more than 730 days in captivity. They were abducted by Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, and held in utterly unimaginable conditions. We pray for the health and recovery of those who survived and for their families as they attempt to rebuild their lives after such trauma. With the return of the final hostage, our thoughts are also with the families of all those who will not be returning alive.
This conflict arose from the brutal massacre of civilians on 7 October 2023—the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history and the worst pogrom against the Jewish people since the second world war. If the current ceasefire is to lead to a long-term and sustainable peace, one principle must be non-negotiable: Hamas must no longer hold power and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Recent reports of violence between Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza underline precisely why Hamas cannot be part of Gaza’s future. Hamas govern through terror and repression and prioritise their own survival over the welfare of Palestinian civilians. The suffering in Gaza is directly linked to Hamas’s choices and their governance.
Much of today’s debate has focused on allegations of genocide, so let us be clear: we do not believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. That was the position of the previous Conservative Government and, to my understanding, it remains the position of the current Government. I hope the Minister will reaffirm that clearly in his response. Every innocent life lost is a tragedy, but the Israel Defence Forces do not deliberately target civilians; Hamas, in contrast, embed themselves in civilian areas, store weapons in schools and hospitals and use civilians as human shields. Israel’s stated objective is to dismantle an Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that threatens its very existence; Hamas’s objective is the destruction of the state of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.
It has long been the British position that determinations of genocide are matters for competent courts, not unilateral political declarations. That is fundamental. I ask the Minister to confirm that that remains the Government’s position and whether he accepts that genocidal intent is not abstract in this conflict. The Hamas charter and the language routinely used by Iran and its terrorist proxies call openly for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Should we not be unequivocal in calling out those terrorist and genuinely genocidal ideologies, rather than misapplying that most serious of legal terms? It is precisely because genocide is the gravest of crimes that the term must be used with care, discipline and legal precision. The genocide convention was never intended to be reduced to a political slogan or applied without rigorous assessment of intent, evidence and context. To dilute that standard is not to protect international law but to undermine it.
There is much more I would like to talk about today, not least the current humanitarian situation. However, being conscious of time, I will conclude by saying that the Abraham accords remain a credible pathway to regional peace and that Saudi normalisation with Israel is central to that effort.
The Conservative party is clear about the future we seek. We are committed to a future in which terrorism has no place and Hamas are permanently removed from power. We are focused on what comes next: a safe and secure state of Israel and a Gaza that is rebuilt, governed responsibly, free from terror and capable of offering its people stability, dignity and hope.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) on opening this debate and on his contribution as the chair of the APPG. I thank every Member who has spoken with such clarity and conviction. These are incredibly important questions at a moment when questions of international justice are very much discussed, so I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I really do insist on accuracy in these questions.
To answer the question straightforwardly, as I did at length on 15 September in front of the Business and Trade Committee, the British Government have conducted an assessment on the risk of genocide in accordance with our international legal obligations. As I said yesterday, or the day before, from this Dispatch Box, we consider our international legal obligations to be of the utmost priority. Many hon. Members have asked me to attend to my conscience over the course of the last 90 minutes. I am confident that I, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole are serious about our international legal obligations and serious about the process and rigour that underpin them. I have confidence in that judgment not only because of the extensive scrutiny that it has received from the House, but because these questions have been tested by our own courts—most recently by the Court of Appeal in November and before that in September, when it considered the process of assessment explicitly.
Mr Adnan Hussain
The problem that we have is this question of accountability and transparency. Our domestic courts do not have the right footing to test whether the Government have truly got this right. It therefore falls to this House—to us as Members of Parliament—to assess whether the Government are right. The problem is that we do not have the details. We do not have the methodology. Who assesses it? At what time and date was it done? Will the Minister commit to at least disclosing that information?
Mr Falconer
I think I answered something like 105 questions related to these issues in front of the Select Committee in September. I am always grateful for the opportunity to describe matters in the House in greater detail, but, given the shortness of time, I might just turn to a few other questions of accuracy.
First, the International Court of Justice as not yet made a finding of genocide. It has made provisional orders. I agree with the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about the scourge of antisemitism, but I do not agree with the question that he raises about the independence and impartiality of the ICJ. It is a vital international institution. We need to see it do its work. We undermine it if we seek to jump to the end of that process. It will be for the Court to make a judgment. It is, of course, for the Government to consider our obligations and to make an assessment of risks, which we have already done.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Given what Minister said about adherence to international law, will he just put on the record why the Government have not responded to the advisory opinion of the ICJ for over 18 months now? Is it because the consequence of that response is that there would have to be sanctions against settlements, which are illegal under international law?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has paid close attention to these matters both over the past 18 months and before. I will answer his question, but we are under the pressure of time.
Let me also be clear, for the sake of accuracy, that it is simply not credible to suggest that the policy of this Government in relation to these issues is the same as the policy of the last Government. That, I am sure, was obvious from some of the remarks of the shadow Foreign Minister. I have stood at this Dispatch Box to recognise the Palestinian state and to announce sanctions three times, including against Israeli Ministers. Does that mean that the obligation on this Government to do everything that we can to address the horrors of Gaza is discharged? No, it does not, but we do the House no service if we pretend that the policy that I have been responsible for as the Middle East Minister was the same as the policy under the Conservative Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) asks a good question about the ICJ advisory opinion. Over the course of the last 18 months, the British Government have clearly made a fundamental change on their view of the legal position in relation to Israel and Palestine. We now recognise Palestine. It is in the context of Britain having changed its policy very significantly that we want to ensure that we respond to what is a far-reaching advisory opinion with the rigour and seriousness that it deserves. I know that I am testing my hon. Friend’s patience and the patience of the House with that answer, and I am sure that I will return soon to this Chamber, but I would not want to give the House or the public the impression that we have not taken significant steps in the course of that 18 months.
I would also like to bring to the attention of this House some of the recent developments in Gaza. These legal questions are incredibly important, and they have been considered by both the courts and the relevant Select Committees.
Fleur Anderson
On recent developments, my grandfather fought for our country in Palestine. There are reports that the IDF has destroyed a cemetery in Gaza containing graves of allied troops from both world wars. Would the Minister condemn that?
Mr Falconer
I would. From my own constituency, there are two privates—Private William Jordan and Private Wilfred Ogden—both in that cemetery who have now had their graves defaced.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Mr Adnan Hussain
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier on in the debate I referred to several organisations and individuals. Due to time constraints, I was unable to do so with full accuracy. In the interests of clarity and to keep the record of this House correct, I now seek to set the record straight.
I referred to the International Court of Justice. I clarified that it has found a plausible risk of genocide, triggering the clearest legal duty on all states to prevent it. I then referred to UN special rapporteurs, UN independent experts, and the UN commission of inquiry. They have all warned of genocidal acts and catastrophic intent. I referred to the 600 lawyers—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. No doubt, the record is now clarified. We cannot continue the debate. It is now 5.1 pm, and the debate is now over.
NHS Dentists
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to an issue that affects millions of British people and families right across our country: the current state of NHS dental services throughout the UK.
Our NHS dentistry, from which I and so many others in North Down have benefited, as have countless people across our United Kingdom, was founded on the basic principle—indeed, I would call it a promise—that everyone regardless of income, background or postcode should be able to access essential dental care when they need it. It is a foundational pillar of our wider health system and a critical measure of our nation’s public health. Every Member of this House would do well to ask where that basic principle and promise now stands in Britain in 2026.
Our NHS dentistry is under severe and unsustainable strain. I want to speak plainly about where we are, why and how we have reached this point, how it is affecting both patients and professionals alike, and, if we are truly serious about saving NHS dentistry for future generations, what must be done if it is to be resolved.
Across North Down, Northern Ireland and, indeed, the whole United Kingdom, the picture is deeply disturbing and for too many, painfully familiar. Finding an NHS dentist has become increasingly difficult. My constituents in North Down, like so many in England, Scotland and Wales, are joining waiting lists that stretch for months and in some cases even years. Some are ringing multiple practices in their area only to be met with the same response: “We are not taking on NHS patients.” Others are told that their only option is to go private or travel long distances simply to access basic dental care.
I would love to tell the House that this is a marginal problem that affects only a small minority, but it is increasingly becoming the lived reality of British families, older people and children in towns, cities and rural communities across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The reality in Britain is that fewer practices are offering NHS appointments, there are growing backlogs for routine check-ups, and increasing numbers of patients are turning up with dental pain and infection at GPs or accident and emergency departments—places that were never designed for dental care.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member consider that part of the problem as to why dentists do not offer NHS appointments is because contracts have not been updated and perhaps they feel that when they do NHS work they are not properly paid?
Alex Easton
That is certainly one of the major issues that needs to be addressed. Shockingly and frighteningly, people are resorting to DIY dentistry because their pain is so great and they simply cannot afford treatment. No MP can sleep easily in 2026 when British people are pulling out their own teeth at home.
Our NHS system is under pressure. Why is this happening? Is the reality not that funding has not kept pace with demand or with the cost of prioritising high-quality dental care?
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this important debate. In Amber Valley, recruitment and retention continue to be the main barriers to NHS dental access, despite £240,000 of additional funding that I have managed to secure from Derbyshire locally. Does the hon. Member agree that the Minister should set out how the new NHS dentistry contract will include concrete, funded measures to increase the workforce so that my constituency and his, and those up and down the country, will finally see a material improvement in access to NHS treatment?
Alex Easton
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing that funding. I totally agree with all her sentiments. Maybe you can give me a clue how to get that funding as well for Northern Ireland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Not “you”, Mr Easton—it was not me that you were referring to. You have lots of time, so enjoy it.
Alex Easton
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all understand that there are regional differences in how dental contracts work across our UK nations. However, a common theme is identified: many of our NHS dentists feel that they are being asked to do more to address complex needs with resources that simply do not match the reality on the ground. My research indicates that in some parts of the United Kingdom, the very way that dentists are paid actively works against the long-term interests of patients. The current system rewards quick, high-volume work rather than the kind of long-term, preventive care that is essential if we are serious about keeping mouths in Britain healthy.
Many of our newly qualified dentists tell me that the NHS contracts are inflexible, overly bureaucratic and in many cases financially unsustainable for anything beyond the most basic level of service.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The hon. Member is making a strong case. The number of dentists leaving the NHS across the UK is driven by chronic underfunding and the failed dental contract. Last month, the Minister suggested that long-term fundamental reform might only be introduced from 2027 onwards. Does the hon. Member agree that that reform must be brought forward as soon as possible and that we need clarity on when? Does he also agree that the one-third cut in real terms of the dentistry budget that we have seen since 2010 must be reversed by this Government?
Alex Easton
I agree that reforms need to be brought forward a lot quicker.
What is the result? I will tell hon. Members what it is: we are seeing a growing number of dentists reducing the amount of NHS work, handing back NHS contracts altogether and leaving the profession earlier than they intended. I do not, for one moment, accept that that is a question of dedication or commitment. Our dentists, dental nurses, therapists and practice staff put in a hard shift day after day in a system that too often feels stacked against them. Their burnout is real; their morale is low. They are left apologising to patients, not only in North Down but right across the United Kingdom, for a system that is not of their own making and not under their control.
There is a human cost here. This must never be reduced to a dry debate about contracts and budgets, because behind every statistic is a person. Let us think of the elderly person in a British care home struggling to eat properly because they cannot get regular dental visits and their dentures no longer fit; the British parent trying desperately to get their child seen for a broken tooth, only to be told that their nearest NHS dentist is many miles away; or the low-income British citizen—the person who never missed an NHS check-up—now being told they can only be seen privately, at a fee far beyond their means.
Let me be absolutely clear: dental health is not a luxury; it is integral to our overall health and wellbeing. The facts are stark. Poor oral health is linked to heart disease, diabetes, respiratory infections and complications in pregnancy. Untreated tooth decay can cause severe pain, days lost from work or school, and a serious blow to confidence and mental health. Let us be honest: inequality runs through this story like lettering in a stick of rock. People on low incomes and those living in our most deprived areas are more likely to suffer the consequences of poor oral health and less likely to be able to escape them. Regrettably, the British reality in 2026 is this: children from our most deprived communities are still far more likely to be admitted to hospital for tooth extraction under general anaesthetic than anything else—an experience that is traumatic and, in many cases, entirely preventable.
I recognise that health is a devolved matter and that the four nations of our United Kingdom have taken different approaches to organising and funding NHS dentistry. In Wales, new contract models focused on prevention and patient-centred care are being piloted. Yet, as I understand it, patients still report serious difficulties in finding an NHS dentist and securing regular check-ups.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Is the hon. Member aware that the east of England is the only region of the UK that has no dental school, which severely impacts the availability of dentists? Will he join me in pressing the Government and the Minister to do all they can to expedite a proposal by the University of East Anglia to open a new dental school in the east of England to help address that recruitment and supply issue?
Alex Easton
The hon. Member makes a valid point, which I urge the Minister to pick up.
In Scotland, efforts have been made to reform the system and expand free dental care for certain groups, but workforce challenges persist, as do the difficulties of sustaining practices in rural and remote areas. In England, some of the most acute access problems are reported. Many practices say that the current contract does not reward preventive care, nor does it adequately reflect the complexity of modern dentistry.
In Northern Ireland, we have our own contractual framework. The concerns we hear, however, are strikingly familiar: rising costs, mounting workforce pressures and an unsustainable gap between what the NHS pays and what it actually costs to provide care. Northern Ireland is at a crossroads in NHS dentistry. We see a steady erosion of NHS dental provision, more practices moving to private models, longer waiting times at those practices that remain in the NHS, greater pressure on community dental services and growing inequalities between those who can pay and those who simply cannot. But it does not have to be like this.
The lessons we draw for Northern Ireland are equally applicable across the rest of the UK. Let us work with dentists, patients, commissioners and independent experts to design a modern contract and funding model that can reward prevention and continuity of care; recognise the complexity of treating people with additional needs and vulnerable groups; support high street NHS practices as the backbone of accessible care; and provide a clear, attractive pathway for young dentists to enter and remain in NHS-focused practice. This House can shape what is needed in Northern Ireland and apply those principles right across the UK.
To conclude, let me underline some urgent UK-wide actions. First, we need a realistic, sustainable funding settlement. Let us address this with honesty: if we truly desire a meaningful NHS dental offer, this Parliament must fund it.
Secondly, we must move beyond temporary uplifts and crisis top-ups and design a long-term settlement. The real question before us is, are we prepared to put NHS dentistry on a stable footing not just for this Parliament, but for future generations?
Thirdly, we must reform the dental contract with a new model that prioritises prevention; encourages regular check-ups, fluoride use and early intervention; creates clear incentives to take on new NHS patients; and rewards quality with a focus on outcomes and patient experience, not just on volume and throughput. Children, particularly those growing up in poverty, could benefit from school and community-based prevention schemes. People with disabilities and complex needs could access specialist attention and the longer appointments that they require. Older citizens, including those in care homes, could receive routine, dignified dental healthcare. We also need a credible solution focused on workforce planning that is based on real need, not short-term firefighting, as well as training pathways that support and prioritise NHS services, and effective retention measures so that experienced staff are not driven out of the system.
The decline of NHS dentistry is not inevitable. We must answer these questions honestly. Are we prepared to drift into a future in which NHS dentistry is an optional extra, while the majority are pushed towards private care, or do we commit clearly to inclusive and universal NHS dentistry in which cost is not a barrier and postcode lotteries do not determine success? Let the UK lead in addressing this problem. Let this House reaffirm for the whole country the enduring British principle that good dental care is not a luxury but a right and entitlement of every British citizen.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing this important debate. I thank him for his work to raise awareness of the challenges facing dental patients in his constituency and across the United Kingdom. It is vital that we work together, across the four nations of the United Kingdom, to tackle the long-standing problems that adults and children have been facing in accessing an NHS dentist when they need one. I also thank other hon. Members and hon. Friends for their powerful contributions to the debate. I know that access to dentistry is a matter of continuing concern for Members and their constituents.
The concerns Members have raised support the many testimonies I have heard directly from patients, dentists, members of the wider dental team, and their representatives. In July 2024, we inherited a dental system in crisis. That is evident in the adult oral health survey of 2023, which provides the first picture of adult oral health in England for more than a decade, and shows poor oral health in adults. Among adults with their own teeth, over two fifths—41%—showed evidence of obvious decay, 93% had some form of gum disease, and 19% had one or more potentially urgent dental conditions. This Government are determined to fix that.
Our 10-year health plan confirms our commitment to transforming NHS dentistry so that it is fit for future generations. We have established a platform for future success by reducing the NHS dentistry underspend from £392 million in 2023-24 to just £36 million. The decrease in underspend is leading to an increase in NHS dentistry, but I absolutely accept that there is still a long way to go. Over the past 18 months, the Government have made great strides in improving NHS dentistry, not just for patients but for the dental workforce delivering oral care to our nation. My immediate priority when taking up this ministerial post was to ensure that people who need an urgent dental appointment are prioritised and able to access the care that they need quickly. It is essential that we direct care towards those who need it most.
We all have a duty to reduce health inequalities, which are sorely felt in NHS dentistry. That is why, since last April, we have been making extra urgent dental appointments available to ensure that patients with urgent dental needs can get the treatment they require. Those extra appointments are available across the country, and are more heavily weighted towards the areas in which they are needed most. We are also incentivising high street dentists to offer further appointments in order to maximise availability for those in need of urgent care.
We recognise that access to NHS dental services remains a challenge in certain parts of the country. In addition to our urgent appointments, integrated care boards are recruiting dentists through the dental recruitment incentive scheme—known as the “golden hello” scheme. That initiative offers a financial incentive to encourage dentists to work in underserved areas for a minimum commitment of three years.
This Government have heard dentists’ concerns that they do not think the current dental contract is fit for purpose. Talks are under way, including with the British Dental Association, to scope our plans for potential changes. We remain open-minded and keen to consider how different payment models could best improve the delivery of care to dental patients. In reforming the dental contract, we want to focus on matching resources to need, improving access, promoting prevention and rewarding dentists fairly. We also want to enable the whole dental team to work to the top of their capabilities.
But reforming the dental contract is a significant challenge, and there are no quick fixes or easy answers. That is why in our 10-year health plan, we committed to fundamental reform of the dental contract by the end of this Parliament, with significant steps in 2026-27. Talks are under way with the British Dental Association, and we are making progress on these matters.
In addition to delivering fundamental contract reform over the longer term, we have already made significant progress through our 2026 reforms. We held a public consultation last summer on changes to the current NHS dental contract to address the pressing issues that dentists and dental teams said they were experiencing. The Government’s response, published in December, took account of the views of the dental sector as well as people with lived experience. Our reforms will utilise the existing dental contract to deliver the right care to the right people, while incentivising dentists to provide more NHS care. By prioritising patients with the greatest needs and making more efficient use of dentists’ time, the changes will ensure that the NHS dentistry budget delivers value for money for the taxpayer.
From 1 April, we will start to implement the reforms. For the first time, we are introducing provisions in the dental contract to embed urgent dental care appointments, making it easier for patients to access this care. We are increasing payments to dentists to deliver that care from £42 on average to £75 for that unit of dental activity. We are providing new treatment pathways for patients with complex treatment needs, paid at a set fee of around £250 or £700 depending on the pathway, while enabling and encouraging dentists to deliver more preventive care. These reforms will make full use of the existing dental contract, to ensure that patients receive the right care at the right time, while creating clear incentives for dentists to provide more NHS care. As I say, they will kick in from 1 April.
England has more than 38,000 registered dentists, of whom 10,700 are full-time equivalent general dentists delivering NHS care. As we take forward our reform programme to rebuild NHS dentistry, we are clear that strengthening the workforce is key to achieving our ambitions. This Government are committed to publishing a 10-year workforce plan to set out actions to create a workforce that is ready to deliver the transformed service set out in our overall 10-year health plan.
We are taking steps to increase the capacity of our dental workforce. As announced in our 10-year health plan, we will make it a requirement for newly qualified dentists to practise in the NHS for a minimum period. We intend that minimum period to be at least three years. That will mean more NHS dentists, more NHS appointments and better oral health.
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the Minister for highlighting the need for the dental workforce to be strengthened. We have a dental desert in East Anglia. The University of East Anglia stands ready to open a new dental school. It has permission from the General Dental Council but is awaiting the funded undergraduate dental places that will be needed to start training new dentists from 2027. Can the Minister set out how those places will be made available on the basis of regional need, so that dental deserts such as the east of England can start to build a sustainable dental workforce?
Stephen Kinnock
I congratulate the University of East Anglia on its accreditation through the GDC as a dental school. That is a huge step in the right direction, and we strongly support it. The next step is that the Office for Students has to allocate places. The Government have not funded any new dental school places since 2007. I am fighting hard for those dental places to be made available. We are quite close, I hope, to being able to share some positive steps on that. The OfS makes the decisions about allocating the places, but it does take advice from Ministers. My counterpart in the Department for Education and I will be sending a letter to the OfS, with some advice on how it should make decisions about where dental places should be made available, and the fact that UEA has a new dental school is an important factor in those considerations.
I welcome the General Dental Council’s recent announcement confirming the appointment of a new provider for the overseas registration exam—the ORE. The new arrangements are set to more than double the annual number of dentists able to join the register via that route, and it represents a significant step forward in addressing workforce shortages and NHS patient access. I met the General Dental Council at the end of last year to discuss its comprehensive plan to address the current ORE waiting list, and to urge it to get that waiting list sorted, because frankly the backlogs were not acceptable. We are looking at an increase in the supply of overseas qualified dentists joining the GDC register. I expect the measures to be taken by the GDC to deliver substantial improvements to the international registration processes, enabling increased numbers of overseas qualified dentists to join the register more swiftly and efficiently.
We know that prevention is better than cure. Alongside urgently needed reforms to treat existing poor oral health, I am committed to improving oral health in this country, not just for children, but the wider population too. Water fluoridation is an effective public health intervention for reducing the prevalence of tooth decay and improving oral health inequalities. Under this Government, we will see much needed expansion of water fluoridation in the north-east of England, with further feasibility studies for other parts of the country.
We are already investing in integrated care boards to support supervised toothbrushing for three-to-five-year-old children, and our innovative partnership with Colgate-Palmolive will support up to 600,000 children to develop good oral health habits for life. We are working with all sectors of the food industry to make further progress on reducing levels of sugar in the everyday food and drink that people buy. This is to ensure that it is easier for people to make healthier choices. Oral cancer and periodontal diseases are directly caused by tobacco. Dental teams and local stop-smoking services can work collaboratively in a variety of ways.
We have already made important progress, but I accept that there is still a lot more to do and a long way to go. We are determined to ensure that everyone who needs an NHS dentist can secure one. Delivering that ambition will take time, and it is vital that we put in place solutions that work for both patients and the dental professionals who care for them.
Question put and agreed to.
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Will you please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? This morning, we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website; it shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate.
I remind Members that the Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. In the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members will then be free to indicate they wish to speak by bobbing or catching my eye. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments or new clauses, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendments in a group, they need to let me know. That includes grouped new clauses.
The order of decisions will follow the order in which amendments appear on the amendment paper. Any decisions on new clauses will be taken at the end of proceedings on the Bill, after decisions have been taken on all amendments and clauses of the Bill. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following debate on the relevant amendments. I hope that that is helpful.
There is one more point that is not in my script: there are three members of the Committee who have hearing impairments, so it would be helpful if hon. Members could articulate as clearly as possible.
Are there any declarations of interest?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest: my father-in-law is a professor of cyber-security at City St George’s, University of London. Also, Kao Data has a large data centre in my constituency.
The Chair
Thank you.
Clause 1
Meaning of “the NIS Regulations”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. The Bill will make crucial updates that build on the NIS regulations, which are the UK’s only cross-sector cyber-security regulations. As clause 1 sets out, “NIS regulations” refers to the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 506).
Clause 2 gives an overview of the Bill’s parts and what they include. It sets out that part 2 amends the NIS regulations by expanding the scope of the regulations to cover data centres, large load controllers and managed service providers. It also introduces powers for regulators to designate suppliers as being critical for their sector. Part 2 also updates the existing incident-reporting regime and includes provisions relating to the recovery of regulators’ costs, information-gathering and sharing powers, and enforcement powers. Part 3 gives new powers to the Secretary of State to specify other sectors as in scope of the regulations in future, to create new regulations relating to the security and resilience of regulated services, and to issue a code of practice and a statement of strategic priorities. It also requires the Secretary of State to report on this legislation and its implementation. Finally, part 4 gives new national security powers for the Secretary of State to issue directions. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for taking part, and the officials for their work on the Committee stage of this important Bill.
The Bill will significantly update and expand the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 by bringing new services within scope of regulation, giving sector regulators the power to designate critical suppliers, updating and expanding the reporting regime for cyber-security incidents and making significant changes to the regulatory funding model and regulators’ information-gathering and sharing powers. The Bill will also grant extensive powers to the Secretary of State to respond to emerging cyber-threats, including the power to bring further sectors within the scope of regulation, giving directions to regulated entities and issuing a code of practice that sets out measures for compliance with duties under the NIS regulations. Recognising the increasing role of malicious cyber-activity as a threat to our national security, part 4 will give the Secretary of State far-reaching powers to issue directions to regulated entities for reasons of national security.
Covid turbocharged the digitalisation of all aspects of the economy and our daily lives, bringing new opportunities but at the same time heightening the exposure of digital systems to exploitation by malicious actors. The previous Government recognised that in their post-implementation reviews of the NIS regulations and in a subsequent series of consultations on proposals to improve the cyber-resilience of the entities that are most important to the UK economy. Those consultations included a review of information security risks relating to outsourced IT provision, data centres and organisations controlling large amounts of electrical load. The last Government’s work assessing those threats has informed this Government’s decision to bring data centres, managed service providers and large load controllers within the scope of the NIS regulations.
Industry stakeholders have welcomed the Bill as essential for bringing the cyber rules governing critical infrastructure in line with modern threats, economic realities and technological developments, and for moving our cyber-security regulatory framework into closer alignment with international partners to ease cross-border operations for businesses that provide services overseas.
In some respects, at least, the Bill identifies the right problems, but, crucially, it falls short of providing workable solutions. In embarking on our scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee should be acutely aware of the raft of digital legislation with which businesses and regulators have been asked to grapple in recent years. Many of those new regulations are necessary, but as lawmakers we should be conscious of the burden that we are placing on industries and particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of the UK economy and which have fewer resources to navigate complex layers of regulation. It is therefore incumbent on all of us to enact laws that are clear and capable of practical implementation.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we support the intent behind the Bill, clause 2 does a lot of framing work but does not necessarily consider the extensive perimeter that is coming through and how proportionality will be applied in practice? I suggest that the Committee keep that in mind as we move through the detail.
Dr Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am reminded of the Committee’s evidence session earlier this week, in which expert after expert lined up to raise concerns around the scope of the definition. Although they acknowledged the importance of and appreciated the reasons for leaving some things to secondary legislation in a climate as fast-moving as the IT and digital sector’s, they raised concerns about the uncertainty that is coming for business and the need for extensive consultation so that businesses can feed into and have some degree of influence over the regulations that they will have to abide by.
Chris Vince
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. I recognise his desire to be constructive on the issue. Will he recognise that this is about finding a balance? We want to include some flexibility in the legislation, because of the ever-changing threat that he mentioned. Equally, we recognise the challenge that SMEs may face in complying with the legislation on data sharing, but it is important that they do so, because not complying will have an impact on their business.
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Member for his point about balance. I am confident that this is an area to which the Committee will return quite a few times in our line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, particularly clause 12, which relates to the designation of critical suppliers. Clearly the regulations need to be proportionate, but to make that judgment we will need to know exactly what the regulations are. A lot of the detail is not in the Bill and has instead been left to secondary legislation. As we heard from the experts, it is very difficult to scrutinise legislation that is mostly being left to future regulations rather than being set out in the Bill.
These definitions will be critical if businesses are to have clarity as to whether they will fall within scope. I do not want to go too deeply into clause 12 now, but I see it as an exemplar. How are businesses that could fall within the critical supplier designation to know what they need to do? How is the operator of an essential service to know what information it needs to pass to the regulator on businesses that it may end up regulating? It would be very helpful if the Minister could comment, even at this introductory stage, on how he envisages that balance playing out in the Bill, particularly given that so much of the detail has been left to secondary legislation. Anyway, I digress—I will get back on topic.
Businesses are struggling with legal uncertainty and the increased costs of regulatory burden. Regulators in the sector lack the resources, the teeth and sometimes even the will to carry out effective oversight and enforcement of existing cyber regulation. Uncertainty about which incidents should be reported will dramatically increase the burden on regulated entities and on regulators. All the while, institutional barriers to effective oversight and enforcement remain.
The Bill fails to give the legal certainty and the proportionate framework that businesses need if we are to achieve widespread adoption and hardened cyber-resilience across the sectors that are most critical to the economy and our society. Perhaps most critically, there is little point in granting the Secretary of State extensive powers to make directions to regulated entities for national security purposes if the Government remain wilfully blind to the greatest threats to our national security. In the past few weeks, reports have circulated that a Chinese state-affiliated group hacked the communications of top Downing Street officials between 2021 and 2024, yet the vital organs of our state, central Government Departments and agencies carrying out the most critical functions, are left unprotected and unaccountable for their cyber-resilience under the Bill.
If we do not address these problems, we risk the Bill becoming yet another missed opportunity for the Government. These are opportunities that we can ill afford to miss if we are to safeguard our economy and our national security.
Kanishka Narayan
I welcome some of the Opposition spokesperson’s comments. Let me briefly address his questions about definitions and public sector inclusion. It is customary for the Opposition to oppose for the sake of opposition, at times, and I am afraid that this is one of those times; I have so far set out only two clauses, which are effectively an index to the Bill. Notwithstanding that, I will address his two particular points.
I was delighted that in our evidence sessions we heard from witness after witness who appreciated the flexibility of the Bill. For the Government to prescribe activities or incident thresholds in the finest detail in primary legislation is not how businesses, Government and regulators ought to engage. I hope that the Opposition will come to appreciate that in due course.
On critical suppliers, which no doubt we will come on to, I thought that in response to Opposition comments at our second sitting, I set out a very clear, precise set of tests. I found no opposition to that claim, but I look forward to hearing any original thoughts on that question.
On incident reporting, I was delighted that there was a witness who noticed that the extension of the definition of incident reporting, to include incidents capable of having an impact, was appropriate and exactly in the right place.
On the question about the public sector’s inclusion, we are here not to prescribe and wait for a law to tell us what we ought to do in the public sector, but instead to move fast and fix things. In that spirit, the Bill focuses on essential services.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Identification of Operators of Essential Services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kanishka Narayan
Clause 3 makes important distinctions as to which organisations can and cannot be considered operators of essential services for the purposes of the NIS regulations. It clarifies that a person—in practice, an organisation or business—can be an operator of an essential service regardless of whether that person is established in the UK, as long as they are providing essential services in the UK. That means that organisations established outside the UK can be regulated under the NIS regulations.
Clause 3 also makes it clear that the NIS regulations do not apply to public electronic communications networks or to public electronic communications services. Those are telecoms operators, which are regulated separately under the Communications Act 2003. The amendments in clause 3 will prevent telecoms companies from being subject to duplicate regulations; they will also ensure that all essential services in the UK are protected, even if the company operating them is based outside the UK. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Spencer
Clause 3 will amend the relevant provisions of the NIS regulations, stipulating that operators of essential services are within scope of the regulations whether or not they are operating an essential service in the UK, and regardless of jurisdiction in which they are established. Providers of public electronic communications networks and public electronic communications services are excluded from characterisation as operators of essential services, as the Minister says, to avoid duplication with their sector-specific cyber-security regime.
The clause is an important provision to ensure that entities providing essential services in the UK are compliant with domestic standards. Perhaps the most important aspect of the change is ensuring that serious cyber-security risks that appear within the systems of those entities are reported to the UK authorities for action. That is vital for the National Cyber Security Centre to keep abreast of emerging risks and be able to respond to them.
Nevertheless, the complex maze of compliance and regulatory standards across jurisdictions is a growing challenge for businesses of all sizes and particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. This is also a complicating factor facing UK companies when providing services abroad, particularly in the digital domain. Will the Minister lay out what discussions he has had with industry representatives about easing the complexity of cross-border digital service provision to ensure that the UK is a competitive and attractive place to do business?
Kanishka Narayan
On the question about cross-border compliance and making sure that we have a proportionate and effective regime, we have had a series of engagements at ministerial and official level with representatives of techUK, the industry body. The NCSC has convened a series of organisations—not least managed service providers, but others as well—and there has been a pretty extensive period of consultation on that and every other matter in the Bill.
I feel satisfied that the Bill strikes a good balance in ensuring proportionality in what businesses experience. Critically, as supply chains in this context become increasingly cross-border, it is vital that bodies that may not be resident in the UK but which provide essential services here are included in the scope of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Data centres to be regulated as essential services
Kanishka Narayan
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 4, page 3, line 5, column 3, leave out from beginning to “the” in line 6.
This amendment and Amendment 12 would remove the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology as a joint regulator for the data infrastructure subsector, leaving the Office of Communications acting as the sole regulator for that subsector.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 12.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.
Kanishka Narayan
Clause 4 of the Bill amends the NIS regulations by creating a new regulated sector, data infrastructure, and designating the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and Ofcom as joint regulators. We have received clear feedback from the data infrastructure sector expressing concerns that a dual regulator model could create unnecessary complexity and limit accountability. Amendments 11 and 12 will remove the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology as a regulator, leaving Ofcom as the sole regulator, which will streamline the regulatory model for data infrastructure and resolve the concerns raised by stakeholders.
Ofcom already has proven regulatory expertise and is well placed to oversee the new data infrastructure sector effectively. By adopting a single regulator for data infrastructure, the amendments will reduce administrative burden, simplify engagement, and strengthen accountability. This will ensure a clearer, more effective regulatory framework for this rapidly growing sector.
Clause 4 brings qualifying data centre services into the scope of the NIS regulations, recognising both their vital role in underpinning our economy and public services, and that disruption to them can significantly impact productivity, service delivery, and revenue.
Alison Griffiths
Clause 4 relies heavily on capacity as the trigger for regulation. I understand why that is attractive: it is measurable. But capacity is not the same as criticality, and a high-capacity facility used for redundancy can present less systemic risk than a smaller, highly concentrated one. I simply put on record that the way this threshold is applied in practice will matter more than the number itself.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for that thoughtful point. One assurance I will offer her is that the direct definition of data centres in scope here rely on capacity as a proxy for their essential independent nature, but when data centres below the capacity threshold but high on the criticality threshold are suppliers to essential services, they would be covered in part by the critical suppliers framework in the Bill. I take her point into account.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
What consideration has been given to the potential conflict between data centres’ contractual obligation regarding customer confidentiality and mandatory rapid reporting? What assurance can the Minister give us that data centres will ensure that the conflict does not impact their future business?
Kanishka Narayan
In the course of engaging with firms we have considered what the timeline for reporting ought to be. It is critical that the initial notification requirement, which is a much lower requirement than the full notification requirement, at least gives the NCSC and other enforcement authorities the ability to counter national security and wider-impact risks. I believe that specification to be proportionate in the Bill, but it is of course a matter for implementation that we will keep a close eye on.
An attack on a data centre can have significant impacts beyond the facility itself. As data centres underpin digital services across multiple sectors, disruption or compromise can cascade through essential services, businesses and public services. Incidents may also pose national security and economic risks, given the concentration of sensitive and critical data. Bringing qualifying data centre services into scope of the NIS framework helps ensure these risks are managed proportionately and incidents are reported promptly.
As per Government amendments 11 and 12, we propose that Ofcom is the regulator. Medium and large third party data centres and very large enterprise centres will be required to manage risks and report to Ofcom. Their thresholds have been carefully calibrated to capture data centres whose disruption could have the greatest impact, while avoiding unnecessary burdens on smaller operators. This will strengthen the cyber-security and resilience of data centres, align with international regulations, and introduce structured oversight, notification, and incident reporting to strengthen national security and economic stability.
Dr Spencer
Clause 4 amends the NIS regulations to bring data centres that meet certain thresholds within scope of the regs as operators of essential services. As drafted, these data centres will be regulated by DSIT and Ofcom, but the amendments moved by the Minister propose that Ofcom will be the sole regulator for the subsector. I thank him for his explanation of why he has tabled these amendments.
Given the oral evidence from Ofcom and other sector regulators earlier this week regarding the challenges of recruiting skilled cyber-security staff to regulate effectively, what assessment has the Minister made of the additional regulatory burden on Ofcom of this decision and its capacity to secure adequate resources to meet it? Clause 5 extends the scope of the regulations to data centres operated by the Government, with the exception of services provided by or on behalf of intelligence services handling classified information.
Data centre infrastructure is increasingly vital to the UK’s society, economy and security. Data centres underpin nearly all aspects of our digital lives, from sending emails to booking GP appointments or ordering shopping online. Businesses of all sizes routinely process their workloads in the cloud, supported by data centres. For those reasons, data centres were designated as critical national infrastructure—CNI—in 2024.
The UK digital sector, which is heavily reliant on data centres, contributed more than 7% of the UK’s total gross value added in mid-2024, growing almost three times faster than the rest of the economy. Data centres are also critical to the UK’s ambition to become an AI superpower. Training artificial intelligence models relies on access to an abundance of processing capacity, or compute, located in secure data centres.
In October last year, Amazon Web Services experienced a glitch in one of its US data centres, which set off a chain reaction that took down online services across the globe.
Bradley Thomas
On the growth of this industry, and with 78% of UK enterprises relying on cloud-based services, 96% of companies expected to use public cloud services, 35% of UK businesses outsourcing IT support and, as of last year, 63% of organisations planning to continue or increase their IT outsourcing over the next 12 months, does my hon. Friend the shadow Minister agree that greater consideration—or at least elaboration—must be given to the vulnerability of the supply chain of large load data centres?
Dr Spencer
My hon. Friend will be aware that the issue regarding the bottleneck in the supply of cloud computing, in which I put data centres, compute more generally and access to large language models, in our country is very much on my mind, and we have been raising it with the Government. At the moment, I understand that around 70% of cloud services directly procured by the Government are coming from the three big US providers. I hear from UK SMEs—not just cloud providers, but SMEs of all types—all the time about the challenge that they face with Government procurement contracts to procure domestic UK-company services, whether that is central Government or otherwise.
We are getting ourselves into a very difficult situation from a resilience perspective: not only are we currently heavily reliant on US big tech, but we are not doing the work we need to do right now to support a burgeoning UK tech industry. In the UK, we have fantastic universities and businesses. We really are a centre of innovation, but the problem is that companies can really struggle to take the next step forwards.
Of course, Government procurement is not the be-all and end-all—although, depending what sort of sector the company is operating in, it might be—but we are certainly not focusing enough on supporting our SME sector. The sector is really good and strong, and it has the potential to be great, but we still have not had a hyperscaler. We have not seen the expansion in the UK digital and tech sector that, all things considered, given our background and where we stand in terms of our academic and business resources, we really should have seen.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I am taken by the hon. Member saying that every regulation is a harm; I cannot hear that and not intervene. Regulations do place burdens on businesses—that is absolutely a thing, and we all understand that—but we cannot afford to look at regulation as only negative.
The hon. Member is making a very good point about SMEs and their access to markets and funding but, if SMEs want to grow and thrive in the UK, they need access to data centres whose security they can have confidence in. Part of what we talked about in introducing this Bill was ensuring that SMEs can be confident about the regulatory environment that we have in the UK and providing such reassurance to them. Later on, we talked about large load carriers. SMEs rely on electricity and power supply, and making sure that we have the correct regulations in place to give them the security and confidence in the knowledge that the supply will always be there comes back to the regulatory framework.
I am not in any way trying to step away from the hon. Member—he also spoke about the balance of regulation, and I think he is right on that—but to use a sentence such as “regulation is a harm” steps too far from that balance. We need to make sure that we also see the good side to this regulation, in creating the business confidence to allow SMEs to operate in an environment where they can have confidence in their access to data and energy.
The Chair
Order. Interventions should be short and to the point. If any hon. Member wishes to catch my eye, they should not have any difficulty in doing that, but it is important to keep a distinction between interventions and contributions to the debate.
Dr Spencer
The hon. Member for Lichfield may be aware that my background is in medicine; I used to be a doctor before I came to this place. One of the skills and challenges in medicine is that any medical intervention—apart from a small handful—always has a risk of harm or side effects to the patient. It is always a balancing act between the harm and the benefit. My bread and butter before I came to this place was balancing harms and risks in the best interests of the person in front of me.
Although I have never been a businessperson, and I have certainly never owned or run a data centre, my approach to business burdens is to see the extra things that the Government make businesses do—which are not necessarily what businesses would normally do or see as in their direct interests—as a prima facie harm. I will expand my words a bit if that helps in explaining the logic. The starting point is that it is an extra burden and a harm, but then benefits from other angles can outweigh that harm. It is getting businesses to do something more; if they were doing it anyway, we would not need regulations. It is an additional thing that business is being asked to do. It might be that we have decided that overall it is in the best interests of the sector. Individual businesses cannot regulate and change the sector themselves, so we have decided, “For the good of society, we think businesses should do this.”
I am always a little careful when we politicians say that we know what is better for business in terms of what they are doing. I take the point about how regulatory certainty can be helpful in itself. I also take the point about the overall benefit to society and the business network of having confidence that there are secure and working data centres and that the large load controllers—which we will talk about presently—have control. This Bill is a full-fat compendium of cross-regulations and links. I feel for any business looking through the later chapters and finding themselves subject to those requirements. We have to keep that in mind: all of us in this Committee want our businesses to succeed and do well, and we also want stable and flourishing infrastructure.
Going back to my medical roots, the starting point should be, “Primum non nocere”. That is often misinterpreted as, “First, do no harm”; actually, not doing harm is the main thing that we should do. As a legislator, you should have quite a high threshold before you start saying, “The solution is putting in another law. Let’s create another regulation,” or, “Let’s put another burden on business.”
One of the challenges I had when looking at the Bill when it was first published was understanding why we need it in the first place. What is its starting point? That is something that I have been exploring and thinking about as we have been preparing for this Committee stage. Why is our industry not doing it itself and sorting this out? Why is the Minister here today bringing forward these regulations on business and why is that necessary in the first place as opposed to business sorting it out?
I am sure that this is something that the Committee are going to come back to and explore in more detail when we discuss some of the more high-profile cyber-security impacts, particularly on Jaguar Land Rover and M&S. The hon. Member for Lichfield makes a very good point, and I do not think that this debate is settled in some ways—and I am sure we are going to come back to it quite a few times during the passing of this Bill.
Dr Spencer
I am certainly going to come back to it a few times—if not other Members—and I will invite the Minister to come back to it a few times.
Returning to the point about the dependency on particular sectors, I mentioned the impact that Amazon Web Services had on our society and systems; interestingly, the AWS outage was caused not by a cyber-attack, but it demonstrates the disruption to our lives and businesses that could occur in the event of such an attack. The last Government recognised the vital and growing importance of data centres to the UK economy and people’s lives, as well as the risks of serious interruption to these services. That led to a public consultation on enhancing the security and resilience of UK data infrastructure.
The Conservatives therefore welcome that this vital element of our national infrastructure will be subject to cyber-security regulation. However, for regulation to be robust for cyber-resilience and regulator data centres it is essential that there are high rates of industry compliance. The Government stated in their impact assessment for this Bill that there is an ongoing engagement with the data centre sector. Could the Minister lay out what feedback he has received on the sector’s preparedness to meet the cyber-resilience standards set by the NIS regulations?
Likewise, in terms of ensuring effective regulation, Ofcom will have a dramatically increased role in terms of cyber-security regulation when these provisions come into effect. In view of Ofcom’s current regulatory workload and the challenges with recruitment, which I mentioned earlier and highlighted in the evidence session this week, what ongoing engagement is the Minister having with Ofcom more broadly to make sure that it is sufficiently resourced to play its role?
Before I move on to clause 6, on large load controllers, I feel I need to go back to the discussion about proportionality and the purpose and need for these regulations in the Bill. One of the biggest criticisms of the NIS regulations is that they have not really been enforced. I am not saying that a certain rate of enforcement is a marker of efficacy or compliance, but it is curious, and it has been raised to me, that the level of enforcement indicates that the NIS regulations have not really had teeth or changed anything.
In one bad world, we have regulations that are completely disproportionate and place a huge and unnecessary burden on industry. But in some ways the worst of all worlds, or rather another problem that we would need to deal with, would be for us to legislate, produce this wonderful cyber-security Act, and go away happy as legislators—“Hey-ho, it’s all sorted and finished; we can sleep well in our beds about the cyber-security of the UK.” But if the companies cannot follow the legislation, will not follow it or do not have the resources to do so, then all we will have done is waste our time. Worse, we will have given ourselves a false sense of security, rather than delving into some of the real challenges and problems in the sector, which include overall education, encouraging businesses to take the issue more seriously and encouraging people to do Cyber Essentials.
Alison Griffiths
My hon. Friend is making a very good point, which also applies to improving board awareness and ensuring that the enforcement of the regulations incentivises boards to take the issue seriously and make sure that they are equipped to understand the commercial reality of cyber-security for their businesses. Enforcement is an important part of that.
Dr Spencer
That is something that I know will come up in debate as we go through the Bill. It is curious that we are receiving consistent feedback that some boards are not taking the issue of cyber-security seriously, in terms of allocating resource to it, especially in the light of the very high-profile cyber-attacks on businesses. Obviously, I am all over this issue, given my role as shadow Minister, but I think it is completely insane, certainly for larger companies, not to focus on the challenge of cyber-security. It is a challenge for businesses of all sizes, but I am mindful that implementation is particularly problematic for very small businesses.
Bradley Thomas
Does the shadow Minister agree that the Government should heed the message of Chris Dimitriadis, the chief global strategy officer at the Information Systems Audit and Control Association? He said:
“The era when cyber regulation could focus solely on critical national infrastructure is over. Today, every major employer is part of the digital economy—and therefore part of the threat landscape.”
Surely the Government should heed that message.
Dr Spencer
That is a stark message. Going back to my previous point, I struggle to think how many small businesses can really put in the necessary resource to take these sorts of steps on cyber-security.
There is a broader point here, which goes back to my opening remarks. A chunk of this involves hostile state actors that are attacking our companies, Parliament and the Government, whether directly or through their intermediaries. I find it quite ironic that it was announced earlier this week that our security services are going to work with China’s security services to deal with cyber-security threats. I thought, “Well, hang on a sec. What are they going to say, given that the Chinese Communist party is one of the main drivers of cyber-security threats in the UK?”
Legislating in this area and deciding how to approach it as a society is a particular challenge, given that it is not merely criminals or hacktivists doing this stuff to our companies and institutions; there is also full-fat hostile state inference from Russia, Iran or the Chinese Communist party.
Bradley Thomas
The risk and the threat from hostile states is plain to see. Does my hon. Friend have any sympathy for the ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced a few months ago on the Floor of the House? We need to strike a balance between the risk that bureaucratic administration poses to small businesses and the very real risk that cyber-attacks pose to the economy in general. The Government should have the private sector in scope and look at setting a threshold that does not become burdensome on smaller businesses. My proposal was for any company that turns over £25 million or more to be scope, in order to not bear down too heavily on small companies that would otherwise find the process, the risk and the burden of reporting too onerous.
Dr Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting proposal, which attempts to crack the nut of one of the problems subsumed in the Bill.
The Bill cherry-picks certain sectors that need to be regulated entities, and there is a whole host of definitions. Then the Secretary of State can allocate some of the bits that they want to tag on through secondary legislation or the designation of a critical supplier. Then we have the MSP component. But there is something the Bill does not deal with. If I were to ask to the man in the street to identify the biggest cyber-security attack they have heard of in the past year or so, their answer would probably depend on where they live. If they live in the west midlands, they would talk about JLR, which has had a catastrophic effect on the local economy. In other parts of the country, the focus might be on Marks & Spencer or the Co-op. The Bill does not fix that, so what needs to be done? Should there be a threshold based on turnover, so that the process is not so onerous on certain companies, or something to support the insurance industry?
The Bill is silent on this issue, and the Government need to come up with some answers. I totally understand what they are trying to do with the Bill and how it is taking us forward—of course the NIS regulations need updating—but it does not fix the big stuff that has had a huge impact on people’s lives and required a massive bail-out of several billions of pounds-worth of taxpayers’ money. How many more JLRs can the Government afford to bail out until they have to do something to resolve the issue? I suspect we will come back to that, but I am glad that my hon. Friend introduced his ten-minute rule Bill.
We need to have a solution, but at the same time, we should not put onerous burdens on companies that are already struggling because of the Government’s anti-growth agenda and the punitive taxes being imposed on them to pay for profligate spending. This goes back to the discussion about prima facie harms. Taxation is the best example of a prima facie harm.
Dave Robertson
I fear I am about to repeat what I said a moment ago. I am aware that nobody gets up in the morning and is excited to pay tax, but tax pays for our roads, for our infrastructure, for our hospitals, which keep our workforce in good health, for the education of the next round of employees, for our security services, and for the police, who help to prevent crime. It pays for a whole variety of things that are essential for business to succeed, so taking an evangelical view that tax is bad is just not—
The Chair
Order. I want to take this opportunity to again remind the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Minister that this Bill is not about tax. It is relatively narrowly drawn, so I would be grateful if hon. Members can come back to what is on the face of the Bill.
Dr Spencer
As I risk getting into trouble with Mr Stringer, I will not respond to the hon. Member for Lichfield. I look forward to the opportunity to debate this issue again, perhaps in the emergency Budget in the next couple of weeks.
Clause 6 brings large load controllers, which provide the flow of electricity in and out of smart appliances, within scope of the NIS regulations if the load is above 300 MW. I understand that the threshold has been decided through consultation, given that that pressure could have a substantial impact on the grid. There is a challenge in managing peak demand and supply in the grid and big changes in it, so I entirely understand why the Government are introducing this provision. Smart EV devices—I have a smart charging electric vehicle device myself—used system-wide could cause big grid disruptions, particularly as we integrate infrastructure into our homes such as solar panels, batteries and other energy-related smart devices.
In fact, we need the grid to become more smart device-integrated over the next 10, 15 or 20 years. When we look at projections of energy consumption, we see that we will need to enable people to use the grid by expanding technology such as vehicle-to-grid energy supply, so that we can manage peak load. That is part of expanding our energy, reducing energy costs and supporting renewable energy and the transition to net zero. If anything, this issue will become more important and expansive over the years.
On that basis, I have some questions for the Minister about the clause. Why are data centres and large load controllers the two sectors that he has decided to put on the face of the Bill? I say that with particular reference to the NIS2 regulations, which are expanded a bit more. How does he envisage this area expanding in the future? Is he confident that the scope of the clause is sufficient to cover future technologies that are coming down the track? I am thinking of EV charging apps. The list is prescriptive, but does it have sufficient flexibility? Is the Minister able to come back with secondary legislation if he needs to expand the list in the future, given that it is in the Bill in that form? Would it not be better to put that on the face of the Bill and to use secondary legislation to lay it out, in order to have flexibility? The Minister has been trying to ensure flexibility elsewhere, and understandably so—let us not go back into those debates. I just want to understand his reasoning behind that a bit better. That is certainly not a criticism, but I want to know why those particular sectors have been pulled out, and why it has not been left for secondary legislation.
Kanishka Narayan
With your permission, Mr Stringer, I will restrict my comments to clauses in question—in particular, clauses 5 and 6—and the relevant Government amendments. The shadow Minister has auditioned for roles at the Department for Business and Trade in talking about the philosophy of regulation, at the Department of Health and Social Care in talking about his medical background, and at the Treasury in talking about taxation. I will try to restrict myself to none of those and simply speak to the clauses and address three points in response to his comments.
The first relates to the skills and resourcing of our regulators. On that, I welcome the shadow Minister’s prior engagement with me directly and his questions now. The last Government completely gutted our regulators. Having done so, they achieved neither growth nor regulatory quality, which Opposition Members now talk about. As a consequence, it falls to us to make sure that our regulators are fit for purpose and resourced in the way they need to be. This Bill gives them the powers to secure initial and full notifications in a timely way, the powers to share information in an appropriate way and, fundamentally, the ability of cost recovery, to resource themselves in an appropriate way. Alongside that, our wider initiatives on skills in the cyber-sector and technology more broadly are fundamental to achieving our aspirations, not least through the CyberFirst programme, which I mentioned in a witness session.
Kanishka Narayan
I might just make a slight bit of progress. As I mentioned in a previous session, the programme reached 415,000 students, and it has now been evolved into the wider TechFirst scheme as well.
The shadow Minister, as well as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, made a very important point about resilience in particular and sovereign capability. Particularly for those reasons, I am really proud of two things. One is that the Bill includes suppliers that may not be resident in the UK but provide essential services in the UK. This is a critical means through which we can secure our capabilities here. The second, which is close to my particular interests in the data centre and compute world, is that, through our initiatives on sovereign AI, and having launched a very innovative advance market commitment in the chips part of the stack, which ends up crowding in wider demand—not least through companies such as Nscale, a fundamental part of our AI growth zone in the north-east—this Government are finally rectifying the errors and omissions of the last Government, in making sure that Britain does not do what it did in the last commercial cloud context, but instead, in this AI compute world, has some actual chips on the table.
Thirdly, I will not try to settle the thrilling debate between the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield on the philosophy of regulation. I will simply make the humble suggestion that in this context we have arrived at, not a full-fat compendium, as the shadow Minister described it, but a very targeted Bill, which has been the result of extensive industry engagement—indeed, some of it was carried out by the prior Government—that aligned on the sectors in question and the inclusion of critical suppliers in scope.
On the shadow Minister’s question about the thresholds and definitional specificity of large load controllers in the Bill, I will of course remain very open to ensuring that the secondary powers, which are intended precisely to enable us to move flexibly as the clean power industry moves, give us the flexibility to move with it. At the same time, the threshold of 300 MW reflected the point at which a large load controller could pose an unacceptable risk to the electricity system and our CNI. This threshold was set very clearly in partnership with technical experts, including the National Energy System Operator. Of course, as the market grows, the potential for cyber-incidents will grow, and we will keep that under close review.
Chris Vince
On the point about flexibility, I think we would recognise that the legislative process in this House does not always move as quickly as we might want it to, but there are reasons for that, because scrutiny is really important. Does the Minister agree that the changing nature of the cyber-threats we face and the changing nature of technology, which he understands far more than me, are the reasons why it is so important to have flexibility in the Bill?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The reality is that neither he nor I am placed to judge exactly where the thresholds should be set on a permanent basis. That is exactly why we have secured the flexibilities that we have in the Bill.
Clause 5 brings Crown-operated data centres into scope of the NIS regulations, ensuring that Government data centres meet robust standards comparable to those in the private sector. Bringing Crown data centres within scope closes a critical gap and guarantees that public sector infrastructure is protected against evolving threats. Exemptions will apply only in defined cases in which a data centre service is provided by an intelligence agency or a facility handling highly classified—“Secret” or “Top Secret”—information. These data centre services are already governed separately, and applying the NIS regime could cause conflict. I urge that clause 5 stand part of the Bill.
Finally, clause 6, on large load controllers, introduces the essential new service of load control under the energy subsector of the NIS regulations. This will capture organisations—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but can he speak a little more loudly and slowly for the benefit of all Members?
Kanishka Narayan
Loudly and slowly: this will capture organisations remotely managing significant amounts of electrical load via energy-smart appliances, both in a domestic and non-domestic setting. These organisations play an increasingly important role in the management of the electricity system, but are not currently regulated for cyber-security. A cyber-attack could therefore create major disruptions to the national grid, shutting down public services and critical national infrastructure. Capturing load control as an essential service will safeguard the public from these disruptions. It will also reflect the need to bring in new safeguards to manage a more digitalised and dynamic energy landscape in the transition towards net zero.
Dr Spencer
Before the Minister moves on—I was a bit nervous that he was going to finish—I have an additional question about the Crown data centre. What happens if a data centre is providing services commercially to both the public and the Crown? How is that operated within the scope of the Bill?
Kanishka Narayan
I am happy to write to the shadow Minister on that point. My understanding is that a Crown data centre will be in scope if it is providing, as in that particular example, to both the public and the private sector, but I am happy to write to him to clarify that point.
The load control market is growing exponentially and we need to make it cyber-secure. For that reason, I propose that clause 6 stands part of the Bill.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Amendment made: 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, leave out “(acting jointly)”.—(Kanishka Narayan.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 11.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Digital services
Kanishka Narayan
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 7, page 7, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) a pool of computing resources is ‘scalable’ if the resources are flexibly allocated by the provider of the service, irrespective of the geographical location of the resources, in order to handle fluctuations in demand;
(c) a pool of computing resources is ‘elastic’ if the resources are provided and released according to demand, in order to rapidly increase and decrease available resources depending on workload;
(d) computing resources are ‘shareable’ if—
(i) multiple users share a common access to the service, which is provided from the same electronic equipment, and
(ii) processing is carried out separately for each user.”
This amendment would refine and make further provision about certain aspects of the definition of “cloud computing service”.
Kanishka Narayan
Clause 7 amends the definitions of “relevant digital service provider” and “cloud computing service” in the existing NIS regulations. As in the original NIS regulations, an RDSP is a cloud computing service, online search engine or online marketplace. To be in scope, they must provide a service in the UK and not be a small or microbusiness. That prevents disproportionate business burden, focusing on those larger businesses whose compromise could have a significant impact on the UK’s economy or society. The changes to the definition in the clause clarify that to be in scope, providers cannot be designated as a critical supplier or be subject to public authority oversight, as defined by clause 11. That maintains consistency with the approach to managed services, and minimises dual regulation and unnecessary burden.
Government amendment 13 strengthens the definition of a cloud computing service in clause 7. It introduces precise, clarified and separate definitions of the three core characteristics of cloud computing resources, which is that they are scalable, elastic and shareable.
Alison Griffiths
Clause 7 is definition-heavy, and rightly so; these terms decide who is regulated and who is not. My only observation is that cloud models are, as the Minister knows, evolving quickly because of the AI revolution. Definitions that track architecture too closely will age fast, so the Committee should be alert to whether these terms will still make sense in five years’ time and not just today.
Kanishka Narayan
I very much welcome that point. In talking about broad architecture characteristics—being able to scale compute and to be elastic to multi-tenants by being shareable—rather than setting out the specific nature of resources, we capture both commercial cloud and AI deployments. However, I am keen to ensure that we keep this under review and, where possible, use the flexibilities provided by the Bill to adapt it to changes in technology.
Although the policy intention behind the definition has not changed, amendment 13 will provide certainty for industry, support effective regulatory oversight and ensure that services whose disruption could significantly impact the UK economy and society are properly captured. In addition, the drafting is more aligned with that of our international partners, which will improve efficiency for providers operating across borders.
This targeted, technical improvement will bring greater clarity, consistency and fairness to the NIS regulations. I urge Members to support both the clause and this important amendment.
Dr Spencer
Clause 7 amends the definition of cloud services, which have been within the scope of regulation since the NIS regulations came into force. The expanded definition emphasises remote accessibility and the “on demand” nature of cloud services, and that services may be delivered from multiple locations. It also excludes managed services from the scope of cloud services to avoid duplication of regulatory requirements and oversight.
The Minister proposes changes to this provision in Government amendment 13, which sets out further details regarding the features of in-scope cloud service provision, including common access by multiple users, with each having access to separate processing functions. My question to the Minister builds on the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. It is obviously difficult—if it is possible at all—to predict how the tech sector will evolve, but what powers will the Government have to adjust these provisions as the cloud ecosystem changes, and what consultation has the Minister done on that within the scope of the Bill?
Kanishka Narayan
On that important point, which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton also raised, the changes to the definition came about in part through extensive engagement, and in particular by ensuring that the attributes of “elastic” and “scalable” were treated individually rather than jointly and that “shareable”—the ability to have multi-tenants and therefore be a genuine cloud computing service for multiple clients—was considered in scope. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, it is important that we keep this under review, and part of the reason for the secondary powers in the Bill is to make sure it remains both specific, giving clarity and certainty, and flexible at the same time.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Currently, the law requires regulated persons to manage risks to the security of their systems. Amendment 28, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, explicitly inserts “risks arising from fraud” into that duty. It would make it clear that a system cannot be considered secure if it is easily exploited by scammers.
Fraud should be considered a national security issue, and there is clearly a relationship between fraud and cyber-security. Scammers across the world are targeting British citizens. Elderly fraud victims in Dyfed-Powys lose £7,900 a day to a tidal wave of scams perpetrated by scammers from many countries across the world, notably Nigeria. UK-wide, in the first half of 2025 alone, criminals stole over £600 million through scams. Surely, we cannot pass a cyber-security and resilience Bill—
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Member is discussing the next group of amendments, to clause 8. At the moment, we are discussing amendment 13 to clause 7.
Dr Spencer
If I might just help a colleague, I think the grouping and selection of amendments has changed, so the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe may have the previous iteration.
The Chair
That is very helpful. Thank you.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Duties of relevant digital service providers
David Chadwick
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 8, page 7, line 31, at the end insert—
“(1A) In paragraph (1), after ‘risks’ insert ‘, including risks arising from fraud,’”.
This amendment would explicitly include fraud as one of the risks to the security of network and information systems relevant digital service providers must identify and manage.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in clause 8, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
“(4) After paragraph (2) insert—
‘(2A) When taking measures to manage risks under paragraph (1), a RDSP must, in the design of the relevant digital service—
(a) eliminate unnecessary functions from system requirements;
(b) where risks cannot be managed by the elimination of functions, replace or substitute features in the architecture of the system;
(c) where risks cannot be managed by the replacement or substitution of features, implement active functional controls;
(d) where risks cannot be managed by the implementation of active functional controls, instruct and implement operational and procedural controls;
(e) as a matter of last resort, apply requirements, conditions of use or instructions to service users.
(2B) For the purposes of paragraph (1), “risks” include those relating to the availability, reliability, safety, integrity, maintainability and confidentiality of the relevant services or systems.’”
Clause stand part.
David Chadwick
Surely, we cannot pass a cyber-security and resilience Bill that ignores a crime that affects thousands of people. We know that cyber-security criminals across the world attack individuals to enable themselves to get into systems. Families are losing life savings, and small businesses are shutting down because of this epidemic.
The Government often treat fraud as a policing issue, but the amendment would establish that it should be regarded as a cyber-security issue that needs action at the national security level. By amending regulation 12(1) of the NIS regulations, we place a legal duty on digital providers to identify these vulnerabilities proactively. If we mandate that providers manage fraud risks before an incident occurs, we will reduce the number of victims and the devastation caused to livelihoods. We cannot claim to protect our digital economy while ignoring the billions of pounds lost to scams.
Dr Spencer
Clause 8 provides a new definition of “relevant digital service” and makes it clear that this category includes online marketplaces, online search engines and cloud computing services. The definition of “relevant digital service provider” is updated to encompass all entities providing a relevant digital service in the UK, regardless of whether they are established here. Entities designated as critical suppliers are excluded from the definition to avoid duplication of duties and regulatory oversight from sector-specific competent authorities.
However, the definition excludes from scope of regulation relevant digital service providers subject to public authority oversight, unless they derive over half their income from commercial activities. The exclusion of organisations overseen by public authorities also applies in relation to relevant managed service providers.
In many respects, clauses 7 and 8 provide necessary updates to reflect the changing nature and use of vital digital services. Once again, including within the scope of regulation companies that deliver services to the UK but are established or headquartered elsewhere helps to ensure that those companies report cyber-security incidents to UK authorities, rather than just authorities in their home states. That means that UK regulators and law enforcement are equipped with the most comprehensive knowledge of emerging threats.
Bradley Thomas
Given the blurring of boundary lines between cyber-attacks and financial crime, I can see the compelling reasons why the amendment has been tabled, but does the shadow Minister agree and acknowledge that fraud detection often requires a different skillset from standard network security, so it is important to strike the right balance?
Dr Spencer
I broadly agree. This is one of those difficult areas where there can be overlap. I have sympathy with the argument that it is important to use any opportunity, and in particular this Bill, to raise fraud.
We focus on financial fraud, but this area is not limited to that, especially when we think about other malicious operators, and about ransomware and hacktivism, where the boundaries are particularly blurred. In a situation where a fraudulent operator, service, provider or organisation has material, whether on social media or subject to search engines, and the police or other competent authorities have flagged it to the provider as fraudulent—as illegal criminal activity—what duties does that provider have to remove it or take it down? Is that something that the Minister is aware of? Has he looked into it, and what is the Government’s plan to crack down on that activity?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe for tabling amendment 25, which would amend the duties for RDSPs in the NIS regulations. I empathise with the source of his concern about fraud; I think many of us in the House know and feel that concern, through either our personal experience or that of our constituents.
That said, the security duties within NIS require RDSPs to identify and take steps to manage the full spectrum of risks posed to the security of their systems. They must prevent and mitigate relevant incidents, regardless of what the threats are or where they emanate from. That includes taking an all-hazards risk-based approach. Entities must manage risks to cyber-security, physical security and broader operational resilience. “Security” includes the ability to resist any action that may compromise the availability, authenticity, integrity or confidentiality of those systems, including risks that may arise from fraud. I caution against highlighting only one particular vector of risk in the clause; that is unnecessary and would not reflect the full range of risks each RDSP faces.
Further, while the Bill clarifies the high-level duty to manage risks, secondary legislation will give further detail on the security and resilience requirements. Guidance and the code of practice will give further detail still on the types of risks to consider. For that reason, I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment.
The shadow Minister asked about the Government’s treatment of fraud, particularly when it has been found on a platform and the authorities have asked that platform to take it down. The Government made a clear commitment in our manifesto to introduce a new fraud strategy, and the Home Office, as the lead Department, has been working at pace to engage deeply in making that an effective reality.
Alongside that, in my wider role in online safety, I am conscious that fraud is a fundamental area of content in which platforms have to look at where it crosses the border into illegality, as it may well do in the instance the shadow Minister described. That has been a central focus since the illegal content duties came into play last year. I believe that such instances are well covered by the pieces of legislation that I have just mentioned. The Bill is clearly more focused on critical national infrastructure and its exposure to network and information systems.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Members on both sides of the Committee have referred frequently to the fact that the incident that took Jaguar Land Rover down would not have been covered by the Bill. JLR employs a digital service provider, in the form of Tata Consultancy Services. Would that provider not be covered, meaning that JLR is in scope?
Kanishka Narayan
Although I will not rule a particular provider in or out of scope, if the provider in question met the threshold for RDSP coverage, it would be covered, but the locus of that coverage would be limited to the provider rather than to the end-customer entity. I hope that clarifies that sufficiently.
Let me explain how clause 8 was designed to tackle the risks that Committee members have set out. The clause updates the existing duties for RDSPs in the NIS regulations to ensure that they remain resilient against evolving cyber-threats. It clarifies the requirement for those services, making it clearer that they must secure themselves not just to keep the services they provide running and available but to contribute to wider systems security as a whole.
Lincoln Jopp
Given the scenario we just discussed, it is possible that a digital service provider would have an obligation to report under the Bill, but the parent company employing its services would not. Given the requirements for confidentiality that a client company may put upon a digital managed service provider, how can that conflict be managed?
Kanishka Narayan
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I have two comments to make on that front. First, the relevant digital service provider will have a range of different customers, and my expectation would be that the regulators and the NCSC would seek a deep understanding of the risk exposure across the full breadth of that portfolio, rather than for each particular customer. Of course, that would form part of some analysis.
Secondly—the shadow Minister asked a related question —I am happy to write about the interaction between prompt notification responsibilities and commercial confidentiality duties, on the basis of the engagement we have conducted so far. Especially when questions of major risk exposure are concerned, I would hope there are provisions that allow the relevant digital service provider to notify the NCSC, but I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Spelthorne and the shadow Minister to clarify that point.
Clause 8 also removes a reference to the RDSP’s own network and information system to clarify that the duty is intended to cover all network and information systems that the relevant digital service relies on.
The cyber-risk landscape is diffuse and multifaceted. Hostile actors can use a range of routes and techniques to attempt to take services offline, as well as to extort, steal and surveil. These changes to the NIS regulations support a holistic approach to tackling cyber-risk. They ensure that important dependencies are covered and that facets of security such as the confidentiality of data and integrity of systems are not set aside.
The clause also requires RDSPs to have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Information Commission when carrying out its duties. Finally, it removes a requirement for relevant digital service providers to consider specific duties referenced in EU regulations. I urge the Committee to support the clause unamended.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members to speak loudly and clearly so that everyone is able to hear.
Clause 9
Managed Service Providers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 10, page 9, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) The measures taken by an RMSP under paragraph (1) must ensure that the number of customers to whom the RMSP provides services does not exceed the critical risk threshold.
(2B) In paragraph (2A), the ‘critical risk threshold’ is the number of customers within a sector or subsector where an incident affecting the provision of services to those customers by the RMSP would result in disruption that is likely to have a significant impact on the economy or the day-to-day functioning of society in the whole or any part of the United Kingdom.
(2C) Paragraph (2D) applies where the number of customers to whom an RMSP provides services exceeds the critical risk threshold by virtue of contracts entered into before the coming into force of section 10 of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Act 2026.
(2D) The RMSP must take steps to reduce the number of customers to below the critical risk threshold, including exercising any right to terminate a contract or vary the terms of a contract.”
This amendment would place a duty on relevant managed service providers (“RMSPs”) to ensure that they do not provide services to manage the technology systems for a number of customers that exceeds a critical risk threshold, such that an incident affecting those services would be likely to result in significant disruption in the United Kingdom. This would prevent an RMSP managing the technology systems for a whole sector or subsector. Provision is also made for a situation where an RMSP is in breach of the critical risk threshold because of contracts entered into before the enactment of the Bill.
Clauses 10 and 11 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I welcome you, Ms McVey, to the most exciting event in Parliament this week.
Kanishka Narayan
What a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair. Clause 9 brings large and medium-sized managed service providers—MSPs—into the scope of the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018. MSPs are organisations that provide an ongoing IT function, such as an IT help desk or cyber-security support, to an outside client. In doing so, MSPs often have widespread and trusted access to clients’ networks and systems. A single targeted attack can ripple outward, disrupting thousands of other systems. That makes MSPs attractive targets for cyber-attacks. Last year an attack on Collins Aerospace halted check-in and boarding systems at major European airports, causing international disruption. Such attacks highlight what can happen if a single point of failure is compromised, and the importance of managed service providers implementing robust cyber-protections. Despite that, MSPs are not currently regulated for their cyber-security in the UK. As organisations rely more and more on outsourced technology, we must close that gap. The clause provides essential definitions of a “managed service” and of a “relevant managed service provider” to clearly set out which organisations are in scope of the regulations.
Clause 10 imposes new duties on MSPs that have been brought into scope by clause 9. For the first time, such businesses must identify and manage risks posed to the network and information systems that they rely on to provide their managed services. As part of that duty, MSPs must have
“regard to the start of the art”,
meaning that they must consider new tools, technologies, techniques and methods that threat actors may employ. That includes artificial intelligence, and means that providers must deploy the right tools to mitigate the risks and take action to minimise the impact of incidents if they occur. By bringing MSPs into scope of the regulations and imposing such security duties on them, we will strengthen cyber-security and resilience across supply chains, reduce vulnerabilities in outsourced IT services and better protect businesses and services across the UK.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Bringing MSPs into scope is the right direction of travel, and MSPs sit at points of concentrated risk, but they are not all the same and the real risk is not size alone but the level of privileged access and cross-customer dependency. Proportionality will be critical under these provisions if we want better security, not just box-ticking.
Kanishka Narayan
I agree very much with the hon. Member’s point, and a similar sentiment is expressed elsewhere in the Bill, in that it ensures that the focus is primarily on large and medium-sized MSPs, and that small businesses and microbusinesses are dealt with in a deeply proportionate way. That is an important point to take into account.
Clause 11 defines what it means for a digital or managed service provider to be
“subject to public authority oversight”
under the NIS regulations. Public authority oversight is defined as “management or control” by “UK public authorities” or by a board where the majority of members are appointed by those authorities. Such MSPs are already subject to requirements in the Government cyber-security strategy, which is mandatory for Government organisations. That ensures that cyber-resilience standards remain strong for services linked to public functions, while preventing disproportionate burdens on providers already subject to public authority governance.
In response to points raised by hon. Members in prior Committee sittings, I flag the engagement that we have conducted in coming to the definition of MSPs in question. In particular, beyond the provisions of the 2022 consultation, prior to the introduction of the Bill, we conducted a range of bilateral meetings. We have had multiple conversations with the industry body techUK, roundtables with digital firms, and we engaged through the National Cyber Security Centre-led MSP information exchange with 40 providers in this context, and undertook market research mapping the MSP market. As a consequence, adjustments to the definitions at the heart of this provision have been agreed with incredibly deep and broad engagement across the industry to arrive at a widely-welcomed definition.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. Small and medium-sized enterprises are defined by the headcount of full-time employees, yet in the world of IT, particularly for managed service providers, data centres and digital service providers, that is not a helpful metric to understand size and scale. Did the Department consider reevaluating the size of digital and managed service providers based on the through-flow of transactions or data rather than headcount? When I worked in the world of tech, there was a ratio for headcount that was totally different from other sorts of businesses.
Kanishka Narayan
The hon. Member raises an important point about the operating leverage of technology businesses. The Bill directly focuses on size as one proxy for risk, but it is not a complete or perfect proxy. That is why, through the critical supplier provisions, it ensures that any smaller providers can be caught in scope as essential services.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.
Clause 9 brings within scope of the NIS regulations a new category of technology service providers, known as relevant managed service providers. MSPs play a critical role in the UK economy. Research conducted by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology under the last Government suggests that 11,000 MSPs were active in the UK in 2023, of which 1,500 to 1,700 were medium or large organisations that would be in scope of the Bill. Micro and small enterprises that offer managed services are excluded from the scope of regulation but have the potential to be designated as critical suppliers under other provisions, which we will come to shortly.
MSPs are critical to the functioning of the multiple businesses that they serve, offering contracted IT services such as helpdesk and technical support, server and network maintenance, and data back-up. In many cases, they also provide managed cyber-security solutions to their customer bases. Consequently, these businesses often have significant access to their clients’ IT networks, infrastructure and data, which makes them attractive and valuable targets.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I seek some clarification on the shadow Minister’s statistics about the number of MSPs that are in scope, and what they are as a proportion of the MSPs in the country. Could he clarify that he is talking about individual organisations rather than what they do? For example, if there is one large organisation and nine small ones, but the large one takes up 80% of the market, the proportions are slightly different.
Dr Spencer
The scope and breadth of the organisations regulated by these provisions is one of the most important parts of the debate. If the hon. Member can wait a moment, that point will form the bulk of my speech. It was also mentioned by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne.
The previous Government consulted on bringing MSPs within scope of regulation. Feedback on that consultation indicated strong support, with 86% of respondents in favour. As such, there is a sound policy rationale for imposing cyber-security and instant reporting regulations on MSPs over a certain threshold. Those MSPs will need to take appropriate and proportionate measures to manage risks to the security of the networks and information systems on which they rely to provide managed services in the UK.
However, as I said at the outset and as many people said during evidence, the devil really is in the detail as to whether the Bill is effective in protecting the sectors it seeks to regulate. Several industry stakeholders, including officers of MSPs and industry representation bodies, have raised concerns about the broad definition of MSPs in clause 9. As drafted, that definition has the potential to cause confusion among businesses as to whether they are in scope or not. These relevant provisions will be brought into force with secondary legislation before Royal Assent, allowing time for consultation with industry and specific duties. Could the Minister clarify whether his Department will respond to concerns by consulting on a refined definition of what constitutes an MSP, to provide much-needed certainty to businesses operating in the sector?
I will also take this opportunity to speak to amendment 10, which was tabled in the names of many Members, including the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who I know has a keen interest in this area. He represents an area in the west midlands, which, like many parts of the country, has suffered massively from the impact of the problems with Jaguar Land Rover. The amendment relates to legitimate concerns about the compound risk that could occur when MSP systems are accessed by malicious actors, and those MSPs are providing services to a large number of entities within a regulated sector. Clearly, there are many reservations about the desirability of this particular amendment, including its potential to interfere with customer choice and the inconsistency with the approach to freedom of enterprise in other regulated sectors in the Bill.
It is noteworthy that several witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee pointed out the lack of skilled cyber-security professionals available in the UK employment market to help regulated entities with the effective implementation of the Bill. It is conceivable that many regulated businesses, particularly smaller ones, will be forced to look for external expertise to comply with their obligations, and we would not want to artificially restrict access to expertise, even when done with the best of intentions. The point is rightly made that large MSPs and those providing services to the most critical sectors should observe the highest cyber-security standards. A relevant MSP must have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Information Commissioner when carrying out the duties imposed on it, so will the Minister confirm whether and to what extent the important issues raised by the amendment will be covered in consultation and industry guidance?
The amendment, and some of the debate that we have had, goes to the heart of some of the thresholds and metrics that are being used as gatekeepers in the Bill when an entity is or is not being regulated. As I mentioned this morning, at least 70% of Government cloud procurement goes to the three big US tech actors. Those are clearly huge operators, but when it comes to the criticality of an MSP, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne mentioned, size does not in itself necessarily indicate its essentialness in the system.
One can imagine that if a particular unique type of service was being offered, such as a cyber-security service, by a big company—Cloudflare and Salesforce, for example, had a substantial impact on the sector—not merely the size of an organisation, but what they provide, could be relevant in terms of producing systemic risks to our economy as a whole.
Lincoln Jopp
Having read the Bill, does my hon. Friend understand that if a managed service provider provides services to, say, a hospital—so it would be covered by the regulations—and a reportable event happens to the managed service provider, there is any obligation for the hospital trust to report it as well, or is it just the managed service provider that has the responsibility? If he is not clear on that, would he ask the Minister?
Dr Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for the “get out of jail free” card that he gave me at the end of his question; indeed, I pass that question on to the Minister. The point is well made in terms of trying to dissect the interacting and relevant duties in the Bill. The Bill tries to chop up different actors in the digital ecosystem, as well as public an non-public organisations, although a commercial threshold is being used. The Bill also introduces confusion: it rightly tries to make a carve-out for Crown data centres, but what exactly is a Crown data centre? One could argue that a Crown service is something provided by the state. Is a data centre serving a hospital therefore a Crown data centre?
There are so many different components within the Bill. Not only are there 14 regulators, or however many are operating—earlier this week, Amazon told us in evidence that it is regulated by four regulators—there is also confidential information going through, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne pointed out. It gets even worse in the clause on critical supply networks. It is just incredibly confusing. The Committee—and, dare I say, the Government—should not ignore the evidence we have received from managed service providers time and again saying that although MSPs should be in scope and these regulations help, we need clarity on what exactly that means.
Alison Griffiths
I think my hon. Friend is about to reference the commercial impacts on MSPs. We have already referenced the fact that they are of many different sizes. One of the concerns the Committee will need to consider is whether new contracts will need to be written. The level of uncertainty being created may render the existing frameworks within which they operate redundant.
Dr Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for that pertinent intervention. The burden she talks about is not just financial; companies could also find themselves in legal jeopardy should they become subject to overlapping and competing duties without realising when the Bill becomes an Act. More than anything else—perhaps even more than a low taxation regime—businesses want certainty about the regulatory environment they operate in. This is made even more complicated by the fact that many organisations operate in different jurisdictions and have to contend with different, competing regulatory frameworks. My understanding is that the majority try to take an approach in one jurisdiction that will also cover them in the other so that they have an overlap, but those are the big companies. They have more capacity and resource to do that. The problem will be for the companies on the margins that are struggling.
Chris Vince
The shadow Minister is always very generous with his time. This is not meant to be a controversial intervention, but does he recognise that micro and small enterprises have been omitted from this legislation because we recognise the challenges they have with the guidance? I appreciate that small can mean mighty when it comes to businesses. The hon. Member for Spelthorne made the point that businesses may have only a small headcount, but a very important role in the cyber-security make-up of this country.
Dr Spencer
Irrespective of their size, whatever definition or metric we use, businesses operate on fine margins for the majority of the time. Regulatory burdens not only impact their ability to operate; they are yet another cost, which means that the cost of services increases. That has a deleterious effect on our economy more generally. Burdens on businesses are passed on to consumers. That makes it more expensive to do business unless there are customers to receive it.
Global business competitiveness, which we have not spoken about yet, is critical. I am very concerned about UK competitiveness in the digital and tech sector. It saddens me to say that we are dwarfed by US big tech in many areas. I want our digital and IT sector to be bigger and better than that of our competitors, but we need a framework to support it. Even for bigger businesses, the regulatory burden is critical, especially as they can choose, to a certain extent, where they incorporate and focus on doing business. We want to ensure that the UK has the best regulations, but the best regulations are often the ones that are least burdensome but that still provide certainty to allow businesses to operate. This is a highly competitive market.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the shadow Minister for his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Is he as surprised as I am to read in the impact assessment that the hourly rate for a contract lawyer is to be £34 an hour rather than £300 to £500 an hour, which in my experience is the market rate?
Dr Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that discrepancy in the costings. It goes back to the key principle that business and business modelling are best left to businesspeople, not to Government. The Government have a facilitatory role, but fundamentally their role is to get out of the way of business so that it can succeed and our economy can thrive. We need to ensure, for the good of our economy as a whole, that the critical elements of it are regulated in that way.
Given the interconnected operation of MSPs in our digital sector, any burden that we put on business will limit the growth that we all need and will limit competitiveness. In this footloose market especially, that could result in organisations and companies operating in other sectors, notwithstanding the fact that they will have to comply with UK jurisdictional rules. As a general point, regulations will cause footloose industries to move and operate in different sectors, which will mean less taxation revenue and more costs for clients, making it more difficult to do business.
We need to make sure that our economy is as nimble and free as possible, both for those trading as an MSP and more generally. I cannot labour the point enough: the costs that we impose on businesses under the Bill, in particular in the cyber-security and tech sector, will be felt by our economy as a whole. We will have to pay for that through increased inflation in food, energy or anything else that our critical suppliers provide. Even our NHS provision costs will increase as a consequence of the regulatory burden on businesses as disparate and distant from the NHS as those that we see in the Bill.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The hon. Member is quite right to say that American companies have captured most of the market that he is talking about, particularly the cloud providers. What does he think is stopping British cloud providers from getting a larger share of the market?
Dr Spencer
The cloud providers I have spoken to talk about several things. They talk about the crippling cost of energy in the UK, something that we need to drive down—
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Taiwo Owatemi)
I am sorry, but this is not in scope.
The Chair
Order. You are telling me that you do not think it is in scope, but we consider that it is.
Dr Spencer
The cloud providers tell me that the energy costs are crippling, which is highly problematic, and that is why we need to drive those costs down. They talk about the challenges of getting data centres built and about planning considerations, which are a concern across the country. They talk about the taxation environment and costs on businesses more generally, particularly when they are footloose, and they talk about the regulatory framework. Pretty much all of those things are not specifically in the Bill, with the exception of the regulatory framework, so there is a lot that is suppressing the opportunities for cloud providers and others in the sector and hindering them from doing business and succeeding.
There is a broader point to make about the Bill and the philosophy behind it, because there is something that we have to avoid. There is a sense in the UK that we are getting gummed up by regulation and obsessing more and more about limitations and restrictions to businesses. In that environment, people and organisations that do well financially, succeed and grow are seen as either targets or cheats—as something that we can go for, tax and punish. We have lost or diminished our can-do attitude when it comes to supporting the risk takers and the entrepreneurs, who are the people and organisations building the MSPs and data centres on which our economy relies.
Over and above that, there is a cultural issue that is impacting our IT and tech sector. As legislators we should ensure that the thing we have direct control over, which is the legislation in front of us, imposes as small a regulatory burden as possible while still ensuring that it is sufficient to meet our aims. We must listen to businesses and hear their concerns. We hear time and again that the lack of clarity, particularly in this part of the Bill, is putting them at financial and legal risk. That is a very substantial concern.
Alison Griffiths
On my hon. Friend’s point about the lack of clarity in the Bill, there is a real possibility that firms will find that an MSP has one view of an issue while their client has another. Unless there is sufficient clarity in the wording of the Bill, we will have issues.
Dr Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Legal clarity is important. I have absolutely no issue with lawyers, but we do not want to make a load of money for lawyers as a consequence of the definitional challenges around the Bill’s implementation. That is not good for businesses, which need certainty as to how to apply the regulatory framework under which they operate. Regulatory uncertainty will not help a business to make decisions. My assumption is that the default position will be for businesses to assume that they are not regulated entities, which means that they will not take actions that we would like them to take as a result of the Bill. Again, we will be making laws under which everybody loses out.
My final point is about the carve-out in respect of public authority oversight. It is all well and good for the Government to say, “We have an action plan and we’re going to sort out Government IT and the cyber-security risk for Government services,” but it is not playing out that way. Our biggest risks, and the most vulnerable components of our digital IT infrastructure, are those that are linked to Government services. Change is needed. My sense is that when a company interacts and shares data with Government and public sector services, the biggest-cyber security risk is likely to be in the aspects that are provided by Government services. We are making legislation that puts a host of burdens on the private sector, yet we are largely silent about what is happening in the public sector. Putting people at risk in that way is really not good enough. We need to support our overall cyber-security.
Kanishka Narayan
Once again, the shadow Minister is auditioning for roles in the Treasury, by talking about general taxation, and in the Department for Business and Trade, by talking about general philosophies of regulatory reform. I will focus on matters within the scope of our debate, and on four aspects in particular.
First, Opposition Members have raised questions about definition. They have been answered frequently, but I am happy to repeat the answer. The scope of MSP coverage, which focuses on large and medium-sized MSPs, means that something in the order of 11% of MSPs are covered, by number, but 97.6% of the UK’s MSP revenue is covered. I hope that that gives sufficient assurance as to the coverage of the Bill. Of course, the critical supplier provisions cover any others.
Kanishka Narayan
I am happy to proceed and to focus on Crown ownership of data centre provision to others. For those reasons, I continue to commend clauses 9 to 11 to the Committee.
Lincoln Jopp
Will the Minister please clarify whether he thinks that, as page 102 of the impact assessment states, the hourly rate for a lawyer changing a contract is £34?
Kanishka Narayan
I simply point out to the hon. Member that the pricing for law varies materially. I hope that, with the benefit of technology, it continues to be very accessible to all relevant providers.
Lincoln Jopp
I am sorry, but that is nonsense. The footnote on the page that cites £34 an hour for a contract lawyer directs us back to the Office for National Statistics. I hope that the Minister lives in the real world—he has clearly worked in the business world—so he knows that that is nonsense. Does he agree that that pretty well undermines that section of the impact assessment?
Kanishka Narayan
Having closed the debate, I am happy to conclude.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr Spencer
On a point of order, Ms McVey. What mechanism is available to Members who are concerned that there is a factual error in the impact assessment? How can that be corrected?
The Chair
The point has been made clearly on the record. We can take it beyond this room, and perhaps you can write to the Minister afterwards for clarification.
Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Critical suppliers
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kanishka Narayan
Clause 12 will introduce a new power for regulators to designate critical suppliers to organisations as in scope of the NIS regulations. These are suppliers that are so pivotal to the provision of essential digital or managed services that a compromise or outage in their systems can cause a disruption that would have serious cascading impacts for our society and economy; I am thinking in particular of the Synnovis incident in 2024, when 11,000 medical appointments were cancelled across London hospitals as a result of an attack on a pathology service provider.
The clause will ensure that the power to designate can be exercised only where suppliers pose a credible risk of systemic disruption and when the regulator has considered whether the risks to the supplier cannot be managed via other means. In other words, it is a very high bar indeed.
The clause provides safeguards for suppliers, which must be consulted and notified during the designation process. It also requires regulators to consult other relevant NIS regulators when they are considering whether to designate, or decide to do so, ensuring that they have an accurate understanding of how suppliers are already regulated.
Finally, the clause provides for designations to be revoked when risks no longer apply or when a supplier has met the thresholds for regulation as a relevant digital service provider or relevant managed service provider. It should be noted that the clause does not set out the security duties on critical suppliers; these will be defined in secondary legislation following an appropriate period of consultation.
By addressing supply chain vulnerabilities, this measure will strengthen the resilience of the UK’s essential and digital services on which the public rely every day. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Alison Griffiths
The clause merits close scrutiny, because it is the point in the Bill where risk is supposed to be addressed beyond the individual operator and into the supply chain. In plain terms, clause 12 will allow the regulator to designate a supplier as critical where disruption to that supplier would have a significant impact on the delivery of an essential or digital service. The trigger is impact, not size or sector. That approach is sensible, but I want to stress-test how it works in the context of operational technology.
Across power, telecoms, transport, water and industry, many essential services rely on the same family of industrial control equipment. Substations, signalling systems and industrial plants may look different, but they often run on identical controlled devices and firmware supplied by a very small number of manufacturers.
The risk is not hypothetical. A single vulnerability in widely deployed OT equipment can create a common mode failure across multiple sectors at the same time, even where each operator is individually compliant with its duties. At the moment, the Bill places obligations squarely on operators of essential services, but in OT environments, operators do not control the design of equipment, the firmware, the vulnerability disclosure process or the remote access arrangements that vendors often require as a condition of support.
As Rik Ferguson highlighted in written evidence to this Committee, uncertainty about how and when suppliers might be brought into scope can lead to defensive behaviour and late engagement. The risk is amplified in OT, where suppliers may discover vulnerabilities before operators do, and where one operator may report an issue, while others in different sectors, using identical equipment, remain unaware.
There is also a traceability problem. OT equipment is frequently sold through integrators and distributors. Manufacturers may not have a clear picture of where the equipment is ultimately deployed. Without that visibility, national-scale vulnerability notification and co-ordinated response become very difficult.
UK Finance has also drawn attention to the complexity of multi-tier supply chains and the need for clear accountability when regulatory reach extends upstream. The clause recognises that reality, but its effectiveness will depend on how consistently and predictably designation decisions are made across sectors.
My concern is not about the existence of the power. It is about whether, in practice, the power will be used early enough and clearly enough to address shared OT risks before they become cross-sector incidents. Operational resilience today depends less on individual sites and more on the security practices of a relatively small— I would say very small—number of OT suppliers that sit behind them. The clause has the potential to address that, but only if its application is focused on genuine systemic risk and supported by clear signals to suppliers and operators alike. For those reasons, the clause warrants careful consideration as the Bill progresses.
Lincoln Jopp
To understand the impact of what we are discussing, we obviously look at the impact assessment. We in this place are often accused of simply making rules and passing laws with no real sense of the impact downstream, particularly on small businesses. Having worked in the tech sector for 10 years, with data centres and managed service providers, and worked to try to grow many small and medium-sized enterprises, I am acutely conscious of the need not to overburden them. It is clearly hugely important that the Government take account of the impact of the measures they are taking and the burdens they are imposing on small and medium-sized enterprises.
To understand the impact of this measure, it is important to know two things: first, how many companies will be impacted and, secondly, how much it is going to cost. While I am sure that the Minister will say that this provision on critical suppliers is great, and all very clear, it cannot really be that clear. Page 110 of the impact assessment states:
“DSIT is not able to estimate at this stage the number of SMEs or SME DSPs that will be designated as critical suppliers”;
so we cannot tell how many there are. The same page also states:
“Specific duties will be set through secondary legislation so the exact cost of security measures is not possible to estimate.”
We do not know how many there are or how much the measure is going to cost, but Government Members will be whipped to say, “That’s okay—that can be done by someone else at another time.” We do not really have a strong sense of the impact on real-world businesses of what we are doing here. We also talked about the legal costs in an earlier sitting. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reassuring words about how very clear the clause is and how it is not just a blank cheque, even though we do not know how many people it will affect or how much it will cost them.
Dr Spencer
This clause is one of the provisions that has given rise to widespread industry concern regarding its scope and implications. Business supply chains, particularly for large operators of essential services and multinational companies, are becoming ever more complex. The increased digitisation of service provision across the board means that the delivery of essential services can be vulnerable to severe disruption when the systems of critical supply chain entities are interrupted by cyber-attacks.
The Government have pointed to the 2024 cyber-attack on Synnovis, a pathology lab provider serving several London hospitals, as an example of the severe consequences that can flow from a cyber-attack on a key supply chain provider. In that case, the suspension of Synnovis services caused disruption to more than 11,000 appointments and operations. The attack caused at least two cases of serious harm to patients and, tragically, one patient’s death was attributed to the long wait for blood test results. Estimated financial losses from the attack exceeded £30 million.
The previous Government were conscious of intensifying supply chain risk, and consulted on measures to enable regulators to designate individual suppliers as critical if they provided an IT service on which an OES or RDSP was dependent for the provision of its essential service. The response to that consultation showed overwhelming support for the proposal, but stakeholders argued that the designation process would need to be transparent and based on engagement with industry. It is those vital elements of transparency and engagement, or rather the current lack of them, that are causing high levels of concern among supply chain entities that stand to be brought within scope of regulation when these provisions come into effect.
To break that down, preserving agility for the Secretary of State and regulators to respond to emerging risks has been recognised as both a strength and a weakness of the Bill. However, lack of certainty is a particular concern in a context of critical supplier designation, especially as this part of the Bill has the potential to bring in large numbers of small and even microbusinesses within the scope of regulation, potentially by multiple regulators. That is a daunting prospect for smaller companies, even taking into account the caveated duty on competent authorities to co-ordinate in the approach to regulation of critical suppliers in the proposed new paragraph 14L of the NIS regulations.
Several witnesses in oral evidence, including techUK and ISC2, made strong arguments that SMEs often lack the financial and human resources to develop cyber-security expertise and comply with regulation. Those organisations will need additional time to prepare, and a better indication of the criteria that might be used by regulators to determine which supply chain providers are critical. Industry bodies have called on the Government to ensure meaningful consultation on secondary legislation and guidance, to ensure that the measures are fit for purpose and capable of practical implementation. As part of the planned consultation, will the Minister commit to considering whether there are alternative approaches to regulation for increasing cyber-resilience in companies below a certain size?
Alison Griffiths
The clause is drafted broadly, which is understandable, but in practice many of the supply chains, as my hon. Friend has ably demonstrated, involve several layers of providers and sub-providers. I would welcome clarity on how regulators are expected to approach designation in these cases, so that responsibility is clear and preparation can happen upstream, rather than only after an incident.
Dr Spencer
My hon. Friend has figured out what I am going to say in a moment, when it comes to the scoping of the regulator and that communication process. Such is the depth of the rabbit hole that the provision creates that, even though my hon. Friend’s intervention did not go where I thought she was going, another problem has just come to mind.
What happens in the circumstance where a critical supplier that acts as a proxy for multiple critical suppliers? How does designation operate in that fashion? There are suppliers that essentially operate as a marketplace to a certain provision of services. Is it the marketplace that is regulated, or is it each supplier within the marketplace? A locum agency could hypothetically be an umbrella company for multiple different smaller locum agencies, each of which would share the corporate risk as part of that.
Going back to my first point, the idea that access to the IT network or system will somehow be discriminatory, or dichotomise between people who are in scope of this measure and people who are not, seems to me complete nonsense. It is difficult to see what organisations, if they provide a service to a modern OES, will be in scope of it.
Secondly, there is systemic or significant disruption. I often say that, if someone wanted to cripple a hospital, the best way to do that would be to stop the cleaners cleaning rooms, and to stop the porters pushing people around the hospital to get them to their appointments and moving beds. There is often a focus on doctors and on the rest of the core medical and nursing staff— I myself often focus perhaps a bit too much on doctors—but it really is a whole-team effort. In fact, the most critical people are often the people who might not be the subject of the most focus, such as the cleaners and porters.
If the cleaners stop work or do not turn up to work, the hospital grinds to a halt. If taxis are not taking people to and from hospital out of hours, or if the patient transport is not taking people to hospital, out-patient departments grind to a halt. If the locum companies that fill gaps in staff rotas are not available to do that, and there are substantial rota gaps that make the provision of services unsafe, the hospital also grinds to a halt. If it is not possible to get access to critical medicines, if staff cannot maintain the blood gas machine or the blood pressure machine, or if the boiler breaks down, the hospital grinds to a halt.
It is not just something as obvious as the tragic situation with blood and pathology testing that causes a hospital to grind to a halt. Indeed, I cannot think of many private sector provisions that would not have a substantial impact on a hospital if they were to be removed; if any other Member can, I will be very happy to stand corrected. However, just skimming through them, I can see that the removal of most of them would cause the hospital to grind to a halt. The idea that the significant impact definition will be a discriminatory factor regarding suppliers just does not work. Someone might say: “Ben, you’re completely wrong. We found some providers.”, but, if that situation arises, how will the arbitration occur in terms of the threshold?
Chris Vince
I am not going to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is completely wrong—he should not worry about that. I will make another point. I wonder whether the distinction might be how time-sensitive losing a particular service would be. That is just a suggestion.
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Member so much for that intervention about the time it would take to find an alternative supplier, because it will bring me on nicely to my point about alternative suppliers.
However, before I move on to that point, the hon. Gentleman made a very good point in his intervention, which I will address. To be subject to these provisions will create a regulatory burden, and therefore a cost burden, for an organisation that is designated to be a national critical supplier. If I was a supplier of services, I would want to have the best provision possible. I would want to be cyber-secure; I would want to have a gold-standard service. However, I might also be nervous of being designated as a critical supplier because of the regulatory burden that would impose on me, which would make me potentially less competitive in getting contracts because of the costs that would ensue. There would need to be an arbitration system where a company that is under threat of being designated a critical supplier could have a discussion or debate about whether that designation was relevant or not.
I will now move on to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about alternative services. I really have no idea at all how we can expect a regulator to delve into the complexities and the minutiae of what is available in a local economy to provide these services that the OES is receiving. Do we expect the relevant regulator to check what taxi services are available—actually available, rather than some sort of fantasy availability where they are available on paper, but not in reality—in the local ecosystem that could supply to that hospital, which is the operator of essential services? What is the scope of research that the regulator would have to do? What considerations would they need to take regarding how much the taxis cost and how effective they are? What about the procurement decisions and processes that have already been gone through?
Most public sector organisations have complex procurement rules when setting up their contracts—and that is before we even begin to consider health and safety concerns that are subject to regulatory provisions. For example, if the regulator decided that taxi services are under threat of becoming a critical supplier, then does the taxi service have the ability to deal with someone who has a cardiac arrest, needs oxygen or has a behavioural disturbance? Can it manage people with physical or mental disabilities? What is the scope of that particular service provision? The experts will be the people who commissioned it in the first place; yet on the face of the Bill there is no objective requirement for the regulator to speak to the OES in the first place about how this provision and service was procured.
In terms of the service being available—as per the point made by the hon. Member for Harlow about the time to shift through—how will that be evidenced and investigated? What resource is going into this? That is just for a taxi company. What about when we expand it—and this is just for the NHS—to cleaners, porters, locum agencies or medicines provision? Is the provision of services geographically circumscribed or will this be across the country? I am sure that one can find alternative services to provide taxis to St Thomas’ in Birkenhead, but that does not necessarily mean that it is available in a reasonable timeframe or sense, in terms of the designation of supplier.
Lincoln Jopp
I do not want to add spurious hypotheticals, so I will talk about the real world. I visited the Maypole special school in my constituency the other day. It has 20 members of staff and 18 pupils. It has people coming from as far away as Wandsworth. It books the transport, and the transport is paid for by the local education authority in which the pupil lives. It is clearly critical that children get to the school—just as it would be for a hospital. Would it be up to members of staff at the Maypole school to find out whether Addison Lee used a managed service provider or a data centre? That seems quite a tricky thing to know about and then to fulfil.
Dr Spencer
I really appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. It goes incisively to the heart of the concern about how these provisions are currently drafted. I really struggle to see how an OES that is providing a service to another OES could effectively argue that it is not within the full scope of these regulations. We have a lot of OESs in this country. It may be the Minister’s and the Government’s intention to essentially have a proxy regulatory framework for suppliers to OESs going forward—it is being kept very loose, because there is some flexibility in that, but that in itself will be a problem.
I worry that a lot of providers are going to think to themselves, “Why should we provide to an OES when we might be at risk of being designated as a national critical supplier?” Surely that is a concern that will have a chilling effect on organisations supplying to OESs, because of the risk of being found within the scope of this additional regulatory burden.
Don’t get me wrong; as I have said, companies should be taking cyber-security seriously, as should everyone. However, not everyone should be subject to the various regulations and data-sharing requirements that this Bill provides for. I suspect that many organisations will be very concerned. If there is a risk of designation as a critical supplier, companies will already be instructing lawyers and other organisations to manage that corporate risk.
If an organisation starts supplying to a hospital trust, or to whoever it may be, it might think, “Actually, we’re likely at risk of being designated, so we need to start doing some work and investment, either to challenge that designation or begin doing the preparatory work.” Maybe that is the intention: to effectively regulate the entire sector providing to OESs without actually lifting a finger in terms of regulation through this Bill. If that is the case, I am sort of sad, because I think it is better to be clear-cut about it. I would be grateful if the Minister answered that point directly.
Finally, in terms of OESs, we have already mentioned the fact that Government and local authority IT infrastructure and services are among the biggest risks in our system. I was really struck by the evidence from the NHS on Tuesday, in which our witnesses described data-sharing operations with adult social care, which is of course provided by local authorities.
It seems quite perverse, if I may say so, that a GP surgery, which is a private organisation, could be deemed a critical supplier to a hospital in terms of patient information sharing. Quite frankly, I would like the Minister to answer the question specifically: does he envisage primary care GPs being in scope because of data sharing of hospital records with NHS trusts? GPs could fall within scope as critical suppliers, while social care records, which are provided by local authorities, would not. There are all these weird situations that could emerge because of the scope and the looseness of these provisions, with all the consequent harms and problems. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my points.
Kanishka Narayan
First, I will respond to the apt and thoughtful points from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on operational technology. I can confirm to her that both vendors and providers of operational technologies will be covered by the provision of the five-step test for critical supplier designation. That is an important aspect when thinking about supply chains and the presence of operational technology where it is of critical interest.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne raised a very accurate point about proportionality in the provisions of the Bill, and in particular the impact assessments, statements, or limited statements on critical supplier impacts. As he will know very well, the Bill takes a very nuanced position on proportionality. When a sector is designated, there will be total clarity on the number of suppliers affected and on the ultimate impact. We will have sight of that.
The provision on critical suppliers was asked for by industry. The reason why the Bill does not specify critical suppliers is that it is simply not for the Government to specify how a business can or cannot continue. It is for businesses and regulators to work that through by understanding the depth of expertise that businesses have. We have started to do that, but that is precisely why the critical suppliers provisions have been delegated to secondary legislation and subsequent guidance.
Kanishka Narayan
I commit to giving way to the hon. Gentleman at the end of my speech. He asked about schools. I am happy to confirm that schools are not in the scope of the Bill.
In response to the shadow Minister, I highlight that the five-step test is cumulative: a business must meet all the conditions to be designated as critical, not just one. I think that answers the series of logical puzzles that he tied himself up in.
I am very happy to confirm to the Committee that it is expected that regulators will use information gathered from their oversight of operators of essential services, relevant managed service providers and relevant digital service providers to identify potential critical suppliers for designation. They can also ask organisations for more information to support their assessments. Future supply chain duties will also require organisations to share supply chain risk assessments with regulators. A supplier can be designated only after the regulator has completed an investigation process, including serving notices and holding a consultation, and confirmed that the criteria are met. Designated suppliers will also have the right to challenge decisions through an independent appeals process.
Kanishka Narayan
I commit to giving way at the end of my speech to the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Spelthorne.
On the question of consultation, I am happy to confirm that the team in question has set up an implementation-focused effort. We have started to engage with regulators already, and there will be an extensive process of engagement on the Bill with business, as has been conducted historically.
The shadow Minister highlighted a number of logical puzzles. I have worked in a range of businesses and public sector organisations, and most have business continuity services. His hypothetical idea that businesses do not understand alternative provision, and whether they are or are not in a position of exposure, is well solved in the real world. I would give more credit to our expert witnesses from NHS Scotland than he did in recognising that they said that they frequently deal with the question of critical suppliers in co-ordination with competent authorities.
Lincoln Jopp
The Minister came back with an answer on proportionality, saying that it is not for Government to decide what is essential. He missed out the next bit, which is, “We’re just going to regulate critical suppliers and pass laws about them, but we don’t know how many there are, and we don’t know how much the policy is going to cost.” Would he accept that characterisation as the logical conclusion of what he said?
The Minister also said that schools were not covered by the Bill. As far as I am aware, patient data and children’s data are two of the most precious things that we have, so I would like to know why schools are not covered by the Bill.
Kanishka Narayan
On the first point, I am afraid that I do not think that was an appropriate characterisation, because where the sectoral scope is clear and where there is a clear risk of critical national infrastructure and essential services being directly exposed, we have specified that in the Bill. We have looked at the impacts set out in the impact assessment. For the critical suppliers in those sectors—I would expect them to be very limited in number—we have made sure that regulators and businesses have the flexibility to set the requirements directly, rather than them being set here in Parliament.
Chris Vince
I was going to intervene on the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne, but he is bigger than me. I recognise the points he made about the number of critical suppliers, but I come at the question from the other angle: doing nothing may leave critical suppliers at risk. Although we might not know the exact number, as he correctly asserted, it is important that we do something and introduce the regulations as soon as we can to protect our critical infrastructure.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. This issue has not come out of nowhere. Industry and a number of organisations asked that we introduce the measures in the clause.
Beyond the very clear five-step test for critical supplier designation, the Bill provides that the requirements on critical suppliers are proportionate. The reason why we have both the five-step test and the provisions in the Bill is that, in most cases, if the risk assessment suggests so, the security requirements set out in the Bill will be less onerous in most cases. They will be specified in secondary legislation and guidance.
On the question of schools, and more broadly the question of public sector authorities, I entirely accept that the handling of pupil data in schools is a critical aspect of our public service operations. The reason why public service authorities have largely been left out of the Bill’s scope is because we do not need to wait for the legislative process to act. We have been working, not least closely with the Government’s cyber-security strategy and the cyber action plan, to ensure that pupil data is kept securely and robustly.
Dr Spencer
The Minister is, of course, within his rights to snarkily dismiss the questions that I have raised, but I should point out that the stuff that is debated in Parliament, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the Chamber, is relevant when it comes to future legal disputes after a Bill is passed. The questions I have asked about the application of the Bill’s provisions will be important parts of the legal disputes that I expect will arise after its implementation. When people look back through the Minister’s dismissive comments, I hope they have other resources that they can go to for settling legal arguments. However, he may choose to respond fully now, or in writing if he cannot provide me with an answer.
Kanishka Narayan
I believe that where the shadow Minister laid out any specific concerns, I was able to set out answers, not least on the process for the designation of critical suppliers and the availability of an appeals process. Where his points were more in the realm of specific hypothetical puzzles, I have stayed clear for precisely the reasons that he highlights. This is serious stuff that can form the basis of how businesses and others plan, rather than specific judgments that we ought not to speculate about in this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Provision of information by operators of data centre services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kanishka Narayan
Clause 13 ensures that operators of data centres provide essential information to regulators, enabling them to properly monitor their sector and its cyber-resilience. The clause requires operators to submit key details, such as names, addresses and contact information, within three months of designation, and to update regulators within seven days if anything changes. Regulators are required to maintain a list of designated entities. By keeping regulatory records current, the clause strengthens our ability to monitor and protect essential services and respond to incidents that could affect businesses, public services and national security. The clause plays a key foundational role in the Bill’s wider framework for cyber-security and resilience.
Like clause 13, clause 14 places legal duties on digital and managed services providers to provide essential information to their regulator—in this case, the information commission. Like operators of data centre services, RDSPs and MSPs will be required to register with the information commission within three months, submitting key details, such as names and contact information, and to update regulators within seven days if anything changes. Organisations based outside the UK will be required to nominate a UK representative and provide contact details. To strengthen cross-agency support and recognise the key role that these businesses play in the UK economy and society, the information commission will be required to share its registers of relevant digital and managed service providers with GCHQ. Those proportionate steps will enable authorities to do their job and respond when it matters.
Dr Spencer
Clause 13 requires in-scope data centre operators to provide certain information to their designated competent authorities, which—subject to Government amendment 11, which we passed earlier—will now be solely Ofcom, and to keep that information up to date. The information includes the data centre operator’s address and the names of directors. It must be provided within three months of the data centre operator’s designation. For data centres that meet the threshold criteria, that would be three months after clause 4 comes into force. Other OESs are not subject to an equivalent requirement to provide information to their sector regulator. That reflects the fact that the Government currently have limited information about the data centre sector.
RDSPs are already required, under regulation 14 of the NIS regulations 2018, to provide their contact details to the information commission, as their sector regulator. Clause 14(2) amends regulation 14 to require RDSPs to provide more information, including about their directors and the digital services they provide. It would also require the information commission to share a copy of its register of RDSPs with GCHQ. Clause 14(9) requires RMSPs to register with the information commission and to submit the same contact details as RDSPs. RMSPs must nominate a UK representative if they are based outside the UK. The information commission will be required to maintain a register of RMSPs and to share it with GCHQ. Clauses 13 and 14 give Ofcom and the information commission access to more detailed information about regulated entities and facilitate regulatory oversight of the data centre RDSP and RMSP industries in the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Reporting of Incidents by Regulated Persons
Dr Spencer
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 15, page 22, line 15, at end insert—
“(f) whether the incident involves failure modes not previously observed in the relevant sector materially involving autonomous or adaptive systems based on machine learning, including where the potential impact of such failure modes was mitigated or prevented.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 15, page 22, line 25, at end insert—
“(ea) where the incident was associated with one or more autonomous or adaptive systems based on machine learning, details of those systems and their involvement in the incident;”
Amendment 4, in clause 15, page 23, line 32, at end insert—
“(ea) where the incident involved one or more autonomous or adaptive systems based on machine learning, details of those systems and their involvement in the incident;”
Amendment 5, in clause 15, page 26, line 37, at end insert—
“(h) whether the incident involves failure modes not previously observed in the relevant sector materially involving autonomous or adaptive systems based on machine learning, including where the potential impact of such failure modes was mitigated or prevented.”
Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 27, line 7, at end insert—
“(ea) where the incident was associated with one or more autonomous or adaptive systems based on machine learning, details of those systems and their involvement in the incident;”
Amendment 7, in clause 15, page 30, line 8, at end insert—
“(fa) whether the incident involves failure modes not previously observed in the relevant sector materially involving autonomous or adaptive systems based on machine learning, including where the potential impact of such failure modes was mitigated or prevented;”
Amendment 8, in clause 15, page 30, line 21, at end insert—
“(ea) where the incident was associated with one or more autonomous or adaptive systems based on machine learning, details of those systems and their involvement in the incident;”
Amendment 9, in clause 18, page 40, line 10, at end insert—
“(8A) Where the CSIRT receives notification of an incident under regulation 11, 11A, 12A, or 14E that materially involves autonomous or adaptive systems based on machine learning, the CSIRT must share relevant technical information with the relevant body within 72 hours.
(8B) For the purposes of this regulation, a “relevant body” means the AI Security Institute or any successor or replacement body designated by the Secretary of State.”
Dr Spencer
I will speak to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), but wait for the next group to speak to clauses 15 and 16 and the amendments to them in the name of the official Opposition.
From the outset, it is important for me to say that while I have spoken to the hon. Member more generally and responded to a debate he secured on AI, I have not spoken to him specifically regarding these amendments and their precise purpose. However, given his concerns about the AI sector and his background, we can see where he is going with them. Broadly speaking, the amendments would ensure that as part of the reporting requirements under these clauses, there is an ability to measure whether adaptive AI or large language models have been responsible for a cyber-security breach or an incident within the systems themselves.
That derives from what we see happening more generally in the cyber-security sector. We heard evidence that, online, people can essentially purchase a cyber-security hack suite of software. It is possible to pay for people to do hacking and one can get training in it. A lot of hacking and cyber-security breaches are now expanding because of large language models and the use of AI to probe systems. I do not know if we have a sense of scope regarding how much this is a problem specifically in the UK, whether for the individual businesses or organisations that will be regulated under the Bill. I understand, as I interpret them, that the point of the amendments is to get a dataset on where AI or automated decision making has been used to pose a particular cyber-security risk.
The amendments also speak to a more general point. There has been a lot of debate in this place over the years about what we as a country, and equivalent democracies, are doing on the regulation of AI and large language models, building on the Bletchley conferences, innovative work and what guardrails we need to think about in terms of imposing LLMs and AI in the UK, and how we approach AI being used by hostile state actors, such as through bot accounts. I understand that the use of deepfakes, bots and so on is an emerging risk as a method of cyber-attack. There are broader issues with regard to transparency when bots on the internet and social media networks can get into various IT systems and accounts, and effectively pretend to be somebody else to get around the cyber-security system. As with all things, we do not know what we do not know. I understand that the amendments were tabled to increase reporting requirements and give us more evidence of the scope of the problem and the threat posed.
I will be grateful if the Minister gives his sense of how much of a problem this is, particularly with regard to whether reporting requirements are necessary. I believe that the Government’s original plan was to introduce an AI Bill. That would have pros and cons, and I remain agnostic on that, but, speaking for His Majesty’s Opposition, I would like to know the Minister’s plans for the AI landscape and whether, in the upcoming King’s Speech, there is an idea of revisiting an AI Bill, which might make such amendments obsolete.
Kanishka Narayan
I appreciate the intent behind the amendments and the shadow Minister’s position of understanding but not supporting them, which I share. I share his concerns about the potential for emerging risks posed by AI systems, not least in the realm of cyber-security. At the same time, I am conscious that we have not specified any risk factors in the Bill from a reporting point of view for the National Cyber Security Centre or the regulators. To do so in this context would place an undue priority on one category or source of risk.
For those reasons, although I understand the motivation behind the amendments and I am conscious of the risks posed by AI systems, I urge the hon. Member not to press them. The Bill is technology-agnostic rather than focused on particular areas of risk. The Government continue to work on mitigating AI risks, primarily at the point of use, but also through extensive Government capability, not least in the AI Security Institute.
Dr Spencer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Railways Bill (Eleventh sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I remind Members to switch any electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. The selection and grouping document shows the way in which the amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any Divisions on amendments or new clauses take place in the order in which they appear in the amendment paper.
Clause 59
Access and use policy
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 59, page 33, line 19, at end insert
“in addition to a subsequent right to appeal to the ORR”.
This amendment would enable a subsequent right of appeal to the ORR after going through the dispute resolution process.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 217, in clause 59, page 33, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) Great British Railways’ policy about, and procedures for, access to and the use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains, must be best calculated—
(a) to promote improvements in railway service performance;
(b) otherwise to protect the interests of users of railway services;
(c) to promote the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of passengers and goods, and the development of that railway network, to the greatest extent that it considers economically practicable;
(d) to contribute to the development of an integrated system of transport of passengers and goods;
(e) to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;
(f) to promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons providing railway services;
(g) to promote competition in the provision of railway services for the benefit of users of railway services;
(h) to promote measures designed to facilitate the making by passengers of journeys which involve use of the services of more than one passenger service operator;
(i) to impose on the operators of railway services the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the performance of its functions under this Part; or the Railways Act 2005 that are not safety functions;
(j) to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance.
(3B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3A) above, Great British Railways shall have a duty, in particular, to exercise the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by virtue of this Part, or the Railways Act 2005 that are not safety functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to protect—
(a) the interests of users and potential users of services for the carriage of passengers by railway provided by a private sector operator otherwise than under a franchise agreement, in respect of—
(i) the prices charged for travel by means of those services, and
(ii) the quality of the service provided; and
(b) the interests of persons providing services for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway in their use of any railway facilities which are for the time being vested in a private sector operator, in respect of—
(i) the prices charged for such use; and
(ii) the quality of the service provided.
(3C) Great British Railways shall be under a duty in exercising the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by virtue of this Part or the Railways Act 2005 that are not safety functions—
(a) to take into account the need to protect all persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways, and
(b) to have regard to the effect on the environment of activities connected with the provision of railway services.”
This amendment places requirements on Great British Railways to use the access and use policy to promote high quality service and competition.
Amendment 77, in clause 59, page 33, line 37, at end insert—
“(7) Neither the Secretary of State, nor Great British Railways, may take any action to implement any part of the access and use policy until a copy of the policy has been laid before Parliament for a period of three months.”
This amendment would provide that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways, could take any step to implement any part of the access and use policy until it has been laid before Parliament for three months.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 87, in clause 66, page 37, line 32, after “ORR,” insert “open access operators,”.
This amendment would require GBR to consult open access operators on its access and use policy.
Clause 66 stand part.
Rebecca Smith
It is a privilege to work under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I start by conveying the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, who is not able to be present today. Instead, I am standing in on his behalf.
The clause sets out that Great British Railways must issue documents explaining the policies and procedures for access to and use of GBR infrastructure. Policy must cover procedures for applying for access, the criteria that GBR will apply to its decision making, and a procedure for resolving disputes. Subsection (3) permits GBR to set out the terms—that is, the rights and obligations —that a train operator can expect to receive where it has been granted access to GBR infrastructure. Subsection (6) allows a person aggrieved by a provision in the document to appeal to the Office of Rail and Road.
That is crucial information for all open access operators, and yet the Bill has no detail at all. It just makes reference to a future “document or documents”. In our view, that is a totally unacceptable approach, and it leaves the industry in the dark on mission-critical issues. Furthermore, no draft has been published, no direction of travel set out and no assurance given to the sector. We feel that to be a slightly arrogant approach from the Government and not a good sign of the approach that GBR itself will take to the independent sector.
Under the Bill as drafted, GBR can make the application process as one-sided as it likes, favouring its own services over those of other competing operators—in the interests not of passengers, but of GBR. The key issue is that the Government’s approach to the legislation is an assumption that the interests of GBR are synonymous with those of passengers, but we do not believe that that is always the case. Every organisation seeks to remove competition, which is uncomfortable—it exposes failures and weaknesses, and ultimately will show GBR up—but competition is crucial to improve service to customers, because organisations are forced to respond. That is why we believe that it needs to exist.
The Bill gives GBR the power to design out competition to itself, with no checks or balances save what we consider to be a pathetic appeals process, where the Government’s position is that the appellate body should not second-guess the decision of GBR, only errors of law. That is a core problem with the Bill and something that we feel is akin only to what a judicial review can do in other areas.
The clause gives GBR sweeping control over access rules, with very few safeguards. GBR sets both the access criteria and the timetable dispute procedure, so the body compiling the timetable also controls challenges to its own decisions. Subsection (3) makes the publication of access terms optional, allowing for opaque or preferential conditions. Subsection (4) lets GBR change the rules at any time, with no duty to consult. Overall, the clause lacks the transparency and checks promised in the consultation and risks embedding clear conflicts of interest to the disadvantage of non-GBR operators.
Lumo and Hull Trains, in their written evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, stated:
“Maintaining a fair, evidence-based, and independent process for access to the network is fundamental to ensuring continued growth and innovation.”
Under clause 59, however, the access and use policy will be developed and revised by GBR, setting the framework by which new services are assessed and defining the terms under which the ORR will judge appeals. Giving GBR exclusive control over that framework risks creating real or perceived conflicts of interest.
For more than two decades, the independence of access decisions has underpinned rail market growth. The continued involvement of the ORR in assessing applications objectively, balancing passenger, freight and performance needs, is essential to preserving that success. To ensure a transparent and fair access framework that the ORR can meaningfully enforce, it is important that private operators are involved in the development of the access and use policy and that appropriate statutory protections for open access are in place.
Without consultation or clear safeguards, the access and use policy risks becoming a document shaped solely by GBR’s priorities, which would potentially exclude private operators and leave them with no effective mechanism to challenge decisions that affect their ability to operate. A robust and independent access framework will also help to unlock further private sector investment in new services and rolling stock. By maintaining confidence in fair treatment and predictable regulation, the Government can encourage additional capital into the network, supporting the expansion of rail connectivity and the delivery of GBR’s passenger growth targets.
Freight operators currently benefit from statutory protections that recognise their environmental and national importance. Open access services deliver comparable benefits by driving modal shift, reducing emissions and supporting regional economies, and should therefore receive equivalent recommendation. They recommend that the Bill provide statutory protection for open access services, equivalent to that afforded to freight, and ensure that the ORR retains full authority to make access determinations independent of GBR. That would support the Government’s ambition for a network that is accountable, transparent and responsive to passenger demand.
I think that they are right. A core criticism of GBR is that it is a player and, now, the referee at the same time. Everyone must surely see that glaring conflict of interest. If His Majesty’s Government insist on changing the access and use policy to create a non-level playing field through the very tight capacity duty in clause 63, it should, at the very least, have an independent body responsible for applying the access and use policy. That is basic fairness in organisational structure.
We tabled amendment 76, which was not selected. We are not sure why, because it would ensure that the access and use policy would remain with the ORR by removing clause 59. That would mean sticking with the status quo and the existing access and use policy, avoiding the profound conflict of interest that clause 59 creates. If the Government decide to keep clause 59, which I assume they will, amendment 79 would enable a subsequent right of appeal to the ORR after going through the dispute resolution process. That would give open access operators a mechanism by which they could go to an independent regulator where necessary, giving them more assurance that they could survive in a new GBR world. That is a different point to the right of appeal under clause 59(6), which refers to the right to appeal the contents of a document. Amendment 79 requires a right of appeal to be included in the document itself.
Amendment 217 would place requirements on Great British Railways to use the access and use policy to promote high quality service or competition. At the very least, legislation needs to point GBR in the right direction so that other users can hold their decisions to account. The amendment gives such guidance. Without it, all that is left is clause 18, the general duties for GBR, and a bold reference to the public interest. It is inevitable that GBR will consider the public interest and the interests of GBR to be the same thing. The Government must think again on this, because the long-term damage to the wider rail sector will be profound.
Amendment 77 ensures that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways could take any step to implement any part of the access and use policy until it has been laid before Parliament for three months. That ensures that we are not blindly creating law when we have not even seen important documents relating to how that law will work in practice.
Clause 66 lists the bodies that GBR will be required to consult before issuing its access and use documents: the ORR and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. That is it; they are the only ones that have that opportunity by right. There is no requirement to consult freight or other operators that might be affected. We think that that is an extraordinary approach. Amendment 87 addresses the shocking lack of consultation envisaged when GBR creates its crucial access and use policy documents by adding open access operators to the mandatory list.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Mr Western. It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for these amendments, which all seek to make changes to GBR’s access and use policy.
First, I will provide a brief explanation of what the access and use policy sets out to do. It will set out a clear and consistent process for any operator seeking to run services on GBR’s network. It will therefore provide transparency and certainty for non-GBR operators—such as freight and open access—on the new policy and procedures they will need to engage with when seeking access to GBR’s infrastructure. It will be very similar in concept to the way the ORR publishes access processes and policies today. It will therefore follow a well-known path by which industry can engage with the access process, and like today, this engagement will be underpinned by legislation.
I can reassure hon. Members that the access and use policy is being developed in collaboration with industry. A discussion paper on the initial contents of the policy has already been published. It can be reviewed by hon. Members of this Committee and anyone else who wishes to contribute to its development.
I will turn to amendment 79, which seeks to add an appeals route to the working timetable after the dispute resolution process. I am delighted to start in a place of agreement with the hon. Member for South West Devon because the addition to clause 59 is, in fact, already in the Bill. The Bill provides, first, a mechanism for resolving disputes relating to the working timetable and, secondly, an appeals route to the ORR.
GBR will be required to set a dispute resolution procedure within its access and use policy for applications to be included in the timetable. That will allow parties to resolve disagreements collaboratively before escalation to the ORR, as detailed in clause 61(5). To be clear, the Bill already provides a subsequent route of appeal to the ORR for operators who have disputes over the working timetable. The amendment is therefore duplicative of that existing appeals route, and risks creating additional bureaucracy and confusion within the process. It would not improve the dispute resolution framework and, in our view, is redundant, but I am pleased that we have found at least one thing in these clauses on which the official Opposition and the Government can agree.
Amendment 217 would add requirements that GBR should use the access and use policy to promote high-quality service and competition. I cannot agree with this amendment. GBR’s duties under clause 18 cover the range of points that the hon. Member for South West Devon has suggested GBR must consider for its access and use policy. For example, I agree that GBR must promote a high-quality service, and this is already reflected in GBR’s duty to ‘‘promote high standards” of performance. We must remember that the clause 18 duties are the key decision-making criteria that GBR must apply at every stage—including when making its access and use policy—and so the requirement to drive towards a quality service is already embedded.
On competition, however, I must clarify that the Government support competition on the railways where it can add real value to passengers and farepayers. As the directing mind, GBR will be required to determine the best use of the network for all operators under a new and simpler legislative framework that ensures passengers and taxpayers are at the heart of decisions that are taken on the railways.
Where competition can support GBR in fulfilling its statutory duties—for example, to grow the economy and to provide improved choice and benefits to passengers —without undermining the vast investment made by taxpayers, we are supportive of the benefits of competition, and GBR must take those benefits into account. However, what the Government will not support is competition for competition’s sake. It is ideological and does not help us achieve the goal of making the railway work better.
The hon. Member for South West Devon seems to be equating promoting competition with fairness, but they are not one and the same. GBR must be fair to all third-party operators at all times. To ensure fairness for all parties, GBR will be bound by the Competition Act 1998, under which rules it cannot discriminate or abuse its dominant market position, and the ORR will continue to enforce this as the competition regulator. GBR does not need to actively promote competition to achieve that aim.
Amendment 77 would require GBR’s access and use policy to be laid before Parliament for three months before it can be implemented. GBR would be unable to implement any part of the access and use policy for a period of three months after it had been laid in Parliament. This would only result in delays for operators seeking to access the GBR network—a concept that is unlikely to be considered favourably by either open access or the freight industry.
The hon. Member for South West Devon should note that the access and use policy is a technical railway document. The purpose of this document is to provide a fair and transparent process for operators to apply for access. It sets out, for instance, the timings for applications, so that operators can prepare for the application window in advance. It also sets out what information applicants will need to supply and how applications will be assessed by GBR in accordance with its statutory duties. It is therefore right for GBR to develop it in consultation with industry and other railway bodies such as the ORR. This document should rightly be industry and expert-led. To reassure hon. Members about the content of the access and use policy, Network Rail has published a discussion document that sets out emerging thinking on a future access and use policy, with input from industry stakeholders. If Members of Parliament are keen to scrutinise the document, they are welcome to do so now, and I encourage them to engage with Network Rail’s external engagement process, or the usual processes in Parliament.
The industry has responded positively to the transparent and collaborative approach that has been taken in the development of the access and use policy. The freight sector has commented on how the discussion document acknowledges the key role of private investment. Network Rail’s engagement with industry will continue as the policy is developed, and there will be a further full consultation on the access and use policy with the ORR as a statutory consultee, which Members of Parliament are again welcome to contribute to.
Rebecca Smith
Something that the Minister said reflects back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said on Tuesday. Not putting private operators, open access and freight on this mandatory list is making us nervous that it is not the Government’s intention to keep involving them in the future. I appreciate what the Minister is saying about them being consulted at the moment, but this amendment is important because it would keep them as a fixture of the future of GBR, rather than as an optional extra, where they can be useful, but if they are not considered to add any value to the railway, they will not be there any more.
As we have already alluded to, industry certainty and assuredness needs to be there for private investment to come forward, some of which I know the Government will welcome. It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation: if we do not have them in the framework at the beginning, they are not being encouraged to stay involved and have that confidence. Does the Minister agree?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is of course right to be wary about the involvement of open access in the railway, because although such provision forms a comparatively small proportion of railway journeys, we have discussed at length how certain access operator services provide great inter-city connections. There is of course a role for open access in the system being created by the Bill.
With GBR having regard to its duties when creating its access and use policy, it will have to factor in how users of the railway, both current and future, are able to make best use of services, whether they are provided by GBR or anybody else. Being bound by competition law, and the transparency and fairness inherent in it, will ensure that those that already provide services on the railway, and those that seek to provide services in the future, will have the opportunity to do so. I understand the hon. Member’s point about making sure that something is prescriptively listed in the Bill so that it is given due regard, but I would say that, whether through existing open access entitlements or the two rail freight targets that exist, there are sufficient assurances that there is scope for the inclusion of those services in the future of the railway, and that the access and use policy has to reflect that. I will turn to that in more detail soon.
All of the work on the access and use policy so far has happened without the need for a long and ever-expanding list of operators in the legislation, which would be the likely result of the amendment. If we name open access operators, we should presumably also list others, such as freight operators and devolved operators. Clause 66 currently requires that GBR must consult
“such other persons as it considers appropriate”,
and that formulation is deliberate; it ensures that consultation can be targeted, relevant and proportionate. Network Rail’s actions so far clearly demonstrate that open access operators are considered to be other appropriate persons in the reading of the clause, so both the reality and the future can be accounted for.
I reassure the hon. Member that there is no world in which GBR will create an access and use policy without consulting the relevant industry bodies that are affected. The amendment would add complexity, without delivering additional practical benefit. Although I thank the hon. Member for the amendments, for those reasons, I urge that she does not press them to a vote.
Clause 59 requires Great British Railways to publish an access and use policy. That key document will provide transparency and certainty for non-GBR operators, such as freight and open access, on the new policy and procedures they will need to engage with. For example, the policy will set out how operators should apply to access and use GBR tracks and infrastructure. It must set out the criteria Great British Railways intends to apply, in accordance with its statutory duties, when making access decisions, as well as its procedures for resolving competing demands and disputes. That will include, for instance, details on the economic and performance assessments GBR will undertake to determine best use. The policy must also include an explanation of how GBR will carry out maintenance and improvements to GBR infrastructure, and other necessary provisions, to ensure that the network works effectively. That exists in today’s system, within the industry network code, and we would expect GBR to draw on that when developing its policy on these key points.
The access and use policy is being developed in collaboration with industry. A discussion paper on initial content has already been published, and can be reviewed by the Committee or anyone else who wishes to input into its development. We hope that the extensive engagement being undertaken will ensure that a robust and effective document is produced that industry will be content with. However, as a backstop, any person aggrieved by a provision in this policy may appeal to the ORR.
Clause 66 will make it a legislative requirement that GBR must consult the ORR, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and such other persons as it considers appropriate before issuing, revising or replacing its access and use policy, which is dealt with in clause 59. That is in addition to GBR being a public body bound by public law principles. GBR must behave in a fair and transparent way, and therefore must consult interested parties, including rail freight and open access. The clause also ensures that GBR consults such persons as it considers appropriate before issuing, revising or replacing its infrastructure capacity plan, before issuing a working timetable and before making, revising or replacing a charging or performance scheme. Those issues are dealt with in clauses 60, 61 and 62.
Clause 66 is essential to provide reassurance to industry and our Scottish and Welsh counterparts that key parts of the new framework—GBR’s policies and processes—will not be designed in isolation, but will be underpinned by a transparent and consultative process. The clause provides the essential framework for collaborative and strategic planning by GBR across the rail network. I therefore commend clauses 59 and 66 to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I think I have said everything I want to say, but we would like to press amendment 79 and then amendment 217 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 60, page 34, line 14, at end insert—
“(4A) When preparing, revising or replacing the document or documents Great British Railways must consult and have regard to the views of other railway passenger services and services for the carriage of goods by railway.”
This amendment would ensure that GBR had to consult and have regard to the views of open access and freight providers when preparing, revising or replacing the capacity plan.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 81, in clause 63, page 35, line 34, leave out from “to” to the end of line 37 and insert
“be satisfied that it retains sufficient capacity across GBR infrastructure to allow for—
(a) the operation of GBR passenger services, passenger services not operated by GBR and services for the carriage of goods by railway, and”.
This amendment aims to reduce the ability of GBR to prioritise its own operations where there are network capacity constraints and create a level playing field.
Amendment 80, in clause 63, page 35, line 34, leave out from “ensure” to the end of line 39 and insert
“be satisfied that it will meet its key performance indicators set out in section [Great British Railways: key performance indicators].”
This amendment would ensure that GBR made decisions about allocating capacity having regard to the need to meet its key performance indicators.
Amendment 253, in clause 63, page 35, line 37, at end insert—
“(aa) the achievement of the Rail freight target set out in Section 17, and”.
This amendment requires GBR to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure to allow for the achievement of the rail freight target.
Amendment 211, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, at end insert—
“(3) Where Great British Railways decides not to grant access to persons to a specific part of the network to reserve capacity, Great British Railways must—
(a) publish a statement (a ‘capacity reservation statement’) setting out the evidence relating to the decision;
(b) consult—
(i) the Office for Rail and Road, and
(ii) any other persons who have sought access to that part of the network.
(4) A capacity reservation statement must explain how the decision taken by Great British Railways under subsection (3) reflects the best use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains as set out in the infrastructure capacity plan.
(5) The ORR must review a capacity reservation statement.
(6) The ORR may direct Great British Railways to reconsider its assessment if it considers that the exclusion of other operators is not necessary for Great British Railways to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure.”
This amendment requires Great British Railways to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity.
Amendment 229, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, at end insert—
“(3) In exercising its capacity duty, Great British Railways must take account of the Infrastructure Capacity Plan and give due regard to achieving the Rail Freight Target set out in section 17.
(4) Great British Railways must identify and publish a list of strategic freight corridors on the railway network.
(5) In exercising its capacity allocation functions, Great British Railways must ensure that the availability of network capacity on a strategic freight corridor is not materially reduced unless—
(a) the Office of Rail and Road has approved the reduction, and
(b) suitable alternative provision has been made to enable the carriage of goods by rail to continue to be facilitated.
(6) Before revising the list of strategic freight corridors, Great British Railways must consult—
(a) freight operating companies;
(b) owners and operators of rail-connected terminals;
(c) such other persons as it considers appropriate.”
This amendment ensures that capacity allocation decisions reflect both planning priorities and freight-increase ambitions. This amendment requires GBR to publish and maintain a list of strategic freight corridors and ensures that any material reduction in capacity must be approved by the ORR.
Clause 63 stand part.
New clause 56—Centralised train planning and auctioning—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish a report on the potential benefits to passenger railways services of the centralised train planning and auctioning scheme (‘the scheme’) set out under subsection (2).
(2) The scheme must require Great British Railways to—
(a) create a centrally designed passenger rail services timetable, and
(b) auction to alternative operators of passenger rail services train paths that—
(i) are long-distance intercity routes;
(ii) have a high revenue yield.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must consider the potential impact of the scheme on customer service and choice.
(4) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”
This new clause requires GBR to explore and consider the potential benefits of centralised train planning and auctioning.
Rebecca Smith
The Government Whip referred to this as the “meaty” group, so we may be here for a while. That is fine; we have plenty of time.
Clause 60 requires GBR to set out how, in its view, best use can be made of its infrastructure over a specified period. Subsection (3) allows GBR to replace or amend the document or documents that set that out at any time, and subsection (5) requires any plan or revisions to be published. Subsection (4) requires GBR to have
“regard to the need to accommodate”
its own passenger services, other passenger services—including open access services—freight services, and the maintenance and improvement of its infrastructure when preparing the document or documents.
Subsection (6) gives a right to appeal to the ORR, but only on limited judicial review grounds, in line with clause 68; there is no right of appeal on the decision of GBR. The Bill contains a duty to consult the ORR and Scottish and Welsh Ministers, but no express duty to consult other rail operators, despite their activities being two of the four considerations for GBR under subsection (4). The Opposition believe that that is an extraordinary omission; only the ability for GBR to consult
“such other persons as it considers appropriate”
is included, in clause 66(1).
Clause 60 gives GBR broad freedom to set and change the capacity plan at will, with no explicit duty to consult operators or freight interests when doing so. Subsection (3) allows revisions “at any time”, and the “have regard” duty in subsection (4) is weak and does not stop GBR prioritising its own services. In fact, the capacity duty in clause 63 actively requires GBR to prioritise its own services, irrespective of passengers’ interest. Clause 60 lacks the transparency and safeguards signalled in the consultation. Our amendment 78 would ensure that GBR must consult and have regard to the views of other railway passenger services and freight when preparing, revising or replacing the capacity plan. That is the very least GBR should be required to do.
Clause 63 provides for GBR to retain sufficient network capacity for the passenger services it is required to operate, and for engineering access. When granting access under the clause—that is, when issuing any capacity commitment or access contract—and when preparing, issuing and revising the timetable under clause 62, GBR must ensure that it retains sufficient capacity on its infrastructure to operate its own passenger services and to carry out works to maintain and improve its structures. It is required to retain sufficient capacity for services it already operates and for those it expects to operate in the future—for example, as set out in a business plan or public service obligations in transport specification not yet awarded. GBR will continue to follow general and wider legislative duties when taking access decisions, and the explanatory notes to the Bill assure us that
“it must take decisions fairly on the genuine best use of the network.”
The infrastructure capacity plan at clause 60 will indicate the capacity available to different market sectors—that is, how much capacity is best used for freight, for open access and for GBR passenger services. Clause 63 ensures that where GBR has decided what constitutes best use, and where the Secretary of State or Scottish or Welsh Ministers have funded it to operate passenger services, consistent with their allocated section of the infrastructure capacity plan issued under clause 60, GBR must ensure that sufficient network capacity is available for those services to operate, while ensuring sufficient capacity for engineering works. The explanatory notes assert:
“The duty does not enable GBR to secure more capacity for its own services than it thinks would equate to best use.”
However, clause 63 is not designed to achieve a level playing field; it does not even try to. The clause is not interested in maximising passenger choice or services, or in allowing competition to maximise use of capacity for the benefit of passengers. The express obligation in the clause is that GBR prioritise its own planned growth, because it must ensure capacity for all current and expected GBR services. That obligation sits ahead of any consideration of open access bids, or whether the service provided by open access would be better for passengers and therefore in the public interest.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
This question is possibly better directed at the Minister, but does my hon. Friend think that the clause might be so restrictive because, in truth, the Government do not really want open access, despite what they say?
Rebecca Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend. I alluded to that issue earlier in my comments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham raised it on Tuesday. That is why we are concerned on behalf of not only open access, but first of all passengers, who are not going to get the best possible service because of the inbuilt assertion that open access can ultimately be discarded if the Government do not see it as palatable.
The written evidence from Lumo and Hull Trains also says:
“As the Government and GBR seek to deliver a thriving, growing railway, it is vital that the Railways Bill recognises and protects the contribution that Open Access makes to these shared goals. This will ensure that it will continue to deliver these benefits to the millions of passengers who rely on them, now and into the future…As the Government looks to modernise and centralise rail through GBR, it will be important that competition remains an embedded principle within this framework. Open Access provides a proven model of innovation and efficiency, which can help GBR achieve its statutory objectives. Recognising the role of competition as a driver of value and growth will ensure that passengers, the network, and the public purse all continue to benefit.”
FirstGroup’s written submission to the Transport Committee tells a similar story, saying that open access operators
“receive no government funding, take on full risk, and generate their own revenue— giving them very strong incentives to deliver a service which is endorsed by passengers…The way in which GBR structures its timetable will be critical. It should be obliged to carry out its functions fairly and without discrimination, so that if an open access train service can provide passenger benefit monopoly interests do not prevent that train from running.”
FirstGroup also says:
“Clause 63 must ensure that un-funded services which GBR ‘expects’ are not given train paths in advance of funded open access services, which will provide passenger benefit sooner.”
The Rail Freight Group is also concerned by the clause, telling the Transport Committee:
“We understand that the basis of the new approach will be via Infrastructure Capacity Plans (Clause 61) and, for GBR’s own trains, via the Capacity Duty (Clause 63). It is very difficult from these clauses to have a clear understanding of how the new process will operate, and how rail freight and rail freight growth will be facilitated, including in contractual rights for operators…For example, we understand from our discussions that there could be numerous infrastructure capacity plans across the network which a new freight service will have to navigate. We also understand that when an infrastructure capacity plan is reviewed, existing freight services could be stopped from operating if other services are considered to be higher value, as contractual commitments are expected to expire in line with the capacity plans.”
Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL told the Transport Committee:
“I think we would look for clarification, regarding clause 63, that GBR cannot reserve capacity for hypothetical future GBR long-distance services at the expense of privately funded open-access proposals or existing services that provide immediate benefits—and extra infrastructure income, of course, because open-access operators are paying track access fees too. For that, I think you need to prioritise funded open access over speculative GBR services ‘someday in the future.’”
It is very clear what the sector thinks: clause 63 needs substantial clarification. That is why, along with the Lib Dems, we have tabled a number of amendments, which I will briefly speak to. Amendment 81 would make it clear that capacity allocation should be based on a level playing field, without priority given to any particular operator. That would allow the best outcome for the passenger, and allows the public interest bit in clause 18 to take the lead. Proceeding on any other basis will leave us with a monopoly that is allowed to abuse its position.
Amendment 80 puts forward an alternative approach, based on key performance indicators, but it is clear the Government are not interested, so in the interests of time I will not pursue that further today—that will be one fewer Division, the Government will be pleased to hear.
Amendment 253, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, requires GBR “to retain sufficient capacity” to ensure that the rail freight target is met. To progress, there would need to be a mechanism to reach a decision if that conflicted with any planned GBR service.
Amendment 211 would require GBR
“to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity.”
For an appeals process to have any meaning at all, that would need to be a pre-requisite.
Amendment 229 would ensure that
“capacity allocation decisions reflect both planning priorities and freight-increase ambitions”
and would require
“GBR to publish and maintain a list of strategic freight corridors and ensures that any material reduction in capacity must be approved by the ORR.”
The amendment would give a better balance to capacity considerations than the current wholly one-sided drafting. That is incredibly important because, ultimately, the Government are seeking to reduce climate change and achieve net zero. Freight plays a huge part in that, and if we do not have strategic freight corridors to ensure that we can make use of the freight system, we will fall short of what could be achieved.
Finally, new clause 56, in the name of the Libs Dems,
“requires GBR to explore and consider the potential benefits of centralised train planning and auctioning.”
That is an interesting concept and could have significant benefits for passengers and taxpayers by driving competitive pricing for certain routes, while avoiding the abstraction arguments in relation to competing open access applications.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again on the Committee, Mr Western. I will no doubt be told off for getting her title wrong, but I agree with the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for—
Olly Glover
I knew the hon. Lady’s seat; it is just that I got told off the other day by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, for calling him the spokesperson instead.
Carrying on, I agree with the hon. Lady’s comments on the Opposition’s amendments. I think most of them are sound and reflect the intention to strike a better balance in the Bill between GBR wanting to protect its interests and objectives, and recognising that there are valid and competing objectives elsewhere in the industry, particularly on the freight side, as well as on the open access passenger side.
Let me speak briefly to our new clause 56. The hon. Lady accurately summarised our intention. The new clause does not require GBR to adopt the idea of auctioning train paths, but it does require it to examine the potential of the idea, which is used to good effect on the Italian and Spanish high-speed rail networks. This idea, basically, retains the guiding mind approach to timetable development and construction but would recognise that for routes with a high-revenue yield and limited competition, such as London to Manchester, it may well be best, in the interests of both revenue and getting more people on to trains, to auction off one of the paths—London to Manchester has three an hour—to another operator. That would help GBR to provide some competitive tension to improve its own delivery.
I appreciate that the Government would probably say that Avanti West Coast is terrible and when it becomes GBR everything will be a land of milk, sweetness and honey; however, the real structural problem is that at the moment there is no realistic competition between London and Manchester. That is why—certainly from the figures that I have seen most recently—passenger numbers have recovered far less than they have on the east coast main line, where there is competition and a real spirit of customer choice. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Keir Mather
It is my pleasure to speak to this long-awaited group of amendment to what are arguably some of the most critical aspects of the legislation. Clause 60 will require GBR to set out its proposal for the best use of its infrastructure, while clause 63 will require GBR to retain sufficient capacity to run its own passenger services and carry out engineering work.
First, I will explain how the Government have reached that conclusion. We are here because the current system for allocating capacity is clearly not working; it is designed so that each part of the railway acts and takes decisions in isolation. There was a four-year delay to the implementation of the new east coast main line timetable that was finally achieved in December 2025. Meanwhile, there is no single body with a clear vision for the best use of the network, and therefore no clear statement of the capacity that can be made available for different users of the railway. As a result, open access operators have expended considerable effort and resources in developing proposals for access to the network, many of which have ultimately been rejected by the ORR.
Both freight and open access operators would benefit from a single body empowered to provide that clarity about future opportunities for them to grow their presence on the railway. The only possible answer to fixing that is GBR, which can take decisions strategically, making the very best use of the limited capacity that we have. Only GBR can review the network holistically with a view to creating more space, which will benefit open access operators where they can show that their new services constitute best use of the network. That will benefit every hon. Member’s constituents, because there will be more opportunity for connectivity and more co-ordination to avoid disruption and delays.
In our new system, the process of allocating capacity starts with clause 60. The infrastructure capacity plan will set out GBR’s view of the best use of the network, showing how capacity can best be allocated between GBR’s own services, freight services and open access services. In creating that plan, GBR must have regard to the need to accommodate all types of services. The clause is one of the most crucial in the Bill, because it is where GBR—having consulted carefully with existing and prospective operators and other interested parties, and taken account of its statutory duties—will set out its view of the best use of the network. Once established, the plan will provide much-needed certainty for operators contemplating investment in new services.
I will be crystal clear for the benefit of the Committee: the capacity duty mentioned in clause 63 does not apply to the creation of the infrastructure capacity plan. Under clause 60, GBR will make its best-use assessment on the basis of the duties in clause 18 and other general duties in the Bill only. At this stage, it will not have any basis to refer to the duty as described in clause 63. It will take the decision fairly and transparently, in line with its duties, with the need to allocate paths for freight, open access and itself in mind.
There is absolutely no intention for other operators to be unfairly pushed out or disadvantaged by GBR. We want the best service for passengers, freight users and the public on every part of the route, to enable the best possible connectivity, quality of service and overall economic benefit. That is the goal, regardless of who provides those services. Were GBR to mistakenly apply the capacity duty at the capacity plan stage as part of its determination of best use, that would be grounds for appeal to the ORR.
Joe Robertson
I note the Minister’s assertion that there is no intention to squeeze out other operators, but given the way in which the Bill and the clause are drafted, that surely is an inevitability regardless of whether he intends for that to happen. It is the outcome that matters. If it will not enable open access and competition, that is in itself a problem, notwithstanding he might not intend that to be the case.
Keir Mather
I take fully on board the hon. Member’s point that we need to ensure services are not squeezed out. The process I am outlining is specifically to ensure that that does not happen. Where GBR has regard to its duties under clause 60 when deciding best use, it has to have regard to the freight target and the need to grow freight, but also the need to accommodate a range of services on the railway. That best use policy is locked in. It is under clause 63 that the capacity duty comes into effect, and GBR can make practical operational decisions about how to effectively actualise those proportions being allocated on the railway.
GBR will have to have regard to open access and freight under its duties in clause 60 when making the macro decision about what constitutes best use, which at the end of the day is not a binary yes or no question. The capacity duty in clause 63 merely ensures that it can provide the services it has been allocated. I will come to that in a bit more detail and set it out further. The hon. Member is welcome to intervene again if he feels my subsequent detail is insufficient.
On the capacity duty more broadly, the Government have been nothing but consistent. Put simply, the services that offer the genuine best value proposition for passengers, freight customers and the taxpayer, consistent with GBR’s duties, should be allocated capacity. Clause 63, meanwhile, creates a legal duty for Great British Railways to ensure there is enough space in the timetable to run the services funded by the Government and taxpayers. To reiterate, clause 63 is a requirement for space in the timetable. It is not a requirement for space in the capacity plan. It does not apply to the capacity plan and it therefore does not and cannot undermine the best use decisions taken at the capacity planning stage. That is because the Government are paying for certain GBR services and must not waste public funds. The clause 63 duty is about managing taxpayers’ money after best use has been determined. It is not about keeping anyone out.
Amendment 78 would require GBR to consult open access and freight operators in preparing the infrastructure capacity plan. Amendment 80 would require GBR to have regard to its key performance indicators when preparing the plan, and amendment 81 would amend clause 63 to require GBR to retain capacity for open access and freight operators. Amendments 253 and 229 would both give freight operators more weight in the capacity process.
Adding a further consultation requirement to clause 60 is unnecessary as there is already a separate requirement in clause 66 for GBR to consult affected operators when developing or amending the capacity plan. Were GBR to publish or amend a capacity plan at any point without consultation, that would constitute a breach of its duties under the Bill and present strong grounds for appeal to the ORR. Amendment 78 is therefore duplicative of the provisions already in the Bill.
As for amendments 80, 81, 253 and 229, the intended effect of clause 63 is to create a statutory duty for GBR to ensure that there is enough space in the timetable to run its own passenger services, which are funded directly by taxpayers. That is because taxpayers spend many billions of pounds subsidising the railway. Any responsible Government would be obligated to protect that investment and ensure that taxpayers get full value from it. The clause is therefore needed to ensure that where GBR considers its services constitute the best use of the network, and where it then allocates capacity to itself, it will actually run the trains that it is proposing to run and which it will be funded for. I do not believe anyone on this Committee would be delighted to find that, following GBR being paid several billion pounds to run services, it was unable to do so. Clause 63 is therefore an essential legal safeguard to prevent that from happening.
The interests of freight and open access operators are protected by GBR’s general duties under clause 18, and freight operators are further protected by the duty on GBR to have regard to the rail freight target set by the Secretary of State under clause 17. Those duties will apply when GBR establishes best use at the capacity planning stage for all operators, including freight. The existence of not just one but two statutory duties is a clear signal of this Government’s view that freight must be front and centre of GBR’s decision making. This will give freight much greater prominence in capacity planning and allocation decisions than the current system, in which capacity is too often allocated on a first come, first served basis without reference to any coherent view of the best overall use of available capacity. The clause 63 duty exists only to protect the Secretary of State’s investment in the railway; it is not intended to influence GBR’s capacity planning or to keep anyone out of the network. The amendments are therefore not compatible with the intended purpose of the clause.
Amendment 80 draws a link to the concept of key performance indicators. As I have set out in previous debates, the Government do not accept the need to make statutory provision about KPIs and so cannot support the proposed reference. As I have consistently said throughout these debates, KPIs should be in GBR’s business plan and not in legislation.
Amendment 211 would require GBR to publish a statement on any decision not to provide access on the basis of capacity. As a public body, GBR is bound by public law principles to behave in a transparent and non-discriminatory way. That means that GBR must set out its decisions transparently, including when granting access, with robust evidence that shows how it has acted in accordance with its duties, access and use policy and any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. If GBR failed to do that, it would be grounds for appeal to the ORR. The amendment is unnecessary because GBR is already required to transparently account for its access decisions, whatever the reason for them.
Finally, new clause 56 would require GBR to report on the merits of a centralised train planning and auctioning scheme, with high-yielding services being operated by private sector operators rather than GBR. This Government were elected with a clear mandate to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership, with responsibility for passenger services and infrastructure brought together in a single organisation, is the only way to make the railway run better. It enables everybody to focus on a single set of objectives centred around the needs of railway users and the interests of the taxpayers who fund it, rather than shareholders and private profit. Public ownership of passenger services will save the taxpayer up to £150 million a year in fees to private operators alone. Therefore, GBR, rather than private operators, must be responsible for operating the services that taxpayers will fund it to deliver. Making GBR responsible for essential services also avoids the costs of maintaining a public sector operator of last resort function ready to step in if a private operator suffers financial failure or chooses to withdraw from operating the services.
While I fully support the provision of services by open access operators on the network where they add value and where there is capacity on the network, the model set out by the new clause is not compatible with the mandate that this Government were elected on: to bring franchised passenger services back into public ownership. It is not compatible with the regime set out in the Bill, which already provides clarity about the role of private sector operators and the opportunities for them to run services.
Given what I have set out, I hope that the hon. Member for South West Devon feels able to withdraw the amendments. I commend clauses 60 and 63 to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I have listened to the Minister’s comments. As I said earlier, we will not press amendment 80 to a vote, but I wish to press the others to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
The rest of the amendments that we have just debated will be decided at the appropriate point.
Clause 61
The working timetable
Keir Mather
I beg to move amendment 174, in clause 61, page 34, line 38, at end insert—
“(4A) Agreement under subsection (4) may be general or specific, and the ways in which it may be given include it being given—
(a) in accordance with the terms set out as mentioned in section 59(3);
(b) by means of, or in accordance with, provision contained in an agreement or other document to which Great British Railways and the operator are parties.”
This amendment ensures that changes to the working timetable can be agreed in advance and in general terms, and sets out various of the ways in which agreement can be given.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 62 stand part.
New clause 52—Train frequency duty—
(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation on the frequency of Great British Rail services.
(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must consider the appropriate frequency of train services to ensure services meet local need.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the outcome of the consultation under subsection (1) within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) The report under subsection (3) must—
(a) propose a frequency of rail services that will meet local need;
(b) include proposals for continuous engagement with local communities about the frequency of rail services for those communities.
(5) Before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which a report under subsection (3) is published, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a duty on Great British Railways to provide the frequency of train services as set out in that report (‘the duty’).
(6) Within one year following the making of regulations under subsection (5), and once per year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on—
(a) the extent to which Great British Rail has met the duty under such regulations;
(b) where the duty is not being met, any proposed changes to Great British Rail services to better allow the duty to be met.
(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a public consultation and the regular reporting and monitoring of train frequency to ensure timetabling reflects the needs of local communities.
Keir Mather
Amendment 174 will provide greater clarity for all parties that the agreement GBR is obliged to have under clause 61(4) can be made in advance in a contract or other document between GBR and the operator in line with the terms set out in GBR’s access and use policy under clause 59(3). The amendment broadly replicates the current industry practice of making changes to the working timetable through contractual arrangements, so it is familiar to industry and was always the intended approach. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment, tabled by the Government in my name.
I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for tabling new clause 52, which would require the Secretary of State to publicly consult on and publish a report that recommends an appropriate train frequency that would meet local need and which GBR would then be obliged to deliver. Although this Government support the principle of designing a train service that meets passengers’ needs and local needs, the new clause would embed that responsibility in Government, and not with GBR. That would serve only to continue Government’s micro-management of the railways, under-mining GBR’s intended role as an empowered, directing mind that is enabled to take decisions on the best use of the network.
To take access decisions and plan its passenger services —which GBR will do in accordance with its duties, which are clearly defined in the Bill—GBR, and not the Department, must be able to design its own passenger train services. GBR will also be legally required to consult devolved Governments and mayoral strategic authorities before making certain decisions, such as service frequency decisions that will significant affect their local areas. The Government and GBR will also have to consult the new passenger watchdog when developing their policies, strategies and priorities for the railway, including when GBR is developing its business plan and passenger offer. The Secretary of State will set the long-term strategic objectives of the railway through the long-term rail strategy, which GBR will need to consider when taking decisions about service frequencies. The Secretary of State will also have to approve GBR’s integrated business plan, which will cover both track and train activity.
That framework represents the right balance between an empowered directing mind that can independently weigh up its duties in a considered and rational way when delivering its statutory functions, including developing the timetable, with appropriate consultation requirements and proportionate Government oversight. We do not want to continue the current system, under which stifling Government interference hampers the efficient running of the railways. I therefore urge members of the Committee not to move new clause 52.
Clause 61 requires GBR to issue a timetable that defines
“all planned train movements which will take place on GBR infrastructure during the period for which it is in force”.
Enabling GBR to establish a working timetable is fundamental to running trains safely and reliably at their published times. The current system cannot deliver significant timetable changes, even where there is a strong public interest case for doing so with significant taxpayer investment. That is because the process for revising the timetable is dependent on different organisations taking, at different points, different decisions that affect the timetable’s production. That creates complexity and challenges that can result in significant delays to the implementation of a new timetable being implemented and passengers and taxpayers losing out.
Despite the significant efforts made by Network Rail and the ORR, the new east coast main line timetable was delayed for over four years, which resulted in delayed benefits to passengers. Ultimately, until the current Rail Minister was appointed no one was willing to make a final timetabling decision. That cannot happen again: GBR must be empowered to take decisions or passengers and taxpayers will not see improvements.
Under clause 61, as the directing mind GBR will be responsible for taking decisions on timetabling in a process overseen by the ORR. A person whose application to be included in the timetable is rejected or who disagrees with the terms and conditions of their inclusion may appeal to the ORR. The clause ensures that GBR will deliver an achievable, reliable timetable that the network is able to deliver. Better co-ordination of the timetable and engineering works will reduce delays, improve reliability and reduce cost. GBR’s holistic review of the whole network can also improve connectivity for passengers. Without the clause, the current unacceptable system of timetable delays, disagreements and ministerial intervention will continue, which serves no one.
Clause 62 sets out the steps that GBR must follow before issuing a working timetable, as previously described in clause 61. It is a critical provision as a timetable is the backbone of a safe and efficient railway operation. Without a clear and structured timetable, trains cannot run reliably at their published times. GBR must invite applications for inclusion in the timetable from operators other than GBR’s own passenger services. The invitation must specify the period within which applications must be made and the information that must accompany an application. GBR must prepare and send a draft of the working timetable to those applicants. A person who has had an application rejected by GBR may appeal that decision to the ORR. The clause ensures that the process for developing the timetable is fair and transparent. I commend clauses 61 and 62 to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 61(1) sets out that GBR must issue one or more timetables covering all train movements on GBR infrastructure for the period that GBR intends the timetable to cover, to be known as a working timetable. Subsection (3) allows GBR to alter a working timetable, for example to add new train movements, change a planned train movement, allow for maintenance works, deal with disruption, or change the duration of the timetable. Subsection (4) allows GBR to alter a planned train movement of an operator other than GBR only with that operator’s permission. Subsection (5) provides a right of appeal to the ORR for an operator who applied for a train movement to be included in the working timetable by GBR but was refused, or where the inclusion was made subject to conditions. The duty to consult and appeals provisions in clauses 66 to 68 also apply to the working timetable, but not to alterations of the working timetable.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Western. I wanted to speak briefly in support of new clause 52, which, as the hon. Member for South West Devon indicated, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. It would introduce a duty on train frequency, which is something my constituents—and I am sure those of other Members—write about continuously. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult the public on how often GBR services should run, taking account of local need. It would then require the publication of a report, ongoing engagement with communities, and a binding duty on GBR to deliver the agreed frequency, with regular monitoring.
The new clause is designed to ensure that rural and less well-served areas are properly heard, and that timetables reflect how people actually use the railway and not just what is easiest to operate. If I were the shadow Minister, I would probably describe this as a probing new clause designed to draw out some secret piece of information. I heard what Minister said about it. All the other Liberal Democrat amendments have been designed to restrain the power of the Secretary of State and ensure that GBR is not micromanaged, and I think the new clause probably flies in the face of that. We will leave it there.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Members for South West Devon and for West Dorset for their contributions. I remain of the view that a unified system under GBR will plan and deliver an achievable, reliable timetable and ensure that the network is actually able to deliver it, so that the services promised to passengers are delivered. Better co-ordination of the timetable and engineering works will reduce delays, improve reliability and reduce costs, and through its role in issuing the timetable, GBR will be able to ensure that all services represent the best use of the network, with a strong appeals role for the ORR to ensure that fairness is embedded in the system. I therefore retain the view that the hon. Members should not move their amendments.
Amendment 174 agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Capacity duty
Amendment proposed: 81, in clause 63, page 35, line 34, leave out from “to” to the end of line 37 and insert—
“be satisfied that it retains sufficient capacity across GBR infrastructure to allow for—
(a) the operation of GBR passenger services, passenger services not operated by GBR and services for the carriage of goods by railway, and”.—(Rebecca Smith.)
This amendment aims to reduce the ability of GBR to prioritise its own operations where there are network capacity constraints and create a level playing field.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Olly Glover
Apologies, Mr Western; the confusion has arisen because the selection and grouping paper lists it as an Opposition amendment. I do not wish to move it.
Rebecca Smith
Amendment is 211 is mine, and we would like to press it to a vote. [Interruption.] Oh, no, that is also a Liberal Democrat amendment—that says “Opp” as well.
Olly Glover
Yes, Mr Western. Thank you.
Amendment proposed: 211, in clause 63, page 35, line 39, at end insert—
“(3) Where Great British Railways decides not to grant access to persons to a specific part of the network to reserve capacity, Great British Railways must—
(a) publish a statement (a ‘capacity reservation statement’) setting out the evidence relating to the decision;
(b) consult—
(i) the Office for Rail and Road, and
(ii) any other persons who have sought access to that part of the network.
(4) A capacity reservation statement must explain how the decision taken by Great British Railways under subsection (3) reflects the best use of GBR infrastructure for the operation of trains as set out in the infrastructure capacity plan.
(5) The ORR must review a capacity reservation statement.
(6) The ORR may direct Great British Railways to reconsider its assessment if it considers that the exclusion of other operators is not necessary for Great British Railways to retain sufficient capacity over GBR infrastructure.”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment requires Great British Railways to publish a statement explaining any decision not to grant access to a specific part of the network on the basis of network capacity.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Western. We have just dealt with a couple of amendments that the selection list described as tabled by the Opposition but were actually been tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which I suspect is where some of the confusion came from. Will it be possible during the lunch break for the Clerks to check the list and update it if necessary, or confirm that there is no further mislabelling, just for clarity?
The Chair
Absolutely. We will make sure there is absolute clarity for this afternoon’s session.
Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Charging scheme
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move amendment 242, in clause 64, page 36, line 6, leave out subsection (1)(b).
This amendment would remove the requirement for GBR to charge in relation to trains which are planned to use GBR infrastructure but do not operate, or do not operate in full.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 230, in clause 64, page 36, line 7, at end insert
“, except where the services cannot operate due to a failure of the GBR infrastructure or the need for GBR to take capacity for work on the network.”
This amendment would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions.
Amendment 83, in clause 64, page 36, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would prevent GBR charging any sum it likes, rather than what is reasonable.
Amendment 82, in clause 64, page 36, line 28, leave out “at any time” and insert
“by giving no less than 12 months’ notice”.
This amendment imposes a duty on GBR to give other operators a minimum 12-month advance notice of changes to the charging scheme.
Amendment 84, in clause 64, page 36, line 34, at end insert—
“(9) Neither the Secretary of State, nor Great British Railways, may take any action to implement any part of the charging scheme until a copy of the scheme has been laid before Parliament for a period of three months.”
This amendment would provide that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways, could take any step to implement any part of the charging scheme until it has been laid before Parliament for three months.
Clause stand part.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 64(1) requires GBR to develop a charging scheme setting out the charges to be paid for access to and use of GBR’s infrastructure, and the extent to which charges may by payable in relation to trains that do not operate, or do not operate in full, despite their use being planned in.
The base assumption is that charges will be set at the costs directly incurred—for example, the wear and tear caused by the service—but subsection (3) provides for a higher charge to be demanded in particular circumstances,
“provided that it does not exceed the amount that Great British Railways considers is the amount that an efficient operator would be able to pay in those circumstances.”
Subsection (4) confirms that GBR can also set a lower charge where it considers that appropriate, for various purposes, including but not limited to encouraging the use of spare capacity and promoting new services. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 would apply to any decision to lower charges under that provision.
GBR will not charge itself for use of infrastructure, despite being an operator as well as the infrastructure manager, but must include in its charging scheme sufficient information on the charges for its passenger services’ access to and use of its infrastructure to explain how charges in the scheme have been calculated. GBR will be able to make changes to its charging framework at any time.
The Opposition believe that the clause is simply terrible. It confirms the worst fears of other rail users, and gives no certainty for business planning. Subsection (3) allows for a higher amount than the actual cost to GBR to be charged in particular circumstances, but those are not defined or explained. If GBR thinks that the operator has the money to pay it, then it is expected to pay—no rationale for the increase is given. The clause allows GBR to set charges above direct cost based on what it considers an efficient operator could afford, which remains a subjective judgment made by a body that is itself a major operator.
Even with the ORR able to substitute its own decision on appeal, the initial charging decision sits entirely with GBR. That creates scope for charges that disadvantage open access operators, unless and until challenged, which is not the level of neutrality expected for an industry-wide charging regime.
Subsection (4)(a) is an oxymoron. Charges could not be assessed unless there were sufficient capacity to run a service, which by definition would mean that there is assessed to be spare capacity. Subsection (5) does not provide open access operators sufficient information to properly assess the fairness of the proposed charges. Subsection (6) allows for a change at any time, and without notice.
It is clearly impossible to run a service without confidence of track-access charges. A devolved, concession, freight, open access or heritage and tour operator could, at the stroke of GBR’s pen, suddenly find its cost base increase significantly. That is not conducive to long-term business planning, and must harm private sector investment in rail services.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am thinking about the hon. Member’s arguments about clause 64(3). Does she not think that there may be circumstances where higher charges actually help to get private investment into the railways? For example, GBR could agree to fund infrastructure improvements in exchange for an operator paying higher access charges over an agreed period and, through that mechanism, recoup at least some of the costs of that welcome upgrade to the network.
Rebecca Smith
I can appreciate where the hon. Member is coming from. It sounds like a good idea; however, it could still be in the legislation directly, and the illustration he gave still leaves a huge number of questions about what happens if there is more than one user of that bit of infrastructure. Why should the private operator be the one that has to pay for the infrastructure? If anything, there is an issue, which I may come to, about the impact on fares, because ultimately, by the sound of it, GBR is going to have far fewer costs than other operators. In principle, I can see why the hon. Member made that point, but I think it is not clear enough at this stage.
Clause 64(8) allows a right of appeal, but only under judicial review-type provisions, which is no right at all. Any of us who has worked with anyone who ever wanted to get a judicial review knows that it is incredibly difficult. It is also incredibly expensive, so it is certainly not a level playing field.
The industry has rightly been outspoken on clause 64. In evidence to the Transport Committee, the Rail Freight Group stated:
“The Bill sets out the future framework for access charges for freight. In headline terms the charges will be calculated in a similar way to today (costs directly incurred by running the train) which we welcome. However, the Bill provides for extra costs to be levied on freight services
a. Through a mandatory reservation charge for capacity which is booked and then not used (for example, if a customer cancels a train due to poor weather) (Clause 64)
b. Through a general clause 64(3) which allows GBR discretion to charge more if ‘an efficient operator can pay it’. This is a very broad test and far wider than the test in current law ‘if the market can bear it’. This raises the prospect of far higher, and potentially uncapped charges being levied.
Increasing the costs of rail freight will simply make using rail too expensive for customers when compared to road freight, and will reverse modal shift and undermine growth. It is essential that the powers to charge more than the standard charge are strictly limited for GBR.”
The key point there is about reversing modal shift. On the one hand, the Government want to promote modal shift. Indeed, there is a scheme coming in— I mentioned it on Tuesday, but now I cannot remember its name—that will look at different types of transport, and one of the plans is to ensure modal shift. Anything that undermines that is potentially contradictory and a backwards step.
The Transport Committee also heard evidence from Nick Brooks of ALLRAIL, who said:
“I was just going to say something about privately owned investors and privately owned operators, specifically privately owned investors that want to invest in our sector rather than in other sectors—aviation, the road sector, or even completely different sectors. There is a certain risk. There is a commercial risk, of course, and ultimately they are looking for lower fixed costs and higher variable costs. The worry with GBR is this: who determines what the market can bear? Is GBR an independent entity, or not? I think the Bill says it should be GBR itself that determines that, if I am not mistaken.
It is a little bit like another conflict, or potential problem, with track access fees. Who decides the size of the track access fees? If you are a privately owned operator, is it your competitor—GBR—that decides your track access fees? That is a potential cause of worry.”
Lumo and Hull Trains also had similar concerns, which they raised in their written evidence to the Transport Committee:
“A transparent and proportionate charging regime will be critical to ensuring the financial sustainability and competitiveness of the railway. If GBR were able to set and revise access charges without independent oversight (as suggested by clause 64), it could create uncertainty and deter private investment. Independent regulation of charging is therefore vital to maintain investor confidence and ensure fairness between different operators. Open Access operators already make a substantial contribution to the upkeep of the network while receiving no public subsidy. The charges paid by Open Access are calculated independently by ORR to encourage investment, sweat the railway asset and deliver connectivity and the associated economic benefits. It also acts as an additional income stream to Network Rail. These arrangements demonstrate the sector’s willingness to invest and its commitment to supporting the network’s long-term health.
Ensuring that access charges remain proportionate and independently regulated will help reinforce the Government’s objective of crowding in private capital to support network growth. Confidence in a fair charging regime is essential for the continued profitability of private operators. Reinforcing a transparent and proportionate charging system will also help deliver the Government’s wider fiscal priorities by attracting and retaining private investment. By giving investors certainty that network costs are predictable and fairly allocated, the Bill can ensure that private operators continue to play a central role in funding innovation and expanding passenger capacity across the UK.”
Lumo and Hull Trains recommend:
“The updated charging regime must be developed in consultation with private stakeholders, appropriate for the markets being served and regulated with independent oversight from the ORR. This will sustain confidence in a fair and transparent access regime and ensure that private investment continues to play a central role in delivering a successful railway.”
Amendment 83 would prevent GBR from charging any sum it liked without notice. Instead, it would be required to follow the standard pricing structure set out in clause 64(2), based on actual costs incurred as a result of the activity. Does the Minister agree that any serious business case for private investment in our railways will need to have the certainty of fixed costs? How does the clause achieve anything other than the opposite?
Amendment 82 would remove the right of GBR to charge its competitors costs, basically at any time and without notice, on grounds that they have access to more money that they could pay. Instead, it would impose a duty on GBR to give other operators a minimum of 12 months’ notice of changes to the charging scheme, so at least they can react to the change and seek any appeal before the event rather than after it.
Speaking to amendments 82 and 83, the Rail Forum has said:
“We strongly support these amendment, access and other charges should be reasonable and operators should have sufficient warning of changes to be able to plan accordingly.”
The amendments are not just a nice idea being suggested from the Opposition Benches, but something that the industry would like to see as well.
Amendment 84 would provide that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways can take any step to implement any part of the charging scheme until it has been laid before Parliament for three months. Once again, that would put accountability and transparency back into the system—something the Government seem hellbent on ignoring.
The second impact would be to allow affected organisations time to prepare an appeal. Judicial review requires a very short application process of just 12 weeks. This amended clause would help aggrieved parties to prepare a complex challenge in time for a JR timetable. Amendment 84 is more a probing one, so it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. The reflection on the judicial review process is particularly important, because we do not want to crowd people out of the opportunity to appeal. Anything he can offer in response would be appreciated.
Amendment 230 would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions—a case of natural justice. Does the Minister accept that the existing wording of the clause would allow GBR to profit from a cancellation of services caused by GBR’s failure to provide infra-structure? If so, will he explain how that could be a fair result?
Amendment 242 would remove the requirement for GBR to charge in relation to trains that are planned to use GBR infrastructure, but do not operate or do not operate in full. Again, that is in effect a probing amendment, or a making-a-point amendment, as it were. With that, I shall sit down.
Olly Glover
I have a few brief thoughts on what the Conservative spokesperson has said about this clause. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we feel that a lot of the amendments ask good questions about transparency and about accountability for how the access charging regime will work. We are definitely interested to hear the Minister’s response.
A couple of the Opposition amendments perhaps go a little too far, or at least questions could be asked about them. Amendment 242, on what I am calling phantom paths, addresses an interesting phenomenon in the railway at the moment. Many freight paths are in the timetable, but seldom used; they are reserved by freight operators for a variety of reasons in case they might be used. People in the industry say that they sometimes present problems for optimum timetable development or use of capacity. It will be interesting to hear from both the Minister and, perhaps, the Conservative spokesperson as to how they feel that those phantom paths can be dealt with, absent an ability by GBR to apply access charges to trains that do not run.
Conservative amendment 83 attempts to remove GBR’s ability to charge higher than the normal rate, the likely revenue to be obtained by running train services does not vary significantly based on the type of railway and the type of service concerned. The most extreme example of that is that the typical fare yield for Manchester to Blackburn will obviously be a lot less than for London to Manchester. The concept of GBR applying differential access charges is not necessarily one that I would be inclined to oppose, but the criteria that it uses in doing so needs to be transparent. The amendments that we tabled earlier allude to that. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend for GBR to make that process transparent, particularly given the high judicial review bar for challenging some of those decisions. That way, hopefully, a new system can be created in which everyone might have faith.
Keir Mather
I will briefly turn back to the debate on the previous clauses; because the Opposition spokesperson asked me to provide an example of the motion of consent in general as it relates to timetabling and I was remiss in my duty in not doing so. To give more context, the network code currently sets out the circumstances where train service timings need to be adjusted by a few minutes without requiring specific consent. GBR will follow a very similar process and that is a normal process that industry would expect us to follow.
I now turn to the amendments at hand, all of which seek to make changes to GBR’s charging scheme. I confirm to the hon. Member for South West Devon that the charging regime broadly replicates the one that is in place today. That is intentional, so that all of the charges and discounts referenced will be familiar to industry to achieve a smooth transition to the new framework.
Furthermore, given that GBR will be bound by public law duties, which require fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination in actions and decision making, there is no reason to think that GBR will behave unreasonably. Rather, when making or amending its charging scheme, GBR will be required to balance the various duties set out in clause 18, which include promoting the interests of passengers, promoting the use of the network for carrying freight and enabling operators to plan the future of their businesses. GBR will also be required to consult with industry through the development of its charging scheme, and will be held to account via a clear route to appeal to the ORR on the scheme’s design and application.
Given that existing competition law and applicable subsidy rules will automatically apply to GBR, GBR will not be able to treat other operators unfairly or start levying excessive charges that would undermine their ability to operate successful, profit-driven services. That will be further supported by the ORR’s continued role as competition regulator for the railway. I hope that gives hon. Members some assurance to begin with.
I now turn to amendment 242, which proposes to remove the provision at clause 64(1)(b) that enables GBR to charge operators for services that do not run as planned. In today’s system, that mechanism is called a reservation charge, and the Bill replicates that for GBR. Importantly, the Bill does not mandate that a reservation charge must be issued in all instances where services do not run. Instead, GBR will have discretion regarding how and when to use it. That is particularly important for taking into consideration different industry operating models, especially freight, which is market driven and therefore has to live with less certainty over the services that it needs to run to serve its customers.
A routine and technical example of when a reservation charge is used today, and likely to be replicated in the future, is one affecting passenger services, not freight. Where a passenger service is allocated to a path that is expected to stop at eight stations but—for reasons of its own making and not GBR’s—it terminates short of its final destination and stops at only seven, it could still be charged as planned for the full service. In addition, with finite capacity on the network it is important that, when passenger operators are granted access, they provide those services they said they were going to run and are disincentivised to simply hold on to capacity.
To use a different example, if an operator consistently failed to run a service in its entirety, it would disadvantage passengers seeking to use that train and other operators that might wish to operate a passenger or freight service on an unused path. It could therefore be charged in full. As I have outlined, the purpose of the measure is to encourage operators to use the capacity that they have been allocated. Therefore, the ability to levy a reservation charge is an extremely useful tool to drive the right behaviours on the network. It ensures that best use is made of capacity and that operators remain accountable for providing the services in the timetable that they agreed to deliver.
The Chair
Just to confirm, the Clerks have checked the point of order raised by Edward Argar about the selection and grouping, and there are no further errors. They apologise for the error.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Nesil Caliskan.)
Railways Bill (Twelfth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 230, in clause 64, page 36, line 7, at end insert
“, except where the services cannot operate due to a failure of the GBR infrastructure or the need for GBR to take capacity for work on the network.”
This amendment would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions.
Amendment 83, in clause 64, page 36, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would prevent GBR charging any sum it likes, rather than what is reasonable.
Amendment 82, in clause 64, page 36, line 28, leave out “at any time” and insert
“by giving no less than 12 months’ notice”.
This amendment imposes a duty on GBR to give other operators a minimum 12-month advance notice of changes to the charging scheme.
Amendment 84, in clause 64, page 36, line 34, at end insert—
“(9) Neither the Secretary of State, nor Great British Railways, may take any action to implement any part of the charging scheme until a copy of the scheme has been laid before Parliament for a period of three months.”
This amendment would provide that neither the Secretary of State nor Great British Railways could take any step to implement any part of the charging scheme until it has been laid before Parliament for three months.
Clause stand part.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. There is not much to say, except that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage raised a question about our amendments and what he called phantom paths. I think he may have been referring to ghost trains, as opposed to phantom trains—if you google “phantom trains”, all sorts of weird films come up, and they are far too scary for me to watch. He is not here to disagree with me, but I think he was alluding to the issue of trains running entirely empty through stations where people would have quite liked to get on them.
The point I think we are making with our amendments is more about where issues that it is within Great British Railways’ responsibility to fix mean that services cannot run, and about not believing that the operators, which have no responsibility for the infrastructure, should still be expected to pay a fee if they are not able to run their services. I think we would have been alluding to that, rather than where they are running empty trains. There may well be empty trains as well, but I think we were talking specifically about where GBR had the responsibility—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to piggyback on her response to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. I want merely to say that, from the Government’s perspective, having one centralised body accountable for access to and use of the railway and for determining best use is a good way to avoid the phantom train scenarios she describes, such as the 7 o’clock service from Manchester Piccadilly to London. I am grateful that she has given me the opportunity to row in behind her on this point.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for that. Yes, absolutely; I believe our amendments are much more about the infrastructure that GBR has responsibility for and about operators not having to pay if they are un able to operate their services. A natural disaster is probably a bit too extreme, but if, for example, a train is running through to Dawlish and the line gets closed, I think it is fair to suggest that the operator should not have to pay the fees for that train. We will press some of these amendments to a vote for that reason, but I just wanted to clarify that point. Without further ado, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 230, in clause 64, page 36, line 7, at end insert
“, except where the services cannot operate due to a failure of the GBR infrastructure or the need for GBR to take capacity for work on the network.”—(Rebecca Smith.)
This amendment would ensure that services are not caught within the charging scheme if they cannot operate due to GBR failures or actions.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 254, in clause 64, page 36, line 14, at end insert
“and the higher amount does not hinder progress against the Rail freight target set out in section 17.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 255, in clause 64, page 36, line 34, at end insert—
“(8A) Following an appeal made under subsection (8), the ORR may, if it decides that GBR has not dealt fairly with the appellant, direct GBR to revise a scheme.”
This amendment requires that any charge levied by GBR under its charging scheme does not have a detrimental impact on the freight growth target.
Edward Morello
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. It will escape no one that, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, I have been left with my hand on the wheel. I do not think trains have a wheel, but I am not entirely sure how they work—[Interruption.] They have a stick, yes. However, given that both amendments are in his name and relate to the freight target, I can only assume that they are eminently sensible and that the Government should accept them. If not, we would apparently like to press them to a Division.
Keir Mather
It is, once again, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Amendment 254 would require GBR, when charging above the cost directly incurred—in other words, when charging mark-ups—to consider its target to increase the use of freight. I can reassure the hon. Member for West Dorset immediately that GBR will not be able to raise charges in a way that is not compatible with its statutory duties or targets.
In practice, that means that when developing its own test of affordability, GBR is expected to establish bespoke criteria for divergent market segments operating on the railway, including freight, as Network Rail set out in its discussion document on charging. That allows GBR to design a test that can support its duties, including those under clause 18, and the targets to increase freight under clause 17.
We intend that the provision will operate in a way similar to the “market can bear” test today. GBR will develop its own test of affordability in consultation with the sector, including the Office of Rail and Road, before publishing it. However, as we move away from European law, in which the “market can bear” test is established, and to the Bill, which carries over the same principles, we must ensure that the language in the drafting is fit for purpose for UK statute. That is why the Bill stipulates that GBR will be able to levy mark-ups only if it is affordable to efficient operators. The Bill preserves that fundamental safeguard for operators, but in a form that can be applied more clearly in the UK context.
The test will be published with clear routes of appeal, as a further layer of protection for any operators, including freight, that are subject to charges when using GBR infrastructure. When hearing appeals, the ORR will consider the extent to which GBR has appropriately considered all factors before levying a mark-up. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for West Dorset that amendment 254 is unnecessary, as the Bill already achieves its intended effect.
Amendment 255 would give the ORR an explicit power, following an appeal against the content of a charging scheme, to direct Great British Railways to revise the scheme in cases where it considers GBR has not dealt fairly with the appellant. However, the amendment is not necessary to achieve that aim. The Bill already provides clear and robust rights of appeal to the ORR in relation to the content of a charging scheme. Those rights are supported by strong and effective remedies where an appeal against GBR is successful, as set out in clause 68.
In the system set out in the Bill, where the ORR upholds an appeal on the content of a charging scheme, it has the power to remit all or part of the provision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration. That means that the ORR can require GBR to make changes to the charging scheme if it was identified during the appeal process that GBR had acted in a discriminatory manner, inconsistently with its statutory duties or in a way deemed procedurally unfair.
The ORR can also give legally binding directions to GBR, which could include setting out what it failed to take account of in the original decision and what it must do to ensure that those matters are properly assessed when reconsidering it. The amendment would therefore introduce powers that are already provided for in clause 68. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member not to press amendments 254 and 255 to a vote.
Rebecca Smith
Amendment 254 is good in so far as it goes in relation to rail freight, but other rail operators also provide public benefit and should receive a similar level of protection. The Opposition are happy to support the amendment, but we do not think it goes nearly far enough.
Amendment 255 would give the ORR the power to order GBR to revise a charging scheme if it found, on appeal, that GBR had not dealt fairly with the appellant. With the current constraint on appeals, the amendment would make no practical difference. The Government need to go much further by providing a genuine appeals process to assess appeals on their merits, with an independent body, not a direct competitor, taking the key charging decisions.
Keir Mather
I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed all the points on these amendments, and I have nothing further to add at this stage.
Edward Morello
I heard what the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson said but, because of my long-standing and passionate support for freight targets in the context of charging regimes, I will divide the Committee on the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 65, page 37, line 15, leave out subsection (3)(b).
This amendment would enable GBR to have to pay penalties or compensation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 223, in clause 65, page 37, line 15, after “Railways” insert
“or any operator of a train on Great British Railways infra-structure”.
This amendment clarifies that freight operators should not face penalties for service disruption caused by factors outside their control, such as infrastructure failures or planned engineering works by Great British Railways.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 86, in clause 92, page 53, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) Section 65 does not come into force until Great British Railways has published the performance scheme and laid it before Parliament.”
This amendment would prevent section 65 from coming into force until GBR has published the performance scheme and laid it before Parliament.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 65 requires GBR to provide and publish a performance scheme that is designed to incentivise GBR, its subsidiaries or other train operators to minimise disruption or delay to other train services or the network. Train operators may be required to pay penalties if they cause disruption, may receive compensation where disruption is caused by a different operator’s operations and may receive bonuses to reward better than planned performance. So far, so good, you might say. However, it does not permit payments by GBR that relate to disruption outside its control.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. As in previous sessions, I draw the Committee’s attention to my membership of Unite the union. I will speak briefly on the amendments. I welcome the opportunity to talk about an area of narrowly gauged interest of long-standing, although I hesitate to call it tunnel vision: schedule 4 and schedule 8 compensation for planned and unplanned disruption on the network.
The delay attribution scheme has remained essentially unchanged since privatisation, and the clause is a welcome opportunity to look again at how it works in practice. Attention has been drawn to the fact that, under the present system, approximately 400 people are employed across the rail industry to attribute delays to either operators or Network Rail. That sometimes happens in ways that defy any common-sense interpretation of good value for money, and there have been eye-catching examples of expensive lawyers gathering in a room to argue about whether a dead pheasant or a dead peacock was a small bird or a large one, for the purpose of the scheme. Depending upon that determination, the costs may be picked up by the taxpayer or by private operators, and I think we can all agree that that is nonsense.
I am glad that the Bill, as drafted, retains some degree of compensation scheme. My attention was drawn to the need for such measures recently in my constituency, where there has been a long-standing problem with road surface conditions, including what has become known, infamously, as “Northfield’s big pothole” under the railway bridge that connects Quarry Lane and Coleys Lane. Network Rail pointed out to me that a single bridge strike from a heavy goods vehicle would incur greater compensation costs for just one hour of disruption than the entire cost of resurfacing that stretch of road. Clearly, we need some degree of accountability in the system.
However, the amounts paid out through schedule 8 compensation, which is for unplanned disruption in particular, have been enormous. In theory, these schemes should be self-financing, but for all the attention that is paid to dividend payments and profits in the current railway system, the money that leaves the public part of the railway through these compensation schemes has in some years been in excess of those payments. There is a very good case for these changes.
I am not sure that amendment 85 is entirely necessary or desirable, on the basis that there may well be circumstances in which a private operator, whether freight or open access, is responsible for delays, for example if rolling stock had not been kept in the required condition. It is sensible for there to be some attribution in the system. As subsection (7) sets out, there is a right of appeal to the ORR. This is a sensible clause, and I am not sure that the amendments are necessary.
Rebecca Smith
Does the hon. Member not think our amendments could actually improve the system for GBR? We have talked, in this Committee and in the Select Committee sessions on the Bill, about the real gap in terms of the incentives for GBR to improve its services and improve itself. There is no reason why adding GBR as a body that would have to pay penalties and compensation would not introduce an incentive, in the same way we expect for operators, to ensure that the service provided on the taxpayers’ behalf and using taxpayers’ money is improved. At the end of the day, GBR is paying itself, but our amendments would at least give it an incentive to make sure that it does not need to pay compensation in the first place.
Laurence Turner
If I have understood the hon. Member’s point correctly, the key is openness and transparency. We need some degree of understanding that, if GBR itself is responsible for delays, that information should be recorded so that improvements can be made. I am not convinced that GBR paying money to itself in a legal or quasi-legal process is the best use of public resources.
That transparency is lacking under the current system. The Delay Attribution Board does not publish any records of its proceedings. Some months ago, I made a freedom of information request for the minutes of the board, and the response was that they were too commercially confidential to disclose. Given the vast amounts of public money that are spent through this process at the moment, I think that is a severe limitation of the current system. This is a real opportunity to do things better.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I will not get into whether a peacock or a pheasant is a large or small bird—it takes me back to my days as a Health Minister, when we had a debate about whether a scotch egg is a substantial meal in the context of the regulations. However, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon made a very valid point: even if the money is going back to GBR, there needs to be some degree of transparency so that it can be seen where the attribution is, whether it is GBR that has caused the problem, and whether it is improving or going backwards. Does the hon. Member agree that, even if actual cash is not transferred in and out, a notional payment or a schedule of payments that would have been paid should be published to give the travelling public transparency as to where the challenges lie and give GBR an incentive to improve its game?
Laurence Turner
I think I agree with at least most of what the right hon. Gentleman says. The issue is whether actual payments are made, but we questioned the noble Lord Hendy in the Transport Committee on this matter, and he agreed that there needs to be some data accountability where there are delays.
I am sorry to detain the Committee on this matter. As is sometimes said, man is born free and everywhere he is in trains—I just wanted to get that one on the record. I thank Committee members for their time.
Keir Mather
How can I top that? I am not going to try.
This group of amendments concerns performance schemes, which, as hon. Members are aware, are designed to improve the performance of the railway network by incentivising operators and infrastructure managers to enhance punctuality, reliability and overall service quality, underpinned by compensation, bonuses and penalties. For example, performance schemes can require operators to pay penalties if their services cause unplanned disruption, or can offer bonuses for better-than-planned performance.
The performance scheme provided for by clause 65 will apply to GBR itself, both in its capacity as a service operator and as the body responsible for maintaining the infrastructure. The clause supports one of the overall goals of the Bill: to dramatically improve service performance for passengers and freight operators, and to make a railway that really works.
I thank hon. Members for their amendments, which I will speak to in turn. Amendment 85 seeks to remove the provision that protects GBR for liability for performance scheme payments or penalties where the disruption is not its fault. To be clear, that provision is not designed to prevent GBR from ever paying penalties or compensation. Clause 65(2) clearly provides for GBR to pay penalties, compensation and bonuses. Where it is at fault for disruption, there is no question but that it must compensate other operators.
GBR will have the flexibility to design a bespoke performance scheme for its network. The Bill is intentionally broad, including at clause 65(3)(b), which does not define what constitutes disruption outside GBR’s control. Instead, GBR will consult the industry on its policy on the extent to which disruption after an unplanned event has occurred, and whether it is or is not outside GBR’s control. It will consider any legal requirements before publishing all agreed terms for transparency.
Edward Argar
The Minister says that GBR will be able to design a bespoke performance regime, but does that not go to the heart of what my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon highlighted, which is essentially that it will be designing a performance regime against which its own performance will be managed? It gets to set the rules, determine what the parameters are, and then decide whether it meets those criteria. Subsection (7) says:
“A person aggrieved by provision contained in a scheme…may appeal to the ORR.”
Will the ORR have binding powers to make an adjudication, and will GBR be compelled to follow it?
Keir Mather
The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts my later comments about the role of the ORR in this process.
On the principle of whether GBR should be able to design a performance scheme for its own network, that is completely in keeping with the aspiration of the Bill to create a single uniting mind for the railway. We are cognisant of the fact that GBR has a threefold obligation in this process. First, it must create a scheme that it can use to deliver the efficiencies and operational realities of the railway in a way that suits the interests of the travelling public. Secondly, operators that use the service need to be able to ensure that they can have fair service under it. That is why consulting with the industry is so important.
Thirdly, and arguably most importantly, GBR must protect taxpayers’ interests where it is reasonable to do so. A scheme is being created that directs GBR to run the railway in a purposeful way but with robust consultation and enforcement mechanisms, which I will come to in a moment, embedded within it. I believe that strikes the right balance. We are giving GBR control over the system but not allowing it to mark its own homework in every way, as the Opposition might see it. I will go into that in more detail in a moment.
Rebecca Smith
To build on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston made, clause 65(3)(b) says that compensation may not be paid by Great British Railways
“in relation to any disruption that is outside its control.”
It strikes me that that relates to what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said happens already: people have to decide what constitutes significant disruption, and what is inside its control. If I were an outside operator looking at this, I would be thinking, “Hang on a minute. Where’s the definition of what is inside GBR’s control?” There is a whole long list of options that I will not even begin to bore the Committee with for what could be said to be outside its control, but where is that conversation? It strikes me that it might be like trying to claim for a bag that was stolen on holiday on insurance—you have to literally prove that you were mugged to get reimbursed. I would be interested in a bit more information on how “outside its control” will be defined.
Keir Mather
That is why the point about designing the scheme in close consultation with industry partners is so important. The hon. Member has read my mind, as I am about to turn to specific instances or potential demarcations with respect to what does or does not constitute being within or outwith GBR’s control.
It is probably important to briefly explain what happens if an unforeseen situation arises and operators believe it is GBR’s fault but GBR disagrees, and the role of the ORR in that process. That brings us back to the intervention from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. The Bill will include in the future scheme a clear route to appeal, to protect all parties in instances that are disputed, but the risks will be mitigated by requirements for GBR to clearly publish the details of the performance scheme, including criteria for when GBR would be liable to pay compensation. That goes back to the public law point about transparency and fairness. The ORR, as the independent appeals body, will have a legal obligation to review the situation impartially and advise on appropriate action where necessary. In addition to the ORR, to further mitigate the risk, operators will be able to seek other means of resolution though the Access Disputes Committee where matters relate to a contractual dispute.
We believe that the clause is important, as there is a need to balance rightly protecting operators whose services have been disrupted with protecting taxpayer interest where it is reasonable to do so. For example, in instances of trespassing, we would not expect the exclusion in clause 65(3)(b) to apply, as the disruption that it causes should be within GBR’s gift to mitigate through investment in defences, and GBR would have significant opportunity to influence how quickly services are restored. In such an instance, therefore, we expect that compensation would be payable. However, where disruption follows events in extremis that are clearly not within GBR’s ability to mitigate against or control—for example, an act of terror—we envisage that the exclusion in clause 65(3)(b) might apply.
I reiterate that formulating the scheme in consultation with industry will allow us to flesh out in far greater detail the demarcations, and make sure that private sector operators and rail freight have the surety they need that the scheme has been designed in the right way. The ORR will play a key role in the process in ensuring fairness, acting as the independent appeals body if GBR does not act in line with its duties.
Amendment 223 seeks to ensure that third party operators do not face penalties for disruption outside their control. The Bill stipulates that only GBR is protected from paying penalties or compensation for disruption outside its control, because GBR is the only party that bears responsibility for the operation, maintenance and renewal of its network. There is no responsibility for that placed on third party operators, including freight.
On that basis, we do not see how the concerns raised by the hon. Member for South West Devon that a freight operator could face penalties for, say, infrastructure failures or planned engineering works would arise in practice, other than in extremely unusual circumstances —perhaps where an operator’s faulty train had caused damage to the infrastructure. Such events could only be the responsibility of GBR, as today they are not the responsibility of the infrastructure manager or the operator, so it is GBR that would pay the penalties for such issues.
It is right, therefore, that the Bill pursues a policy that protects the rights of third parties to reasonable compensation when disruption occurs as a result of another party’s actions or inactions, while also mitigating the risk of unjustified costs to the taxpayer when disruption is not reasonably in GBR’s gift to avoid or resolve. I hope the hon. Member will be reassured that the amendment is therefore unnecessary, as we believe the Bill already achieves the intended effect.
Amendment 86 would prevent the performance scheme set out in clause 65 from becoming operational until it has been laid before Parliament. Such provisions for parliamentary scrutiny are a well-trodden path at this stage of the Committee’s proceedings, and we again believe that the amendment would add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy to what is effectively a technical industry process. In reality, the expertise about what specific incentives should be set for different operators on different routes is within the rail industry, and those experts are the ones who need to review and help GBR to develop the performance scheme.
That is why the Bill includes requirements for GBR to consult on its performance scheme and requirements for what GBR must include and consider as part of its design, with clear rights to appeal to the ORR in the event of disputes. The amendment would add little practical value. It would delay the new access regime and the benefits it will bring to passengers.
Clause 65 requires GBR to provide for and publish a performance scheme that is designed to incentivise it, its subsidiaries and other train operators to minimise disruption to other train services and to the network itself. The scheme may include provisions for GBR and other operators to be required to pay penalties for causing disruption, receive compensation for disruption caused and receive bonuses that reward better-than-planned performance. The scheme may not provide for penalties or compensation when one train service causes disruption to another but they are both operated by the same person. The clause also prevents GBR from having to pay penalties or compensation in relation to disruption outside its control.
The clause gives GBR the power to require operators to provide information necessary for the scheme to function and offers no right to compensation or bonuses for parties that do not comply with those rules. The clause allows any person aggrieved by a provision in the scheme or any replacement or revision to it to appeal to the ORR. The clause is vital to create an efficient and reliable railway. It equips GBR to design a scheme that safeguards operators, forces accountability across the network and promotes continuous improvement. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 88, in clause 68, page 38, line 11, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment removes the requirement that appeals may only be made under Judicial Review principles.
Amendment 89, in clause 68, page 38, line 11, leave out from “must” to the end of line 15 and insert—
“determine the appeal on the facts and the law.”
This amendment would enable the ORR to determine appeals on the merits.
Amendment 90, in clause 68, page 38, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) and insert—
“(a) remit all or part of the provision appealed against to Great British Railways for reconsideration, or
(b) quash all or part of the decision appealed against and substitute its own decision, as, at its discretion, it sees fit.”
This amendment would allow the ORR, when agreeing an appeal, to remit all or part of the decision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration, or quash all or part of the decision appealed against, as at its discretion it sees fit.
Amendment 91, in clause 68, page 38, line 29, leave out from “question” to end of line 32.
This amendment would allow the ORR to substitute its own decision for that of GBR when allowing appeals, without there needing to have been an error of law.
Amendment 92, in clause 68, page 39, line 8, at end insert “(f) open access operators.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult open access operators before making regulations about steps that must be taken before an appeal can be brought, to make provision about the procedure and to set time limits and fees for the appeals brought under this Chapter.
Amendment 93, in clause 68, page 39, line 18, at end insert “(f) open access operators”
This amendment would require the ORR to consult open access operators before publishing its document on the practice and procedure for appeals under this Chapter.
Clause 68 stand part.
Keir Mather
Clause 67 provides a route of appeal to the ORR for a person aggrieved by a GBR decision about access, capacity allocation and charging, including decisions made under those schemes. Clause 68 then sets out the principles for how appeals to the ORR will operate and empowers the ORR to issue a document setting out the detailed practice and procedure to be followed. Together the clauses establish the ORR’s reformed and independent appeals role, providing a clear, credible and accessible route of redress against GBR’s access and charging decisions.
Opposition Members have consistently raised the view that basing the appeals role on judicial review principles is not strong enough. However, the rationale for the ORR deciding appeals based on judicial review principles is simple: we do not want the ORR to opine on best use. That is GBR’s job and if the ORR could simply disagree with GBR because it had a different opinion, we would be leaving the system as it is today, with parallel decision makers and unclear accountability. We would not gain the benefits of a body that is truly in charge of rail. That is precisely how we ended up with mistakes like the recent 7 am Manchester service that was set to travel with no passengers on it. The ORR admitted it did not have the adequate information or resource needed to make an informed decision on the operation of that service. That is exactly why we need a consolidated directing mind for the industry that can take decisions confidently and with passengers and freight users at its heart.
Basing the appeals system on judicial review principles ensures that appeals are considered independently and on a recognised basis of fairness, legality and rationality, and without the fragmentation of decision making that plagues the current system. The appeals process will provide a robust accountability framework to ensure the railway delivers for passengers and freight customers. It is not judicial review principles that are weak; perhaps the hon. Member for South West Devon would suggest it is the powers available to the ORR to act on any wrongdoing that are flawed. I will turn to that next.
Edward Argar
Does the Minister not see the challenge that if GBR is the single directing mind, we need to ask how it is held to account for individual decisions that it makes? Where is its accountability to the public, be it through this place or others? Secondly, the Minister talks about judicial review principles. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know just how high that judicial review bar is when people wish to challenge a planning decision, or something else. It cannot consider the individual merits of the decision, merely how it has been reached and whether due process has been followed. It is also incredibly costly. Is the Minister not concerned that in setting these principles, he is setting that bar at an unattainably high level, rather than striking the appropriate balance between being able to appeal and challenge something, but not unduly burdening the day-to-day decision making of the railways?
Keir Mather
I thank the right hon. Member for that contribution, because he gets to the nub of the principles. GBR will be held accountable through compliance with its duties as set out in legislation, which ensures that it has to have regard to passengers, including passengers with disabilities, and regard to the need to promote rail freight. It also has public law accountability built into it, through its legal obligation to act in a manner that is transparent and fair. The right hon. Member asks a broader question about whether the JR principles threshold is too high. We would argue it is not too high, precisely because of what it unlocks if we get to the stage where an appeal is upheld.
The ORR will have strong powers to dismiss the appeal or remit the decision to GBR for reconsideration, with legally binding directions that GBR cannot ignore. It is right and it is the stated principle both of the policy and of the overall notion of nationalisation that GBR can be a directing mind for the railway and have the power to do so, but there is a strong buttress against it if it is found that it has acted incorrectly as a matter of law.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 66 sets out who GBR must consult before issuing, revising or replacing the access and use policy under clause 59. The ORR and the Scottish and Welsh Ministers must be consulted as well as other persons GBR considers appropriate. Subsection (2) requires GBR to consult the persons it considers appropriate before issuing the infrastructure capacity planning document under clause 60, including any revisions and replacements; before issuing a working timetable under clause 61; and before making, altering or replacing a charging scheme under clause 64 or a performance scheme under clause 65.
Subsection (3) provides that a requirement in this clause for consultation may be satisfied by a consultation before or after the commencement of the clause. There is currently no express requirement to consult existing open access operators.
Clause 67, on appeals against access, charging and performance decisions, provides that a person who is aggrieved may appeal to the ORR against a GBR decision as to their train operations’ access to and use of the infrastructure, or a decision under the charging scheme or performance scheme. That sounds okay, until we realise that it is on judicial review terms, so there is no actual right of appeal at all.
Clause 68, on the appeals procedure, sets out that the ORR, when determining appeals under this chapter, must apply the principles that the High Court would apply on an application for a judicial review, or the principles that the Court of Session would apply in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction for appeals in Scotland.
Subsections (2) and (3) provide for the ORR to allow an appeal or dismiss it, and, if it allows an appeal, to use the following remedies. For appeals made against the GBR policies, plans, and schemes themselves—under clause 59(6), on access and use; clause 60(6), on infra-structure capacity; clause 64(8), on charging; or clause 65(7), on the performance scheme—the ORR can only require GBR to reconsider the decision.
For appeals made against a specific decision under clause 61(5) or clause 62(7), on the working timetable, or under clause 67, on GBR’s policies, plans and schemes, the ORR can quash the decision that is appealed against. Then, however, all it can do is to send it back to GBR to reconsider, or it may substitute the decision with its own if quashing the decision is on the basis of an error of law and without the error there is only one decision that GBR could have reached.
Clause 68(1) means that because appeals must be assessed using judicial review principles, operators can challenge GBR decisions only on procedural grounds and not on the substance or commercial merits. That means that GBR will be judge and jury in its decisions affecting its direct competition, which is obviously wildly unfair.
Clause 68(3)(a) sets out that even where an appeal succeeds, the ORR can only remit the matter back to GBR for reconsideration, which means that GBR can often reach the same outcome again without revising its reasoning. That offers little to no real corrective power.
Clause 68(4)(b) says that the ORR may substitute its own decision only where there is an error of law and where only one lawful outcome was possible. That is a very high bar and as a result this remedy will be rare.
These concerns have been echoed by the industry. During one of the oral evidence sessions for the Transport Committee, Maggie Simpson of the Rail Freight Group said:
“There are a number of problems with that appeal function. First, it will be incredibly hard to ever get to it. We are told that the appeal will have to meet the standards of a judicial review—illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness—so there will be a very high bar to meet to even get there. On top of that, the law allows the Secretary of State by regulation to set out some steps you would have to take in advance of going to the ORR. We do not know what those are. There is also a fee, and we do not know what that is. Even getting to the ORR will be very much more difficult than it is today.
If we do get up there, in most cases, the ORR will be able to ask GBR to have another look at its decision. It has another look, and it reaches the same view—so what? Only in a minority of cases can it quash a decision and only if there was an error of law…Passengers are going to get a very powerful watchdog when, conversely, we feel that in freight, we are having those rights of access watered down.”
Steve Montgomery from FirstRail said:
“Considering other large public sector organisations—like GBR is going to be—you have to ask, ‘Why would you not have an independent regulator of it?’ Why is rail going to be different from other large public sector organisations where there are regulators looking at them?”
Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL said:
“A strong independent rail regulator has two roles. The ORR, by the way, is part of the European group of independent rail regulators called IRG. Ideally, those roles are to protect passengers and other parts of the sector from monopolistic behaviour, and to ensure the best use of taxpayer money. Their role is also, in other countries, to ensure competition and non-discriminatory behaviour. We are worried that that might be watered down in this country and needs to be improved still.”
That prompts some questions that I hope the Minister can answer. Why is GBR being set up in such contradiction to its European neighbours? Is there anything that we could have learned? Will the Government reconsider any element of GBR as a result?
These concerns were also set out in the Rail Freight Group’s written evidence to the Transport Committee:
“GBR will by nature be a very powerful monopoly of track and GBR trains, and the overarching changes in the Bill reduce significantly the independent oversight of ORR, leaving the Secretary of State holding GBR to account. By comparison, the ORR currently has a duty to promote the use of the rail network and thus has a track record”—
ha, ha—
“of creating growth by approving new access applications previously rejected by Network Rail. Although we welcome the provisions for freight outlined above, there is still a significant risk that GBR could act in a way which favours its own trains, restricting growth for freight. As such, we believe it is essential that non-GBR operators have an independent appeals function that is powerful, easy to use and able to take action effectively.”
It continued:
“In essence, the provisions in the Bill mean that freight operators and customers have a very limited right of independent appeal against GBR. It is also of note that GBR may replace the current Access Disputes Committee (also independent of Network Rail) who hear lower level timetabling disputes with their own internal process, albeit we do not yet have full details of this.”
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.
FirstGroup wrote in a similar vein, saying that it was concerned
“about the ORR’s responsibility for track access decisions being transferred to GBR…The Bill removes the ORR’s powers to independently adjudicate on whether applications for access best meet the needs of all railway users. Under Clause 68 the ORR is an appeals body but with no ability to uphold appeals if they are discriminatory or anticompetitive. There need to be more checks and balances to maintain confidence in fair access, independent regulatory oversight and to protect the interests of passengers…As a broader point, independent regulation is vital to all large comparable bodies—consider for example the CQC’s role in healthcare or the Civil Aviation Authority in airlines and airports.”
The pushback against this grossly unfair clause is overwhelming, and the Government can surely no longer turn a deaf ear.
Amendment 88 would remove the requirement that appeals may be made only under judicial review principles. We think that it is an obvious improvement. At the Transport Committee on 7 January, the Department for Transport’s official, Lucy Ryan, stated that the requirement is deliberate:
“The reasoning for the JR threshold is to be absolutely clear that GBR needs to remain the directing mind, able to take decisions about optimising the use of the network.”
That is an insufficient safeguard against monopolistic behaviour by GBR. Large monopolies with structural conflicts of interest need effective decision-making oversight. It cannot be done by the Secretary of State, because this is operational, so it has to be the ORR.
Amendment 89 would enable the ORR to determine appeals on the facts and the law. It builds on amendment 88, and we think it is the only way to create a fair and non-discriminatory process. Amendment 90 would allow the ORR, when agreeing an appeal, either to remit to GBR for reconsideration or to quash and/or substitute its own decision for all or part of the decision appealed against. An independent appellate body applying the rules to GBR and its decisions would not challenge the role of GBR, but make sure that it was applying its rules fairly and correctly.
Amendment 91, which I believe the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage supports, would allow the ORR to substitute its own decision for that of GBR when allowing appeals, without there needing to have been an error of law, resulting in only one possible outcome. It would remove a ridiculously closely drafted requirement, and it is obviously fair. It is a test to see if the Government actually want a fair and level playing field.
Amendment 92 would require the Secretary of State to consult open access operators before making regulations about steps that must be taken before an appeal can be brought, to make provision about the procedure and to set time limits and fees for the appeals brought under this chapter. Operators clearly have skin in the game, and should be consulted by right.
Amendment 93 would require the ORR to consult open access operators before publishing its document on the practice and procedure for appeals under this chapter. The argument for that is very similar to the one behind amendment 92, which I just set out. Will the Minister stand up for the open access and freight sector, and support our amendments to create a fair appeals process?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I have a short point to make. The Minister seems to be saying that it is important to restrict an appeals process to the judicial review principles, which is a more restrictive set of criteria by which a body or company can appeal. Otherwise, that might lead to “incoherent decision making”—I think those were his words.
That sentiment and assertion undermines the entire court system of the United Kingdom—save for judicial review applications—which is based on disputes being had in, for example, the county court or the High Court, or another court making a decision, and the possibility of an appeal going upwards all the way to the Supreme Court, depending on the issue. However, nobody would suggest that that leads to an incoherent society or to incoherent contracts, family law, employment law, decision making or anything else.
For some reason, Great British Railways has this special carve-out, such that it can be challenged only through judicial review, because of some notion of incoherence. It seems to me that the entire purpose of that restriction is to prop up Great British Railways and allow it to act in a way that is not really comparable to anything else in the way we deliver public transport in this country. It gives me considerable concern.
Keir Mather
I will respond first to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. The point about confusion does not pertain to confusion created through arbitration in the courts on the principles of access decisions as a matter of law. I think that that is fundamental to making sure that GBR works within the boundaries of the legislative framework we have created, as well as, via public law principles, operating in a way that is both fair and transparent. The point about confusion is having two decision-making bodies on what constitutes best use of the network and access to the network. That is where we want to avoid confusion, because that is the system we have inherited, and it does not work for passengers.
The shadow Minister raised a point about fees, and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston mentioned costs. Any appeals will be made against JR principles and not processes. It is not that each case will be brought before the courts, with the associated costs that that would bring, so I am confident that the costs of appeal would not be a significant factor under the new system as opposed to the old one.
On the matter of European systems, the shadow Minister tests the boundaries of my knowledge of the operation of rail systems overseas. There are systems in Europe in which a body similar to the ORR has too dominant a role in having charge over access and decision making in relation to it. That is not working in the existing system, and that is what we are trying to change through the Bill.
Amendments 88 and 89 seek to remove the requirement that appeals be made on judicial review principles and replace this with a requirement that appeals are determined
“on the facts and the law.”
As I set out in my opening speech, judicial review principles will ensure that the ORR focuses on the legality and fairness of GBR’s decision making, not on retaking the decision. Replacing this with a requirement to determine appeals on the facts and the law instead would convert this to a merits-based system, which would require the ORR to rerun strategic judgments and exercises on best use of the network. That is not the role we intend for the ORR. The framework is designed to provide strong, independent oversight while preserving GBR as the single directing mind.
We have discussed repeatedly in Committee that what is wrong with the railway today is the fact that there is no one decision maker. There has to be just one, or the railway will continue to stagnate. GBR is the body with the expertise to be that decision maker, and the ORR is the body that should check that it has acted fairly and proportionately. Judicial review principles strike the right balance between accountability and effective decision making.
Amendments 90 and 91 would extend the ORR’s powers to substitute its own decision for one of GBR’s. As I have mentioned, the Bill deliberately distinguishes between types of appeals and the powers available to the ORR in each circumstance. For appeals concerning provisions within GBR’s strategic documents, such as the access and use policy, infrastructure capacity plans or its charging and performance schemes, the ORR may remit the provision appealed against to GBR for reconsideration, and may do so with binding directions, but may not substitute its own decision. That is because these are not yes or no decisions—they are not simple decisions—but rather complex and comprehensive policies that govern the railway. It is not appropriate for the ORR to rewrite strategic policy documents, and that is not what regulators are meant to do. The ORR should be checking that GBR has acted consistently with its procedures and policies, not substituting them with its own.
However, for operational decisions, for example about charges for operators or about whether someone should be included in the timetable, the ORR has stronger powers. The ORR may quash all or part of the decision and may substitute its own decision in cases where there has been an error of law and, without the error, there would have been only one decision that Great British Railways could have reached. The amendments would remove these carefully drawn distinctions, potentially allowing the ORR to step beyond its oversight role and into decision making on best use of the network. We cannot have that. The amendments would allow the ORR to make decisions on best use without decisions going back to GBR to correct, removing GBR’s ability to learn from and correct its mistakes, and adding duplication between two decision-making bodies. The Bill already provides robust remedies where an appeal is upheld, including the power to remit with binding directions, even when substitution is not available, which ensures effective redress while preserving GBR as the single directing mind.
Amendments 92 and 93 would require the Secretary of State and the ORR to consult open access operators before publishing either regulations or practice and procedures for appeals under this chapter. The Bill already sets out a clear and proportionate consultation requirement, and the current formulation is deliberate to provide flexibility for the ORR to engage industry and stakeholders, including open access operators, without creating an inflexible statutory list. It may also be helpful to emphasise that the ORR’s appeals role exists precisely to ensure fairness, transparency and lawful decision making for operators, including open access operators.
The ORR has already begun engagement on its approach to developing its appeals process and has published a discussion document setting out its emerging thinking, which is publicly available and open to comment and views from industry and other stakeholders, including open access operators. The work is intended to inform its final appeals process, and there will be a formal consultation once the Bill receives Royal Assent. Open access operators will therefore be able to provide views as part of the consultation without the need for an explicit mention in the Bill. The process already provides a clear and appropriate route for open access operators to have their views heard.
I also note that the Secretary of State regulations relate to process matters only, such as steps that must be taken before an appeal is brought, time limits, and fees. They do not determine access rights or decision making on capacity allocation or charging. It is therefore appropriate that the statutory consultation requirement focuses on bodies with system-wide responsibilities and oversight roles, rather than individual categories of operator.
As with other consultation provisions in the Bill, singling out one category of operator will create a precedent for others to request to be added to the statutory list, and we will risk making the framework overly prescriptive. The current drafting already achieves the right balance, ensuring engagement and maintaining flexibility. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for South West Devon not to press the amendments, and commend clauses 67 and 68 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68
Appeal procedure
Amendment proposed: 88, in clause 68, page 38, line 11, leave out subsection (1).—(Rebecca Smith.)
This amendment removes the requirement that appeals may only be made under Judicial Review principles.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Morello
I beg to move amendment 203, in clause 68, page 38, line 35, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
This amendment, along with Amendments 204 and 205, strengthens the role of the ORR, and reduces the role of the Secretary of State, in considering appeals against GBR access decisions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 204, in clause 68, page 39, line 10, leave out from “Chapter” to end of line 11.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 203.
Amendment 205, in clause 68, page 39, line 15, leave out paragraphs (b) to (d).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 203.
Edward Morello
Amendments 203 to 205 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The clause gives the Secretary of State extensive powers to intervene and, ultimately, overrule access decisions made by GBR. As I said in our previous sitting, we must remember that those powers are not just for the current Government, but for all future Governments. The Bill concentrates too much authority in the hands of the Secretary of State, with too little accountability and independent oversight. The amendments would reduce ministerial micromanagement and strengthen the role of the ORR in determining appeals on access decisions. The ORR should be an independent regulator whose job it is to make fair, evidence-based judgments. Access decisions should be governed by transparent regulation, not by political discretion. The amendments would strengthen the role of the ORR, protect the independence of GBR and prevent excessive control by the Secretary of State, especially without any accompanying accountability—something the Government have continued to refuse when the Opposition parties have tabled amendments. However, I hope we will have a sudden volte-face on amendments 203 to 205.
Rebecca Smith
I shall be brief. The amendments would strengthen the role of the ORR and reduce the role of the Secretary of State in considering appeals against GBR access decisions. Without further ado, I will say that we will support all three, should the Liberal Democrats press them to a vote.
Keir Mather
Amendments 203 to 205 seek to do two things: to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations relating to the appeals process; and to remove the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers as statutory consultees on the ORR’s appeals procedure. I support the ambition to ensure that the appeals framework works independently and commands confidence across the industry. However, the amendments are not necessary or appropriate to achieve that aim.
The ORR will establish its own appeals process and engage with industry on its development. In fact, it has already published a discussion document seeking views from interested parties on its policy choices. That was published on 3 December and can be found on the ORR’s website. The Secretary of State’s regulation-making powers are intended to provide a safeguard to ensure that the appeals framework operates effectively, and are not expected to play a routine role. The powers may be used only for matters of process—for example, the setting of legally binding time limits for bringing appeals and, if appropriate, providing for the charging of fees.
The powers cannot be used to interfere with the ORR’s independence in deciding and assessing individual appeals, or used to dictate the outcome of any appeal. Other procedural arrangements will be set by the ORR as it develops its appeals process. The power ensures that the framework can be set and adjusted, if required, to maintain effective operation over time while fully preserving the ORR’s independence in determining appeals. The Secretary of State will, of course, be required to consult the ORR, GBR, Scottish and Welsh Ministers and such other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate before making any regulations under the power.
In a similar vein, when the ORR issues, revises or replaces its appeals practice and procedure, it is important that it must consult GBR, the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers and such other persons it considers appropriate. That ensures coherence across the railway network, particularly where services cross borders. Removing these provisions would reduce flexibility and resilience in the appeals framework without materially strengthening the independence of the ORR’s appeals role. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for West Dorset to withdraw the amendment, and not to move amendments 204 and 205.
Edward Morello
I listened to the Minister’s points. I think that the Liberal Democrats have been adamant throughout scrutiny of the Bill that we want to establish clear lines between the ORR, GBR and the Secretary of State in order to limit meddling under any future Government and to protect what this Government are trying to achieve. The Bill needs clear red lines on where Secretary of State power should be, so I will push the amendments to Divisions.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
I beg to move amendment 175, in clause 69, page 39, line 25, leave out “17(1)” and insert “17”.
This amendment and amendment 176 restrict the power of the Office of Rail and Road to give directions to Great British Railways so that it will apply only to “facility to facility” access contracts.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 176 to 183.
Clause stand part.
Clause 70 stand part.
Amendment 146, in clause 71, page 40, line 30, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment prevents regulations allowing for the early termination of access agreements.
Clause 71 stand part.
Government amendment 186.
New clause 67—Abolition of open access rights—
“Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision to—
(a) prevent the granting or renewal of licences for open access passenger services;
(b) where such services cease to operate as a result of paragraph (a), require Great British Railways to operate equivalent services following their cessation.”
Keir Mather
Amendments 175 to 183 and 186 will ensure that GBR can enter into connection contracts with adjacent infrastructure managers and facility owners. A connection contract is a formal agreement that focuses on the physical interface and upkeep of the connection between two rail networks. Connection contracts are important in enabling the smooth passage of trains from GBR’s network to others, such as the Core Valley Lines in Wales. They also allow GBR’s network to be connected to privately owned depots or ports, which will be of importance to freight operators. These technical amendments retain the existing arrangements, enabling GBR and other parties to enter into connection contracts. I therefore urge the Committee to support them.
Edward Morello
I wish to speak in support of amendment 146 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Clause 71 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations allowing for the early termination of access agreements. We believe that this creates unnecessary uncertainty for train operators and passengers. Access agreements are detailed, regulated contracts that set out service patterns, responsibilities and costs. They are overseen by the ORR and published on its public register. Amendment 146 would remove ministerial powers to terminate those agreements early, limiting the ability of the Secretary of State to micro- manage GBR.
While I risk sounding like a broken record, as I have said before, these are powers that apply to both the current Government and future one. While I understand the desire for the Secretary of State to have the power to terminate agreements, those powers sit better with the ORR and GBR. If we want stability, investment and reliable services, we need to signal to the market that there will not be political intervention that undermines long-term planning. I hope that the Government will see the sense of this amendment.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 69 amends the Railways Act 1993 to except GBR or a subsidiary of GBR from the sections outlining the ORR’s powers on access and its corresponding duties. That change would prevent the ORR from making access decisions on infrastructure operated by GBR. The clause removes GBR from the normal ORR supervised access regime, giving it a special exemption that no other operator has. Since GBR is both operator and infrastructure manager, we believe that this creates an uneven playing field and risks unfair treatment of competing operators. If the Government insist on the current drafting, they must come clean and admit that their intention is to treat competitors unfairly in comparison, and that they are not in favour of competition and reject private investment as a driver of innovation and improvement on the railway.
Given the destruction of the current independently managed fair and level playing field, it is no surprise that the industry has major concerns. Eurostar’s written evidence to the Transport Committee explains:
“The Railways Bill consolidates strategic and operational authority in Great British Railways. While centralising network management offers efficiency gains, it is essential that ORR’s independent regulatory function is preserved, especially for open access and international services. In future Government will have the overarching interest in the Infrastructure Concession (let to LSPH), the Maintainer Operator (Network Rail) and the largest operator on the route (SET). There needs to be an independent referee to balance these interests with those of open access operators.
ORR provides impartial oversight of track access, station allocation, depot facilities, charging, and timetabling. Its independence provides transparent decision-making and safeguards competition, while giving investors confidence in the long-term stability of services.
Decisions such as the allocation of depot access at Temple Mills demonstrate the importance of ORR in balancing competing demands for constrained resources. Without statutory protection, GBR could constrain competition and impede international service growth. In addition, it could reduce transparency in access allocation.
Eurostar recommends that the Bill explicitly preserves the ORR’s independent role in regulating access, charges, and depot allocation for international services. This statutory protection is essential to provide fair treatment for operators and give certainty for the future of UK international rail services.
In international rail terms, the ORR’s role is more important than ever before, given the recent ruling enabling a new entrant to the market to access Temple Mills depot. The regulator will need to perform a strong, independent and objective role in ruling on cost sharing, compatibility and rolling stock issues.
The ORR can also play a role in track access charges – costs for accessing the London-to-Calais stretch of rail are nine times higher per kilometre than the cost of accessing equivalent infrastructure in Belgium, France or the Netherlands.”
Written evidence to the Transport Committee from Lumo and Hull Trains outlines their concerns:
“The ORR plays an essential role in maintaining a fair, transparent, and competitive rail network. Its independence supports confidence among passengers, freight operators, and private investors. Lumo and Hull Trains believe the Railways Bill should preserve this role to help GBR succeed.
To maintain balance across the system, the ORR must retain meaningful regulatory powers to ensure decisions made by GBR on access and charging are fair, evidence-based, and consistent with the Government’s growth objectives. The current drafting of the Bill, however, limits the ORR’s capacity to intervene proactively, restricting its powers primarily to appeals after decisions have been made.
Enhancing the ORR’s decision-making and enforcement capability would help ensure that GBR’s commercial and operational decisions remain aligned with the wider interests of passengers and the market. This approach would reinforce the Government’s ambition for a collaborative, competitive, and accountable rail system. A strong regulator also provides stability for investors, ensuring that GBR operates within a framework that fosters long-term confidence and fair treatment for all market participants.
While the Government desires to create a ‘directing mind’ in GBR, coordinating rail with a whole network view, for private operators to have confidence in the system there must be appropriate protections guaranteeing fair access and charging. The ORR is well-positioned to perform that role as an essential backstop, but the correct framework must be built around it to enable it to operate as such.”
Finally, Angel Trains also provided written evidence to the Transport Committee:
“Angel Trains believes that the new access framework must provide equitable access to all parts of the railway, whether operators are GBR-led, Open Access, or freight. As a lessor of rolling stock to both GBR-led and Open Access operators we believe parity among operators is crucial and would welcome greater clarity from the Government on how access and charging decisions will be made and prioritised. As an independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) should be responsible for ensuring a level playing field by intervening if concerns are raised that GBR could have taken a discriminatory decision, for example, around preferential access rights and charging for GBR operators over Open Access competitors.
Beyond access arrangements, we would welcome further detail from the Government about how GBR will be held to account. In its current form, GBR possesses a high concentration of power in its role in setting both strategy and delivery. In order to provide adequate scrutiny and accountability, there must be sufficient checks and balances to ensure that financial, economic, and safety objectives are met.
Angel Trains believes that there should be clear divisions between different parts of the rail system to ensure adequate accountability…As outlined above, it is vital that there is a fully independent regulator to hold GBR to account, for which the ORR could be best-placed. Beyond acting as an arbiter on access and charging decisions, the ORR should be empowered to report on GBR’s performance and issue performance improvements notices to GBR, in addition to other regulatory duties. The ORR must maintain a regulatory function to provide fairness and stability for the rail industry, which encourages investment and ensures financial sustainability by creating a level playing field across the sector and eliminating subjectivity from decision-making.”
We therefore seek to leave out clause 69 and will vote against it. This would keep GBR under the normal access regime supervised by the ORR and ensure a fair system. We have no objections to Government amendments 175 to 183 but, as mentioned, we are less happy with clause 69 as a whole.
Clause 70 amends the 2016 regulations to exempt GBR from the provisions of those regulations that would otherwise apply to its infrastructure. The 2016 regulations will continue to apply to other infrastructure managers. We do not object to the clause.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister and others for their contributions. It is a small point, but the shadow Minister raised international obligations and treaties, and I want to reassure her that infrastructure managed and operated by parties other than GBR, including High Speed 1, will continue to be governed by the existing access and management regulation. There will therefore be no impact on international obligations and treaties. Hopefully, that will instil confidence throughout the rail supply chain as to how seriously we take those obligations.
I will speak first to clauses 69 and 70, before turning to the amendments. Clause 69 amends the Railways Act 1993 to exempt GBR from the ORR’s powers on access and its corresponding duties. In short, the clause prevents the ORR from making access decisions on infrastructure operated by GBR. Amendment of the existing provisions is vital to allow the Government to fulfil their commitment to establish GBR as the directing mind responsible and accountable for making best use of the railway. Retaining the role of the ORR as the decision maker on access is not the answer.
Under the current ORR system, decisions on the timetable are plagued by delays and disagreements between ORR and Network Rail, and require ministerial intervention for timetables to be finalised. As the regulator, the ORR does not have the ability to review the system holistically, create more routes and optimise the overall use of the network—it can only respond to the specific applications that are submitted to it.
If we keep the current system, we will continue to see disruption and delays caused by timetabling problems, and inefficient use of the network that is no one’s best interests. We will continue to see problems, such as trains running without passengers on them, purely because of the systematic issues that govern access and timetabling decisions. Retaining the ORR as the access decision maker would not lead to better performance, and would not benefit passengers. The only way to achieve the high-performing and high-quality railway that this country needs is to put one body—GBR—in charge of the railway and of granting access to it. It is only GBR—not Ministers or the ORR—that will have the level of expertise and the detailed knowledge of the whole railway system that is needed to make the right decisions for passengers, freight users and taxpayers.
Clause 70 makes technical changes to the body of law that currently governs access, to exempt GBR and make some other consequential changes, so that the existing access and management regulations will no longer apply to GBR in relation to its infrastructure. The technical amendments in the clause are necessary to enable GBR to become the single decision maker and directing mind for its infrastructure. The existing regulations will continue to apply for adjacent infrastructure managers, such as Transport for London and Core Valley Lines in south Wales.
Clause 71 provides the Secretary of State with a time-limited power to ensure that contracts can continue to operate effectively, following the establishment of Great British Railways. The Government have made the commitment that, following its establishment, the existing access rights held by operators, known as schedule 5 rights, will be honoured, as will the charges set by the ORR for the remainder of the current control period. The clause does not change those commitments. However, the power is needed to prevent contracts from becoming inoperable because they are reliant on the previous legislative framework in the Railways Act 1993, which will not be applicable once the Bill is enacted.
In a similar way to how the ORR provides notices for contracts today, the Secretary of State will, if necessary, and only as a last resort, use the power to make technical changes to existing contracts, simply to ensure smooth transition to the new access and charging regime under GBR—for example, to account for the establishment of GBR and address the changed roles of the ORR and GBR, so that contracts still operate as they should.
Without those changes, operators with access rights would potentially not be able to provide the services that they have contracts and rights to run, because the contracts will become inoperable. However, recognising the need for reassurance, and to offer certainty for third parties, the Government have also committed publicly to ensuring that operators with existing contracts in scope of needing that power will be engaged with and consulted, to identify inoperable clauses and agree on replacement wording.
Amendment 146 would take away the ability to amend or terminate contracts. However, it is necessary for the clause to be drafted widely, including with reference to termination, in case the best way to effect the technical changes to the contract is to terminate and immediately replace the contract with one that is aligned to the new legislative framework, rather than making numerous technical amendments throughout that would otherwise render the contract unusable or unwieldy. As stated earlier, that will not affect any operators’ schedule 5 rights, nor will it impede the existing charging determination set by the ORR until its natural expiry in April 2029, which the Government have confirmed both publicly and in writing. Not including that provision would be a risk to the smooth transition to the new regime, which the Government are not prepared to risk.
Given all that I have discussed, I urge hon. Members not to press the amendment to a vote.
Amendment 175 agreed to.
Amendments made: 176, in clause 69, page 39, line 26, leave out from “after” to end of line and insert—
“subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Where the facility owner is Great British Railways, the Office of Rail and Road may give directions under subsection (1) only for the purpose specified in subsection (2)(e).”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 175.
Amendment 177, in clause 69, page 39, line 32, leave out—
“to which this section applies”
and insert—
“of the description specified in subsection (2)(e) unless one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) is satisfied; and any such contract is void unless one of those conditions is satisfied.”
This amendment replaces the general restriction on Great British Railways entering into access contracts with one that will apply only to “facility to facility” access contracts.
Amendment 178, in clause 69, page 40, line 1, leave out subsection (4)(c).
This amendment removes the restriction on Great British Railways as a facility owner entering into installation access contracts.
Amendment 179, in clause 69, page 40, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) In section 21 (model clauses for access contracts), after subsection (5) insert—
‘(6) The powers of the Office of Rail and Road under subsection (5) may not be exercised in relation to an access contract where the facility owner is Great British Railways unless the access contract is of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).’”
This amendment provides for the ORR’s model clauses powers to be exercisable in relation to access contracts entered into by GBR only where the access contract is a “facility to facility” access contract.
Amendment 180, in clause 69, page 40, line 6, leave out “if” and insert “where”.
This amendment and amendment 181 provide for ORR approval to be required for amendment of “facility to facility” access contracts entered into by Great British Railways.
Amendment 181, in clause 69, page 40, line 7, at end insert—
“unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e)”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 180.
Amendment 182, in clause 69, page 40, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert—
“(5A) Directions may not be given under this section in relation to an access agreement where the facility owner or installation owner is Great British Railways unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).”
This amendment restricts the ORR’s power to give directions under section 22A of the Railways Act 1993 to the parties to an access agreement in line with the approach taken by the other amendments about access agreements.
Amendment 183, in clause 69, page 40, line 12, at end insert—
“(7) In section 22C (amendment: supplementary), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Directions may not be given under subsection (1) in relation to an access agreement where the facility owner or installation owner is Great British Railways unless the agreement is an access contract of the description specified in section 18(2)(e).’”—(Keir Mather.)
This amendment restricts the ORR’s power to give directions under section 22C of the Railways Act 1993 to the parties to an access agreement Great British Railways in line with the approach taken by the other amendments about access agreements.
The Chair
I propose that we suspend the meeting for 10 minutes so that everybody can have a comfort break.
Edward Morello
I beg to move amendment 256, in clause 72, page 41, line 38, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must not make provision for the Secretary of State to direct operational matters of customer and facility-owner freight sidings and terminals.”
This amendment ensures that the Secretary of State does not exercise powers over operational matters of customer and facility-owner freight sidings and terminals.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 221, in clause 72, page 42, line 2, leave out from “consult” to end of line and insert
“the Office of Rail and Road and affected facility owners”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the ORR and affected facility owners before making regulations under this section.
Amendment 231, in clause 72, page 42, line 4, at end insert—
“(7) Infrastructure, facilities and services not managed by Great British Railways which are used exclusively for the carriage of goods by rail are excluded from the provisions of this section.”
This amendment clarifies that privately funded, freight-only facilities are excluded from regulation under this section.
Clause stand part.
Clause 73 stand part.
Edward Morello
I speak in support of amendment 256, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Clause 72 allows regulations that could give the Secretary of State powers over operational matters in freight sidings and terminals. Amendment 256 makes clear that those operational decisions must not be subject to ministerial direction. The amendment comes directly from the freight industry and reflects clear concerns about unnecessary political interference.
Freight sidings and terminals are operational commercial assets, and their day-to-day management should sit with operators, not with Ministers. As we said in previous sittings, the powers would apply to not just the current but future Governments. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I should say that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State too much control and too many opportunities for micromanagement with too little accountability over too many areas. Amendment 256 draws a sensible boundary, protects freight operators from meddling, and supports a stable and efficient freight network.
Rebecca Smith
I will speak to clauses 72 and 73, and the grouped amendments. Clause 72 is another controversial clause. It sets out that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the management and operation of non-GBR infrastructure, which means any network, station or track not operated by or on behalf of GBR; about the rights to operate trains that use non-GBR infrastructure; and about competition in the market for the provision and supply of such operations.
Subsection (2)(c) allows the Secretary of State to set access terms and charges for non-GBR infrastructure, overriding commercial negotiation and bypassing the ORR. That cuts directly against the stated principle that the publicly owned operator must not regulate its competitors. It is an extraordinary clause that cuts up contract law and throws it out of the window.
The Rail Freight Group is concerned. It states:
“Clause 72 enables the Secretary of State by regulation to intervene in privately owned rail freight terminals, setting conditions of access and charges amongst other matters. Again, we understand that this is not the intention of the clause (which exists to enable GBR to take over other infrastructure such as HS1, Heathrow Branch or the Core Valley Lines) but nonetheless it is an extant risk to rail freight as presently worded, and we believe freight terminals should be explicitly out of scope for this clause.”
Rebecca Smith
I think he probably would have said it, to be perfectly honest.
Clause 73 marks the end of a very significant chapter in the Bill, with many poorly drafted or simply ill thought through clauses. I am sure the drafting has been done with the greatest attention to detail; it is just the “thought-through-ness” that we are struggling with. But we end on a positive note, with no objections to clause 73.
Keir Mather
I am pleased to speak to this group of provisions, which concludes the scrutiny on the access chapters of the Bill.
Clause 72 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to amend the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 via the affirmative procedure. The access and management regulations are the existing body of secondary legislation that sets out the rights and obligations of infrastructure managers, train operators and the role of the ORR in relation to access, capacity allocation, access charges and performance. At present, those regulations can be amended only using powers under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, but those powers will expire on 23 June 2026, which means that, after that date, there will be no means other than an Act of Parliament by which those detailed and technical regulations can be amended.
Great British Railways infrastructure will not be subject to the regulations, as the Bill establishes a new access framework to enable GBR to be the directing mind, which we have discussed over the last few groups. However, alongside Great British Railways there will be a number of rail networks, such as Transport for London, London St Pancras Highspeed and the Core Valley Lines in Wales, that will continue to be subject to the access and management regulations. Those “adjacent infrastructure managers” will therefore not be part of GBR’s access regime. The purpose of the power in clause 72 is to ensure that the legislative framework governing the other infrastructure managers can be updated to address any inconsistencies between networks—to “keep pace” between the two different regulatory regimes. Without this power there may be disruption to the smooth passage of train services across different networks—which the Government have a duty to protect.
For example, the power might be used to secure alignment on the date when a new working timetable must come into effect. The access and management regulations currently stipulate a date in December, but given the risk of weather-related events, staff absences during the Christmas season and the engineering works that usually take place between Christmas and the new year, GBR will likely want to move away from that. If it did, it is not unreasonable to think that other infrastructure managers might want to follow suit to avoid being affected by the same risks and to ensure consistency in the timetable change date. To achieve that, it would be necessary to amend the regulations for the other infrastructure managers who wish to align with the date that GBR chooses in the future. The regulation-making power would enable that simple change to be made without needing an Act of Parliament.
There may also be opportunities for adjacent infrastructure managers to seek further simplifications to the current regulations in a way that meets our ambitions to reduce regulatory burden and support growth, while maintaining a sustainable and predictable framework so that businesses have confidence to plan and invest. The Government consider regulations, rather than primary legislation, as a better way in which to achieve that.
Regulations made under the clause must be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny. Before exercising the power, the Secretary of State will consult all interested parties, ensuring full transparency, that industry has the chance to comment and that Parliament approves the regulations before any changes can be made. Amendments 256, 221 and 231 all seek to narrow that power in some way.
Amendment 256 would prevent the power from being used to direct operational matters of customer and facility owner freight sidings and terminals; amendment 231 would similarly exclude freight-only facilities. Those amendments are unnecessary, as the purpose of the power is to ensure alignment and remove inconsistencies in the regulatory regimes that will apply to GBR and non-GBR infrastructure and to enable simplifications where they align with the objectives of adjacent infrastructure managers.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister just said that the amendments are completely unnecessary, because the stated concerns are not real, effectively. That does not answer the very real concerns put forward time and again in the Transport Select Committee and in this Committee’s evidence session—the written and oral evidence—by businesses that are experts in the field. They are not reassured by the Bill as it stands. How can the Minister go back and say, “No, we’re right and you’re wrong,” to those experts in the industry?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am not arguing that stakeholders are not valid in raising concerns about the issues: they are. I am seeking to ameliorate their concerns by outlining what provisions are in the legislation to offer sufficient scrutiny and ensure that the way in which the process happens offers robust safeguards.
Constraints are built into clause 72 to ensure sufficient oversight, with the Secretary of State consulting persons considered appropriate and making changes in secondary legislation that is subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that legislation will be subject to full public consultation and subsequently debated in both Houses, which reflects the importance of the regulations in providing certainty for business.
I have already said that the Secretary of State will consult all interested parties to ensure that there is full transparency and industry comment. Amendments 256, 221 and 231 would all narrow that power in some way. Amendment 256 would prevent the power from being used to direct operational matters of customer and facility owner freight sidings, and amendment 231 would exclude freight-only facilities. I have already spoken on why some of the principles that lie behind those amendments are unnecessary.
Let us take my example of GBR changing the date when its new working timetable is to take effect. On the basis of the amendments, other infrastructure managers would forever be misaligned with that new timetable change date, even if they wished to align. The Government do not intend to use the power to direct the owners or operators of private freight facilities on operational matters.
I am happy to reassure the Committee that the power cannot be used to bring other infrastructure managers or operators of privately funded facilities into public ownership, as I know how exercised Opposition Committee members have been about that principle. In the consultation, industry broadly supported the ability to make necessary amendments, although it is of course right to raise concerns when they arise. Most sector bodies agree that it will be important to ensure that there are no regulatory barriers to passenger and freight operators crossing between different networks, and that is what the clause seeks to achieve.
Amendment 221 would make the ORR and affected facility owners statutory consultees to the power. That is unnecessary as before exercising the power to make regulations, the Secretary of State is already required to consult all persons they consider appropriate, which would include the ORR and any affected facility owners. If the Secretary of State did not consult such persons, there would be strong grounds to challenge the regulations.
Clause 73 will ensure clarity in how key terms are applied throughout the access chapter of the Bill. It defines “GBR infrastructure”, “GBR passenger service” and “working timetable”—fundamental terms to the operation of GBR. The definition of GBR infrastructure ensures that the new access arrangements developed by GBR apply only where intended. The clause also includes a power to amend the definition, which is necessary to ensure that, as GBR’s network evolves over time, it remains clear to GBR and other infrastructure managers which parts of infrastructure are GBR’s responsibility. The clause is therefore critical to provide clarity and transparency.
Given what I have set out, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments. I commend clauses 72 and 73 to the Committee.
Edward Morello
I have nothing further to add, but we would like to press amendment 256 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 74, page 42, line 24, after “monitor” insert “and audit”.
This amendment would require the ORR to monitor and audit GBR’s statutory functions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 100, in clause 74, page 42, line 29, after “monitoring” insert “and auditing”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 99.
Amendment 101, in clause 74, page 42, line 30, after “monitoring” insert “and auditing”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 99.
Amendment 97, in clause 74, page 43, line 5, at end insert—
“including, where reasonably practicable, implementation of recommendations of safety improvements and standards developed through relevant industry bodies”.
This amendment ensures that Great British Railways in furtherance of railway safety actively engages with the industry bodies such as the Rail Safety and Standards Board and implements where reasonably practicable, the cross-sector recommendations of safety improvements and standards emerging from any cross-sector work.
Amendment 222, in clause 74, page 43, line 5, at end insert—
“(d) whether, and the extent to which, Great British Railways is achieving its key performance indicators set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].”
This amendment requires the Office of Rail and Road to consider Great British Railways’ performance against its KPIs, as set out in NC2. This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Clause stand part.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 74 amends the Railways Act 1993. It gives the ORR a new function to monitor GBR’s delivery of its statutory functions and carry out investigations where appropriate to fulfil that monitoring. In particular, the ORR must consider how and whether GBR is carrying out the activities listed in its approved business plan, how the cost of carrying out those activities compares with the estimates in the business plan, and whether GBR is carrying out railway activities in a way that furthers railway safety. The ORR may advise the Secretary of State in relation to that monitoring function and publish its advice.
Amendments 99 to 101
“would require the ORR to monitor and audit GBR’s statutory functions.”
The amendments address the relationship between GBR and the ORR, making it clear that the ORR remains an independent regulator with powers associated with audit, for example in relation to the release of documents. None of that applies to a woolly duty to monitor. Legally, the term “monitoring” is weak. It does not imply an ability to take action to demand improvement. That is particularly concerning when combined with clause 75, which removes the ORR’s ability to impose a financial penalty in the event of poor performance.
Amendment 97
“ensures that Great British Railways in furtherance of railway safety actively engages with the industry bodies such as the Rail Safety and Standards Board and implements where reasonably practicable, the cross-sector recommendations of safety improvements and standards emerging from any cross-sector work.”
That provides the Office of Rail and Road a clear mechanism to hold Great British Railways to account in safety matters. It also highlights an expectation of relevant industry bodies to recommend improvements to Great British Railways. We will not divide the Committee on amendment 97, but we ask the Government to think about what we are proposing in it. We all want the Bill to make the railways safer, and anything we can do to ensure that that happens will be for the good.
I think we have already debated amendment 98, but I want to put it in context we will vote on it at this point, so I want to mention why it is relevant. It
“would require the ORR to consider whether GBR procuring services from the private sector would be a more efficient use of public funds.”
That echoes previous amendments that we tabled, but we will be dividing on amendment 98 as part of this group, I believe.
Amendment 222
“requires the Office of Rail and Road to consider Great British Railways’ performance against its KPIs, as set out in”
new clause 2. As amendment 222 is consequential on new clause 2, we will not press it to a Division, given that the new clause is likely to be rejected. It is a probing amendment that we wanted on record.
We also have amendment 236, which is not part of the group, but my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham told me not to forget it because we will have a vote on it. Are we debating group 73?
Keir Mather
Me too, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for placing such confidence in me; we will see in due course if it is justified.
I thank the shadow Minister for speaking to amendment 222, which would require the ORR to monitor KPIs. My response will be brief, to avoid repeating myself, as the amendment is heavily linked to new clause 2, which we have already debated.
We expect GBR to have KPIs, as I have said before, but the right place for them is in GBR’s integrated business plan, alongside the detail of the activity that GBR will carry out over the five-year funding period. No sensible business would ever set its KPIs in stone, potentially for generations to come.
It is important that the ORR, in its role scrutinising GBR’s proposed business plans and monitoring its delivery of them, is able to assess whether commitments made by GBR are ambitious and realistic. As the independent expert adviser to the Secretary of State, the ORR will have a clear route to influence the formulation of GBR’s KPIs. By keeping them within the business plan, the ORR’s involvement is already ensured by legislation.
Amendment 97 would require the ORR to monitor whether GBR is implementing safety recommendations and standards set by industry bodies. I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment. Britain’s railways remain some of the safest in the world, which is why we are maintaining the roles of the statutory bodies in this area—the ORR and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch —and preserving the legal duty on all public bodies, including GBR, to give due regard to the investigation branch safety recommendations addressed to them.
Existing safety legislation already gives the ORR broad powers to monitor GBR’s safety management, including its implementation of investigation branch recommendations, and to take enforcement action if it finds that GBR is not managing safety effectively. The amendment risks confusing or duplicating well-understood roles and responsibilities in relation to the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of safety best practice. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member that this suggestion is already covered.
Amendments 99 to 101 would require the ORR to audit GBR’s statutory functions when undertaking its monitoring role. That is unnecessary, and would distort the clear and distinct roles set out in the Bill for both GBR and the ORR. The Bill retains the ORR’s important role as sector regulator and creates an enhanced monitoring function through which it will monitor GBR’s statutory functions and provide independent advice to the Secretary of State.
The ORR’s role as sector regulator is rightly separate to the role of an approved auditor. The annual accounts of GBR will be audited by the National Audit Office in the usual way. We do not propose to change that effective system, and cannot agree to an amendment that would layer it with unwarranted and inappropriate duplication, given that the ORR will already be monitoring GBR’s delivery of the KPIs within its business plan and GBR’s consideration of its duties when doing this.
Oversight of GBR will be proportionate, risk-based and focused on the outcomes that matter most to users of the railway, taxpayers and the wider public. The ORR will have a crucial part to play in providing this oversight, including by undertaking its enhanced monitoring role in the way it, as the independent regulator, considers appropriate. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member not to press those amendments.
I commend clause 74 to the Committee. It will provide the ORR with enhanced monitoring powers, in line with its new role in the reformed sector. It will ensure that the ORR can effectively scrutinise GBR and provide independent expert advice for the Secretary of State for Transport and Scottish Ministers on its performance. As set out in the Bill, GBR will be required to produce an integrated business plan that demonstrates how it will deliver its priorities across the breadth of its statutory functions, including passenger services and the management of the GBR network.
Although GBR will report to the Secretary of State on the delivery of the plan, the ORR will be required to monitor the performance of GBR and independently advise the Secretary of State. The clause sets out that the ORR will monitor how GBR exercises its functions, including whether the commitments in GBR’s business plan are being met, how costs and income compare with estimates in that plan, and the extent to which GBR is ensuring safety on the railway. On an ongoing basis, the ORR will be able to escalate concerns to Ministers as it considers necessary, enabling the Secretary of State to make informed decisions in line with her responsibilities as funder of GBR. Given that the Secretary of State is democratically responsible for the billions of pounds of taxpayer subsidy invested in the railway, it is right that she has the final say on how it is used, with proper, comprehensive advice from an expert independent regulator to support her.
To fulfil its new role, the ORR must have the ability to gather information, conduct investigations, and assess whether GBR is fulfilling its statutory functions and business plan commitments. Clause 74 provides that statutory basis. It will allow the ORR, where it deems appropriate, to publish any information or advice it provides to the Secretary of State in connection with this monitoring function. That will ensure that the public can see how GBR is being held to account for its performance and how it is delivering in the interest of its customers, taxpayers and the public.
The policy rationale is clear: the Government are committed to preserving an independent expert adviser within the rail system and are providing the necessary tools for that body to operate and scrutinise GBR effectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I have indicated that we want to press amendment 99 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
I beg to move amendment 271, in clause 75, page 43, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 55 (orders for securing compliance), after subsection (7C) insert—
‘(7D) The Office of Rail and Road may not, by a final or provisional order, require the payment of a sum by Great British Railways.’”
This amendment would ensure that the ORR may not impose a fine on GBR under an order to secure compliance with conditions etc, to align with the amendment to section 57A of the Railways Act 1993 made by clause 75(3) of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 212, in clause 75, page 43, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment removes the restriction on the ORR to impose fines on GBR for licence breaches.
Clause stand part.
Keir Mather
I will first speak to Government amendment 271 and clause 75 as drafted, which is essential to ensure that the accountability arrangements for GBR reflect its status as a publicly owned body, as well as enshrining the strategic role of Ministers.
The clause will make two changes to functions of the ORR that would otherwise apply to GBR. The first is to prevent the ORR from issuing specific directions to GBR relating to providing, improving or developing railway facilities, such as stations or depots. However, we expect that the GBR licence will include a condition relating to long-term asset management to ensure that the ORR retains oversight of infrastructure in the new system. As Members are aware, GBR’s licence will be subject to formal consultation.
The direction power was originally included to ensure that improvements were made when it is was clearly in the interests of the railway generally, but a railway operator might have no commercial incentive to make them. In the new system, GBR will be incentivised to improve its own infrastructure, and the change in legislation recognises that it is for Ministers, as funders, and GBR itself—not the regulator—to set the strategic direction for GBR.
GBR should then make decisions and improvements as part of its business planning, and the ORR should be able to monitor against the agreed business plan, supported by a licence condition that ensures that it can enforce long-term asset management in case anything goes wrong. If the ORR identifies a failing that constitutes a breach of that condition, and dialogue or early intervention have not proved effective, it will be able to escalate issues to the GBR board, require GBR to create and publish improvement plans and issue an enforcement order, which is a legal instruction that would require GBR to take action to meet its responsibilities.
The second change is to remove the ORR’s power to fine GBR. Imposing financial penalties on a public body would not align with the aims of maximising the benefits of public ownership. It would simply mean recycling public funds between two public bodies, continuing the money-go-round that is pervasive in today’s system. It would also add an administrative burden with only a limited effect on incentivising the right behaviours.
Amendment 271 is a technical amendment to ensure that when the Bill removes the ORR’s power to fine, it refers to all the correct parts of the law, including section 55 of the Railways Act 1993, to achieve that aim. The ORR will retain the ability to issue fines for breaches of licence conditions by non-GBR licence holders where that is an effective tool because those organisations will not be wholly funded by Government money. GBR can still be subject to a financial penalty if it violates health and safety or competition laws, as we are not changing the safety regime that will apply to the railways, and competition law will still apply in full to GBR. I look forward to hearing from hon. Members about amendment 212.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mrs Hobhouse. Our amendment 212 relates to what the Minister said: it would remove the restriction on the ORR’s ability to impose fines on GBR for licence breaches. I am hoping that we can find some agreement or that the Minister can improve my understanding of the Bill. I entirely agree with him that we do not want wooden dollars—are we still allowed to say that?—sloshing around the system. We do not want fake money, fake economics or fake regulation. That has not been a strength of the rail industry under the current structure.
The Minister said that the ORR would have the powers to tell GBR to do better and to put a legally binding notice on it. Perhaps this is an extreme thought experiment, but what would happen if GBR said, “Thank you very much, ORR, for your legally binding improvement notice, but we’re not interested—we’re not doing it.”? Is the Minister saying that the ORR could then sue GBR? What would happen next? If he covers that in his summing up, I might not move my amendment—I am sure he feels very threatened given how many Divisions we have won so far.
Rebecca Smith
Clause 75 prevents the ORR from issuing directions to GBR relating to providing, improving or developing railway facilities. It also prevents the ORR from imposing a fine on GBR for licence breaches. We think those are both terrible ideas.
The Transport Committee asked Maggie Simpson of the Rail Freight Group:
“What is your view on the ORR’s downgraded power merely to ‘advise’ the Secretary of State on GBR’s performance, rather than having actual powers of enforcement?”
She said:
“I am quite worried about this.”
To the same question, Steve Montgomery from First Rail said:
“Following on from that, the independence element of it—marking your own homework—is a big concern for us. How do we ensure that we do not see a perverse behaviour where GBR looks after its own operations to the detriment of others?”
Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL said:
“I can only echo that. With GBR writing the rules, controlling capacity and being linked to the main operator in the country, there is a structural conflict of interest, unless there is a clear duty of fairness and non-discrimination. I do not know of other European countries that do not have a strong independent rail regulator, across the EU and beyond. To be the judge and the jury at the same time is somewhat worrying.”
Emma Vogelmann, the co-chief executive of Transport for All, told the Transport Committee:
“Our recommendation on the role of the ORR is to retain its independent authority. We are definitely interested to see how that transition of powers, as Ben mentioned, plays out, and how enforceability plays into that.”
For once, the Government need to stop and listen. The sector is speaking with one voice and telling them that this is the wrong approach. The clause needs to be removed in its entirety. It is common for regulators to be able to issue financial penalties to private utility companies that are in breach of their statutory duties. Why should that consumer protection not also be applied to a public body like GBR? Removing clause 75 would restore the ORR as a strong, independent economic regulator.
Government amendment 271
“would ensure that the ORR may not impose a fine on GBR under an order to secure compliance with conditions etc, to align with the amendment to section 57A of the Railways Act 1993 made by clause 75(3) of the Bill.”
The Conservatives are against the whole clause, but, to save time, we will not seek a Division specifically on this amendment—I am sure that everybody will be pleased to hear that. However, as somebody who serves on the Transport Committee and sat through a lot of those evidence sessions, one of the key things that concerned me and some other members of the Committee was the breakdown of the relationship between the ORR and GBR and the weakening of the ORR’s powers. When I heard that evidence, I certainly felt that it was a compelling argument.
Liberal Democrat amendment 212 would remove the restriction on the ORR to impose fines on GBR for licence breaches. That is okay as far as it goes, and we will support the amendment, but we think that it does not quite go far enough. As I am sure Members expect on the basis of what I have just said, we will vote against clause 75 as a whole.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment, which would retain the ORR’s power to fine GBR in the event of a licence breach. He will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I made in my opening remarks. However, as I suspect he knows, I cannot accept his amendment, because in creating the ability for the ORR to fine GBR, it would simply lead to the recycling of public funds, which he so ably outlined as being an issue.
On the subject of licence breaches, the ORR can issue an enforcement order to direct a different outcome from GBR. There is also a point to be made about accountability for GBR’s executives. That kind of relates to the penalties for Network Rail today: the ORR already recognises its public sector status and scales penalties accordingly. The chair and board of GBR will be responsible for ensuring that the CEO has in place robust performance management for senior staff, inherent to which will be not defying the ORR when it has issued legally binding directions. There will be a clear expectation that any significant failures will have a material impact on performance-related pay, and where the failure is sufficient to demand it, an individual should be at risk of dismissal. Put simply, removing the ORR’s power to fine will not cause the executive of GBR to be remiss in their duties.
Although the hon. Member asks me to speculate on potentially extreme cases where GBR could defy the ORR, I believe that, in the round, sufficient safeguards remain in place, with the ORR retaining its existing ability to issue mandatory and legally binding enforcement orders to GBR on matters within the licence; it is only the monetary aspect that is targeted here.
Amendment 271 agreed to.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Keir Mather
Clause 76 updates the Office of Rail and Road’s information duties by inserting a new section into the Railways Act 1993 under which the ORR must proactively publish documents and information about key regulatory matters, including licences, access contracts, closures and railway administration orders, in whatever manner and form it considers appropriate. At the same time, the clause removes the ORR’s duty to maintain a formal statutory register under section 72 of the 1993 Act and repurposes that section so that it better reflects modern expectations of transparency, while retaining strong safeguards so that information that would seriously and prejudicially affect individuals, businesses or the wider public interest is not disclosed. The clause is not retrospective: it does not compel the ORR to publish historical material, but it allows it to publish information already held on the existing register where that is appropriate.
The main purpose of clause 77 is to replace the Secretary of State’s duty to keep a statutory register under section 73 of the 1993 Act with a focused duty to publish information, in keeping with the Government’s commitment to ensure appropriate levels of transparency on the railways. Clauses 78 and 79 do the same but for Scottish and Welsh Ministers.
These clauses retain strong protections for individuals, businesses and the wider public interest, making it clear that material that would seriously and prejudicially affect those interests must not be published. They allow Ministers to publish material currently held on the existing register, so that there is no gap in transparency during transition. The clauses deliver a modern, proportionate and more accessible publication regime, in keeping with the Government’s ambitions for a reformed railway.
Rebecca Smith
Clauses 76 to 79 change the current duties on the ORR, the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to maintain a register, in sections 72 to 73B of the Railways Act 1993, and put them under duties to publish certain information. The ORR must publish documentation relating to licences; access agreements; access contracts, other than those using GBR infrastructure, for which GBR will be responsible; experimental passenger services; closures; and railway administration orders, except where that would affect individual public or commercial interests. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers must publish determinations that a closure is a minor modification, and documentation relating to the enforcement of closure restrictions. Each clause contains restrictions about publishing information that would affect individual, public or commercial interests. Each clause also allows for the publication of documentation that was previously contained in the registers.
Clause 77, which is very similar to clause 76 and, indeed, clauses 78 and 79 on the devolved Ministers, amends section 73 of the 1993 Act, on the publication of a register by the Secretary of State, so that they are under duties to publish information—in particular, determinations that a closure is a minor modification and documentation relating to the enforcement of closure restrictions. However, proposed new section 73(5) of the 1993 Act is interesting. It states:
“The Secretary of State may not publish particular information or documents under this section if it appears to the Secretary of State that publication of that information or those documents would be against the public interest or the commercial interests of any person.”
Can the Minister outline under what circumstances not being transparent is not in the public interest? What determines public interest? I would be grateful to hear the methodology in this instance. Further, the only person with commercial interests in the railway will be the guiding hand of the Secretary of State herself, as it is all public money.
I am sure that proposed new subsection (5) is standard practice in statute, but it raises an interesting point about transparency that I ask the Government to spend some time thinking about. Public trust is low—perhaps it is even lower today than it was when my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham wrote this speech—and any part of any Bill that allows the Secretary of State to get away with not publishing information under a perceived public good would look most suspicious indeed. I do think that, in the light of yesterday’s events, my hon. Friend will see the irony in the words that he wrote there.
Clause 77(2) allows publication of anything that was in the register before the Bill’s commencement. What is the timeline for publication, and will the Minister commit to publication? Those queries aside, Members will be pleased to hear that we have tabled no amendments at this time.
Clause 78, which relates to publication of information by Scottish Ministers, mirrors clause 77. As I mentioned, it amends the 1993 Act, and aside from my query about the ability that it provides to not publish information against a perceived public good, we have no objections to the clause—unless it falls outside the devolution settlement, but presumably the Minister can reassure the Committee that it does not.
Clause 79 relates to the powers of Welsh Ministers, which are similar to those enjoyed by Scottish Ministers. The rationale behind allowing Ministers to not publish information over a perceived public good remains interesting to me, but I see no need to revise the clause.
Keir Mather
The intention of these changes is not to reduce transparency, but to modernise what is published and how. The new duty focuses on determinations under the Railways Act 2005 and the exercise of key enforcement and closure powers, which are among the most significant decisions the Secretary of State takes in relation to the railway. Other publication requirements—for example, on designations, directions and guidance, and the long-term rail strategy—are dealt with in other clauses, so the transparency framework should be viewed as a whole, not just through the lens of these changes to the 1993 Act.
The shadow Minister raised an important point about how commercial and public interest protections interact with freedom of information and scrutiny. The clauses preserve a carefully balanced approach that has long existed under the 1993 Act. This is not a wholesale change in how that process works. The Secretary of State must not publish material where it would be against the public interest or commercial interests, or where it would seriously and prejudicially affect individuals or particular bodies. Those protections sit alongside and do not displace the wider legal framework, including freedom of information legislation and parliamentary scrutiny, which of course continues to apply.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 77 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
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
Scottish Affairs Committee in 2024-25 and Industrial Transition
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
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
We begin with the Select Committee statement. Elaine Stewart will speak on the publication of the fifth report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, “The work of the Committee in 2024-25, and Industrial transition in Scotland”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and then call Elaine Stewart to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question each.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker, and a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Scottish Affairs Committee. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this statement on our fifth report of the Session.
Over the past year, the Committee has undertaken a wide-ranging and ambitious programme of scrutiny. We have examined topics including Scotland’s energy future, the financing of the Scottish Government and the UK’s first safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow. Since our establishment in autumn 2024, we have held more than 54 hours of oral evidence, heard from more than 122 witnesses, made 51 conclusions and 35 recommendations to Government, and travelled 2,130 miles to conduct our work.
Alongside our Westminster programme, we have travelled extensively across Scotland to hear directly from the people most affected by the issues we examine. That has included visits to Shetland, Skye, Western Isles, the highlands, Edinburgh, Glasgow and my constituency in Ayrshire. We have also carried out two international visits to Norway and Lisbon to learn about best practice overseas.
I could easily speak for more than 10 minutes about the Committee’s broad range of work over the past year, but I will focus on the conclusions from our inquiry into the industrial transition in Scotland. Scotland has seen a dramatic change in its industrial landscape over the past four decades. It was once renowned for its heavy manufacturing industries, but deindustrialisation has seen parts of Scotland experience major job losses and closures among those sectors. My constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock experienced not one but two profound waves of deindustrialisation. The first came with the collapse of the coal mines and the decline of textile industries, which had a sustained detrimental impact on entire communities. The second economic shock came when Scottish Coal went into liquidation and closed its Ayrshire sites in 2013.
The Committee launched its inquiry because it wanted to examine Scotland’s past industrial transitions to understand the consequences of poorly managed change and to consider what lessons could be learned for future transitions. The evidence we received about the UK’s management of past industrial transitions was stark. The loss of industry not only caused higher unemployment rates at the time, but had a profound and long-lasting effect across many generations.
The Coalfields Regeneration Trust, a community wealth-building charity, which I proudly worked for before I became a Member of Parliament, described some of these issues in its “State of the Coalfields” report. There are fewer job opportunities in former coalfield communities than in other parts of the country. Fewer jobs are available closer to home, which means many people have no choice but to travel and work elsewhere. We also know about the steady flow of young and working-age people leaving these areas to look for education or job opportunities elsewhere. There are poorer health outcomes and higher rates of benefit claims.
Although unemployment rates on paper look similar to the national average, the headline figure masks a more challenging reality. Employment rates are consistently lower in former coalfield areas. Those communities also have higher levels of economic inactivity, meaning more people are out of the labour market all together. For example, in south Ayrshire, where part of my constituency lies, the employment rate is almost 10% below the Scottish average. The economic inactivity rate is more than 30%, meaning that almost a third of working-age people are currently not in the labour market.
Our report makes clear that all those issues have had a devastating impact on communities. As part of the inquiry, the Committee travelled to Ochiltree, in my constituency, where we heard directly from residents about the consequences of poor managed transition. They described how towns such as New Cumnock, Dalmellington and Bellsbank live with high levels of deprivation, lower employment, reduced incomes and a shorter life expectancy than the national average.
Depopulation is also a major concern. In places such as Muirkirk, the population has been falling by as much as 10% each decade. That decline brings further challenges. Public transport has been reduced, which makes it harder for people to travel to work or education. There has also been a slow loss of infrastructure, which means many communities that were held together with clubs, gyms, swimming pools and shared spaces have lost that sense of belonging.
Our engagement in Ochiltree also highlighted the perils of losing key industrial skills that are now in demand. Participants told us how skilled, stable industry jobs that once anchored those communities have been replaced by low-paid work, often on poorer terms and conditions. They spoke about the painful irony that the many skills lost during deindustrialisation are now urgently needed once again. That can be seen in defence shipbuilding, where skills shortages have become acute. Many employers need to recruit overseas to fill shortages because there are simply not enough qualified applicants in the UK. Our report found that shortages exist, despite industry leaders being very clear about the importance of maintaining a strong domestic skills base. When Sir Simon Lister of BAE Systems gave evidence as part of our inquiry, he described how Scotland’s long heritage of shipbuilding has created
“an innate understanding of what it takes to build a ship.”
He stressed the importance of keeping those skills clustered, retaining local experience, and ensuring those communities remain in places where specialist industry knowledge is passed on, rather than lost.
Our report concludes that the evidence of deindustrialisation over the past four decades demonstrates how profound and long lasting the consequences can be when industrial change is not managed. The impact of deindustrialisation did not end when the last pit or factory closed; its effects are still being felt by people in their working lives, their health and the opportunities available to them and their children. In our work this year, the Committee has identified two transitions that will shape Scotland’s economic future. First is a shift away from oil and gas towards clean energy, which we examined through our inquiry on GB Energy and net zero transition. The second is the future of Scotland’s defence skills and jobs, and how Scotland can benefit from the UK’s commitment to increase defence spending.
As Scotland undergoes a major industrial transition, the need to avoid repeating past mistakes could not be more urgent. Our report emphasises the importance of future transitions being grounded in practical, deliverable commitments to support workers, retain skills and ensure that no community is asked to shoulder the burden of industrial change. The Committee will continue to monitor both transitions closely. Our aim is to ensure that the Government manage the changes in a way that genuinely learns from the past, protects Scotland’s skills base and delivers lasting benefits for the communities that we represent.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the Committee for its work on this issue. The hon. Member rightly raised the point about skills. Will she tell us about the impact of the energy profits levy on some of the businesses that upskill, not least in the area that I represent in the north-east of Scotland?
Elaine Stewart
In all our inquiries, skills have been high on the agenda—in fact, the loss of skills is really high on the agenda. In my area of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, 800 young people did not get into college—for engineering and IT skills—due to a lack of funding. Our young people are being left behind because we are not putting enough money into education and skills. We need to look at that as a Government, and as a Scottish Government. We need to make sure that our young people are equipped for the future.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has given a good explanation of some of the Committee’s work. Does she agree that one of the most impressive things that we have seen this year has been the commitment of the apprentices at BAE Systems and elsewhere, such as at Babock International? They are young people with a clear idea of what they want in their lives and how they are going to achieve it, recognising that the jobs that they are being equipped to take in the shipbuilding and submarine-building industry are going to give them a lasting career. Seeing that was particularly inspiring. It was also good to see the skills that they were achieving at BAE Systems through the skills academy created by the company.
Elaine Stewart
Yes, it was absolutely fantastic to see the young people at Babcock and BAE Systems. It was great to see their enthusiasm and how they are looking forward in their lives. I asked questions such as, “What have you done since you became an apprentice?” They said, “I’ve bought a new car and I’ve been able to go on holiday. I’m going to buy a house.” Those are the things that we want our young people to aspire to, so it is great to see companies making sure that apprenticeships are in place for them.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. As a Committee member, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart) for this statement. My constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow has a proud industrial tradition, from mining and manufacturing to electronics. However, when companies closed and industries shut down, that had an absolutely devastating impact on local communities. Will my hon. Friend talk a bit more about the legacy of deindustrialisation for our young people—particularly in Scotland, where one in six young people are not in education, employment or training?
Elaine Stewart
My constituency has problems similar to those in my hon. Friend’s. When mines, textile factories and companies close, it leaves a terrible legacy for our young people. We are now into a fourth generation of unemployed young people who have no skills, no jobs and no opportunities. That rips the heart out of not just communities but opportunities. When those things happen, people migrate to other areas. The young people are not living in the area, buying houses and spending in the local economy, so that has a terrible long-lasting effect. Some of our communities still feel that at this moment in time.
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sustainable Drainage Systems
(1 day, 4 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
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered sustainable drainage systems.
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Barker.
Flooding is a topical issue. In Devon, it feels like it has been raining for about a year; in fact, it probably has been since the beginning of the year. Every day we see more and more floods, and more and more problems with water. Most people will probably never have heard of sustainable drainage systems, or SuDS; when I began my career in local government, I had no idea what people who mentioned them were talking about. They first came to my attention when I was knocking on doors on a new estate in Newton Abbot called Hele Park. A chap said, “They’ve spent all this money building these fantastic flood prevention channels; there’s a nice set of attenuation ponds with steps down and all the rest. But it’s falling apart—trees are growing through it, as nobody’s doing the maintenance. Nobody’s looking after it. It falls into the grounds maintenance contracts so they send somebody out with a lawnmower to look after a complicated, engineered set of flood prevention measures.”
That does not happen only on that one estate of Hele Park; it is common across many estates. In my home town of Dawlish, in the Redrow estate the swale is currently filling up with trees. That issue is particularly important because the estate is in a critical drainage area, designated by the Environment Agency. All the water coming from the hills comes down into a single stream, which at high tide is tide-locked so there is nowhere for it to go. Consequently, it is really important that in this place the attenuation ponds do their job, which is to reduce the rate of water flowing off what used to be green fields.
Planning permission is always granted on the basis that water does not come off the hard surfaces any faster than it would off green fields, but it is not actually stated where that water has to go or what has to be done with it. For years, planners have highlighted the need for drainage systems, which take the form of bungs, ditches or all sorts of other things such as swales and attenuation ponds. Those have been put into planning applications for developers, who then spend a lot of time and money creating drainage systems.
In another development in my area, the developer is objecting because part of its site is being used to build the SuDS for an adjoining site. Normally, that would not be a problem but the original site is finished and maintenance fees are being paid for it, whereas the adjoining site is not yet finished and is building SuDS in a space that the original developer is paying to have maintained. The original developer is up in arms. But even then, the maintenance contract would not actually look after the SuDS; it would just involve cutting the grass on a bank used to access the SuDS.
The problem is: who maintains SuDS? I asked Redrow staff, “How are these SuDS going to be maintained on your site in Dawlish?” They said, “Ah, there’s a maintenance plan for all these.” They are right—there probably is, for the pumps, the tanks and the hard engineering. SuDS might be maintained by the maintenance company, but they might not be. Residents are often unaware of the need for the maintenance of SuDS and of what maintenance companies do. Again, I can see that this whole set-up could very quickly fall into disrepair. Who will be there to pick up the pieces? The developer will have gone a long time before then. The residents have already paid for maintenance, because its cost is absorbed into the cost of building the site and of buying their homes in the first place: they will be double-paying for the maintenance of the site. Then, when things go wrong, they will be the ones footing the bill to put things right again.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
What my hon. Friend has identified in his Newton Abbot constituency is a situation that exists all over the country. In July 2025, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wrote a report called “National standards for sustainable drainage systems”, which talked about a national shortage of skilled professionals to maintain SuDS over their lifetime, as well as to design and inspect them. Does my hon. Friend share my view that we need more professionals skilled in this area working at local authority level?
Martin Wrigley
I absolutely agree and will go on to quote the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, New Civil Engineer and a body that I discovered only recently: the Association of SuDS Authorities. I did not even know that it existed, but there we go.
We have one more estate, in Kingsteignton, where I was recently called because people were complaining. There is a lovely circular area; there is a circle of houses at the end of a cul-de-sac. It is a nice place. It was built on an old clay mine, so there are problems because of the fact that it is on a fairly difficult site, but it is a lovely situation, except that this circular area, which has a children’s playground in the middle, is always completely and utterly sodden. It never dries out. The areas around it dry out, but this particular bit does not, and people have worked out that that is because the SuDS has not been built properly and the pipes have not been connected.
The local planning authority says it looks fine on the plans, and from what we have seen it is okay. The builders are doing an investigation for me, because I have been jumping up and down and shouting, but the MP should not have to get involved for areas to have proper draining. The area is critical in drainage. It is not far above sea level. We have massive floods in the roads outside; indeed, they are ongoing. The last thing we want is the water from this estate going in and making all that worse.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) says, this is not just a problem in my Newton Abbot constituency. It is not just a problem with one or two estates; it is endemic. We have seen articles in New Civil Engineer saying that we desperately need a statutory obligation to look after SuDS. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management says exactly the same. We need a solution to the problem of how SuDS are maintained, inspected and handed over—indeed, adopted—when the building site is finished, as the roads or drains would be. That is what residents want. It is what developers want, because they put a lot of time and effort into building these things and then see them going to rack and ruin. It is what the local authorities, the water companies and the Environment Agency want.
The existence of legislation that would automatically do what we need was brought to my attention when, as a county councillor, I served on the South West Regional Flood and Coastal Committee—yes, I get all the good jobs. It is about how we do flood defences in the south-west. As I come from Dawlish, that is particularly close to my heart—as people can imagine, given what happened with the railway line.
There absolutely needs to be a statutory obligation to put SuDS in, a statutory means of certifying that those SuDS have been built to a level that will work and a statutory responsibility to maintain them. Happily, there is legislation: the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, from 16 years ago, and it has a schedule 3 to it. The only flaw with the schedule is that no instigation date was specified; it is down to the Minister to say when that is to happen. Prior to the general election, the previous Government were in the process of having a plan to make it happen. There were big announcements and big expectations. Again, it is all written up in New Civil Engineer—a fascinating monthly read—about how great things were anticipated in 2024 and how we might see the implementation of schedule 3 in ’24 or ’25. Of course, we know what happened: the general election came along.
Last July the Government issued a new set of standards for sustainable drainage, which are a big improvement. This talks about seven principles. It talks about how to make sure that we are reusing water and there is a lot of good work in it. However, one thing is missing. The regulation says, “You could ask your local water company to adopt these drainage solutions”. People can, but there is absolutely no reason why any water company would want to do so, because there is no way that it fits into their business model. Most of these things run off natural rainwater into streams and rivers, and they are just not interested. They are finding it hard enough to maintain their existing structures for foul sewage processing. South West Water recently had three pumping stations break down in the middle of heavy rain in Kent and in Starcross in my constituency, and people were flooded with sewage. I would much rather it looked after that situation than SuDS.
We already have experts in flooding in district and county councils, and soon in the unitary councils that will replace them. Those experts have been involved in putting these schemes together, pushing for them to happen. They are responsible for managing flooding, and have a real interest in doing so. Let us go back to the solution, rather than what the Government’s guidance suggested last year. Let schedule 3 be enacted and let us get SuDS certified and adopted by local authorities.
I can see that the Government will say, “We cannot do that because it will cost money.” Yes, there will be an extra burden on local authorities that will need to be compensated. However, I put it to the Government that they are backing things like Flood Re, and this is actually a preventive measure. It costs a lot less to have the SuDS and drains built properly than for the Government to be asked for money to restore properties once they have been flooded.
In my constituency, the village of Kenton—just by Powderham castle, which itself is not in my constituency—flooded because a drain got blocked. That flood ripped through the local primary school and through half a dozen houses, which are still empty and still being restored, and that primary school is being replaced. Flood prevention is much cheaper than recovery from floods.
I urge the Minister to think about this as a necessary preventive measure. Too often over the last 60 years we have seen maintenance as the first thing people cut from budgets. Preventive maintenance is so important to keeping things working. If our drains were unblocked and small potholes fixed, and if our flooding systems worked, we would not be in some of the situations we are in now. This is a great opportunity for the Government to show a desire to increase early intervention, to make things better for residents.
Richard Foord
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He talks about maintenance, but design is also crucial. Margaret Leppard, from Seaton, set up the Seaton Flood Working Group. She points out that developers sometimes use outdated datasets when designing drainage systems. She says that rainfall data from the 2026 dataset needs to be used rather than the 2013 dataset, which Baker Estates in Seaton has been using. Would he share that view?
Martin Wrigley
I would entirely. That is another reason why it is vital that local authorities, as the flood responsible authorities, are actually involved in certifying SuDS as they are built and take them on afterwards.
Let me quote from the Chartered Institution of Water Environmental Managers:
“Despite promises to enforce the mandatory adoption of sustainable drainage schemes (SuDS) by 2024 through Schedule 3, regulations remain stalled, raising concerns among environmental groups and industry stakeholders about the government’s commitment to sustainable water management.”
The time is now. The Minister has it within her power —even if it is not necessarily exactly her Department—to push forward, through statutory instrument or whatever is required, the enactment of schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I urge the Minister to take that on board as a real, positive thing, at a minuscule cost to the Government, that will make a massive difference to people’s lives.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing this debate and on his excellent and knowledgeable speech. I also point to the important intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) about developers using up-to-date datasets.
In Somerset, management of water is essential. My constituency is frequently impacted by extreme weather—flooding in the winter and droughts in the summer. The low-lying land of the Somerset levels and local river catchments can become overwhelmed quickly when heavy and prolonged rain sets in, or when hit by a flash flood, as we were in May 2023.
The Somerset Rivers Authority was established in 2015 as a partnership of local stakeholders, and it is now knowledgeably chaired by the Liberal Democrat councillor, Mike Stanton. Its overarching purpose is to reduce the risks and impacts of flooding across Somerset. The SRA was formed after devastating floods in 2013-14, which was the wettest winter for over 250 years. Around 150 sq km of the Somerset levels was submerged for weeks, 165 homes were flooded, 7,000 businesses affected and 81 roads closed across the area. The cost to Somerset was in the region of £147.5 million.
Once again this winter my constituents are dealing with the devastating impact of flooding. Last week, Storm Chandra saw 50 mm of intense rainfall across large parts of Somerset in a really short period. It exacerbated the already saturated ground; as a result Somerset council declared a major incident last Tuesday, as 50 homes across the county fell victim to floodwater.
I pay tribute to everyone who has been part of the emergency effort to support communities across Somerset. Their commitment to help in times of need is much appreciated, whether we are talking about staff members from Somerset council, the SRA, the Environment Agency, the emergency services or other partners; members of affected communities who have opened their homes to displaced residents or those at risk of displacement; people who have been out with sandbags in 4x4s; those who made hot drinks for people who were cold and wet; or, as in my case last Saturday, people sweeping up car parks as floodwaters receded.
Sadly, the incident is not a one-off. Given the Environment Agency warning that river levels are expected to remain high for several weeks, unsettled weather forecasts for some time ahead and the imminence of high spring tides, the risk of further flooding in Somerset remains. With increasingly unpredictable, intense and changing patterns of rainfall, it is essential that local communities are now given the resources they need to prepare long-term, bespoke, extreme weather resilience plans.
Residents must feel confident that their homes will be safe from severe damage by floodwater, and they must be better prepared to cope with flooding when it happens. Sustainable drainage systems have an important role to play, but proper measures must be in place to bring sustainable drainage provisions into force and the systems must be properly maintained. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot argued, the Government should implement schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to require sustainable drainage systems in all new developments.
Well-designed sustainable drainage systems contribute to climate change resilience, provide habitats for nature, boost biodiversity and build flood preparedness. But the current lack of clarity has contributed to widespread problems on new estates, particularly where SuDS fall under the control of private estate management companies. Homeowners are often left paying for poorly maintained systems with no public accountability. In some cases SuDS are simply left unmanaged and it is no surprise when, inevitably, they fail. If the Government are committed to building the homes that people need, they must ensure that new developments provide suitable flood mitigation measures, including SuDS, that properly manage excess rainfall.
Since 2020, Somerset council has carried out over 100 formal inspections of SuDS on housing developments. While most are found to be inadequate, maintenance issues are often highlighted. In Somerton, there are examples of where that has not happened. During the 2013-14 floods, Somerton was badly hit and flooded between Farm Drive and the recreation field. Defects were found in the drainage provided by the developers, while the attenuation pond that had not been maintained appropriately overtopped. Retention tanks were later installed, but they were paid for by the taxpayer and not the developer, as they should have been.
Last week, the same area experienced heavy flooding yet again. Sue and Amber, live locally in Somerton, told me they had lost three days’ worth of income due to the recent floods, because they simply could not get through the flood water. They are concerned about a planning proposal on Ricksey Lane that could make the situation much, much worse. They are not alone: many people fear that the development will create increased surface run-off, leading to flooding downstream.
Those anxieties are sadly not restricted to Somerton. Residents in Street fear that the developer of a planned additional 280 homes has not taken the precautions necessary to prevent the potentially catastrophic flooding of their properties. Residents told me that their key concerns are about the proposed surface water drainage for the site, because the developer plans to discharge water into two attenuation ponds. That, along with the volume of the Portway stream, will then flow into an existing northern watercourse; however, they believe the watercourse will not be properly maintained as it falls outside the developer’s remit.
Current national guidelines are designed to prevent new developments from worsening flooding downstream, but the existing drainage guidance is based on assumptions that do not always hold true in Somerset. In very flat areas like the Somerset levels and moors, water can linger for days, weeks or even months, rather than flowing quickly away. Across different sub-catchments, many factors such as soil type, infrastructure and rainfall patterns interact in complex ways that current standards simply do not address fully. That is why Somerset council is asking the Somerset Rivers Authority to fund an ambitious study of how water really behaves across Somerset’s catchment. The aim is to build a better evidence base, so that planners can update guidance, developers can design smarter drainage systems, and communities face less flood risk.
I hope the study can influence the national conversation, but without action from the Government setting mandatory standards for developers, residents’ anxieties will continue to grow. Disappointingly, the Government are consulting on deleting the rule that prevents planning permission from being granted where the Environment Agency objects due to flood risk. The Liberal Democrats are clear that that must not happen and that the absolute need for new homes must be weighed against very real flood risk. The water management sector is already frustrated that the Government have yet to commit to implementing mandatory SuDS, and the recent Cunliffe review identified inconsistencies in their use as one of the four main issues with the current waste water and drainage regime. The updated standards published last June were a welcome step in the right direction, but they are not a substitute for legislation.
The Liberal Democrats believe that a clear, enforceable national SuDS framework is required that standardises design, guarantees long-term adoption and maintenance, and ensures that someone is genuinely responsible when systems fail. Anything less will continue to leave residents exposed to flooding, unexpected charging and environmental harm. That is why we tabled an amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill that would have required water companies to provide, when consulted, honest and accurate assessments of their infrastructure’s capacity to meet the needs of proposed developments, and it was disappointing that the Government and the Conservatives did not support it. I hope the Government will review that proposal, as it is essential to ensure that water system capacity is better accounted for in future developments. Will the Minister provide an update on that?
The Welsh Government have implemented schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and their post-implementation review has revealed the value and benefit of the legislation. Although improvements may still be required, it is a necessary first step, and we must follow that example. The Minister has previously confirmed that the Government are considering what action to take but are still deciding whether they will improve the planning-led system or commence schedule 3. I urge her to listen to the Liberal Democrats’ calls. She is very welcome to take forward our ideas, because the current regime has not done enough to make at-risk communities more resilient to flooding, which leaves residents frightened, anxious and desperately worried every time dark clouds roll in.
In Somerset, we know what it is like to live at the forefront of climate change. The county will always be at risk of flooding, but with the right planning, investment and collaborative working, the risk and impact of flooding can be mitigated so that people feel safer in their homes. I once again extend to the Minister, and other right hon. and hon. Members, an invitation to visit my constituency and witness the terrible impact of flooding on communities. It is important to see that while the water levels remain high. I am certain that that would focus minds and give impetus, if any is needed, to the urgent implementation of schedule 3.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing the debate. He spoke passionately about this issue, the impact of heavy rainfall and flooding in his constituency, and the consequences for residents when developments do not adequately address the need for sustainable drainage and for SuDS to be maintained. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) made some important points, particularly about the need for more skilled professionals in this area.
The previous Government’s plan for water, published in 2023, recognised that sustainable drainage systems are an effective means of reducing surface water flooding, and committed to their use in all new developments. The current Government are continuing that approach through the publication of national standards for sustainable drainage systems. As I understand it, although the Government are yet to make a final decision, they are pursuing a planning policy-based approach to SuDS, rather than commencing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act, which would require all developments to include SuDS in order for planning approval to be granted. If schedule 3 is implemented, developers will be required not only to include SuDS in new developments, but to ensure that designs are approved before construction begins.
As the Government’s national standards are non-statutory, the Minister will be aware that questions have been raised about enforceability. There is a concern that developers may seek to identify ways to evade the guidance. Is the Minister therefore concerned that, however well-intentioned, the non-statutory guidance may not achieve its intended purpose?
I note that although there are calls for clarity on the adoption of multi-property developments by an appropriate authority, there is no clarity about which authority that should be. Is the Minister’s Department looking at that, or would it be willing to clarify that?
I turn briefly to developments that have been built but have not yet been adopted. The Minister may be aware that research from the Home Builders Federation, published in October 2025, found that in developments of 10 or more homes built in the past three years, 97% of new sewers and 98% of SuDS remain unadopted. The research also found significant inconsistencies across local authorities. As the Minister knows, local authorities are reluctant to adopt roads until sewers are formally adopted.
I want to briefly mention two examples from my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency that illustrate the issues all too clearly. Saighton Camp, which is just outside the city of Chester, and the Wychwood estate in Wybunbury both have unadopted incomplete infrastructure. Residents have been left in limbo, with developers moving on, the water company refusing to adopt the sewerage system until the developers complete the work and the local authority refusing to adopt the road until the sewers are formally adopted. Alongside this, there are frequent issues with the swales, which are meant to provide sustainable drainage yet are ineffective. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the issue being a procedural one? Does she believe there is scope to make the adopting process more consistent to provide clarity for residents?
The Government have set a target to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, but given their current performance, no one really believes they can possibly achieve that. The Government’s own figures show that in their first year in power the net number of new additional dwellings and the number of new homes built both went down. Can the Minister provide assurances that the Government will not abandon their approach to SuDS, and will recognise them as a continuing priority that will not be traded off for other land uses in pursuit of their top-down housing targets? When businesses are facing increased financial pressure and costs as a result of the Government’s disastrous economic policy, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect of those policies on SuDS, which may add further costs to new homes?
On the topic of development, it would be remiss not to mention the role that farming can play in water management and sustainable drainage. Nearly 300,000 homes have been built on prime farmland, with an extra 1,400 hectares used for renewable energy projects, despite more than enough previously developed brownfield land waiting for regeneration. Under the previous Conservative Government, through the countryside stewardship scheme and sustainable farming incentives, farmers were encouraged to implement practices that would mitigate the risks and consequences of flooding. Can the Minister provide assurances that water management grants will be part of the SFI scheme when it finally reopens?
Internal drainage boards do a fantastic job of managing water levels and reducing the risk from flooding within their districts. Their work involves maintenance and improvement, and they currently play a significant part in advising on planning applications regarding SuDS. Can the Minister provide assurances that IDBs will continue to have a prominent role in the planning process? Furthermore, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has called for, have the Government considered the merits of bringing flexibility to the relationship between the Environment Agency, IDBs and land managers?
In 2024, the previous Government provided IDBs with £75 million to modernise and upgrade resilience assets for farms and rural communities. Is the Minister working closely with her colleagues in the Cabinet Office to monitor the consequences of the recent storms and the related funding of IDBs?
I know that all Members here today, and Members from across the country, will have constituents who are affected by flooding. We know how damaging and disruptive it can be. It is therefore important that the Government set out a clear approach as to whether SuDS are viewed as best practice or a standard approach. Clarity is needed so that the industry knows where it stands, and our constituents can have confidence in the legislation and guidance that is provided to developers. Part of that will involve ensuring a prominent role for local risk management authorities, such as IDBs, so that the best possible sustainable approaches can be implemented to mitigate the risks and consequences of flooding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate. I have enjoyed sitting through a debate in which there has been so much love for previous Labour policy, because, of course, it was the Labour party that introduced the 2010 Act that both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives seemed so very keen to enact. I gently say that they had a mere 14 years—well, the Liberal Democrats had five—in which it could have been enacted. It falls to this Labour Government to tackle the issue of SuDS.
Putting that to one side, as I said to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) earlier, my full sympathy and support go to everybody who has been impacted by flooding. It has been horrific, especially for the families, homes and businesses that are facing repeated flooding episodes. After today’s oral questions in the Chamber, I am considering how quickly I can come down and see the flooding for myself. I will pick that up with the hon. Lady, because it is really important.
Lots of incredibly important points were raised in the debate. A point was made about why water companies would not be interested, but in fact they are. The reason why many of them are is because of what we call, when it comes to water, the pre-pipe solutions. To explain that more simply, if an awful lot of surface water ends up in the sewerage system, we end up with more storm overflow incidents, because the system becomes overloaded, water spills out into the rivers, lakes and seas, and then there are pollution incidents.
There is, then, an incentive for water companies to be interested, because holding the surface water away prevents some of the pollution. There are some really good examples—admittedly in more urban areas—of that happening. A project in Mansfield involved Living with Water, the local authority, the Environment Agency and the council all working together. I am interested in looking at regional planning—this is in the White Paper—and how to bring together different interested parties in the same region to look at stopping the system becoming overloaded, which is one way of tackling pollution.
Martin Wrigley
I am delighted that the Minister is talking about water companies splitting surface water from foul water. That is exactly what they are doing in the middle of Dawlish: creating massive new tanks for that purpose. The programme has been going on for about two years; most of Dawlish has been dug up and its town centre has been in disarray because of it.
Throughout the last 10 years, South West Water has been talking about the separation of surface water and foul sewage, and insisting that it happens higher upstream. That is fine and proper—and, yes, it is agreed on that. However, South West Water is not interested in what happens to the surface water off estates that are already separating it out. That is not a problem that the company is addressing; it already has big enough issues elsewhere, where it is fixing past problems. That is where the SuDS come in, and that is why South West Water is not interested in those.
Emma Hardy
I am happy to go on to talk about SuDS, but I wanted to address why there is a collective self-interest in everybody getting involved in this, because it will help to reduce pollution. That is why it was a key part of the White Paper. Speaking personally, as someone who loves nature, this is also an opportunity to increase nature in different areas. These pre-pipe solutions do not have to be concrete tanks; they can be somewhere that is quite beautiful.
We want to maximise the opportunities offered by better managing rain and looking at where it lands. It is estimated that the average household roof collects 85,000 litres of rainwater every year—obviously a little more in your constituency, Mrs Barker, and a fair bit in Hull as well, but a little less elsewhere—which is equivalent to an estimated 4 trillion litres annually across the UK, or 1.6 million Olympic-sized swimming pools. We are therefore thinking about not just SuDS or pre-pipe solutions, but rainwater management. There are many different things we can do. That is why we want to work together with other stakeholders including water companies, environmental groups, local authorities and developers to come up with how we can collectively achieve this ambition.
On sustainable drainage, it is quite right to point out that the 2010 Act was never fully enacted by the coalition or the Conservative Government. SuDS are vitally important for sustainable development. They help to reduce additional pressure on the sewage system by up to 87%. I am a huge fan, and have spoken quite often about my love for sustainable urban drainage. They can also enable growth: a SuDS retrofit programme in London created the additional headroom for 116,000 new homes.
Since we came into Government, our record on SuDS is that in December 2024, we made changes to the national planning policy framework to support increased delivery of SuDS, so that it now requires all developments to utilise SuDS where they could have drainage impacts, and requires those systems to be appropriate to the nature and scale of the development. In June 2025, the Government introduced new national standards, making it clear that SuDS should be designed to cope with changing climate conditions, because whenever we do anything now in this country, we need to have our minds on how our climate is changing, and make sure that we are resilient for the future. SuDS should also deliver wider water infrastructure benefits in the form of flood prevention, storm overflow reduction and reuse opportunities—but of course there is more that we need to do.
As I say, some time has passed since the 2010 Act was enacted, and it is important that we consider the most efficient and effective way of securing its objectives. We currently think that that could be through changes to planning policy and adoption and maintenance, which I will come on to, rather than commencing schedule 3. With that in mind, we have been tightening national planning policy on this important issue. We are consulting on a new national planning policy framework at present, which adds the requirement that sustainable drainage systems are designed in accordance with the new national standards, to provide a consistent basis for their design and implementation.
Additionally, we are consulting on legislative and policy options to reduce the prevalence of unadopted estates and the injustices associated with them, including for SuDS. On 18 December last year the Government published two consultations, one on enhanced consumer protections for homeowners on privately managed estates and another on reducing the prevalence of estate management arrangements. We continue to collaborate with industry leaders and, since data has been mentioned, I note that we are supporting the development of a new rainwater management platform, which will provide digital tools to support the delivery of high-quality SuDS.
We are working with the industry body CIRIA—the Construction Industry Research and Information Association—to better understand the challenges around property-level SuDS and rainwater harvesting. Subsequent guidance will support industry to deliver in line with our recently published national standards for SuDS and will be publicly available. To ensure the longevity and proper maintenance of SuDS, we are scoping options for maintenance funding mechanisms and the methodology for calculating maintenance costs. We will publish guidance later this year, which will support the delivery of SuDS in line with the new national standards.
I will answer some of the questions on maintenance. We recognise the challenges relating to the adoption and maintenance of SuDS and how that can impact communities, so we are committed to ensuring they are well maintained. As I mentioned, we issued standards in June ’25, and in support of those we are currently conducting research into the funding of SuDS maintenance. We are looking with industry and experts at different funding mechanisms as well as the methodology for calculating maintenance costs.
To ensure that SuDS are provided and maintained as part of a new development, section 106 agreements can be used to provide for the maintenance of SuDS over their lifetime, where the statutory test is met. We are consulting on a new national planning policy framework to require SuDS to be designed in accordance with the new national standards, and a consultation that sets out that SuDS should have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the anticipated lifetime of the development—that is really important; it is not just about when it is built, but the lifetime of the development—building on the current requirement for those to be in place for major development proposals. The consultation is open until 10 March. I encourage Members and anyone interested to respond to that consultation.
There has been mention of specialists and making sure that we have the people we need. We need skilled planners, including specialists in areas such as ecology and infrastructure—they are essential to making sure we have proactive planning services. We know that local planning authorities continue to face challenges in recruiting and retaining staff. Ultimately, it is up to local authorities who they employ and how they do so. Nevertheless, given how widespread those pressures are, the Government are significantly expanding support through the planning capacity and capability programme, including growing the graduate and mid-career pipeline, strengthening specialist training through the Planning Advisory Service and launching a new planning careers hub to open additional routes into the profession. We are trying to grow our own planners for the future, and looking at whether an increase to local authority funding for SuDS could be required.
I hope all that helps to illustrate that this Government have not waited 14 years to deliver what the previous Government were attempting; we are getting on and delivering it now—from changes to the planning framework to ensuring that we have the talent we need, innovation, and working with others to find new ways to deliver the protection that our country needs. We are strongly committed to improving the implementation of SuDS; the actions I have outlined today are just the beginning and I look forward to working with all hon. Members in this room towards that goal.
Martin Wrigley
I thank everybody for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) accurately pointed out that SuDS, although solving local problems, need to be balanced in the wider are. SuDS is not something that can be fixed or managed on a site-by-site basis; it requires an overall view, such as one from the local authority. I also thank her for noting that Wales has implemented schedule 3 and has lessons from working with it. Although I am sure the Minister has seen that, I draw those lessons to her attention as a way that that can be made to work. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for supporting the need to maintain SuDS, and for showing that this is not just a west country issue, but a national one.
The Association of SuDS Authorities supports the enaction of schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to create SuDS approving bodies. Of course, it goes on to say that it needs the appropriate funding to do that:
“Whichever mechanism is chosen to provide inspection, maintenance and enforcement of surface water drainage systems our Local Government members stand ready to ensure SuDS are considered the primary solution for dealing with surface water issues in a multi-beneficial way. By learning from the experience of the Welsh Government SAB implementation in 2019 and through consistent delivery of policy and process we support the role of SuDS in delivering greener, safer, high-quality communities.”
All that, and everything that the Minister talked about, is great. I really appreciate the amount of work that she is putting in. A lot of good things have been described, and the Act is good—it is a great Act. I like to call out good things that have been delivered, no matter the colour of the party that delivered them. I am not here to bash colour against colour; I am here to get results for local residents.
Water requires an holistic solution. In the year 2000 in Dawlish Warren—the place that was tide-locked—we had floods that were 6 feet deep. People were evacuated from their park homes by helicopter because of upstream problems, with too much water being released into Shutterton brook. Devon county council put in flood mitigation schemes, and flooding has been prevented. However, all that work will be for nothing if the 2,000 houses being built in that critical drainage area right now do not have SuDS that are certified, adopted and maintained in the long term. That flooding will return. The local authority thinks it might need pumps to empty the river into the estuary when the tide is in. That is not a good situation—that is not sustainable.
We need to ensure that the SuDS upstream are done, and South West Water is not in a position to take that on. My work in the south west regional flood and coastal committee shows a universal feeling among all the people working in the area that we need schedule 3. I thank the Minister for her attention and her words today, but I ask her to look again at schedule 3.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered sustainable drainage systems.
Somalia: Operating Base SHAND Gifting
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
It is the normal practice when a Government Department propose to make a gift of a value exceeding £300,000, for the Department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from making the gift until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
I have today laid before the House a departmental minute describing the gifting of a UK compound within the Mogadishu international airport in Somalia, previously known as Operating Base SHAND, to the African Union support and stabilisation mission in Somalia.
AUSSOM is a multidimensional African Union-led peace support mission approved by the United Nations. Its focus is stabilisation, security and state-building, aiming to transfer full security responsibilities to Somali security forces by December 2029. Since 2021, the UK has contributed nearly $140 million (£102.5 million) to AUSSOM and its predecessor mission, which reflects the UK’s broader commitment to African-led peace initiatives, working in partnership with the Federal Government of Somalia, the African Union, and the United Nations to tackle shared security challenges.
Operating Base SHAND—a UK compound within Mogadishu international airport—was originally commissioned in 2017 to house a three-year deployment to the United Nations support office in Somalia, announced by the then Prime Minister in 2015. That deployment, Operation CATAN, ended as planned in March 2019. Since then, the compound has remained the primary base for UK operations in Somalia. Having served its intended purpose, the base now exceeds the UK’s accommodation requirements in Somalia.
The UK remains committed to working with the Federal Government of Somalia in supporting Somalia’s security, alongside our international partners.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS1308]
Local Government Reorganisation and Local Election Postponements
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
This Government are undertaking one of the biggest reforms to local government in a generation; not only have we overhauled how we fund local government, but we are ending the current two-tier system and replacing it with new single-tier unitary councils.
These reforms are not about funding formulas or lines on a map; they are about better outcomes for the people we serve.
We want to see our country grow economically and socially, but we inherited a local government system that did not put funding where it was needed and that left residents dealing with the disjointed two-tier council system and paying a two-tier premium.
That is why we have put deprivation at the heart of how we fund local government. The top 10% of the most deprived councils will see an average 24% increase in what they have to spend per person—those places, whether in the north or south, east or west, will finally see their areas turn a corner.
Today I can announce the next step in our vital reforms to reorganise local government. We will finally put an end to a two-tier system that slows down local decisions, sees local economies fragmented with different councils responsible for different priorities, and means that outdated boundaries stop our towns and cities from growing.
Instead, we will see one council in charge for each area, fully responsible for taking the quicker decisions to build homes and grow our towns and cities, as well as creating the right conditions for businesses to invest, grow, and create jobs. Reorganisation is a vital element in our vision for reform—stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities.
Consultation
On 28 November, my Department received final proposals from councils in the final 14 invitation areas for reorganisation. I thank all councils in those areas for their work in bringing these 52 proposals forward. As set out in the invitation, these proposals include the areas of existing neighbouring small unitary councils. Some proposals were accompanied by requests for boundary change, where existing districts would be split. These will require careful consideration.
Today I am launching consultations on all the below proposals, available on gov.uk, and I will deposit a copy of each in the Library of the House.
Four proposals from councils in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough:
Cambridgeshire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Cambridge city council, East Cambridgeshire district council and South Cambridgeshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Fenland district council and Peterborough city council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Huntingdonshire district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Five proposals from councils in Derby and Derbyshire:
Derbyshire county council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.
Amber Valley borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
South Derbyshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Bolsover district council and North East Derbyshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Chesterfield borough council, Derby city council, Erewash borough council and High Peak borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Derbyshire Dales district council did not submit a proposal.
Five proposals from councils in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay:
Devon county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
South Hams district council, Teignbridge borough council and West Devon borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Mid Devon district council, East Devon district council, North Devon council and Torridge district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Plymouth city council and Exeter city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Torbay council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Three proposals from councils in Gloucestershire:
Cotswold district council, Gloucestershire county council, Stroud district council and Tewkesbury borough council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.
Cheltenham borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Gloucester city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Forest of Dean district council did not submit a proposal.
Three proposals from councils in Hertfordshire:
Hertfordshire county council and St Albans City and district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Watford borough council, East Herts district council and Three Rivers district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Stevenage borough council, Broxbourne borough council, Dacorum borough council, Hertsmere borough council, North Hertfordshire district council and Welwyn Hatfield borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Five proposals from councils in Kent and Medway:
Kent county council submitted a proposal for one unitary council.
Folkestone and Hythe district council, Maidstone borough council, Sevenoaks district council, Tonbridge and Malling borough council and Tunbridge Wells borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Dartford borough council and Gravesham borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Medway council, Ashford borough council and Canterbury city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Dover district council, Swale borough council and Thanet district council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.
Five proposals from councils in Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool:
Lancashire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Blackburn with Darwen council, Fylde borough council, Hyndburn borough council, Rossendale borough council and Wyre borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Chorley borough council, Lancaster city council, Preston city council, Ribble Valley borough council, South Ribble borough council and West Lancashire borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Blackpool council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Burnley borough council and Pendle borough council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.
Three proposals from councils in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland:
Leicestershire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Leicester city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Blaby district council, Charnwood borough council, Harborough district council, Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, Melton borough council, North West Leicestershire district council, Oadby and Wigston borough council and Rutland county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Four proposals from Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire:
Boston borough council, East Lindsey district council and South Holland district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Lincoln city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Lincolnshire county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils (supported by North East Lincolnshire council and North Lincolnshire council).
North Kesteven council and South Kesteven council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
West Lindsey district council did not submit a proposal.
Three proposals from councils in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire:
Nottinghamshire county council and Rushcliffe borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Bassetlaw district council, Gedling borough council, Mansfield district council and Newark and Sherwood district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Nottingham city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Ashfield district council and Broxtowe borough council did not submit a proposal.
Three proposals from councils in Oxfordshire:
Oxfordshire county council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.
Cherwell district council, South Oxfordshire district council, Vale of White Horse district council, West Oxfordshire district council and West Berkshire council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Oxford city council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Five proposals from councils in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent:
Staffordshire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Stoke-on-Trent city council, East Staffordshire borough council, Stafford borough council and Cannock Chase district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Staffordshire Moorlands district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Lichfield district council, Tamworth borough council and South Staffordshire council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Two proposals from councils in Warwickshire:
Warwickshire county council and Rugby borough council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.
North Warwickshire borough council, Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council, Stratford-on-Avon district council and Warwick district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Two proposals from councils in Worcestershire:
Worcestershire county council and Wyre Forest district council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.
Bromsgrove district council, Malvern Hills district council, Redditch borough council, Worcester city council and Wychavon district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
The consultations will run for seven weeks until 26 March 2026. The consultation documents are available on the Department’s online platform “Citizen Space”, and those responding to the consultations can use that online platform, email or post to submit their views.
I welcome views from all councils in these areas as well as neighbouring councils, and specified public service providers, including health providers and the police, and other business, voluntary and community sector and educational bodies. As before, where boundary changes are requested, we consider it appropriate to consult the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.
I would also welcome responses from any other persons or organisations interested in these proposals, including residents, town and parish councils, businesses and the voluntary and community sector.
Once the consultations have concluded, the Government will assess the proposals against the criteria in the invitation and decide, subject to parliamentary approval, which, if any, proposals are to be implemented, with or without modification. In taking these decisions, we will have regard to all the representations received, including those from the consultation, and all other relevant information available.
I will continue to update the House as further milestones are reached in the delivery of this landmark reform.
Local Elections
I can also inform the House that I have today introduced an order to postpone 30 local elections in councils undertaking local government reorganisation. This includes the 29 previously announced by the Secretary of State, and one additional council—Pendle—following further representations from Pendle borough council’s leadership. These representations, received after the initial decision of 22 January, set out more clearly how capacity and resources would be redirected from election planning and delivery in Pendle towards supporting local government reorganisation, safeguarding the programme’s delivery.
The Secretary of State considered these representations carefully and concluded that postponement is in the best interests of ensuring effective and orderly reorganisation. A copy of his letter to the leader of Pendle borough council notifying them of this decision has been deposited in the House of Commons Library.
I will keep the House informed of any further developments.
[HCWS1309]
Pride in Place Programme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
In September, I was proud to announce a significant expansion of our Pride in Place programme, handing up to £5 billion directly to 244 of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the UK, with communities in the driving seat of spending plans.
Today I can confirm that 40 places will join the Pride in Place programme. That means that nearly 300 communities will benefit from this transformational programme. This represents an additional £800 million investment in places that have for too long been overlooked and left behind. The Government will confirm places that will be in receipt of this funding in due course.
The expansion is part of efforts to reverse the decline communities have faced. Pride in Place is about more than funding—it’s about giving communities the power to take control of their own future.
Local people know best what change is needed in their area. That is why communities are in charge of plans for this investment. Seventy-five neighbourhood boards are already up and running, bringing together local people to come up with a plan for the future of their area.
In Ramsgate, the community has decided to invest £500,000 to save the town’s last youth centre from closure, securing the building’s future and ensuring that vital services for young people can continue. Residents of Elgin have chosen to spend £1 million to create a new regional athletics hub, bringing together and providing support for sports clubs across that area of north-east Scotland.
Neighbourhood boards are beginning to take shape across the 169 places announced in September, and these local partnerships will also be established in this third tranche of forty places, laying strong foundations for community leadership.
The Pride in Place programme represents a genuine shift in power into our communities. This isn’t just short-term funding for short-term projects—it’s a long-term investment in our communities and the people who live there. We’re not starting at square one. In every community, thousands of community leaders, volunteers and grassroots organisations are already working hard to make their neighbourhood a better place to live. The Pride in Place programme gets behind these people, building strong leadership rooted in communities.
[HCWS1311]
Cranston Inquiry: Channel Incident of 24 November 2021
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
On 24 November 2021 there was a tragic mass-casualty incident involving a small boat attempting to cross the channel. On 9 November 2023 the then Secretary of State for Transport announced the establishment of an independent, non-statutory inquiry into the circumstances of this event.
My deepest sympathies remain with the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives, the survivors, and all those who were affected by this tragic incident.
The inquiry, chaired by Sir Ross Cranston, has today published its final report and recommendations. I wish to express my sincere thanks to Sir Ross, and his inquiry team, for undertaking this inquiry with great care and diligence.
I would also like to thank those that contributed to the inquiry, notably the families of the deceased and a survivor of the tragedy.
The inquiry has considered lessons that can be learned from the events of 23 to 24 November 2021 and delivered 18 recommendations.
The Government will carefully consider the content and recommendations of the report and respond fully in due course.
I have laid a copy of the report of the Cranston inquiry in both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS1307]
Jobs Guarantee: Correction to Written Statement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
On 29 January, I made a written statement on the jobs guarantee. There was a minor error in the statement. The statement said:
“I would also like to thank the over 60 employers who have already committed to providing jobs for participants of the scheme, including E.ON, JD Sports, Tesco and TUI. Once delivery partners are in place, they will work with employers to help secure these employment opportunities, with support from DWP for those large employers with a national footprint.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 57WS.]
It should have said:
“I would also like to thank the over 60 employers who have already expressed an interest in providing jobs for participants of the scheme, including E.ON, JD Sports, Tesco and TUI. Once delivery partners are in place, they will work with employers to help secure these employment opportunities, with support from DWP for those large employers with a national footprint.”
[HCWS1310]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I advise the Grand Committee, as is normal, that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting—that is singularly unlikely, but that is a personal opinion—this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Report on the impact of pension market consolidation(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report on the impact of consolidation in the occupational pensions market.(2) The report must include an assessment of—(a) the level of market concentration among pension scheme providers, including trends in the number and size of schemes;(b) the effects of consolidation on competition, innovation, and consumer choice in the pensions market;(c) the potential barriers to entry and growth for small and medium-sized pension providers;(d) the adequacy of existing regulatory and competition safeguards in preventing anti-competitive behaviour regarding—(i) exclusivity arrangements,(ii) exit charges, and(iii) pricing structures;(e) the role of The Pensions Regulator and the Competition and Markets Authority in monitoring and responding to market concentration;(f) the merits of policy or regulatory measures to support new market entrants.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Government to report on the impact of market consolidation on competition and new market entrants.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, this amendment has the distinction of being in a grouping all of its own, which obviously shows how important it is. The proposed new clause in it would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months on
“the impact of consolidation in the occupational pensions market”.
It would ensure, I hope, that Parliament and the public have transparency on how consolidation is reshaping the sector. We know that consolidation is accelerating in the pensions market and, although scale can deliver benefits—I hope—it can also raise risks: reduced competition, fewer choices for savers and further barriers for new entrants. A clear evidence base is an essential part of the solution to strike the right balance.
The report referenced in this amendment calls for information on a number of things. The first is market concentration—for instance, trends in the number and size of schemes and the level of provider dominance. The second is effects on competition and innovation: whether consolidation is driving efficiency or stifling creativity and diversity. The third is consumer choice: how member options are being affected. The fourth is barriers to entry: challenges faced by small and medium-sized providers in entering or growing in the market. The last is an assessment of whether current competition and regulatory safeguards are sufficient.
The report would also have a particular focus on exclusivity arrangements, exit charges and pricing structures that may distort the market. Furthermore, the Pensions Regulator and the Competition and Markets Authority would have a role in overseeing these risks. The review would also examine potential policies or regulations to support new entrants and maintain a healthy and competitive pensions market.
To summarise, we know that consolidation must serve savers’ interests, not just the interests of the largest providers. This proposed new clause would ensure that Parliament is properly informed—it should be informed on all things, whether on this or on the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—that regulators are held to account and that future policy is based on evidence. From a Liberal Democrat perspective, well-functioning markets matter. Competition, diversity of approach and the ability for new entrants to challenge incumbents are essential if savers are to benefit over the long term. Ministers need to explain why a formal review of consolidation is resisted, given the scale of structural change this will accelerate. We are asking just for a review, and we hope the Government will not think this too much to ask for before we enter this new realm. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this debate and respond to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on his Amendment 184. I am grateful to him for raising this issue, because it goes to the heart of how we ensure that pension reform delivers better outcomes for savers rather than simply neater market structures on paper. I think there is reasonably wide backing across the pensions industry for the Government’s broad objective of greater consolidation and efficiency within the defined contribution market. Many stakeholders accept, and indeed support, the proposition that increased scale, when combined with robust governance, strong investment capability and appropriate oversight, has the potential to deliver stronger long-term outcomes for members. Few would argue for fragmentation for its own sake.
However, support for consolidation is not the same as support for consolidation at any cost, or consolidation pursued without sufficient regard to its secondary effects. Well-founded concerns remain that the current design of the scale test risks it being too blunt an instrument. In particular, it does not distinguish adequately between schemes that are genuinely underperforming and those smaller or mid-sized providers that, despite operating below the proposed thresholds, none the less deliver consistently high-quality, well-governed and, in some cases, market-leading outcomes for savers. Indeed, the Government’s own analysis underlines this risk. The chart contained in paragraph 70 of the Government’s 2024 report shows no clear or consistent correlation between assets under management and gross five-year performance across large parts of the master trust and group personal pension market.
The principal scale-related concern identified appears to relate not to well-run schemes operating below the threshold but to the very smallest arrangements, in particular certain single-employer schemes where governance capacity and resilience can be more limited. That matters because consolidation in a pensions market is not a neutral process. This is not a typical consumer market. Savers are largely captive, choice is constrained, switching is rare and inertia is high. In such an environment, reductions in the number of providers can weaken competitive pressure long before anything resembling a monopoly appears. The risk is not always higher charges tomorrow but slower innovation, less responsiveness and poorer outcomes over time.
That is why this amendment is important. It would ensure that consolidation serves savers and that Parliament retains a clear grip on how the market is evolving. Small distortions in competition today—barely visible in the short term—can compound into materially worse outcomes over 30 or 40 years of saving. In a system built on long horizons, early and structured scrutiny is essential.
There is also the question of innovation. Smaller and newer providers have often been the source of advances in member engagement, digital capability, decumulation options and investment design. If consolidation raises barriers to entry through disproportionate compliance costs, restrictive exit charges or exclusivity arrangements, innovation risks being squeezed out, even where headline charges appear to fall. Efficiency gains that come at the expense of progress are a poor bargain for future retirees.
The report required by this amendment would not obstruct sensible consolidation; nor would it second-guess the direction of travel. Rather, it would provide Parliament with the evidence needed to ensure that consolidation is proportionate, targeted and genuinely in the interest of savers. It would help ensure that regulatory and competition safeguards remain fit for purpose as market structures change, and that opportunities for new high-quality entrants are not inadvertently closed off.
For these reasons, I believe that this amendment strikes the right balance. It is supportive of reform, alert to risk and grounded firmly in the long-term interests of those whose retirement security depends on the decisions we take today.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing his amendment, which would require the Government to conduct a report on the impact of consolidation in the occupational pensions sector within 12 months of the Act being passed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her remarks and her acknowledgement of the benefits of consolidation and the widespread support for it.
The fact is that consolidation is already happening across the pension landscape. The number of DC pension providers has reduced from roughly 3,700 in 2012 to about 950 schemes today. On the DB side, the number of schemes is similarly down from about 6,500 in 2012 to 4,800 in 2026, with a record number of transactions currently estimated in the buyout market. Our aim is to accelerate this trend of consolidation through the DC scale measures and DP superfunds. As I have said before, scale brings numerous benefits directed at improving member outcomes, including better governance, greater efficiency, in-house expertise and access to investment in productive markets.
I am not going to respond in detail to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, on innovation and other things, because we have given them a decent canter in previous meetings in Committee, but it is absolutely essential that pension schemes remain competitive post-scale. We expect that schemes with scale will innovate and drive competition, especially, for example, in consolidating single-employer trusts. The market will evolve, as will the needs of members, and we expect that the schemes and the industry will be able to align with this.
It is absolutely right that the Bill will lead to major change in the occupational pensions market. Although I do not agree with this particular proposal, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that we must understand and monitor the impact of these reforms, because the impacts of consolidation really matter. That is why a comprehensive impact assessment was produced, analysing the potential impacts of the Bill, with plans to evaluate the impact in further detail. An updated version of the impact assessment was published as the Bill entered this House; crucially, it included further details of our ongoing monitoring and evaluation plans, including critical success factors and collaboration across departments and regulators.
We have provided the market with clarity on our approach so that changes can be put into effect, but we need to allow time to assess and evaluate the impacts following full implementation. We will assess the overall impacts over an appropriate timeframe, given that the full effects of consolidation will be after the Bill has been implemented.
As I have mentioned before, we published a pensions road map, which clearly sets out when we aim for each measure to come into force. The fact is that many of the regulations to be made under the Bill will not have been made or brought into force within a year of the Bill becoming an Act. Any review at that point could be only very partial. However, the Government are committed to strong monitoring and evaluation of this policy, especially of its impact on members. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is absolutely right to point to the crucial role of the Pensions Regulator and the CMA. They are best placed, in the first instance, to monitor the impacts of consolidation as part of their respective statutory functions, including an analysis of emerging trends. The Pensions Regulator, for example, will play a key role in monitoring the impact of consolidation on the trust-based DC pensions market via its value-for-money framework.
I can therefore assure the Committee that we will keep this area under review, consistent with our stated policy aims for the sector and for good member outcomes. We will also continue to monitor our working arrangements with the regulators; this includes their ongoing monitoring of the pensions industry. We will submit a memorandum to the Work and Pensions Select Committee with a preliminary analysis of how the Act has worked three to five years following Royal Assent. The committee may then decide to conduct a fuller inquiry into the Act, consistent with standard practice, as set out in the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation.
Given the above, a separate government report risks duplicating work while putting an undue burden on all those involved. If issues are identified by regulators before the Government submit a post-legislative memorandum, and there is a need for government action, then an evidence-based response can be taken. I completely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of this and I thank him for raising this debate. However, I hope that he feels reassured and able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that; it gives me some reassurance, and I am always happy to say when that happens. The aim of the amendment is to improve the Bill, not to undermine it. Some of the things that the Minister has suggested may happen are already happening. When figures are quoted quickly—such as 950 schemes of one sort and 4,826 of the other—the numbers do not seem so large, but they are pretty substantial in terms of those impacted.
We are worried about the impact of consolidation. I rather get the impression that the Minister is aware that there could be problems that need to be reviewed as we go along, and we will need time to assess what is happening. I take cognisance of the Minister’s reassurances: they take us along the same path as I am suggesting. We will have time, obviously, to review what is happening as time progresses. In the light of that, I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the compensation is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 28 of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise that the pension compensation system and the safety net it offers need to work harder for members. Payments from the Pension Protection Fund, the PPF, and the Financial Assistance Scheme, FAS, based on pensions built up before 1997, do not get uprated with inflation—pre-1997 indexation. Over time, they have lost a significant amount of their value in real terms. I am therefore particularly pleased to introduce Clauses 108 to 110, which together provide for pre-1997 indexation in the PPF and FAS, and extend this provision to members covered by the Northern Ireland legislation.
Clause 108 amends the relevant provisions in the Pensions Act 2004 and the Pensions Act 2008. It introduces increases on compensation payments from the PPF that relate to pensions built up before 6 April 1997. These will be CPI-linked and capped at 2.5%, and will apply prospectively to payments for members whose former schemes provided for these increases. Clause 109 makes equivalent amendments to the relevant Northern Ireland provisions, in the same way that Clause 108 does to GB legislation. This will ensure that PPF members covered by Northern Ireland legislation are treated in the same way as their counterparts in Great Britain. Clause 110 amends the relevant FAS regulations to introduce increases on compensation payments from the FAS that relate to pensions built up before 6 April 1997. As with the other clauses, these increases will be CPI-linked, capped at 2.5% and applied prospectively for members whose former schemes provided for these increases. We expect that first payments will be made to members whose former scheme provided for increases from January 2027.
Some affected members only had annual pre-1997 increases within their scheme due to the guaranteed minimum pension, or GMP, part of their pension. There is a statutory requirement for pension schemes annually to uplift any GMPs earned between April 1988 and April 1997. As such, PPF and FAS members who had only a post-1998 GMP will also receive increases on a proportion of their pre-1997 compensation payment. That is because the PPF is not legally required to separately identify GMPs when a scheme transfers to the PPF or qualifies for FAS.
We will therefore calculate a standardised percentage amount for PPF members to ensure that those who had this legal requirement for increases do not miss out. That will be done via regulations, and careful consideration will be given to this standardised approach. The Secretary of State will make the equivalent determination for FAS. Clauses 108 and 109 also give the PPF board the same discretion to adjust the percentage rate of pre-1997 indexation as it currently has for post-1997 increases.
These reforms bring a step change that will make a meaningful difference to affected PPF and FAS members. Incomes will be boosted by an average of around £400 for PPF members and around £300 for FAS members per year after the first five years. The pension compensation system will now offer a stronger safety net for members who, up until now, had lost out on pre-1997 inflation protection following their employer’s insolvency or scheme failure.
We have tabled eight minor and technical government amendments that amend the relevant provisions in the PPF legislation, including the Northern Ireland legislation and the relevant FAS regulations. These are to ensure that the pre-1997 increases in the PPF and FAS are implemented as intended and that affected members are able to receive the appropriate increases.
These amendments apply where an eligible scheme operated with more than one benefit structure. For example, a scheme may have paid increases on pensions built up before 6 April 1997 for one group of members but for another group the scheme may have paid increases only on GMPs built up on or after 6 April 1988. As the provisions were originally drafted, the latter group would not have had an entitlement to pre-1997 increases from the PPF or FAS. We want that group of members to receive indexation on a proportion of their pre-1997 compensation, and these amendments remedy the position.
I will comment on the other amendments in the group when I respond at the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I will speak to my Amendment 203ZB. I thank my noble friend for the decision in the Budget to grant future increases. That is very much to be welcomed. As for the technical difficulties, I would love an opportunity to start discussing GMPs and even better if we got on to the anti-franking rules, but that is not the issue that I wish to raise today. As I have not moved the lead amendment, I have only 10 minutes.
In working out what I had to say, I realised that there are three groups dealing with pre-1997 increases: this group, group 2, the next group, group 3, where the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, will move her amendment, and group 5, where at last I get 15 minutes as the mover of the amendment. There are issues that run through all three groups. That is not to downplay the importance of group 4 and the AWE proposals. There are intertwined issues here. There is the reduction in real terms of members’ benefits since they came into payment and the introduction of future increases. There is also the issue that is the subject of my amendment in group 2 and of the amendments in group 3, which is the losses that have been incurred by pre-1997 pensioners.
I am glad that the Minister said that those pensioners have lost out. I am glad that we have that common ground: they have lost out. Then there is the issue of pre-1997 benefits for schemes that are still active. Whether or not they are open to new members, they have pensioners and their legal entitlements to pre-1997 benefits differ from those post-1997. There are common themes there and I suspect that my remarks on all three groups could be put together and make a more coherent whole. In particular, there is a big issue about inflation protection for pre-1997. It is all about pre-1997. What was the feeling about inflation protection back in those days when it was under discussion? Even though it applies to this group, I am going to save that for group 3, when I shall move my Amendment 203.
I am not going to address in this group, although this is probably the most important point of all, the impact that this has had on the individuals concerned. I have had a substantial postbag, most of it by email, pointing out the problems that they have faced. I am not going to focus on that now because I have a limited amount of time, but to me it is the crucial point.
I shall start with the PPF and then come to the FAS in a moment. The principle has been established that PPF pensioners deserve increases in their pensions in respect of pre-1997 service. The Government agree with that principle but they are only going to implement it for the future. The same principle should apply to the past as to the future. Why should they be entitled to increases in the future if they are not entitled to exactly similar increases for the past? I am not talking about retrospection. This amendment has nothing to do with retrospection; it just says that these pensioners deserve pensions now in real terms that are the same in monetary value as they were when they came into payment.
The only reason why one would make a distinction between the increases in the future and making good the increases that have been lost in the past is the cost. I cannot think of any other plausible reason. There is no difference between them in terms of justice; it is simply about the cost. However, we know, because the PPF has given us the figures, that that does not apply here. The money is in the PPF that can afford these increases. It has a significant and growing excess of assets over liabilities and, because of that, the levy is being suspended. The employer providing these schemes is gaining the benefit—in effect, a sort of refund of the surplus that has been built up. Well, fair enough, they have paid for it, but so have the members and they are entitled to the increase. Whatever they had when their pensions came into payment should be increased from January 2027 to allow for what they would have got in respect of post-1997 benefits. That is clear and I hope that the Government will accept the point.
Then we come on to the FAS. The big difference between the PPF and the FAS is that the FAS is funded out of general taxation. However, let us be clear why the FAS is there: it is because Governments of both parties failed to provide the protection that they were required to give under European law, in the face of the fantastic campaign that was run on behalf of the pensioners of schemes that became insolvent—and employers that became insolvent—prior to the implementation of the PPF. That is the only reason why they are in the FAS. It was the Government’s failure; it was not their failure. Why should they lose out? Governments failed to provide them with protection. They only introduced the PPF from 2005, but the people who lost their pensions prior to that date are just as entitled. The Government gave in because of the fantastic campaign, as I say, but also because of the threat of further legal action at the European court that they knew they would lose. To make a distinction between FAS members and PPF is totally unfair and unreasonable.
There will be a cost and, because it is the FAS, it will fall on the taxpayers, but one principle is clear: where the Government have a debt to make good something that they have got wrong, they cannot excuse themselves from that debt by saying, “Sorry, we don’t quite have the money”. They should pay up. It is quite clear that the same treatment should be afforded to the FAS members as to the PPF members.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendment 203ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I shall also address the government amendments in this group. I have signed the noble Lord’s Amendment 203, which we will come to later, recognising that he has professional expertise far greater than mine in dealing with these matters and believing that he comes to these issues, as I am certain he does, from a position of recognising that one group of workers in particular—those of Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff—were extremely badly treated over 20 years ago, about which I spoke earlier in our deliberations.
I listened with interest and concern to the explanation given by the Minister for introducing these amendments, and I am far from certain as to whether, when enacted, the discretion to which she referred will give former employees of Allied Steel and Wire any of the redress which they seek for the pension loss they suffered with regard to their pre-1997 employment. Are we today recognising the fairness of their claim but not providing any vehicle by which it can, in fact, be met? That is my fear.
In Committee in the other place, my Plaid Cymru colleague, Ann Davies MP, introduced two amendments to provide indexation for compensation under FAS and the PPF to cover both pre-1997 and post-1997 service, and to reimburse members for the annual increase they should have received. The Government rejected those amendments, saying they would not work. Ann Davies MP came back on Report proposing a new clause to provide indexation. The Government rejected that clause so, in considering these and possibly later amendments, I ask the Minister whether their combined effect will do anything at all to give the pre-1997 pensions full indexation and not limit them to the 2.5% cap which Ministers supported in the other place? Will they do anything to reimburse those members for the annual increases which they never received?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support and have added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I support all his remarks, especially on the only excuse for not recognising that people need pre-1997 indexation going forward. There is a wrong that is being corrected; therefore, that wrong probably applies even more to benefits from the past. One of the reasons why I say “even more so” is because the members who have the most pre-1997 accrual are the oldest—by definition, they must be. They have much less time left to live and many of them have, sadly, already passed away. Therefore, to right this wrong by promising people money in future that they may never see, or will see almost none of, does not seem a solid way of righting a wrong.
I understand—I will go through this in more detail in the next group—that the Financial Assistance Scheme, for example, is supposedly funded by public money, while the PPF itself and employer contributions, in the form of the levy, provides the money for PPF compensation, but £2 billion from the scheme was transferred to the public purse. Thankfully, when we were trying to improve the Financial Assistance Scheme in 2005, Andrew Young recommended stopping annuity purchase, which had been happening and, unfortunately, transferred much of the money to insurers rather than putting it towards the Government to pay out over time. Nevertheless, the Financial Assistance Scheme itself represents some of the biggest losers and the ones with the most pre-1997 accrual.
Therefore, I urge the Government to recognise that the cost of the requirements in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are easily affordable from the PPF reserve—£14.5 billion is available. The cost estimate for this retrospective addition to the pre-1997 accruals that were not paid in terms of inflation uplifts could be around £500 million out of the £14.5 billion, depending on how the arrears are paid. I would be grateful to the Minister if she could confirm some of the Government’s estimates for what this would be; I have looked at the PPF’s estimates.
I add that the Financial Assistance Scheme does not only help those who affected by insolvency. The European court case was about insolvency, but the MFR protected employers who just wanted to walk away from their schemes before the law changed. Paying in only the MFR was hopelessly inadequate to afford the pensions. There was a brilliant campaign by the unions that went to the European court, and the Government had a great fear that they would lose that. Prior to that, we had an appeal by the workers of Allied Steel and Wire and many of the other schemes to the Pensions Ombudsman, who found in their favour and against the Government, and to the Public Accounts Select Committee. Then we had to go to the High Court, taking a case against the Government, and we won. We also went to the Court of Appeal, taking a case against the Government, and we won on behalf of those whose schemes had failed, whether the employers were insolvent or not, which means that they are all now included.
Even so, the Financial Assistance Scheme and the PPF have not recognised the pre-1997 inflation losses that have left many of these members with half their pension, or even less in some cases. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment. I welcome it, and I am very grateful to the Minister for the recognition that we need to do something—there may be further consideration of that; we will come back to it in subsequent groups—to recompense for the losses of the past.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I wish only to say that I agree with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the lengthy exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I give them my support.
This group deals with technical amendments in the main, but they go to a question of basic fairness for pensioners whose schemes have failed. There are eight amendments in the Minister’s name, which shows that Bills can be amended, because the Government are amending their own Bill. Their amendments are no less important than those proposed on this side of the Room or those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on the other.
The Government have accepted the principle of restoring inflation protection for pre-1997 service in the PPF and the FAS. These amendments ensure that the policy operates as intended, covering cases where the schemes technically add indexation rules that did not apply to all pre-1997 service.
The concern here is consistency and completeness. As has been said by other speakers, without these clarifications, some pensions will fall through the cracks due to historic scheme design quirks, rather than any distinction of principle. Any schemes that were and will be proposed will have quirks that are going to be found out in due course. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government’s intention is to deliver equal treatment for those with equivalent service histories and that no group will be excluded because of technical anomalies.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will mainly speak to and concentre on the government amendments in this group. I start by thanking the Minister for setting them out so clearly. We welcome the additional clarity that they provide.
In particular, these amendments ensure that the Financial Assistance Scheme and the PPF payments are treated consistently where a pension scheme formally required pre-1997 indexation but where that requirement did not in fact apply to the specific pre-1997 service for which financial assistance is being paid. Put simply, this is a technical clarification to ensure that indexation under the FAS reflects a member’s actual scheme entitlement, even where a scheme nominally provided for pre-1997 indexation but did not apply it to the service being compensated. We believe that this is a useful and sensible point of clarification—one that helps to ensure that the system operates as it should do.
However, I would be grateful if, when she closes, the Minister could confirm that it is now the Government’s view that these amendments are sufficient to close what may previously have been a gap in the original drafting. In particular, can she confirm that the Government are satisfied that these changes are enough to avoid confusion, to avoid the risk of legal challenge and to ensure that the Financial Assistance Scheme remains, in essence, what it should be—a safety net—rather than becoming an unintended upgrade?
I want also to make a broader process point, because these changes emerged relatively late in proceedings in the other place. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the relevant stakeholders have been properly consulted and that the Government do not anticipate the need for further amendments on this issue in the Commons—or, indeed, as the Bill continues to go through Parliament. The Minister for Pensions, Torsten Bell, has previously stated that this change will affect around 250,000 members of the PPF, increasing their pension payments by an average of around £400 a year. The Minister cited that figure in her opening remarks, but is that still the Government’s firm and final assessment of the scale and impact of this measure? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that for us.
I also note the comments made by Sara Protheroe, the PPF’s chief customer officer, who said:
“While implementing this change will be no small task”—
that is probably an understatement—the PPF is
“fully committed to delivering this at the earliest opportunity if and when it becomes law”.
That welcome commitment raises an important practical question for the Government, does it not? What assessment has the Minister made of the extra resources that might be required? What support will be provided to the PPF to ensure that delivery can take place smoothly and without delay? Have the Government assessed whether additional resources, which could come via capacity or funding, will be required to implement this change effectively? If so, how do they intend to provide that support?
Regarding Amendment 203ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I will have more to say in subsequent groups. As the noble Lord said, there are amendments on the FAS and PPF in three different groups today. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I delay my brief comments. I also listened carefully to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. It is best that I make comments in later groups.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing his amendment and I look forward to the subsequent instalments of his reflections on these important areas. The Government’s reforms are a significant step forward in making the compensation system and its safety net better for members, but I recognise that it does not go as far as some affected members, or indeed some noble Lords, would want.
We recognise the impact that the issue of pre-1997 indexation has had on affected PPF and FAS members. My colleague, the Pensions Minister, has met with many representatives and has heard at first hand the impact on them. I have also had representations coming into my inbox and I understand the position of those who have contacted me. I recognise the intention behind Amendment 203ZB from my noble friend Lord Davies.
This amendment would increase the pension on which indexation is calculated in respect of PPF and FAS members’ compensation. The PPF has fully assessed the impact of retrospection and arrears. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, that the cost of providing prospective and fully retrospective indexation and arrears—in line with CPI capped at 2.5% for members whose original schemes provided for these increases—is significant, totalling around £5.6 billion: £3.9 billion for the PPF and between £1 billion and £1.7 billion for FAS. If I have understood my noble friend’s amendment correctly, it would have the effect of increasing the baseline compensation paid to all PPF and FAS members, irrespective of whether their original scheme provided for 1997 increases. This would further increase the costs to the PPF and FAS.
The reforms put forward by the Government offer targeted support and introduce changes to indexation to compensation payments prospectively. The Government’s proposal to introduce pre-1997 indexation in the PPF will reduce the PPF reserve by £1.2 billion and cost around £0.3 billion to £0.6 billion for FAS, totalling £1.8 billion over the lifetime of both schemes. This is a significant shift, reflecting the value of the increases to members’ compensation payments.
The PPF reserve protects current and future members, as well as underwriting future claims across the almost £1 trillion DB system. Prudent management of the reserve is needed to ensure that the security it provides for its members, and the DB pension universe, is not compromised. In introducing this change, the Government had to strike a balance of interests for all parties—including eligible members, levy payers, taxpayers and the PPF’s ability to manage future risk—against the backdrop of a tight fiscal envelope. We believe that our reform achieves the right balance. Any further reduction of the reserve increases the risk to members and the PPF’s ability to manage future risk.
While the PPF has confirmed that the Government’s proposal does not affect its plan to switch off the levy, going beyond our proposal increases the possibility of the PPF needing to return to levy payers in the future. As it stands, this is a win for members and for those businesses. Any changes to compensation levels in the PPF and the taxpayer-funded FAS have significant implications for the public finances. Increases to PPF liabilities affect the Chancellor’s fiscal rules, because the present value of these liabilities change annually, which is counted as a cost in the public finances. Any increases to payments from FAS come at a direct cost to the taxpayer. This is why we are concerned about the risks of going further, as well as the risks to the PPF that I have described.
The bottom line is that the PPF and FAS are compensation schemes: they were never designed to fully replace members’ pensions. Members are in a better financial situation than they would have been before these compensation schemes were established. Our changes to the pension compensation system will offer a stronger safety net for members who, until now, had lost out on pre-1997 compensation increases following their employer’s insolvency or scheme failure.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked me about the solidity of the amendments and whether they would be enough to avoid legal challenge. If a legal challenge were to be brought forward, the Government consider they can successfully defend any such challenge. I hope that reassures him.
We understand that members will want to have a conversation quickly, and the PPF has rightly said that it would like to do it as soon as is practicable, but we have concluded that the earliest opportunity to provide pre-1997 increases to PPF and FAS members is January 2027, because implementation will require the PPF to identify eligible members in order to implement the changes. That is the first possible opportunity to uplift members’ payments pending the appropriate parliamentary processes. We will do it when and as soon as it can be done, but we have to be sensible about that.
I was asked how many members would benefit. I said that more than 250,000 PPF and FAS members are set to benefit from this change. Up to 90,000 may not benefit, although we know that includes a number of people who will benefit where they had post-1988 GMPs, and we are working with the PPF to identify the number of members who had post-1988 GMPs. Some 85,000 PPF and FAS members do not have any pre-1997 service, so they do not fall within the scope of this change.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is going to ask about Allied Steel and Wire. The Minister for Pensions has met Financial Assistance Scheme members, including former Allied Steel and Wire workers whose scheme qualified for FAS, and he has heard first hand of the experience of those members. I am happy to confirm that former members of Allied Steel and Wire will benefit from the Government’s proposals of prospective legislation. If that is the question the noble Lord was going to ask, I hope that is enough to satisfy him.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am very grateful and I hope that the benefit will be substantial.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Just for clarity, the benefit will be exactly as I described in the Government’s amendments—which obviously is incredibly generous but, just to be clear, that is the benefit under question. In the light of this, I am grateful to my noble friend and all noble Lords, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Baroness Altmann
“(2A) After paragraph 28, insert—“Lump sum compensation
28A (1) In all cases which qualify for an increase in periodic compensation under paragraph 28(2A) to (2I), the person may also qualify for a lump sum payment or payments, the amount of which must be—(a) related to the loss of inflation protection on pre-1997 pension benefits, and(b) paid by the Pension Protection Fund out of excess reserves,in recognition of the years of pension increases that were unpaid since the failure of the pension scheme.(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about lump sum payments under this paragraph.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to make provision for lump sum payments from the Pension Protection Fund to persons who qualify for an increase in periodic compensation for pre-1997 service to compensate for unpaid increases in the years since the failure of the pension scheme.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are designed to give the Government another way of recognising the injustice that has occurred, which their very welcome amendments recognise for members who have lost their pre-1997 inflation protection. I am trying, through this route, to give the Government a way of increasing the amounts paid to people who have lost out on pre-1997 indexation in the past without the striking costs that the Minister suggested would be involved in retrospection and arrears for everybody in the PPF and the Financial Assistance Scheme.
The method by which this could be achieved is to offer lump-sum payments which do not increase the base cost of the pension but do recognise the losses suffered in the past. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues might be able to look favourably on this suggestion, which is another way in which the Government could put right what they have already recognised is a serious wrong.
If my amendments are accepted, the Pension Protection Fund reserve could be used alongside the Government’s welcome Amendments 186 and so on in the previous group. For anyone who is going to receive the prospective inflation protection in the future, the PPF reserve will or could be used to pay a lump sum to be determined related to the losses that they have suffered. That will be a one-off, or it could be over two or three years if so desired, to recognise the past problem to help the oldest people in a practical way and to ensure that there is some modicum of fairness, particularly for those who have the most pre-1997 accrual, who, as I have said, are the oldest.
My Amendment 203ZA is the same proposal for the Financial Assistance Scheme, but subsection (3) of my proposed new clause would allow specification, in consultation with the Pension Protection Fund, as to how this will be funded. Obviously, there is a significant reserve in the Pension Protection Fund. It has written to members, suggesting that there is affordability, and the ability to pay for some element of retrospection—again, to be determined. By the way, the Minister suggested that people would get what they paid for but, of course, with a 2.5% cap on CPI increases, many of them would have paid 5% going forward. So, it is not full retrospection or prospective protection for pre-1997.
I know that the Minister is proud of what the Government are doing, and I welcome it too, but her words that it does not go as far as some affected members would want are absolutely correct. I would say that it does not go as far as some affected members deserve, in the course of an argument about fairness and justice.
Are there any government estimates for the cost of these lump-sum payments, either one-off or spread over two or three years? It is probably easier administratively to make it a one-off, so that only one payment is required. That would also need to be protected in the same way that the new payment in other schemes is protected in terms of the tax system, so that it is not treated as an income in that particular year. If the Government were minded and able to accept the principle of recognising the past in a different way from the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, which I also support if that were possible, it would not add to the long-term costs of running the Pension Protection Fund or the Financial Assistance Scheme. It will be a one-off recognition of the past and the future liabilities would be based on the pension as proposed now.
Do the Government have estimates for any possible size of payment that would be acceptable, so that we could then work backwards to finding a lump sum that could be paid and afforded out of the PPF’s obviously significant reserve? There is far more money than is required; it is just sitting there, whereas these pensioners really need the pensions that they paid for and are getting nowhere near. I hope the Minister might be able to help, or I am happy to meet and see whether we can work through some figures that might be acceptable as a way forward to recognise the past and satisfy a number of the people who are seriously ill and may not live to next April or much beyond it and feel so aggrieved—having campaigned with me for years to help people, get the PPF started and improve the Financial Assistance Scheme—that they are not getting the recognition that younger people who are benefiting from their hard work will get. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I offer my support for the amendment moved and the other amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. She suggested that, in some ways, her amendments are more important than mine. I agree and I will come on to why that is so in a moment. I recognise the importance of the government amendments but, in the words of my noble friend the Minister, we have to recognise the impact of the lack of past increases on those affected.
Retrospection has been mentioned. It is a complete red herring. By its nature, any form of compensation will be retrospective. We are not going to compensate people for what happens in the future. The compensation being paid all too slowly to the Post Office managers is retrospective. The money being paid to the infected blood victims is retrospective, but we still have to pay. “Retrospection” is not a relevant word in this context. We are clear, and we all agree, that these people have lost out, to use the words of my noble friend the Minister, so retrospection is a red herring.
My noble friend the Minister also mentioned the significant impact on public finances. That is true because it has been defined in that way, but we are setting the rules. We are not being subjected to rules imposed by outside interests. If the Treasury does not have the wit or ingenuity to adjust the rules in a way that would allow for these payments from the PPF, which, in reality, would have no impact whatsoever on public expenditure, those who have been affected by the lack of increases will draw their own conclusions as to what the Government really want to do. My noble friend also said that this is a compensation scheme and that it was never designed to offer full redress. Well, that is what we are debating; it is exactly what we are saying is wrong and should be rectified.
The point that I wish to emphasise in this section is the need for urgency. That is why this amendment is the important one. To be brutal, we are dealing with a declining population. It has been estimated that more than 5,000 pensioners with pre-1997 rights are dying each year. We have to take action. Even my amendment, which I proposed to bring the pension up to its current real value, does not address the issue for these people because many of them will not be here. Compensation via lump-sum payments, along the lines suggested in these amendments, are, I believe, the way in which this problem should be addressed. I strongly support these amendments.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly speak in support of the amendments. I emphasise that they look at how to do this by lump-sum payments, rather than by increasing pensions. That is important. It is what we in my profession used to call “creative accountancy”. It seeks to achieve a result by lump sums, more or less off the Government’s balance sheet. There has been some blending of the funds in the past. It is a way of doing it in a creative accountancy way, largely getting rid of the problem by lump-sum payments. I hope that the Government will look at this in a creative way in order to provide some justice without incurring an ongoing debt.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 187A, 188A, 189A and 203ZA tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. She has long been a formidable and principled advocate for pension savers and much of the Committee will be sympathetic to the underlying concerns that she raised in her remarks. In particular, her consistent focus on member protection, governance and long-term security has materially shaped the debate on pensions policy over many years—and rightly so.
However—the Committee might expect me to say this—while I share the noble Baroness’s objectives, I am not persuaded that the amendments, as drafted, strike the right balance in this instance. I listened carefully to her remarks and her constructive suggestions as to how such payments could be made in the form of lump sums, whether through several lump sums or another way. As ever, she is constructive and positive, and I accept that. These amendments would use the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme to make retrospective lump-sum payments to compensate for unpaid historical indexation. We think that that would represent a significant shift in principle.
I listened carefully, as I always do, to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, who called retrospection a red herring. I was not absolutely sure what he meant by that. As I see it, retrospection is just that: retrospection. I think that it describes the payments in the way that it is meant to do. However, the PPF was designed as a forward-looking safety net, not as a mechanism for reopening past outcomes or making retrospective compensation payments. The Minister, to be fair to her, made this clear in her closing remarks in previous groups.
Such an approach would raise serious concerns about cost, complexity and consistency. Although we are somewhat clearer about costs from the helpful remarks from the Minister in the previous group, I am still uncertain—as, I think, other Members of the Committee are—about what the overall costs would be and what the impact would be on the levy and on other contributors. That uncertainty makes me cautious about supporting these amendments, which risk turning a clearly defined insurance mechanism into an open-ended compensation scheme. I suspect that the Minister—without wanting to steal her thunder—may take a similar view in her response, judging from her remarks in the previous group.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord just said that this would impact on the levy, but if there is a one-off payment, it would not affect the scheme going forward. Therefore, it should not impact the levy at all; it is a lump-sum payment rather than an increase in the base pension payable going forward.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As ever, that is a very helpful clarification, but I will leave it up to the Minister to answer that. I stick with my view that we are not persuaded by these amendments. Perhaps there is more debate to be had. I have said all that I need to say; I am afraid that I am unable to support these amendments.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing her amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken. I am afraid the noble Viscount has given a spoiler regarding my response, because I articulated many of the arguments on this in the previous group in response to my noble friend Lord Davies.
The Government recognise that pre-1997 indexation is an important issue for affected PPF and FAS members. That is why we listened and took the action that we did. The changes proposed by Amendments 186A, 187A, 188A and 189A would, essentially, award payments of arrears for PPF and FAS members who have missed out on pre-1997 increases up to now. As the noble Baroness described, that would mean a one-off lump-sum payment to be made from the PPF reserve. Amendment 203ZA would require the Secretary of State to determine how those additional payments would be funded in FAS.
I acknowledge the impact on members. This has been a long-running issue and, for reasons that noble Lords have clearly articulated, members will want to see their increases quickly now that we have made a decision to act. As I said, we expect that the first payments will be made to eligible PPF and FAS members in January 2027, which is the earliest possible opportunity to do so, and we are working closely with the PPF on implementing that. I recognise that prospective increases do not restore the erosion of the real-terms value of members’ retirement incomes. However, the Government’s reforms will make a meaningful difference to affected members while balancing the impact on levy payers who support the PPF, taxpayers who pay for FAS and affordability for the Government.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, any payment that comes out of the PPF reserve will reduce the size of that reserve and therefore, in our judgment, must make it more likely that there may be a need for a levy to be reintroduced at some point. I shall come back to the arguments in a moment, as I said to my noble friend, but I have noted the importance of responsible management of the PPF reserve following the introduction of our reforms. The noble Baroness’s proposal—creative though it is, and I acknowledge that—would clearly also reduce the reserve. Although the reserve is forecast to grow, without a really substantive PPF levy the PPF will depend on its reserves and its investment returns to manage the risks from existing liabilities and future claims across the £1 trillion DB system.
Historically, the PPF has supported nearly £10 billion in claims, funded in part by the amount collected through levies. Without future levies, the reserve has to cover upcoming claims. The reserve offers protection against future risks, such as new claims and longevity risks, and, as I have said, avoids the need for a significant levy reintroduction. I also noted the significant public finance implications of changes in my earlier remarks.
The Government have not made an assessment of the noble Baroness’s proposal because we considered carefully what we thought it was appropriate to do. We worked with the PPF and fully considered the broader context of introducing pre-1997 indexation in both the PPF and FAS. In the end, it is the responsibility of the Government to strike an affordable balance of interest between all parties. We believe our reform achieves that. This measure is a fundamental shift in the level of protection afforded by the PPF and FAS to their members, but we think that is right and the appropriate balance. In the light of that, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank those who have supported this group, and I hope that I might be able to persuade colleagues on this side to offer their support.
I understand the Minister’s dilemma, but I have to ask: what is the PPF reserve for? It is just money sitting there, way above what is needed for the current liabilities, before you take into account new schemes that themselves will have assets attached, and the vast majority of schemes are in surplus at the moment anyway.
There was talk of the cost, complexity and consistency involved in these proposals. The cost we know, because one can design the lump-sum payments to fit the desired cost envelope. The complexity is actually far lower than the Government’s current proposals because they are a one-off payment related to past losses, which will have to be calculated anyway if one is going to do anything of this nature.
Consistency is particularly important here, otherwise we will be treating members of the Pension Protection Fund or the Financial Assistance Scheme very differently based on their age, in effect. Those who are young will get better protection. Those who are older—and need it most, I argue, because they have lost most—get little or nothing from the Government’s welcome proposals. So, at the same time as the Government are designing their forward-looking acknowledgment of the need for pre-1997 uplifts, I hope that we might be able to persuade them that, alongside that, there is an overwhelming case for some recognition of the past.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness agree that her scheme would work the other way round, because older members will tend to have more pre-1997 service that younger members, whose pre-1997 service will be relatively limited? A scheme along the lines she proposes will have some element of generational fairness.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord. I would certainly say that there is a significant and obvious element of fairness in this proposal for lump sums to be paid. I argue that it would level the playing field, because those who have lost the most at the moment will continue to lose the most, whereas if you recognise the past losses and the forward uplifts are still being paid then you equalise, to some degree, the fairness and the losses between people of different age groups.
I hope that we can come back to this matter on Report and that we might have a meeting to discuss the potential for something of this nature to be introduced in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 17 of Schedule 5 to the Pensions Act 2008 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the compensation is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 28 of Schedule 6 to the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Pensions (No.2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the annual payment is payable.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the ill health payment is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2A to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the annual payment is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the ill health payment is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“Chapter 2AAWE Pension SchemeNew public pension schemes
Establishment of new public schemes and transfer of rights(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish one or more schemes (“new public schemes”) which provide for pensions or other benefits to be payable to or in respect of persons who are or have been members of the AWE Pension Scheme (“qualifying persons”).(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the transfer of qualifying accrued rights to a new public scheme (without the need for any approval or consent of the trustee company or AWE PLC, or any other person, to the transfer). (3) Regulations under subsection (2) may include provision for the discharge of liabilities in respect of qualifying accrued rights that are transferred.(4) In this Chapter—“qualifying accrued rights ” means—(a) any right to future benefits under the AWE Pension Scheme which, at the qualifying time, has accrued to or in respect of a qualifying person,(b) any entitlement under the AWE Pension Scheme to the present payment of a pension or other benefit which a qualifying person has at the qualifying time, or(c) any entitlement to benefits, or right to future benefits, under the AWE Pension Scheme which a survivor of a qualifying person has at the qualifying time in respect of the qualifying person;“the qualifying time ” means the time immediately before the date specified or described in regulations.(5) For the purposes of the definition of “qualifying accrued rights”—(a) references to pensions or other benefits (including future benefits) includes money purchase benefits, and(b) references to a right include a pension credit right.(6) Regulations under subsection (4) specifying or describing a date for the purposes of the definition of “the qualifying time” may make provision for the purposes of transfers of qualifying accrued rights generally, transfers of a particular description or a particular transfer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause provides for the pension scheme of AWE PLC (a wholly owned government company) to be transferred to a new public sector pension scheme, while preserving existing rights of scheme members. It will be the first clause of a new Chapter in Part 4 of the Bill.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, in moving government Amendment 194, I shall speak also to government Amendments 195 to 202; I would welcome the Committee’s support for them.
The AWE pension scheme is a trust-based defined benefit pension scheme for current and former employees of AWE plc, the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Since 2021, AWE plc has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence, and this pension scheme is backed by a Crown guarantee. These proposed new clauses will allow the Government to defund the existing scheme, establishing a new central government pension scheme for its members. The assets held by the scheme will be sold, with the proceeds transferred to the Treasury. The Chancellor announced this measure in her 2025 Budget, but the principle was announced in a Commons Written Ministerial Statement on 6 July 2022.
The new scheme will be an unfunded public pension scheme. This is in accordance with wider government policy that when a financial risk sits wholly with the Government, as it does here because of the Crown guarantee, it should not hold assets to cover that liability. The taxpayer is already exposed to the risks and the liability can be managed more efficiently in the round, along with other unfunded liabilities met out of general taxation. This measure will help to ensure that liabilities are funded in the most efficient way while ensuring the long-term security of members’ benefits. I assure the Committee that these clauses protect the rights that members of the AWE pension scheme have accrued under the current scheme. Neither the terms nor the benefits will be affected. The new public scheme must make provision that is, in all material respects, at least as good as that under the AWE pension scheme.
The new clauses in Amendments 194 and 195 provide that the new scheme should be established by regulations and set out the kind of provision that may be made by these regulations and any amending regulations. Although these are fairly standard for public schemes, I assure the Committee that the Government have considered carefully how these may be relevant to this scheme. The new clause in Amendment 197 ensures that the scheme rules cannot be amended unless prescribed procedures have been followed. In most cases, the requirement is to consult. However, if the proposed amendment might adversely affect members’ rights, the regulations must prescribe additional procedures to protect the interests of members, including obtaining the consent of interested persons or their representatives.
The new clause in Amendment 198 will enable the Government to direct the disposal of the assets currently held by the pension scheme for the benefit of the Exchequer. As we expect that the bulk of the assets will be sold before the new scheme is established, regulations under this clause will ensure that the trustees’ liabilities will be met by public funds, thus ensuring that pensions in payment will not be affected. Regulations under this clause will also be able to exempt the trustee or AWE plc from any liability that might otherwise arise because they have complied with the Government’s direction. This will include the power to disapply or modify specified statutory provisions. These powers can be used only in relation to regulations made under this clause and are intended to protect the trustee. For example, we expect that we will need to disapply the scheme funding regime in relation to the scheme once the sale of the assets begins.
The new clause in Amendment 199 ensures that the transfer of the AWE pension scheme to a new public scheme will be tax neutral, meaning that no additional or unexpected tax liabilities will arise for those affected by the changes. The new clause in Amendment 200 will give the Government the power to make regulations requiring individuals or organisations to provide the information needed to establish the new public scheme, administer the scheme and transfer accrued rights. It should be noted that the Government do not expect to use these powers, as we are working with the AWE pension trustees and others to ensure a smooth transition for the benefit of all members. This provision will be required only in case of non-compliance.
New Clause 201 ensures proper consultation and parliamentary scrutiny for regulations made under this part of the Bill, particularly those affecting the establishment and operation of the new public pension scheme and the transfer of assets. The Government are required to consult the trustee of the AWE pension scheme before making regulations to establish the new public scheme, transfer accrued rights or transfer assets and liabilities. This ensures that the interests of scheme members will be fully considered. Regulations that could adversely affect existing rights, have retrospective effect or set financial penalties are subject to the affirmative procedure. This ensures that significant changes are subject to parliamentary approval and scrutiny. All other regulations under this part of the Bill are subject to the negative procedure, which provides flexibility while maintaining accountability. I hope that this explains the plans for the AWE pension scheme. I commend these amendments to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendments 194 to 202. The Government’s letter states that the liabilities of the AWE pension scheme will no longer be pre-funded, that the assets of the scheme will be sold and that scheme members will be protected in line with the approach taken to other pensions guaranteed by the Government. The proposed amendments to the Bill are said to provide the legislative framework to achieve this outcome. They would enable the creation of a new public pension scheme into which the accrued rights of AWE scheme members would be transferred. For the avoidance of doubt, Amendment 198 does not establish a conventional funded public sector pension scheme. Instead, it appears to create a hybrid transition mechanism which ultimately results in an unfunded public liability.
In a genuinely funded scheme, assets and liabilities move together into a continuing pension fund. The provisions break the link between members’ accrued rights and any dedicated asset backing. By contrast, a private sector defined benefit pension scheme is funded and backed by invested assets. It is governed by a statement of investment principles, which sets risk tolerance, balances growth and security, aligns investments with member liabilities and is overseen by trustees acting under a fiduciary duty to scheme members. Once members’ rights are transferred into the new public scheme, there is no guaranteed asset pool, there is no meaningful statement of investment principles and benefits are met from future public expenditure rather than from scheme assets, as the Minister explained.
The effect of this is a material change in the nature of members’ interests. Rights that were previously supported by a funded scheme, overseen by fiduciary trustees and governed by a statement of investment principles would instead rest on a statutory public sector framework. In that framework, the investment strategy and long-term funding are determined through central government processes and are therefore exposed to future fiscal and policy decisions. Although the Government’s interest in AWE plc is public in ownership terms, these provisions do not operate at a general or class level. They apply to a single named employer and to a closed and identifiable group of scheme members for whom a bespoke statutory framework is being created. This is the problem.
It is for these reasons that there remains a credible argument that the amendments are prima facie hybridising. I know about this because on Thursday 8 January I tabled my public sector amendment to the Bill, which is now Amendment 217. I was required to amend it before tabling because it named more than one specific pension scheme, as Amendments 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200 and 202 do. Interestingly and I think unusually, Amendment 199 also deals with taxation, which is something I confess I have not seen before, but there may be a precedent. My amendment did not move members’ interests at all. It simply required a review of the affordability, sustainability and accounting treatment of public sector schemes. That stands in contrast to the far more substantive and immediate changes affected by Amendments 198 to 202. My original amendment was rejected on grounds of hybridity and I had to take out the specific scheme references. Somehow—and it feels rather suspicious—the Government’s hybrid amendment was accepted by the Public Bill Office.
I urge the Committee to reflect carefully on the nature and consequences of what is proposed and the precedent that it may set for hybridity. I invite the Minister to consider this and to consider perhaps introducing amendments to Amendments 195 to 202 or withdrawing the amendments until the implications are considered by an appropriate constitutional expert. Obviously, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why we are facing this situation at this point in time. My issue is with the hybridity rather than with the details of the AWE pension scheme, which is not a matter on which I am in any way expert.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I have one quick question to obtain reassurance, I hope, from the Minister in relation to Amendment 199 on taxation. I imagine that it is consequent on some of the problems that we had with the McCloud remedy, which required tax changes and the Treasury to intervene. The amendment uses the word “may”, which allows the Treasury to do it if it wishes. Should that not be “must”, in that what we are promising AWE is that nobody will be tax disadvantaged? I put that to the Minister and ask for some reassurance.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I have a couple of questions. I must confess that these stem from previous occasions when promises to be at least as good do not appear to have happened, as in the AEA transfer. I am a little suspicious of this, as it seems to be in the same kind of area.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have Amendment 203ZC in this group, but unfortunately the Committee has not received a copy of my amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
Good. I now have it and I want to check that everyone else has it too. That is my first question dealt with.
In speaking to this amendment, the aim is to enable members of pension schemes that have gone into the PPF after their assessment period to be extracted, with regulations laid that will govern the terms on which they can be extracted. This is particularly relevant to the AEAT scheme: I know that we will come to this in later groups, with a requirement for a review of the situation. My amendment is trying to facilitate a practical resolution to the problems faced by the Atomic Energy Authority scheme. There are parallels with the Atomic Weapons Establishment or AWE scheme: employees originally had a scheme similar to and in fact derived from that of the UK AEA.
The AWE staff and their pensions were transferred to the private sector, and in 2022 the Government granted a Crown guarantee to the private company scheme. However, members of the AEA scheme were told that the scheme that they were encouraged to transfer to in 1996 would be as secure as that provided by the Atomic Energy Authority public sector scheme. This was not the case, though, because it was not offered a Treasury guarantee. It would appear that the Government Actuary’s Department failed to carry out a proper risk assessment of the various options offered to those members in 1996. Indeed, they were apparently specifically told not to worry about the security of the scheme to which they transferred all their accrued benefits. Of course, all these accrued benefits are pre-1997.
What happened after that is that they went into a private sector scheme. It was a closed section of that scheme, only for the members who transferred their public sector rights into it. The public sector rights had full inflation protection for pre-1997 and members paid an extra 30% or so contribution into that private sector scheme in order to conserve the inflation protection. However, as part of that, the pension they were saving for, the base pension, was lower than the one for those members in the open scheme who had joined not from the public sector. They were working on the principle that that their scheme was secure and that they would be getting the uplifts of inflation. When it failed—the private sector company went bust in 2012—and they went into the PPF in 2016, they suddenly discovered that they had paid 30% more for inflation protection, which was gone. And because they had paid 30% more for that protection and were accruing a lower pension, a 180th instead of a 160th scheme, their whole compensation was lower than that of everybody else who had not had any assurances from the Government that transferring their previous rights into a private sector scheme would generate these kinds of losses.
This is probably the worst example I have seen of government reassurance and failed recognition of the risks of transferring from a guaranteed public sector scheme into a private sector scheme. This amendment seeks to require the Government to lay regulations that would transfer members out of the PPF, those members of the closed scheme, if they wish to. I am not forcing anyone to do so within this amendment. You have to offer them the option of going or staying if they are satisfied with the PPF. Also, a sum of money may need to be paid to the PPF, which would take away the liability and thereby reduce PPF liabilities, but also sets up an alternative scheme that could be along the lines of the AWE arrangements, for example. That would potentially be another option. On privatisation, the Government received a substantial sum of money from the sale of that company, the private sector takeover of the commercial arm of the Atomic Energy Authority. That delivered less money than was paid to the private sector scheme to take over the liabilities. Therefore, the Government have money to pay with, which they have never really acknowledged.
I hope that this amendment is a potentially direct way to help the AEAT scheme, if the Government are minded to consider it. It builds on a provision that is already in the Pensions Act 2004, which talks about situations whereby there is a discharge of liabilities in respect of the compensation, which this amendment would be doing. It prescribes the way in which subsection (2)(d) of Section 169 of the Pensions Act 2004 could be used to help the AEAT scheme.
I have also been approached by a private sector employer whose scheme failed and went into the PPF. At the time, the employer did not have sufficient resources to buy out more than the Pension Protection Fund benefits for his staff. He now is in a position to do that and would like to do so but, at the moment, he cannot get his scheme extracted. He is willing to pay an extra premium to do that, in pursuance of a moral duty to try to give his past staff better-than-PPF benefits. That is what this amendment is designed to achieve. It is built on the connection between AEAT and AWE, but could also help other private sector schemes if the employer feels—it would normally involve smaller schemes—that there is a moral obligation that they can now meet, financially, to recompense members at a level better than the PPF, once the assessment period is over and the resources have gone in, and to take it back out again.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, this group concerns the proposed transfer of the AWE pension scheme into a new public sector pension arrangement, as set out after Clause 110 in government Amendments 194 to 202, with the associated measures on extent and commencement in government Amendments 223 and 224.
At first glance, these new clauses are presented as technical and perhaps little more than an exercise in administrative tidying up, reflecting the fact that AWE plc is now a wholly government-owned company. However, on closer inspection, several questions come to mind. This represents a material transfer of long-term pension risk and does so in a way that raises serious questions around principle, process and precedent.
On an IAS 19 accounting basis, AWE plc reported a defined benefit pension deficit of £97 million as at 31 March 2025. The company has already made significant one-off contributions: £30 million in March 2024, following an earlier £34.4 million in March 2022. These payments form part of a recovery plan agreed with the trustee and the Ministry of Defence, and the position is subject to ongoing review. This is an active funding challenge, one that should be considered carefully.
The provisions before us establish a bespoke statutory framework for a single named company. They provide for the creation of a new public sector pension scheme, the transfer of assets and liabilities, the protection of accrued rights, specific tax treatment, information-sharing powers, consultation requirements and arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny. All of this is meticulously itemised and carefully drafted.
Yet my concern lies not with the drafting but with the policy and constitutional choice that sit beneath it. We are told repeatedly that members’ rights will be preserved; that phrase carries considerable weight. The question is a simple one: which rights precisely are being preserved? Are we referring solely to rights accrued through past service or does that protection extend to future accrual as well? Does it encompass accrual rates, indexation arrangements, retirement age and survivor benefits or are members’ entitlements merely frozen as a snapshot at the point of transfer? What happens if the rules of the receiving public sector scheme change in future? These questions go to the heart of both member security and parliamentary responsibility. They deserve answers in the Bill, not assurances in principle or reliance on mechanisms that may evolve long after this Committee has given its consent.
There are also practical questions that remain unanswered. How exactly will trustees be formally discharged of their responsibilities? Additionally, does this change relate to DC members? Will each defined contribution pot be automatically converted or will past defined contribution rights be crystallised, with future accrual taking place under a defined benefit structure? For scheme members, these questions go to the very heart of retirement security.
I also question the decision to legislate company by company. This new clause is not objectionable because it concerns pensions; it is objectionable because it concerns one named corporate identity. Primary legislation should set rules of general application.
If the policy rationale here is sound, and if it is right that the pension schemes of wholly owned government companies should be transferred into the public sector on certain terms, that principle should be capable of being expressed generally and should not be hard-coded for AWE alone. Otherwise, we will face an unhappy choice in the future: if AWE’s status changes again, Ministers must either live with an outdated statute on the books or return to Parliament with yet another Bill to amend it. Neither outcome represents good lawmaking.
There are also practical questions that I hope the Minister will address. Will members receive individualised benefits statements, comparing their position before and after the transfer in clear, comprehensible terms? What support will be made available for members who need independent guidance, rather than reassurance from the scheme sponsor itself? Will there be formal consultation with scheme members and recognised unions, and will the responses to that consultation be published?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I will start by discussing Amendment 203ZC and then come to the other amendments.
Amendment 203ZC would add new provisions to the Pensions Act, which would mean that, if an alternative sponsor provided a sufficient premium, a cash payment or alternative arrangement could be provided for members of that scheme that secured better benefits than the PPF level of compensation. The amendment seeks in particular to help members of the AEA Technology pension scheme. As we have heard, AEAT was formed in 1989 as the commercial arm of the UK Atomic Energy Authority—UKAEA—and was subsequently privatised in 1996. Employees who were transferred to AEAT joined the company’s new pension scheme, and most of them opted to transfer their accrued UKAEA pension into a closed section of the AEAT pension scheme. In 2012, 16 years later, AEAT went into administration, and the AEAT pension scheme subsequently entered the PPF.
I express my sympathy for all AEAT pension scheme members; I recognise their position. I am pleased to say that on pre-1997 indexation in PPF, which is an issue for AEAT members, we have listened and acted. Those with pre-1997 accruals and whose schemes provided for pre-1997 increases, which includes AEAT members, will benefit from this change.
However, the Government do not support this amendment. The noble Baroness outlined some of the issues around AEAT, but this case has been fully considered. We set this out in our response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry on DB pensions. These investigations included, but are not limited to, reviews by three relevant ombudsmen, debates in the Commons in 2015 and 2016 and a report by the NAO in 2023. This matter has also been considered by previous Governments in the period since AEAT went into the PPF, all of whom reached the same conclusion.
AEAT members have asserted that upon privatisation, insufficient funds were transferred into the scheme. As I understand it from historic responses, this amount was based on the financial assumptions at the time, and the trustees of the scheme agreed the transfer value. Members have also outlined that, given the amount transferred to the PPF, with investment, they could now be paid their full pension. However, the PPF does not work that way; let me explain why.
When schemes enter PPF assessment, evaluation is generally undertaken to determine whether there are enough assets to secure at least PPF-level benefits. Sufficiently well-funded schemes can come out of the assessment supported by PPF-appointed trustees to secure greater benefits than PPF compensation. Schemes that are funded below this level are transferred into the PPF. The PPF does not permit transfers out because it does not work as a segregated fund where individual scheme contributions are ring-fenced and can later be transferred out. That is due to PPF investment policies because the only grounds on which that might happen would be, for example, if PPF investment policies were such that they then became better funded.
The reason that does not work is that the PPF is a compensation scheme operating in the interests of all its members. It is not a collection of individual pension schemes. Funds transferred in from underfunded schemes and insolvency recoveries, alongside the levy and investment returns, are all brought together. Allowing members of schemes that have entered the PPF to transfer back out would undermine its ability to provide compensation for all its members and for future schemes in the case of employer insolvency.
This amendment changes the purpose of the PPF as a compensation fund and that safety net in case of employer insolvency. Schemes go into the PPF either because an alternative sponsor cannot be found to take on the scheme’s liabilities or because the scheme is unable to secure benefits that correspond to at least PPF compensation levels. We do not expect alternative sponsors will be found to pay a premium for schemes that have transferred into the PPF. Additionally, it would place a different role on the board of the PPF to undertake a member-by-member assessment of whether members would get better benefits through a transfer. We do not underestimate the difficulty of this, given the decades since many schemes, such as the AEAT, entered the PPF. Changing the PPF’s role and how it operates as set out would need to be much more broadly considered, alongside impacts on the PPF and potentially unintended consequences.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
Section 169(2)(d) in the Pensions Act 2004 seems to make provision for this to happen. Therefore, what is the purpose of that clause? I am trying to build on that to specify circumstances in which it could happen. Of course, when a scheme is in the assessment period, it can be extracted. I am trying to say that if it has gone in and can improve the funding of the PPF by paying a premium and give members more than they would have in the PPF, why would there be an objection?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The challenge of this is that of course schemes can come out in the assessment period. That is the point of the assessment period: to work out whether there is a sponsor or enough funds, which could, with appropriate support, be able to deliver greater-than-PPF benefits, in which case the scheme may go out again. It goes into the PPF only if that cannot be the case. Once it has gone in, the scheme does not exist anymore. There are no scheme assets because, at that point, the members are not scheme members but members of a compensation scheme. It cannot be the case that, years later, someone should come along and say, “We now want to try to move a group of former members of a particular scheme back out of the PPF”. That simply does not work.
The noble Baroness asked something else. I apologise for being slightly confused earlier on: I thought this was going to be part of the previous group, so I am slightly scrabbling around trying to put my speaking notes in the right place. The noble Baroness is trying to draw a comparison between AWE and this. Although they were both DB pension schemes in the nuclear industry, the two situations are entirely different. AEAT was created in 1989 as the commercial arm of the UKAEA. It became a private company, with no further government involvement in ownership or management.
By contrast, AWE, which is responsible for manufacturing, maintaining and developing the UK’s nuclear warheads, has since the 1950s either been government owned or the Government have held a special share in the company. It became fully owned by HMG again in 2021, when it became an NDPB. As the Government own and fund AWE, they are also responsible for funding its pension scheme responsibilities. That is why the AWE has a Crown guarantee, granted in 2022, shortly after it became a public body of the MoD, having previously been government owned. I hope that explains why the two are differently treated.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I respectfully ask the Minister to consider the possibility, which is arising, of someone who can come along after the assessment period and pay more than the PPF can provide. As I say, that could help the PPF’s funding. It should not in any way impact on the levy, and it is an option to permit that to happen. So my amendment, building on what is already in the Pensions Act 2004 but which has not yet been used, given that schemes are in surplus, would allow them to do that.
The other thing I will say is that everyone in the closed section of the AEAT with accruals before 1997 was in the public sector. They were members of a public sector scheme, and they were advised by the Government Actuary’s Department that if they transferred they would not need to worry about the security of their pension, but that turned out not to be the case. I therefore hope the Minister can see the parallels. I know she is in a difficult position on this, but I thank her for her consideration.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am not in a difficult position. The Government’s position is clear: these are not comparable schemes. One has a Crown guarantee, for the reasons that I have explained, while the other does not because, for a significant portion of its history, it was a private company. It was privatised, and it subsequently went into administration. Those are not comparable situations. While I have sympathy for the position of individual scheme members, that does not make the two comparable or the Government’s responsibility comparable. I am certainly not aware that someone is out there waiting to sponsor this, although the noble Baroness may be. She is nodding to me, and if she wants to share with the Committee that she has a sponsor ready to do that, I would be glad to hear it, but the idea that this would routinely be a pattern where, for lots of long-dead pension schemes, sponsors are waiting to draw them out just would not be practical for the PPF.
I am also advised that the subsection 2(d) that the noble Baroness mentioned is not in force. That does not make a difference to her argument, but it may make a difference to the nature of this.
I shall try to return now to the issue that we were talking about earlier on, the AWE scheme. On hybridity, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that my understanding is that hybrid bills affect the general public but also have a significant impact on the private interests of specified groups. In this case, there is no impact on the general public, only on AWE members. That follows the precedent in Royal Mail and Bradford and Bingley/Northern Rock legislation. This also refers to schemes that were or are to be defunded and replaced with public schemes. I hope that explains why this is not hybrid. I cannot comment on why the clerks did not accept her amendment because I did not quite catch what it was that she was comparing it with.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it may be that those are precedents that have been passed in legislation, but I am not clear that they have been put into this sort of Bill. The problem with the amendments is that they are a mixture of the general and the individual. That is what creates hybridity, which is why I ran into trouble with the Table Office when I tried to table my amendment. However, the Minister’s amendment seems not to have run into that issue, so that is something that we need to consider. Perhaps the Minister could have a look at it and bring the amendments back on Report, assuming that she is right and there is not a hybridity issue. I am very concerned about a constitutional innovation without expert guidance. She wrote a letter; I did not get it, but obviously I have been taking advice on this. It is slightly outside the remit of what we are able to agree on.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. In the light of her comments, I do not know enough about what she tried to do and why it did not work. I would like to be able to compare them. Given that she makes a perfectly sensible suggestion, I happy to withdraw the amendment and make sure that I can answer her question before we come back on Report, if that is okay with noble Lords. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton
“Indexation of pre-1997 pensions(1) The Pensions Act 1995 is amended as follows.(2) In Section 51 (annual increase in rate of pension)—(a) omit subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c)(ii);(b) in subsection (2)—(i) omit “on or after April 1997”;(ii) omit “to payments in respect of employment carried on or after April 1997”;(iii) omit “or, as the case may be, to payments in respect of employment carried on or after April 1997”;(c) in subsection (4ZE), omit “or, as the case may be, to payments in respect of employment carried on or after April 1997”;(d) in subsection (5)(a), omit “6 April 1997 or”;(e) in subsection (8)(a) and (b), omit “at any time on or after 6 April 1997”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would remove references to 6 April 1997 from section 51 of the Pensions Act 1995 in order to require that annual increases to pension payments in line with CPI and RPI apply to pensionable service both before and after 6 April 1997.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to try to put this issue into context. This is the third leg of our discussion, which centres on what we do now in relation to benefits that accrued for pensionable service prior to 1997.
I am going to take the Committee into a little history. The 1997 date was set by the Pensions Act 1995. I was there; although I had long left the TUC, because the TUC’s normal pensions officer had taken leave of absence for a few months, I was, in effect, acting as the TUC’s pensions officer at the time. On the background, in terms of what people understood about pension increases at that time, I will go all the way back to 1971, when the Pensions (Increase) Act was passed. In 1971, it was obviously under a Conservative Government. They linked public service pensions to inflation—initially RPI then subsequently, from 2011, CPI. That was all well and good. It set the standard, quite properly, for the Government of good pension provision, including increases. I make no apology for that. I am sure that we will return to this issue when we have the debate at our next meeting on public service pensions. The Conservative Government set that standard.
Then, in 1981—again, under a Conservative Government —Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister, decided, egged on by Aims of Industry, that there should be a review of pensions and pension increases. She took a personal interest—it is all there in the Thatcher archives—and established the Scott inquiry. Chaired by Sir Bernard Scott, a prominent businessperson at the time, it was a five-person inquiry that undertook a detailed study of pension increases, starting with public service pensions. We do not hear much about this inquiry now—there is another more famous Scott inquiry—because it came up with the wrong answer. Despite the committee being hand-picked by the Prime Minister, it came up with the answer she did not want. It said that index-linking was justified—it is worth saying here that, when it says “index-linking”, it is talking about the limited price index, or LPI, so not full indexation in all circumstances but up to a limit—and that there was no case for its removal from public service schemes.
The committee decided that public service pensions were not overly generous overall. It pointed out that the main driver of costs for public service pensions was not index-linking but the final salary benefit structure. Again, as an aside, it is worth noting that, from 2011 onwards, public service schemes moved away from that; they are now all average salary schemes. The committee advocated for parity of pension increases with state pension increases. So this committee, which was set up to tell the world how bad index-linking was, said that everyone should have index-linking. That was in 1981.
There is another stage. Originally, when schemes contracted out, they promised to provide GMPs. Initially, the GMPs were not index-linked but had a flat rate, and the state scheme was left to provide the indexing on the fixed flat-rate private sector schemes. However, by 1986, it was decided that the private sector schemes could provide LPI, initially at 3%. The scheme had to provide GMP, but it provided inflation linking up to 3%, and inflation over that would still come from the state scheme. This is where the contracting out becomes incredibly complicated, of course. That change to the GMP was when a Conservative Government introduced an additional element of index-linking in occupational schemes.
Then we had the Maxwell scandal, the subsequent Goode report and the Pensions Act 1995. There is a theme here. It was a Conservative Government; William Hague was the Secretary of State. From 1997, they introduced LPI index-linking, initially up to 5% and subsequently reduced to 2.5% in 2005—unfortunately, that was a Labour Government, but there you go. So there is this whole consistent move towards limited price indexation in occupational schemes. It became the accepted approach to providing occupational schemes. A scheme that did not provide some element of indexation in retirement was seen as an inferior scheme.
I was there, as I say, so what was my experience? Many schemes, particularly larger schemes, had LPI in the rules pre 1997, following Scott in the early 1980s. Schemes have gradually introduced it more and more; of course, index-linked bonds were introduced specifically as a follow-on from the Scott report. So many schemes, particularly large schemes, had LPI in the rules.
Other schemes said, “We’re going to provide indexation but we’ll do it under discretionary powers”. However, they still expected to provide increases and funded for them. It is my view, having been there, that, pre 1997, the number of schemes making no allowances for LPI increases was vanishingly small. For some, it was in the rules; for others, it was in the funding basis. Practically every member had a reasonable expectation of LPI in retirement in respect of the benefits that they accrued pre 1997. The statutory requirement was introduced to cover all schemes, as recommended by the Goode report; that was absolutely right.
So the suggestion that people are unreasonable in expecting their pre-1997 benefits to be increased is entirely wrong. It was entirely reasonable for them, and that is what people believed at the time, although they may not have a legal entitlement. This does not affect just the PPF or the Financial Assistance Scheme, where we are told that, if the scheme did not have it in the rules, it will not get these increases. It particularly affects active pension schemes—not necessarily those with new entrants, but those with pensioners to whom the scheme is paying money.
Many of the members will have benefits accrued before 1997, and those members have a reasonable expectation of increases. That is why I move Amendment 203 as a basis for discussion at this stage. In the light of what we hear, I may come back to the issue on Report. The law can now move to requiring increases on pensions accrued pre-1997, whatever it said in the rules, because it is a question of not legal but political justification. Politically, people can reasonably expect the Government to provide them with justice, and there is a reasonable moral expectation that they should now get limited price indexation on their benefits accrued prior to 1997.
The issue here is the position in which so many members find themselves. Their trustees—who were perhaps more engaged, years ago, with the operation of the scheme in those days—gave them a reasonable expectation of the benefits. I wrote to many schemes around that time, asking them what their practice was, having got an increase in the rules. Many of them wrote back to me and said, “Yes, we expect to increase these pensions and we are funding the scheme on that basis”.
Trying now, 30 years later, to distinguish between schemes that provided for these increases in the rules and in the funding basis is politically and morally wrong. These people have a reasonable expectation, and we have this opportunity to see that they are treated correctly. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendment, and I would love the Government to find themselves able to accept it. I would certainly agree on the moral case and on the historical justification for members having reasonable expectations that their pensions would not suddenly be whittled away to a fraction of what they would previously have had. The Goode report recommended unlimited inflation protection, but it was limited when it came in and it was only from 1997 onwards rather than retrospectively. There are echoes there of what we have just heard about the Pension Protection Fund.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is here; he was instrumental in campaigning for the Allied Steel and Wire members and worked so hard to help them, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, also did. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is no longer here, but this would certainly apply to the Allied Steel and Wire members, and I urge the Government to look at the amendments. I fear that there may be little appetite, given that our previously much more modest suggestions were rejected and bearing in mind that not all schemes are in surplus—there may be an issue. But, if the Government were so minded, there is certainly a good case for considering the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, so ably moved.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and I am grateful to him for his tour d’horizon on the history behind this issue with the uprating, going back through several parties and Parliaments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I fully understand why members find this proposal attractive. The idea that pensions should keep pace with inflation feels intuitively fair, of course, but we think that mandating inflation increases for all pre-1997 service in live defined benefit schemes would be a step too far.
This amendment would dictate in statute how trustees and employers must use scheme resources and any surplus. We believe that this is overly prescriptive and risks being actively anti-business. Many employers are already using DB surpluses constructively, and that includes improving DC contributions for younger workers, supporting intergenerational fairness, and strengthening scheme security through insurance-backed arrangements and special purpose vehicles. We think that these are sensible negotiated outcomes, reflecting the needs of both members and sponsors.
It is also important to remember that employers have carried DB risk for decades. When funding assumptions proved wrong, when markets fell or when longevity rose faster than expected, it was employers who stepped in, often for many years, through additional contributions and balance sheet strain—that might be an understatement. I choose to use a casino analogy, not to make light of a serious subject but to illustrate the basic logic of risk sharing. Here goes.
In a defined benefit scheme, the employer and members effectively walk into a casino together. Trustees place bets on behalf of the scheme on how much risk to take in the investment strategy, what funding assumptions to use, how quickly to de-risk, how to price longevity and inflation exposure. Members benefit if those bets perform well because the scheme is safer and more likely to deliver the promised pension in full. But, crucially, if those bets go wrong—that is, if markets fall, inflation spikes, people live longer than expected or the assumptions prove too optimistic—the bill lands not on members but on the employer. The sponsoring employer is legally on the hook to repair the damage, often through years of additional contributions, cash calls at the worst possible moment and significant strain on the balance sheet. That is what the employer covenant means in practice: it is the backstop when the world does not behave as forecast, which, as we know, it often does not.
So, if we accept that the employer is the party that must cover the losses when the scheme is underwater, surely it cannot be right to argue that, when the scheme comes in above water—when investment returns are strong, funding improves and a surplus emerges—the employer must be barred in principle from any share of that upside. That is not risk sharing; it is risk asymmetry. Heads, the members win; tails, the employer loses. In any rational system, if one party is compelled to underwrite the downside, that party must be permitted—subject, of course, to trustee oversight and member protection—to share in the upside. If we legislate for a system where the sponsor carries all the risk but is denied any benefit when outcomes are good, surely we distort incentives. We make sponsorship less attractive and encourage employers to close schemes faster, de-risk more aggressively or avoid offering good provision in the first place.
This is a crucial point. The fair outcome is not that employers take everything or that members do. It is that surplus is discussed and allocated jointly by trustees and employers, balancing member security, scheme sustainability and the long-term health of the sponsoring employer. That is partnership. Legislation should support that balance but not override it; that is a crucial point.
Mandating automatic inflation uplift would also have wider consequences: higher employer costs; increased insolvency risk, ultimately borne by the PPF; knock-on effects on wages, investment and employment; and, potentially, higher PPF levies. For PPF schemes, uplift is manageable because the employer covenant has gone and Parliament controls the compensation framework. Imposing similar requirements on live schemes, however, risks destabilising otherwise healthy employers. In short, uplift should be an option, not a statutory obligation. As I said earlier, decisions should rest with trustees and employers together and not be compelled by legislation.
That said, focusing on choice does not mean ignoring power imbalances, because in some schemes genuine deadlock leads trustees to sit on surplus and de-risk further. That may be understandable, but I think it is fair to say it is inefficient. Government should be looking at how to enable better use of surplus by agreement, not mandating outcomes. Much more needs to be done on breaking deadlocks, but we believe that Amendment 203 is not the right way to do it.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
May I just correct the record? I believe that the Goode committee may indeed have recommended limited price inflation up to 5%, and I apologise to the Committee.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for introducing his amendment and for the history lesson. It is living history, but he always has the edge on me because he goes back to 1975, and at that point I was more interested in boys and make-up, so I simply cannot compete, I confess, on that front.
The reality is that this Government have to start in 2026 and where we are now, so we have to address what the right thing to do now is for the DB pension universe and for the schemes in general. I can totally understand why my noble friend has introduced this amendment. Members of some schemes are concerned about the impact of inflation on their retirement incomes, and I am sympathetic. We have been around this in previous groups. This amendment would remove references to 6 April 1997 as the start date for the legal requirement on schemes to pay annual increases on pensions in payment. Obviously, as my noble friend indicated, legislation requires increases on DB pensions in payment to be done only from 6 April 1997. That has been a pretty long-standing framework which reflects the balance that Parliament judged appropriate at the time between member protection and affordability for schemes and employers. These changes are normally not backdated; they are normally brought in prospectively.
Most schemes already provide indexation on pre-1997 pensions, either because it is required under the scheme rules or because they choose to award discretionary increases. The Pensions Regulator has done some analysis and is doing more work on this. The latest analysis indicates that practices differ, but many schemes have a track record of awarding such increases. However, imposing a legal requirement on schemes now to pay indexation on pre-1997 benefits would create costs that schemes and employers may simply not have planned for. These costs may well not have been factored into the original funding assumptions or contribution rates. For some schemes and employers, these additional unplanned costs could be unaffordable and could put the scheme’s long-term security at risk.
Many employers are working towards buyout to secure members’ benefits permanently. Decisions on discretionary increases must be considered carefully between trustees and employers against their endgame objective. The reality is that the rules for DB pension schemes inevitably involve striking a balance between the level and security of members’ benefits and affordability for employers. But minimum requirements have to be appropriate for all DB schemes and their sponsoring employers. A strong, solvent employer is essential for a scheme’s long-term financial stability, and that gives members the best protection that they will receive their promised benefits for life, as the employer is ultimately responsible for funding the scheme. Any change to that statutory minimum indexation has to work across the full range of DB schemes. This amendment would increase liabilities for all schemes, regardless of their funding position or governance arrangements. While some schemes and employers may be able to afford increasing benefits in this way, others will not.
The way DB schemes are managed and funded since the 1995 Act was introduced has changed, but the basic principle remains that we cannot increase scheme costs on previously accrued rights beyond what some schemes might be able to bear or that many employers will be willing to fund, and that remains as true now as it was then. Our view is that schemes’ trustees and the sponsoring employer have a far better understanding than the Government of their scheme’s financial position, their funding requirements, their long-term plans and therefore what they can and cannot afford. They are also best placed to consider the effect of inflation on their members benefits when making decisions about indexation. The regulator has already been clear that trustees should consider the scheme’s history of awarding discretionary increases when making decisions about indexation payments.
We discussed earlier in Committee the Government’s reforms on surplus extraction. They will allow more trustees of well-funded DB schemes to share surplus with employers to deliver better outcomes for members. As part of any agreement to release surplus funds to the employer, trustees will be better placed to negotiate additional benefits for members, which could include discretionary indexation. Although I understand the case my noble friend is making—I regret that I cannot make him and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, as happy as they wish—I hope that, for all the reasons I have outlined, he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank those who have taken part in this debate on an important issue. Many people out there—I have had messages from people who are watching this debate—hope for better news. I am sorry that at this stage the Government are maintaining the line.
On the question of history, I could go back to the 1960s and Richard Crossman’s national superannuation if people would like—I am even slightly tempted to start. But the bit of history I remember is in the 1980s, when many schemes had surpluses and the Government introduced, through the Inland Revenue, limits on surpluses, compelling schemes to deal with them. At that time, employers said to us—I was involved in many negotiations—“Okay, it’s fine, we’ll take the surpluses now, but depend on us. When things get tough, we’ll come up with the additional money required”. What happened is they gave up and walked away. That is why the Labour Government in the early part of this century introduced funding requirements, the Pension Protection Fund and so on because, ultimately, when employers and trustees were put to the test, all too often they failed to deliver the promises that they made when surpluses were available.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, rightly tied this to the issue of surpluses and certainly there will be an opportunity on Report to discuss the linkage between employers getting refunds from their schemes and providing better increases for members. That is such an obvious linkage. I would want to go beyond that, but the issue will continue. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(b) may impose a scheme-based pension protection levy in respect of a description of eligible scheme (or in respect of all eligible schemes) or may impose both a risk-based pension protection levy and a scheme-based pension protection levy in respect of a description of eligible scheme (or in respect of all eligible schemes).”Member’s explanatory statement
If the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) needs to raise a pension protection levy in future, this amendment would give the PPF more flexibility as to how to raise a levy and to decide at the relevant time whether to raise a risk-based levy, a scheme-based levy, or both (as well as the appropriate proportions between them).
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is removing the requirement for the Pension Protection Fund to charge a levy each year, and the PPF has said for some time that there will not be one this year. Indeed, our discussions on other issues today have taken us into speculation as to whether there would ever need to be a levy again if the PPF is self-funding on the investment income from its current surplus assets.
The purpose of these amendments is to give the PPF more flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and the changing landscape should a levy be needed in the future, recognising that that future might be quite a long way away. As we are now in a more robust world than when the levy was created, with the PPF and this £14 billion surplus, the levy is no longer needed and we do not know when it will need to be raised again.
Amendment 203A would add flexibility to the PPF fund-raising provision so that it can raise funds that are either scheme-based or risk-based or both. That replaces the present Bill position that a scheme-based levy can be provided only if there is also a risk-based levy. Amendment 203B is consequential, and Amendment 203C would remove the requirement for at least 80% of the levy to be risk-based, which is obviously incompatible with the all-round flexibility that I am proposing in Amendment 203A. Thus, the PPF would be able to decide the type of levy and the balance between the two. The PPF itself has already publicly commented that it would support greater flexibility, and there might need to be a case for a greater proportion of any levy to be scheme-based.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. I very much support the aims of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to ensure there is proper flexibility in the levy paid by companies to the PPF. The PPF can then use its discretion to decide which companies should pay more than others and which companies are more secure than others in terms of their pension schemes. The current requirement is based on circumstances that have fundamentally changed over the past 20 years or so, since the whole system was first thought of.
The PPF is one of our incredible success stories in terms of protecting people’s pensions by successfully investing money that it has taken in. It has worked far better than anyone would have anticipated at the time, and we need to pay tribute to those who have been running the PPF; they have done an extraordinarily good job in the face of sometimes very difficult circumstances. I hope that the Government will think favourably about the possibility of allowing the PPF this kind of flexibility, given that the situation with pension schemes, surpluses and funding levels has changed so fundamentally.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, are thoughtful and proportionate. They raise genuinely important questions about how we can future-proof the operation of the Pension Protection Fund.
Clause 113 amends the provisions requiring the PPF board to collect a levy that enables the board to decide whether a levy should be collected at all. It removes the restriction that prevents the board reducing the levy to zero or a low amount and then raising it again within a reasonable timeframe. We welcome this change. It was discussed when the statutory instrument passed through the House, at which point we asked a number of questions and engaged constructively with the Government.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would go further; once again, the arguments she advances are compelling. Amendment 203A in particular seems to offer a sensible way to shape behaviour without micromanaging it—a lesson on which the Government may wish to reflect more broadly, especially in relation to the mandation policy. If schemes know that the levy will always be raised in one rigid way, behaviour adapts, and not always in a good way. In contrast, with greater flexibility, employers retain incentives to keep schemes well funded, trustees are rewarded for reducing risk and the levy system does not quietly encourage reckless behaviour on the assumption that everyone pays anyway.
This amendment matters because it would ensure that, if the PPF needed to raise additional funds, it could do so in the least damaging and fairest way possible at the relevant time. I fully appreciate that the PPF is a complex area but, as the market has changed and is changing, and as the pensions landscape continues to evolve, the PPF must be involved in that journey. These are precisely the kinds of questions that should be examined now, not after rigidity has caused unintended harm.
I turn briefly to Amendment 203C. We are open to finding ways to prevent the levy framework becoming overly rigid, which is precisely why we supported the statutory instrument when it came before the House. Instead of hardwiring an 80% risk-based levy requirement into law, this amendment would place trust in the Pension Protection Fund to raise money in the fairest and least destabilising way, given the conditions of the year. Flexibility may well be the way forward. I have a simple question for the Minister: have the Government considered these proposals? If the answer is yes, why have they chosen not to proceed? If it is no, will they commit to considering these proposals between now and Report? I believe that that would be a constructive and proportionate next step.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for introducing her amendments and explaining why she wants to advance them. As she said, taken together, they would give the PPF much more flexibility—full flexibility, in fact—in deciding how to set the levy by removing the requirement for at least 80% of the PPF levy to be risk-based. Obviously, in the current legislation, 80% of the levy has to be based on the risk that schemes pose to the PPF; this supports the underlying principle that the schemes that pose the greatest risk should pay the highest levy.
Although the PPF is responsible for setting the pension protection levy, restrictions in the Pensions Act 2004 prevent it significantly reducing the levy or choosing not to collect a levy when it is not needed. As has been noted, the PPF is in a stronger financial position and is less reliant on the levy to maintain its financial sustainability. That is why, through the Bill, we are giving it greater flexibility to adjust the annual pension protection levy by removing the current legislative restrictions.
Clause 113 will enable the PPF to reduce the levy significantly, even to zero, and raise it again within a reasonable timescale if it becomes necessary. To reassure levy payers, Clause 113 provides a safeguard that prevents the board charging a levy that is more than the sum of the previous year’s levy and 25% of the previous year’s levy ceiling. The legislative framework will also enable the PPF to continue to charge a levy to schemes it considers pose a specific risk. In support of this change, the PPF announced a zero levy for 2025-26 for conventional DB schemes and is consulting on setting a zero levy for these schemes in the next financial year. That would unlock millions of pounds in savings for schemes and boost investment potential, and it has been widely welcomed by stakeholders.
On the way forward, as the PPF is not currently collecting any levies from conventional schemes, whether risk based or scheme based, the make-up of the split is less consequential for schemes: a different percentage of a zero charge is still zero. But, while the PPF is strongly funded, it underwrites the whole £1 trillion DB universe, as I said. There is inevitably huge uncertainty about the scenarios that could lead to the possibility of the PPF needing to charge a levy again in the future, but it cannot be entirely discounted. We recognise the concern that, if that were to happen, the proposed legislation does not go far enough to allow the PPF to calculate the appropriate split between risk-based and scheme-based levies, particularly as the number of risk-based levy payers is expected to diminish over time.
Obviously, the amendments tabled here would give the PPF full discretion on how the split of the levy is calculated and set. While that may be welcomed by some, our view is that we need to consider any changes carefully to ensure that any legislation is balanced, is proportionate and gives the right flexibility while maintaining appropriate safeguards. That will take time. We will continue to consider whether further structural change to the PPF levies may be required in the future and, where it is, whether it works for the broad spectrum of eligible DB schemes, the PPF and levy payers.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the Government’s view is that there is a reason the framework is set in legislation: to give levy payers confidence on future calls. But, as I said, we will consider the way forward. I cannot say to the noble Baroness that we will do that between now and Report—it will take time to reflect on future changes and, if there are to be any, to make sure that they happen—but I am grateful to her for raising the matter and for the debate that it has produced. I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I thank noble Lords who spoke. I freely admit that they know more than I do about these aspects, so I am glad that the conversation has started. I understand that this might bring something a little less wide in due course. It is a conversation that, having started, I hope will be continued. I will think about whether I can invent something that is a little less adventurous for Report, but in the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
“Pension investment in social bonds: framework, value for money and market enablement(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish an assessment of whether a pension-specific framework should be established to support trustees of occupational pension schemes who wish to invest, where they consider it appropriate, in social bonds and other forms of social infrastructure investment.(2) The assessment must consider the extent to which such a framework could—(a) provide clarity on the application of trustees’ fiduciary duties in relation to social bonds,(b) set out principles for assessing risk, return, liquidity, duration and transparency of such investments, having regard to the long-term nature of pension liabilities,(c) support consistency and comparability in the evaluation of social bonds across schemes, and(d) facilitate trustee confidence and member understanding of such investments.(3) In particular, the Secretary of State must consider whether, and how, the social and economic outcomes associated with social bonds could be reflected within the value for money framework applicable to occupational pension schemes, including—(a) the relevance of long-term economic impacts to member outcomes,(b) the extent to which such investments may mitigate systemic or economy-wide risks material to pension savings, and(c) the presentation of information to members in a clear and proportionate manner.(4) The assessment must also consider how a pension-specific framework could support the development of a credible and investable pipeline of social bond opportunities, including— (a) how public bodies, local authorities, social enterprises or other issuers might bring forward proposals in a form suitable for consideration by pension schemes,(b) the role of standardisation, intermediaries or aggregation vehicles in reducing transaction costs and improving investability, and(c) how such proposals could be assessed on a consistent basis without imposing any obligation on pension schemes to invest.(5) In developing the assessment, the Secretary of State must consider what metrics and evidential standards would be required to ensure that any framework for social bonds is pension-specific, including—(a) metrics relating to long-term risk-adjusted financial performance,(b) alignment with the duration and cash flow characteristics of pension liabilities,(c) the financial materiality of social and economic outcomes to pension savers over time, and(d) the avoidance of reliance on generic or non-financial impact measures not relevant to pension scheme decision-making.(6) Following the assessment, the Secretary of State must—(a) publish the conclusions of the assessment, and(b) where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, issue statutory guidance or make regulations establishing a pension-specific framework for the prudent assessment, reporting and communication of investments in social bonds.(7) Nothing in this section—(a) requires trustees to invest in social bonds or any other asset class, or(b) alters the requirement that trustees act in the best financial interests of scheme members.”
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 204. I make clear that this amendment does not require trustees to invest in any particular asset class, nor does it seek to redefine or dilute fiduciary duty in any way. Those safeguards are explicit in the amendment. Trustees must always act in the best financial interest of scheme members, and nothing here displaces that principle, consistent with the approach that we have taken throughout our deliberations in Committee. Instead, the amendment asks the Government to step back and consider whether trustees who wish to explore investments such as social bonds or social infrastructure would benefit from clearer pension-specific guidance and a more coherent framework within which to operate.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 218C; I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for supporting it. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that pension schemes invest their funds in a manner that is
“consistent with those provisions of human rights and international law which have been ratified by the UK”.
It would require scheme managers to take appropriate steps to identify, prevent and mitigate the risks that investments may contribute to adverse human rights impacts. These obligations would apply to investments globally.
As the Prime Minister of Canada pointed out in his powerful speech at Davos, it seems
“that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can and that the weak must suffer what they must”.
At such a time, we are under an obligation to do whatever we can to uphold the rule of law. The rule of law includes, of course, the duty on nation states to honour and put into effect the obligations that they have explicitly undertaken to observe by ratification of the relevant treaties.
The great jurist Lord Tom Bingham made state compliance with international obligations his eighth principle of the rule of law in his seminal book of the same name. He said:
“The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.
Consistent with that, the current Ministerial Code, binding on British Ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations laws.
This point was reinforced by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General in the House when he said of compliance with international law:
“We should all be immensely proud of it, and this Government will seek at every turn to comply with our obligations”.—[Official Report, 26/11/24; col. 680.]
He developed that point in a lecture to the Royal United Services Institute on 29 May 2025, in which he gave this rejection:
“The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change ... The international rules-based order soon breaks down when States claim that they can breach international law because it is in their national interests … The argument … that the United Kingdom can breach its international obligations when it is in the national interest to do so is a radical departure from the UK’s constitutional traditional, which has long been that ministers are under a duty to comply with international law”.
Today, 81 years after the end of the Second World War, in which tens of millions of people gave their lives, the global edifice of international law, erected specifically to prevent the repetition of such horrific events, is in tatters. No matter how justified the perpetrators believe it to be, the fact is that Russia is conducting war on Ukraine; the Israeli state has attacked Gaza and permitted attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank; and the United States has attacked Venezuela and abducted its president, and threatens military and economic attack on Greenland, Iran, Cuba and other states. Iran is waging war on its own people. There are many other conflicts around the world where the United Nations conventions are flouted, humanitarian law is breached and war crimes are committed. As legislators, we have a duty to do what we can to sustain international law and restore its impeccable norms throughout the world.
Amendment 218C is intended to play its part. The pension schemes to which the amendment would apply include the Local Government Pension Scheme, which is one of the largest public sector pension schemes in the UK, with more than 6 million members and managed assets of some £392 billion. It is made up of 86 pension funds, most of which are, as I understand it, administered by elected councillors sitting on a pensions committee. There are other public sector pension schemes, too—they are, like the LGPS, equally emanations of the state—but the amendment would also apply to private sector schemes. It is the UK’s duty to ensure that the entities it regulates and over which it has power do not place it in a situation in which it is non-compliant with its international obligations—in other words, obligations that it has voluntarily ratified and by which it continues to be bound.
The provisions of this Bill evidence the regulatory power that the UK state exercises, and can exercise, over pension schemes within its jurisdiction. The Government have the power to ensure that the pension schemes regulated by the Bill do not put the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations. The UK must adhere to its fundamental international law obligations in all circumstances—obligations such as the prohibition of genocide, the prohibition of war crimes, the upholding of the Geneva conventions, the elimination of racial discrimination and apartheid, and respect for the right to self-determination. That goes without saying. However, the UK must also refrain from rendering aid or assistance to another state’s serious breaches of these peremptory norms. It must co-operate with other states to take all reasonably available measures to bring to an end any such violations of those peremptory norms.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance to administering authorities to give effect to the duties, by requiring an end to investments in companies that aid or assist in the commission of grave violations of international law. It would also issue directions to administering authorities in the event of non-compliance. Local administering authorities must ensure that their investment strategies give effect to the prevention and non-assistance duties. They must refrain from making new investments in companies involved in serious breaches of international law and take reasonable steps towards divesting from such companies.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I support the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which I have signed. The amendment seeks to remind the Government of existing obligations under treaties and other international law with regard to measures in the Bill. Many existing, relevant statutes and treaty obligations apply here. However, the amendment applies in a neutral way across a range of international contexts. It does not single out any country, but instead sets out clear expectations for how pension schemes should “identify, prevent and mitigate” involvement in serious human rights abuses and breaches of international law by taking proportionate steps to responsibly exit investments where necessary.
One example of where the amendment could apply is China, specifically the Uyghur region. International human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, have documented crimes against humanity committed by the Chinese Government against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims. These crimes include mass detention, forced labour, cultural and religious erasure, and family separation. Pension fund investments connected to supply chains benefiting from forced labour or other crimes against Turkic Muslims raise clear risks of complicity in these abuses.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, mentioned Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Research has found that the Local Government Pension Scheme holds approximately £12.2 billion in companies linked to alleged violations of international law by Israel. This includes investments in firms supplying weapons, surveillance technology and military equipment to the Israeli armed forces, as well as companies engaged in the construction, financing and maintenance of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. These activities have been widely recognised as contributing to war crimes and systems of repression and persecution against Palestinians.
The third example is Yemen. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have led military operations in Yemen that have repeatedly involved unlawful airstrikes on civilians and civilian infrastructure. This raises serious concerns about investments in companies supplying arms, military equipment or logistical support used in the conflict. As we have heard, the UK already has duties under international laws not to aid or assist serious breaches of international law, and to prevent human rights harms connected to state-linked corporate activity. The amendment simply clarifies how those duties would apply to public pension fund investment and would make them operational in domestic law.
The amendment provides guidance around fiduciary duty versus international legal obligations. As we heard earlier, fiduciary duty requires lawful, prudent and long-term decision-making. It does not require maximising financial return at any cost, nor does it permit public bodies to disregard the UK’s international law and human rights obligations. The clear regulation provided by the amendment would help address uncertainty and hesitation by setting out how those obligations should be reflected in investment decision-making in a lawful and proportionate way.
The amendment would also provide clarity and consistency. At present, administering authorities are left to interpret complex international law obligations on their own. The LGPS advisory board has said that it has reached the limits of what it can do without government guidance. The amendment would place a responsibility on the Government to provide clear advice on these issues, while ensuring that pension funds such as the LGPS are acting within the Government’s legal obligations.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for proposing this important amendment. I very much hope that the Government will look at its content and support its inclusion in the Bill.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, I rise nervously since it has been only one week since I made my maiden speech. I should declare an interest, as I have worked in the field of responsible investment for the past 25 years; I am not paid for any action there but, on occasion, my old employer allows me to use an office in the City when I have a meeting there.
I want to make two observations. One is about this Committee, which I have been sitting in on over the past few days, and one is more about this debate.
My observation on the Committee is that I am so impressed by the standard of the questioning. I am also extraordinarily impressed by the magisterial answers that can be given in pulling together what is a really complicated pensions Bill, much of which I admit not to understand. I have noted that, in our discussions and debates, there is often a great unity of purpose in terms of where we want to get to, but also some questions around how we might want to get there.
With that in mind, I want to address the issues that we are discussing today. I think that where I want to get to is very similar to the places the proposers of these amendments want to get to, but I might caution them a little to think about the ecosystem for which we are writing rules. If you look at a big UK pension fund, its equity portfolio is probably index-tracked, so it is buying entire markets rather than individual companies. It probably holds stakes in 5,000 different companies, or something like that, so we need to think practically about how we are influencing it.
We also have a situation—I find this extraordinary; I know that both the Government and the Committee are concerned about this—where an average British pension fund might have more equity investments in Nvidia and Apple than in the entire UK stock market because of the way in which assets are allocated. The UK pensions system is, therefore, a very small holder in a very large number of companies. I profoundly agree that we need to uphold international law on human rights, but, if we are to do that, do we not need to think about how we can get everyone to work together on that, rather than just a small proportion that might ultimately divest?
I note that Principles for Responsible Investment, which has $130 trillion of assets under management, has promised to be active owners and to incorporate social and environmental issues into its investment and ownership practices. Might there be some way in which we can hold those promises to account? Also, when thinking about how we can address human rights issues such as modern slavery—we have talked to companies about this—the campaigners often tell us, “Don’t have the companies ticking boxes saying that they know nothing about modern slavery. It is everywhere, and we need to be fighting it everywhere. Let us be open about how we do this”.
One initiative that I support, both in an advisory role and financially, is the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, a network that investigates 1,500 human rights abuses by companies all around the world. It goes back to the companies and says, “You’ve got to fix this”. I have been particularly keen that, if the company does not fix it, the network can then see their shareholders and make sure, at the next shareholder meeting, that those questions are being raised with the companies. I wonder whether that is something we could leverage.
Recognising how difficult this is, I led the finance initiative to persuade British companies to divest from Myanmar 15 years ago, just before Aung San Suu Kyi took over. Of course, things have gone backwards since then. I was at a party before Christmas where someone remonstrated with me about what a terrible decision it was for British companies to withdraw from Myanmar. This is quite complicated stuff. How do we build on what is already there?
I love the passionate support for new asset classes, because it is so important that we move them forward. What we want to do is to get money flowing to social causes. I am not quite sure that there is always one solution. I was very involved in the development of the green bond market, which reached a $1 trillion issuance last year—that is pretty good. We also have to think about the traditional ways we can get this. Housing associations borrow on normal markets, so how do we get more of that? We have Bridges and the LGPS, which the noble Baroness talked about. I wonder whether we should always want things to be pension specific—although I do know that this is a pensions Bill, so perhaps that is part of it.
Then there is the question of knowing the social impact. We need to be careful about what social impact is. I am struck that, if you were to set up a pension system, a lending system or even a saving system in the developing world, you would be praised for the massive social impact you would make. Similarly, Henry Duncan’s trustee savings bank—he was Scottish, like me, as were Wallace and Webster, who set up the first pension fund—had a huge social impact. As we think about the social impact of the pensions and finance industry, I note that both in terms of its liability—what it is giving the public for their savings—and the assets it is holding on their behalf, the industry is thinking about both sides of that social impact.
Going back what I said earlier, I hear quite a lot of consensus about where we want to get to. Whatever happens to these particular clauses, I wonder whether we could work together on this issue—it is a very big one—in the future in some way. Britain is an absolute leader in responsible investment. If we can listen to beneficiaries, talk to sponsors and gather the industry—and if the Government can help set the framework—we can do something that would be really worth while.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I will speak very briefly to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. I know how passionate the noble Baroness is about the issue of social impact bonds, so it seems to me that this is a very modest and well-constructed amendment that could have significantly positive impacts on growth and local amenities. It would also specifically say, after Clause 117:
“Nothing in this section … requires trustees to invest in social bonds or any other asset class”.
So it does not in any way require this to happen, but it seeks to facilitate a system set up for pension funds to invest in this way in assets that, potentially, would have a significant social benefit, of which the noble Baroness spoke so passionately, having seen the positive results.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I emphasise that this amendment is to propose regulations that will be drafted by the Secretary of State. One would expect the Secretary of State to determine whatever issues there are about international law. By the way, international law itself is quite clear. It is about whether the factual situation on the ground meets the particular requirements of international law, but I think that could all be dealt with in regulation.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I am just not convinced that one would want to put this type of responsibility on the Government. Of course, judgments in international law change from time to time, and trustees are investing for the very long term. I recall the example of Myanmar given by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson. There are difficult issues that I understand the Government might regulate for. How pension trustees then build that into their asset allocation is another layer of complexity that I have concerns about, but I certainly have every sympathy with the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. It is a difficult one. I just caution that getting to that level of prescription could be the thin end of the wedge for pension trustees, who already have so many responsibilities upon their shoulders.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, to the Committee. His comments have inspired me to make a very small intervention. It is true that there is a lot of index investment, and inevitably that will capture things inadvertently, but there are now many more indices that will be socially responsible or environmentally responsible, and trustees can choose to use them.
If pension trustees collectively and pension funds made a little more noise and made more approaches to the index providers, we may well get indices that are more pushy in what they do for social and environmental protection. Ultimately, most of the time they are paid to invent an index or they are doing it for their own platforms, but I see an open door there to apply pressure.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson—may there be many in the future. In coming to the Moses Room for the pensions Bill debate, I never thought that I would have to declare an interest, but according to the Companion I need to say that I am the president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. I need to put that on the record because of what has been said.
I understand where we are coming from, but the trouble is that in the modern world, investments are global. You do not necessarily have one cup being manufactured in the UK or in the countries mentioned by noble Lords. Very often, you have bits of equipment manufactured here, in Israel, in America and elsewhere. I give the F35 aircraft as an example: the parts are assembled from all parts of the world. It becomes a global thing, and it is difficult in the global economy to identify where something is manufactured or whatever.
The point at issue—it is a good point—is that trustees have to make the decision. They will take into account all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and my noble friend Lady Janke, but at the end of the day they have a fiduciary responsibility to their members. This is not the first time this has happened. Hertfordshire very recently had an amendment to divest from one country. It was passed on the chairman’s vote. What happened? It went back to the pensions committee of Hertfordshire County Council, which decided that its fiduciary duty was not to make political statements but to look after the investments under its control. Whether it is Myanmar, Israel, China or Russia, it is a very slippery slope when you do that. So, as people involved in pensions, we have to leave it to the trustees to use their judgment, taking into account all the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and others mentioned. It is a fiduciary judgment. Our view is that the fiduciary duty should be robust, not restrictive, focused on long-term member outcomes, informed by real-world risks and clear enough to avoid defensive or overly narrow decision-making. I do not support this amendment.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I belatedly state my interest: I am a member of the LGPS. I apologise; I should have said that at the beginning of my speech, so I just put it on the record.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for introducing their amendments. On top of the usual suspects, it is nice to welcome my noble friend Lord Hendy and particularly my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson, who was brave enough to come to Committee and speak on these kinds of topics when he has only just made his maiden. We should all be delighted to have him here, and I especially thank him for his kind words about the Committee. It is a joy, and I look forward to having him here for many more pension debates.
Amendment 204 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, gives me an opportunity briefly to update the Committee on how the Government are unlocking pension fund investment in projects with social and environmental benefits. We have talked quite a bit about the Mansion House Accord in recent Committees—for newcomers, this is the commitment by 17 major workplace pension providers to invest at least 10% of their default DC funds in private markets by 2030, with a minimum of 5% ring-fenced for UK-based assets.
The Government welcome this initiative because it is going to see funds flow into major infrastructure projects and clean-energy developments. The Sterling 20, set up in October 2025, is a new investor-led partnership between 20 of the UK’s largest pension providers and insurers and will be channelling billions into affordable housing, regional infrastructure and broadband. Initiatives such as the £27.8 billion National Wealth Fund will help increase the UK pipeline of investable opportunities. It is a UK government-created public finance institution designed to crowd in private capital, including pension investment, towards clean energy, low-carbon infrastructure and social housing projects.
This is already happening. Pension schemes have the flexibility to invest in bonds, social housing and green technology where such investments are in members’ best financial interests. Industry is clearly acting. Legal & General has pledged $2 billion by 2030 to deliver 10,000 affordable homes and create thousands of jobs. Nest has committed £500 million to Schroders Capital, including £100 million for UK investments and £40 million for rural broadband. The measures in the Bill, especially those relating to scale and governance for occupational and local government pension schemes, are intended to ensure that pension schemes reach the levels of scale and expertise to be able to invest more in a broader range of assets, including social infrastructure. The Government will be able to monitor those commitments.
It is always a delight to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, being passionate about the issues in which she has such experience. I understand the intentions behind the amendment, but the Government are worried that the proposed statutory review-and-fix framework could make the system more complex and costly to operate without a clear enough indication it would deliver better results for savers. However, I am with my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson that we should all keep talking about these issues. It is one of the debates in which we share so many objectives. We are just talking about the best way in which to do this.
I turn to Amendment 218C from my noble friend Lord Hendy. Again, I fully recognise the intentions behind it and the concerns about human rights issues and investment decisions. UK pension schemes are, in general, not just passive holders of capital but long-term responsible investors required by the regulatory framework to assess environmental, social and governance—ESG— factors across policy setting, integration, stewardship and reporting, all grounded in their statutory duty to consider financially material risks. In many schemes, responsible investment policies set clear expectations on human rights standards. For example, the People’s Partnership policy explicitly sets out how it identifies, manages and mitigates these risks.
UK pension funds invest globally, as my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson said, but within strict fiduciary duties, requiring them to prioritise members’ long-term interests, rather than simply chasing the highest return. Ethical considerations, including human rights, therefore increasingly shape capital allocation decisions as trustees weigh financial returns alongside reputational, social and sustainability risks. That role carries a significant responsibility for thorough due diligence across the portfolio. Fund managers will typically undertake screening to ensure companies meet minimum ESG standards, including sectors such as weapons, tobacco or fossil fuels and identifying weak labour rights or sustainability practices. Such screening helps manage long-term financial and reputational risks.
A core part of this is human rights due diligence assessing company policies, supply chain practices, labour standards and processes for addressing risks such as modern slavery. Managers also consider controversy histories, sanctions lists and engagement records to identify systemic concerns that may warrant action or divestment. Governance factors, board effectiveness, anti-corruption controls, executive incentives and transparency are also examined, as weak governance signals elevated long-term risk. Investors increasingly expect companies to provide meaningful ESG and human rights data consistent with UN recommendations placing risks to people and planet at the centre of decision-making.
We have seen internationally, most notably in the Netherlands, that funds will divest from companies linked to UN-identified human rights violations. UK schemes, too, are acting. We heard mention of LGPS funds. Southwark has divested itself from companies linked to conflict and genocide. In the private sector, People’s Pension withdrew £28 billion from State Street over reduced ESG and human rights engagement, reallocating the assets to managers with stronger stewardship commitments. These actions demonstrate a clear readiness to adjust strategies where human rights issues affect long-term value or reputational risk. To support such decisions, UK investors draw on respected international frameworks, including the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and the OECD guidelines. Evidence from the 2024 DWP call for evidence shows that trustees actively using these standards and the UN Global Compact to guide their management of social risks.
The DWP and the Pensions Regulator also provide guidance on social factors. The 2024 Taskforce on Social Factors offers practical support on risks such as modern slavery and child labour. As part of our forthcoming statutory guidance on trustee investment duties, we will consider how to embed further practical examples of good practice, from schemes such as Nest, Brunel and People’s Partnership, ensuring that trustees of schemes of all sizes can draw on proportionate, real-world illustrations of effective human rights risk management.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I shall conclude briefly. I hope that it is clear from the discussion this afternoon that there is a shared concern across the Committee to see pension schemes operate responsibly, prudently and in the best long-term interests of their members. Where we differ is on how that objective is best achieved. In my view, the strength of our pensions system lies in its balances: clear legal parameters set by Parliament, coupled with trustee independence, evidence-based judgment and accountability to members.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, who made a valuable and excellent contribution. He made my heart sing, and I think that our hearts beat in concert in terms of responsible and social investment. I am very keen to learn more from the noble Lord about his experience of responsible investment.
I appreciate the Minister’s response. She has been very clear—message received. I look forward to discussing social impact bonds more with the Minister and anybody else in the Committee who wishes to take part. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but, if it comes back on Report, I will be very happy.
“Review of pension awareness and saving among young people(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, carry out a review into—(a) levels of pension awareness and understanding among young people, and(b) the effectiveness of existing measures to support young people to begin saving into a pension.(2) The review must consider—(a) barriers to pension saving faced by young people, including low earnings, insecure work, and gaps in financial education,(b) the impact of the automatic enrolment age and earnings thresholds, and(c) options to improve engagement, participation, and long-term retirement outcomes for younger savers.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Government to review pension awareness among young people and to consider how existing policy could better support earlier engagement and saving into pensions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 205 in my name would require the Government to review levels of pension awareness among young people and to consider how existing policy might better support earlier engagement with pension saving. Members of the Committee will have noticed that I have included certain steers as to what the review should focus on; I hope that this brief debate will enable Members to agree largely with what we are trying to do here.
For many people in their 20s and 30s, pension saving is driven almost entirely by automatic enrolment. In one respect, this is a success story: it clearly illustrates the impact that automatic enrolment has had, with around 71% of young people in full-time employment now contributing to a pension and often benefiting from employer contributions, tax efficiency and the long-term advantages of compounding. Of course, there are opt-outs, but I am pleased to say—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—that opt-out rates remain relatively low.
Progress is, therefore, welcome. However, it still leaves nearly one-third of young people not saving at all. Starting to contribute at a younger age makes an enormous difference. Compound interest, where returns build, not only on contributions but on previous returns, means that early saving is particularly powerful. Small amounts saved early can matter more than much larger sums saved later.
Yet, the reality facing young people is difficult. Surveys consistently show that younger generations face an uphill financial struggle. For many, and I remember how I felt in my early 20s, retirement feels distant and abstract, something to worry about later, rather than now. Unsurprisingly, confidence among those aged 25 to 44 about their later life savings is among the lowest of any age.
We need to understand why this is the case. It is not enough for policy bodies to list familiar explanations, such as behavioural bias, lack of knowledge or low trust, and then publish discussion papers. The Government need to know in detail what is actually preventing young people engaging with pensions. If automatic enrolment is still leaving out around one-third of eligible workers, more work clearly needs to be done. As with most things in pensions policy, the answer will be complicated, but complexity is not an excuse for inaction.
We should be clear that automatic enrolment alone is not sufficient to deliver an adequate income in retirement. Of course, I am very aware that the pensions review will be looking at this as its stage 2 focus, and I will talk more about that later. Will the pensions review properly examine these barriers to saving among the young? If not, why not? I ask the Government to give a response on this.
Young people are often focused on more immediate priorities: for example, saving for a house deposit, building an emergency fund or paying off student loans understandably come first and spring to mind; pensions, as I said earlier, are seen as something for later life. But time does not pause and there are real benefits to saving early. Early contributions help smooth out market volatility and allow savers to benefit fully from compounding over decades. Most young people will be in defined contribution schemes, where these effects matter greatly.
There is also a deeper issue of confidence. Nearly half of Gen Z believe that the state pension will not exist by the time they retire. This is a generation shaped by repeated economic shocks, from the financial crisis to the pandemic and the cost of living crisis triggered by the war in Europe. For them, pensions can feel less like a promise and more like a relic. The question is, what do we do about it? I am disappointed, as I said earlier, that pension adequacy appears only in the second stage of the review. In my view, and many people’s views, this should be a priority. Your Lordships should be asking whether lowering the automatic enrolment age, removing the lower qualifying earnings band or increasing minimum contribution rates would deliver better outcomes.
We should be asking what more can be done to reduce the barriers that discourage young people from saving at all. This is why the amendment seeks to require the Government to move faster to review pension awareness among young people and how existing policy would better support early engagement—that is, to move now and not wait until stage 2.
Finally, reverting to the barriers that I alluded to, I will make one final point, which is on the question of compulsion—just to get my oar in on this before the end of today’s proceedings. Mandation, or even the threat of it, will fall most heavily on younger savers, a point made powerfully by my noble friend Lord Fuller earlier in the week. It risks burdening a generation who are 30 or 40 years away from retirement and who already face significant disadvantage within the system. There is already generational unfairness in pensions policy and we believe that mandation would only entrench this. It should have no place in the Bill, but we have rehearsed those arguments before. Without further ado, I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly but enthusiastically in support of Amendment 205. The case for a review was eloquently put by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and its merits are surely obvious. I hope the Minister will be able to agree with that.
In particular, I hope the review will take a close look at the situation that many Gen Z people find themselves in. Many work in the gig economy or are self-employed. The Gen Z average savings are small: 57% have pots smaller than £1,000 according to PPI data, and half of them cannot estimate their pots in any case. Perhaps alarmingly, 45% of Gen Z people rely heavily on social media for financial information—presumably delivered by animated cats. The proposed review could and should examine this in much more detail.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie in proposing a review of pension awareness and saving among young people.
When I had the honour to review the state pension age for the DWP in 2021-22, I was struck by two things that strengthened the case for better policy in this area. First, I found it much more difficult to get young people or their representatives, or indeed middle career workers, to engage in my review. Those who did were keen to keep pension contributions down and they did not believe the state pension would still be universal by the time they reached the retirement age of, say, 70. They were worried about buying a flat, as my noble friend has said, looking after their children and paying back their student loans.
Secondly, the level of financial education was dire. Schools were focusing well on human rights, the environment and ESG, which was discussed under the previous amendment, but not on pensions or financial management. They were not teaching the importance of early saving, the magical impact of compound interest, the value of a pension matched by the employer and the risk of new sources of profit like cryptocurrencies. Much more such education is needed in our schools but the Department of Education was resistant, partly because teachers are also often a little short on financial education. This is an important area and I am sure the Pensions Commission will look at it, but my noble friend is right to highlight what a big job we have to do.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my words of support to the concept being promoted by my noble friend Lord Younger. I hope the Government will look into this, as it might well be a good topic to task regulators with in making sure that either they or pension schemes themselves are helping people to understand pension schemes better, how they work and the free money that goes along with a pension contribution in terms of your own money. There is, as I say, extra free money added by, usually, your employer and other taxpayers. I do not think young people always understand just how beneficial saving in a pension can be relative to, let us say, saving in a bank account or an ISA, or indeed the value of investing. It would be in the interests of the regulators and, indeed, the providers to help people to understand that. The Government’s role in guiding that and setting up this kind of review could be very valuable.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for introducing his amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken.
As we have heard, the amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of pension awareness and saving among young people. I agree with the Committee about the incredible importance of this issue, and I understand why the noble Viscount has tabled the amendment, but I hope to persuade him that there is another way forward.
The starting point, inevitably, is that last year the Government revived the Pensions Commission. The original commission did an astonishing job; its legacy under the previous Labour Government in effect lead to the creation of workplace pension saving via automatic enrolment. Since then, with support from both parties, automatic enrolment has transformed participation in workplace pension saving. It has been a particular success for younger people. Our participation for eligible employees aged 22 to 25 has gone up from 28% in 2012 to 85% in 2024.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will make just a few rounding-up comments. I am very pleased to have the support for my amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in particular, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. It was very helpful to hear from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe the information she received directly from the review that she undertook into retirement age.
The Minister referred to the importance of education; I took note of her very helpful answers on what is happening at the sharp end of schools. I also took note of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the helpful suggestions that the regulators could perhaps play a more proactive role in this area.
I believe that Amendment 205 is modest but necessary. If we are serious about improving retirement outcomes, we must start by understanding why so many young people are disengaged and by shaping policy that meets them where they are, rather than where we wish they were.
I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is in her place. We are all very keen to know what will come out from the Pensions Commission.
One question I put to the Minister now is about the timings. My understanding is that stage one will report in early 2027—one year’s time—but stage two, which is on this subject of pensions adequacy, will be at a later stage. Can the Minister clarify those timings, as they are still a bit unclear? I understand that she is undertaking a huge amount of very important work, but that would be very helpful.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I will simply say that there will be a report early next year. I am very happy to write to the noble Lord to confirm any future timings.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I appreciate the answer to that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Youth Unemployment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce youth unemployment.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are investing over £1.5 billion through the youth guarantee and growth and skills levy to support 16 to 24 year-olds to gain the skills and experience they need to earn and learn. A key part of this is the jobs guarantee, which provides six months of paid work for every eligible 18 to 21 year-old on universal credit for 18 months, funded for 25 hours a week with wraparound support. Grant applications for phase 1 opened on 29 January to identify delivery partners, and delivery will begin from spring 2026 in six high-need areas before expanding nationally, supporting around 55,000 young people over three years.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, and I welcome the initiatives the Minister has just mentioned, such as the youth guarantee. However, do not those initiatives need to be accompanied by welfare reform, which can quite often pull young people in the opposite direction? A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said:
“Our welfare state is trapping people, not just in poverty but out of work—young people in particular”.
That was reinforced by Alan Milburn, the Government’s employment tsar, who said:
“We’re spending more money on health and disability benefits for 16 to 24-year-olds than we are on apprenticeships. Is that really the right priority?”
Will the forthcoming King’s Speech therefore take the difficult but necessary decisions to reform welfare and allay the concerns of the Minister’s colleagues?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, this is welfare reform. It is wrong that there are 900,000 young people who are neither earning nor learning, which is why we are changing the system. We are ensuring that there is an earlier interview for young people. We are introducing 300,000 more opportunities for young people to gain work experience or training linked to an employer. Then we are ensuring that they have a backstop work placement that they will be expected to take at the end of 18 months. That is welfare reform, which this Government are putting in place to respond to the challenges left by the previous one.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what data, if any, the Government hold on the casual employment of young people between the ages of 16 and 18? Does she agree with me that young people who are able to find employment over this period, when they are often in full-time education as well, are given a range of experience that is extremely helpful to them when they come to seek full-time employment after their education is over?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point. There seems to be some evidence that young people are doing less of that type of work. This is part of what Alan Milburn will look at in his review, which will consider the causes of the growing numbers of young people who are neither earning nor learning. That is of course why being able to provide placements through some of the courses that young people take and the work experience that will be part of the youth guarantee gateway will be important for those young people who have not otherwise had the opportunity to understand what it is like to be in a workplace.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have plenty of time. It is the Lib Dem Benches next, then the Cross Benches.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that information, but can she say what assessment has been made of the impact of poor mental health on young people’s ability to gain work? What is the connection between the Department for Work and Pensions and the NHS in dealing with this problem?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is precisely one of the questions that Alan Milburn will consider in his review. There appears to be a growing number of young people who are out of work for whom mental health issues are part of the reason. For many of those young people, it may well be that they would be better off in appropriate work. Being clear about the nature of that problem is an important part of Alan Milburn’s review. That, of course, goes alongside the additional support this Government are providing at an earlier stage in our schools to ensure that all schools also have access to mental health professionals, so that we can stop some of these problems earlier and before they escalate to blight people’s lives.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that a balanced school education is hugely important in this to allow the widest possible opportunities for our young people?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I do. That is why, through the curriculum and assessment review, we have ensured that young people are getting the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in life and in work. We will continue to ensure that that is the case throughout our schools.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, the employment of autistic adults remains at a remarkably low rate of about 30%. Each time there is a new strategy under the Autism Act, employment has been highlighted as one of the priorities. The strategy is due for renewal in July. I am sure that the Minister will be involved in the discussions for planning that strategy. How does she think we can now get autistic adults of all age groups into employment? It has been far too slow and has taken far too long, under all Governments.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. This is an opportunity for us to rethink how we can ensure the appropriate support, the appropriate information and understanding of employers about the way in which autistic people can make an enormously important contribution in the workplace, and the support of work coaches in DWP and others who are providing the advice to people about how to get into work. I will certainly undertake to look into this in more detail and take the wisdom of the noble Baroness, who I know has campaigned on this for many years.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
I welcome the Government’s new initiatives in this area, particularly the youth guarantee. Can the Minister tell us how the Government are going to tackle the estimated 500,000 young people who are not in education, employment or training, and who are not claiming benefits either? Are we not at serious risk of a whole generation of young people not being able to use their gifts for the good of wider society?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important issue. That is why, first of all, our work to reduce the numbers of young people not earning or learning needs to start in schools. It needs to start with the better “risk of NEET” indicators that we are developing. It needs to start with a responsibility on schools to ensure that young people go into education at the age of 16 or work in an appropriate way. It means that the work—extended for another year—of the youth guarantee trailblazers, who have had £90 million spent on them, is important because they have been tasked in the eight areas in which they are operating with addressing exactly this question: how do we identify and reach those young people who are not even in touch with the benefits system?
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, the youth guarantee scheme is not a new idea and has been in place in Wales for several years. What lessons have this Government learned from what has not worked in Wales as part of this scheme, and how have they been applied to the scheme here?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We have looked at information from around the UK and from previous job subsidy schemes to help to design this. Of course, the first six job guarantee areas that I mentioned in the original Answer include one that covers a significant area of Wales. We will also use the experience of that to build the national rollout that will come in the autumn.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, recent analysis shows that in 2025-26 the real cost of hiring an 18 to 20 year-old on the minimum wage has risen by around 13% compared with just over 3% for someone on average earnings, despite under-21s largely being outside employer national insurance contributions. In light of this, what assessment have the Government made of the combined impact of the national insurance contributions and minimum wage policy on youth employment, and how are they ensuring that young people are not priced out of entry-level work or any other part of the labour market?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We made a commitment to equalise the 18 to 20 national minimum wage with the national living wage. We asked, as all recent Governments have done, the independent Low Pay Commission to recommend youth rates to enable us to do that, and we also included within the remit the expectation that it would consider how to do this in a way that avoids increases in unemployment. The April 2026 uplift ensures that the Government are taking cautious steps towards achieving this commitment, and that is the way we will continue to progress.
Construction Industry: Timber
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the use of timber in the construction industry as a low-carbon building material.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Timber in Construction Roadmap was updated and relaunched in February 2025. It sets out how we can increase the use of timber in construction. We are working in partnership with timber industries, government bodies and stakeholders to address the barriers to greater timber use. Our collaboration focuses on developing best practices, researching innovative timber products and increasing the circularity of timber construction supply chains.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this country imports 73% of the timber we need for construction, despite having one of the best climates in the world for growing softwoods. Natural England and the Forestry Commission have jointly expressed dismay that only 10% of our tree-planting over the last 10 years has been a productive softwood species we need and that our planting targets overall are unambitious. Given the many benefits of establishing new woods, including commercial softwoods, what will the Government do to rectify this disappointing situation? I know what the Minister has said about the action plan, but will she give us a guarantee that they can cut the regulations and red tape that are impeding many planting schemes?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we import the vast majority of our timber and wood products, and this makes us the second largest net importer in the world after China. The Government believe that this needs to change. We want to increase the domestic timber market, and we are investing £1 billion in tree-planting and support to the forestry sector over this Parliament. As part of developing the new tree-planting programme, we have been working with our delivery partners and grant schemes to look at how we can increase conifer planting to support domestic softwood timber production.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there is distinct reticence among the very big housebuilders to use anything that is not bricks and cement? What are the Government doing to encourage more prefabricated buildings with timber, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra mentioned, so that the cost of the buildings is reduced and the buildings are more environmentally friendly?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We need to move forward by looking at how we can further support the use of timber in housebuilding and how we can support housebuilders in that process. We have already undertaken action, including through the modern methods of construction sector. We have reformed the planning system, and tried to unblock stalled housing sites and increase the supply of affordable homes. We have published a publicly available specification for residential modern methods of construction to give greater clarity around the insurance and warranties market, which is important in this space, and to support the delivery of quality homes. In December, we launched an expression of interest for ambitious local authorities to work with us and industry partners to develop pattern books of standard house designs. These will help support growth and investment, as well deliver homes more quickly.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, what measures are the Government introducing to promote the reuse of reclaimed timber in construction projects, as outlined in the 2025 timber road map’s circular economy commitments?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The road map was an important document on increasing the use of timber. As we go forward with our ambitious housebuilding programme, we need to ensure that the houses we build are as sustainable as they can be. The noble Baroness’s question about reusable timber has to be part of the discussion with housebuilders and the way we move forward.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, hemp is grown in this country and is a fantastic building material that is both carbon negative and sustainable, with fantastic insulation qualities. The French are the largest growers of hemp in Europe and use it an extraordinary amount in construction. Given that 34 miles of rope on HMS “Victory” was made of hemp, how have we let the French steal a march on us and what are the Government going to do about it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord asks a very interesting question. Those of us who have been involved in working with the construction industry will be aware that there is a quite a large lobby for the use of hemp in this country—I am sure the noble Lord is aware of it. As we move forward with more sustainable building, we have to look at all options, and I am sure we can consider hemp as part of that.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, among other important issues, the 2025 national security strategy highlights the need to ensure our supply chains, energy and critical goods. However, the significance of homegrown timber is overlooked, despite the fact that it was declared an essential industry during the Covid pandemic. As we have heard, timber products are vital to construction, infrastructure, housing and logistics. Please can the Minister confirm that timber is now recognised as vital to national security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, we do not think the amount of imported timber is the way forward, and we have to change that. The noble Lord said that 10% is homegrown; our figures are that 80% is imported. It is important that we look at how best to turn that around. Importing huge amounts of end-product is not good for our national security, so it is important that we look at how we increase homegrown timber.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the work of Fera Science Ltd, in Sand Hutton near York, which examines the wood used in furniture and other products that brings unwelcome visitors to this country, in the form of little insects and beasties. Will she congratulate Fera Science on the work that it does, and would she have occasion to visit in the not too distant future?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very happy to congratulate Fera. It does excellent work. When I went to Forest Research, I saw some of the wood that had, shall we say, unpleasant visitors in it, so I know that both Fera and Forest Research do important work and help biosecurity in this country. I know the noble Baroness is keen for me to visit Fera and I will of course consider that.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the level of afforestation in Great Britain is about 13% and the average in the EU is mid-30%, so it is good to hear about planning for the planting of more trees. The biggest danger to tree-planting remains the grey squirrel. Recently, there was the welcome publication, at last, of the Grey Squirrel Policy Statement, which is the new name for the action plan. Can the Minister give the House some edited highlights of what the Government are doing about the grey squirrel problem?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Earl is always very quick to talk about the grey squirrel, and rightly so. As he says, we have recently published our plan on grey squirrel management—if any Members are interested, they can find it on the Defra website. At the moment, the main way people manage populations is through culling as best they can. We would prefer to have more humane ways of managing pests. As the noble Earl knows, we are now investing in the scientific research on contraceptives that is taking place. If we can crack that, it would make a huge difference, but I urge noble Lords to read the document.
Lord Swire (Con)
I was slightly concerned when the Minister talked about the standardisation of house design. I contend that one of the reasons people are so negative about development is the standardisation of housing estates and designs up and down the country. With that in mind, what more can be done to encourage people to build in the vernacular—thatch and cob, in my part of the world—and, at the same time, improve the knowledge and understanding of local planning officers so that they properly understand the needs and demands of local architecture in the differing parts of our great country?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We need some standardised pattern books. We need a fairly extensive housebuilding programme and we must ensure that those houses are built to a minimum standard of quality. However, I take the noble Lord’s point about the importance of vernacular building in certain places. It is my understanding that, within its planning advice, the MHCLG is looking at how it can best train planning officers as well.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to our high reliance on imports of timber, for both construction and furniture. We have certification schemes that are supposed to mean that timber meets environmental standards and does not abuse the human rights of indigenous people. However, it is often regarded as a tick-box exercise that is just not delivering. Are the Government going to improve those standards and make sure they are actually delivered?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware the UK timber regulations prohibit the placing of illegally harvested timber and wood products on the UK market and require the operators to exercise due diligence. The primary objective of the UK timber regulations is to tackle illegal logging and create demand for legally harvested timber, because we do not want to see it driving further deforestation. We are serious about how we manage that, but it is important to point out to the noble Baroness that we are committed to transitioning to a circular economy, in which resources are kept in use longer and waste is designed out. That will bring investment in green jobs and vital infrastructure. We are shortly going to publish our circular economy growth plan, and I urge the noble Baroness to read it.
Jobs Market
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the jobs market, and of the implications for the wider economy.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, there is positive information in the labour market. The claimant count is falling—43,000 on the year—more than half a million people have moved into work over the past year, and real wages have risen more since July 2024 than they did in the first 10 years of the previous Government. However, there is more to do, and we are delivering through our Get Britain Working plan, which includes creating a new jobs and careers service, tackling economic inactivity due to ill health and delivering our youth guarantee.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I make no apology for holding the Government to account on the issue of employment. Having been brought up in Liverpool and been a Merseyside MP for 21 years, I have seen the damage that can be done by depriving people of the dignity of work. Now we have unemployment rising towards 2 million. In my 50 years in Parliament, every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they took office. When will this Government realise that you cannot tax and regulate businesses into growth?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s sentiment about the importance of the dignity of work, but unemployment is a long-term trend, both here and across the G7, and it has been rising since 2023. The good news is, however, that the number of people who are economically inactive has fallen by nearly half a million, because more people are actively looking for work. Indeed, last year, employment grew by more than half a million, which is nearly twice as much as the rise in unemployment. The noble Lord asked what we will do about it, and the answer is clear. The Government are taking action on young people who are neither earning nor learning, which the last Government ignored. The Government are taking action on long-term sickness, which under the last Government reached a record high. The Government have seen pay rise more since they were elected than under the first 10 years of the previous Administration, helping to tackle the cost of living. We are going to solve the problems we inherited, and we are doing something about it.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
Can the noble Lord elaborate on what assessment has been made of the number and the type of jobs most impacted by AI-driven automation?
Lord Katz (Lab)
We are working across government to monitor the impact of AI and support job creation, providing skills training for those facing disruption. Just last week, the Technology Secretary announced that every adult in the UK is eligible to take free courses to gain practical AI skills for work, with a target of upskilling about 10 million employees. AI will undoubtedly transform the world of work, but the Government are taking action by establishing the AI and the Future of Work Unit in DSIT to ensure that this transformation boosts productivity and opportunities rather than deepening inequality.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Lib Dem Benches.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I love the optimism from the Minister. Can he say what distortion there is on the employment figures from jobs which are not real jobs—zero-hour jobs—where people do not know whether they have a job tomorrow, next week or next month? There are so many people who now seem to be counted in the Minister’s assessment of jobs who are not fully employed. Do the Government have any actions planned to turn those negligible jobs into real jobs?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am, of course, very much a glass-half-full type of person, but one of the core reforms that the Government put through in the Employment Rights Act was to ensure that zero-hours contracts do not drive standards to the bottom. We are about rewarding good employers and ensuring that they are not undercut by bad employers through mechanisms such as zero-hours contracts.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the last Labour Government in which I was a Minister made huge strides in reducing long-term youth unemployment, but tragically we are in a situation now where we have a million young people not in education, training or work. If there is one thing a Labour Government should be about, it is opening up opportunities and providing jobs for young people. This should be the Government’s number one priority, and they should be talking about it every single day of the week. Therefore, can the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to massively expand the number of public sector apprenticeships, to set an example to employers in other sectors, and to ensure that companies and organisations which benefit from public sector procurement are massively increasing the number of apprenticeships they provide as well?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord’s assessment about the importance of tackling youth unemployment. Indeed, we have set a bold new target of two-thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning, whether academic, technical or through an apprenticeship, by age 25. Indeed, as the House heard from my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern earlier, we have a youth guarantee, and we have Alan Milburn leading an investigation into the cause of NEET, and he is working at pace. There will be an interim report in the spring and a report with recommendations in the summer. We are taking this very seriously and we will act on it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have not heard from the Labour Benches yet.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
No, I am sorry, we have not. The noble Lord, Lord Austin, is a non-affiliated Member of this House.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Following the previous question, which set out a strategy for dealing with youth unemployment, may I remind people that it was under the free market antics that we have just heard about that the Thatcher Government decimated my constituency and many Merseyside constituencies, and left them with record levels of unemployment?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Of course, I completely agree with my noble friend; I will offer just one illustration of that. Under the last Government, long-term sickness became the most common reason why people were economically inactive for the first time. It reached a new, record high of 2.8 million people. This is a shameful record, and not something that they should be preaching to us on.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
There is plenty of time. It is the Conservative Benches next, then the Cross Benches.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do my best in these questions not to give Ministers—particularly this Minister—a hard time. However, in my capacity as chairman of Make UK, which has 26,000 manufacturing companies, I speak to a lot of employers. They find, first, that in the last year or so, they have been faced with energy costs that are twice as much as those of their competitors in Europe, and despite the Government’s announcement nearly a year ago of a reduction in those energy costs, they have not seen anything happen. Secondly, there has been an increase in national insurance, which is a big payroll tax, and thirdly, there is the bureaucracy and other things that come out of the Employment Rights Act. Given all this, how can the Government expect employers to employ more people?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised a number of factors there, and I do not want to take up too much time in the House going through them one by one. For example, I have already talked about the Employment Rights Act and how that is about benefiting millions of employees. Also, to be absolutely clear, we are taking active measures on energy costs. We are working with Sir Charlie Mayfield to ensure that when people get work, they stay in work, and lots of employers are working with him. He is working with over 120 businesses, which employ 5 million workers, as part of the vanguard phase of his plan to ensure that we do not just get people working but keep them working. I understand the challenges that this Government face in fixing the mess that the previous Government made over the previous 14 years, but we cannot undo 14 years of damage in merely 18 months.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, in view of the continuing high level of long-term unemployment, would the Government seriously consider the TUC proposal for a national job guarantee with wage subsidy to employers for up to six months, targeted at the most vulnerable areas? Would they further consider the argument that the TUC has made that such a job guarantee would largely pay for itself by increasing revenues and reducing the spending on welfare?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for raising that interesting proposal. I do not know the detail of it, so I would have to take it away. However, that is very much what we are doing with an element of our youth guarantee, as we heard earlier from my noble friend Lady Smith. That is about giving a six-month guaranteed job for young people who have been receiving universal credit and looking for work for more than 18 months. That is the kind of model that we are trying out to tackle that particularly hard-to-get-to and important part of unemployment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am also a glass-half- full person, but in relation to what the noble Lord has said, there are two major reviews into the welfare system with a link to work. They are due to report later this year—at last—but their recommendations are likely to require primary legislation. There seems to be a perfect storm of inaction or delay, with no decisions expected to be taken on welfare this Parliament. What, then, is actually happening on welfare?
Lord Katz (Lab)
To echo the words of my noble friend Lady Smith, all this is around reforming welfare and the way to get people into work more comprehensively. These are serious, deep-seated issues that we must take time over, but as I have said, the Milburn review, which is about tackling NEETs—which I think the House will agree is one of the most serious problems that the country, the economy and young people face—is working at pace to deliver on that.
Civil Service Pensions: Capita
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking in light of recent reports of problems arising from the transfer of Civil Service Pensions administration to Capita.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the service being experienced by some members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme is totally unacceptable, and I apologise for the distress caused to members. We have established a recovery taskforce led by HMRC’s Second Permanent Secretary and have deployed a 150-person government surge team to help to support recovery of this service. Interest-free bridging loans of £5,000, and up to £10,000 exceptionally, are available for those in hardship. We are holding Capita to account through rigorous performance indicators and financial penalties.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer and I am pleased to hear that the Government are seized of the seriousness of the situation. I hope my noble friend has had the opportunity to read the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, when MP after MP, speaking on behalf of their constituents, described the extreme circumstances that they were facing, from the bereaved not receiving death benefits to new pensioners having to wait months for their benefits. Obviously, the priority must be to get benefits to members. However, does my noble friend agree with me that perhaps the answer lies in the Labour Party’s commitment to bring about
“the biggest wave of insourcing of public services for a generation”?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it might be helpful if I lay out what the Government are doing. I know that many Members of your Lordships’ House may have been contacted for details, not least because they may be members of this scheme. If there are specific concerns or cases that people have raised with Members of your Lordships’ House, I have sought assurances that we will have the same access to the services being provided to MPs for casework in this instance and can share details with noble Lords. As regards the contract and the issue of insourcing, this contract was signed in November 2023 and came into place last year. While there may be questions about insourcing and other contracts, that simply is not going to be able to be done with this contract.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the transfer of British Army recruiting to Capita was a total shambles. What lessons were drawn from that experience and what precautions were put in place before handing Capita the responsibility for the administration of Civil Service pensions?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I think many of us have had different experiences with Capita in different contracts over time. I fear that I may be on the record not calling it “Capita” in other parts of Parliament. Specifically, noble Lords may be aware that the Public Accounts Committee in the other place raised concerns about this contract last summer and therefore a whole series of assurance reviews were undertaken and put in place. There are ongoing issues about what has happened and how it has happened, but the priority at this point has to be how we prioritise those who are waiting for deferred salary, but also, at the most extreme end, people who have died in service and who have taken ill-health retirement. To reassure noble Lords, the recovery plan expects that those cases will have been caught up and dealt with by the end of this month, and the hardship loans have started to be paid this week.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, the Cabinet Office told the Public Accounts Committee last year that it was aware of very significant problems with Capita’s preparations to take over the contract on 1 December and that the Cabinet Office had a contingency plan ready to use if necessary. Why, therefore, did the Cabinet Office decide to go ahead with the 1 December transfer to Capita rather than invoke its contingency plan?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that this was discussed by the Public Accounts Committee last year. Following that, and the assurances we got before it went live, the Paymaster-General met with Capita and it confirmed 194 full-time equivalent staff put in place to mitigate delays in automation testing, contingency plans and triaging arrangements, and then a series of independent assurance reviews were undertaken in advance. That is not to say that there are not now serious concerns about what has happened in the last month.
To be clear, our priority at this point is fixing what is broken and making sure that the system stands up. This is a very complicated pension system: it is the third-largest in government. However, I am sure that there will be numerous opportunities to discuss what went wrong and what we need to learn from this. But I want to assure noble Lords that we are taking this with the utmost seriousness, which is why Angela MacDonald, the Second Perm Sec at HMRC, is leading the recovery taskforce. There is a 150-person government surge team supporting the Capita contract, and we are working with Capita and meeting it every day to make sure that these KPIs are being met.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that one of the areas that will be prioritised—I do not know whether she is aware of this—is that former Civil Service employees who are living overseas now cannot access the online portal, so, in addition to not being able to get through on the telephone, they cannot use the online service at all. Can that be fixed as a matter of absolute urgency for those people?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I can reassure the noble Baroness that, as part of the recovery taskforce timetable, we expect that the online portal will be up and running in its completion at the end of next month. By the end of this month we are prioritising dealing with the people who cannot access money and those who desperately need it in terms of hardship. So, yes, I can give an assurance that by the end of next month the portal will be fully operational.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, in the wake of the Post Office scandal, we have seen the Government continuing to give contracts to the company that behaved so badly in relation to Post Office employees. Can the Minister assure the House that Capita will not get the same sort of treatment and that its behaviour in this particular contract will be used in evidence when weighing up similar contracts?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
With regard to Fujitsu, I think the noble Baroness will be aware that there are ongoing issues that relate to the Horizon scandal. With regard to Capita, there are two companies at play here: the company and whether it fulfilled its responsibilities for the previous provider and what Capita actually inherited, which was double the backlog that it was expecting. So there are more complex issues at play here and I am sure that, in the coming months, we will be discussing this in great detail in your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, whatever the failings of the contractor, the agreement will contain options for the contractee, but those potential remedies are only effective if the contracting authority itself is on the case relentlessly. Can the Minister tell the House what concrete steps the Civil Service has taken over the years to improve the quality of its contract management? No well-run business would tolerate a contractor underperforming in this way, so why should the Government allow such behaviour?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I want to be very clear that this was a contract signed by the noble Baroness’s Government in 2023, and we are now managing the contract that they signed. As regards where we are in holding Capita to account, we have withheld £9.6 million in transition payments up until this point, from a contract value over seven years of £285 million. That is a significant withhold at this point. We are making sure that Capita is meeting its KPIs and we are meeting it every day as part of the recovery taskforce. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that a great number of public procurement challenges relate to the original contract and all this needs to be looked at in the round.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the challenge of contacting many people affected by this is that some of them may not be digitally proficient and may be digitally excluded. What measures are the Government putting in place to make sure that those who are digitally excluded or not digitally proficient can be contacted and made fully aware of the issue?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right and there are various mechanisms being put in place, not least the call centre, which people should be able to access. I want to touch on something explicitly because the noble Lord has raised an important point. Some of the most heartbreaking issues that have come to light relate to people who have experienced death in service and bereavement. Therefore, they are receiving calls but not necessarily with the data on service, never mind their digital proficiency. So we have asked government departments to engage directly with the families of their former staff, to arrange the hardship payments in that case, and individual government departments that were the original employers are managing that, which is how we are able to ensure that the money is getting into people’s bank accounts within days, not weeks or months.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the order of commitment of 16 December 2025 be discharged and the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and that the instruction to the Grand Committee of 16 December 2025 shall also be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House.
Iran
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, while, understandably, all our attention in this country at the moment has been focused on the survival of our own Government, we should also be keeping a close eye on the future of the regime in Tehran. It has destroyed and brutalised one of the world’s great civilisations, threatened the world with nuclear devastation and exported terror around the globe, including to this country. The Iranian people, in my view, have no future if the mullahs remain in power. Can I ask the noble Baroness two questions? First, the EU has now proscribed the IRGC, while this Government have given only a vague promise to do so, so please can we have a firm timetable for that necessary action? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that we will work in lockstep with the United States if they decide to take military action against that despotic regime?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
On the IRGC, we welcome the moves that the EU has taken recently. As noble Lords will know because we have discussed it before, there has been a piece of work done by Jonathan Hall. We accept the recommendations, but there are legislative changes that we need to make because, in our law, there is a difference between the way we can deal with the proscription of state actors and with terrorists. I think that the noble Lord understands this. We are proceeding, I must say with absolute respect to him, with rather more alacrity than he did when he was in power.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we must remark with great humility on the sacrifice that so many of those within Iran have made for the simple cause of seeking to have a Government that they wish to have. The Minister may recall that, on 15 January, I asked for clarification on the BBC World Service’s Persian radio service. I was delighted to receive from the BBC yesterday the news that an emergency lifeline BBC Persian radio service will be carried on, which is very good news indeed. Will the Minister restate the support for journalists in particular who are being persecuted by the regime? Secondly, I welcome the new sanctions that were announced this week, but there is currently a loophole, as the sanctions are on individuals. If the IRGC is proscribed then those who support the organisation, providing financial backing and external support, will be removed; without the proscription, there is that loophole. Will the Minister state that this is being actively looked at with urgency?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is. I thank the noble Lord for his comments about our support for the protesters. It is essential, when we have these discussions, that we are completely grounded in the experience of those brave young people taking to the streets in Tehran and elsewhere across the country. The courage with which they are making their case is astounding. On the issue of the World Service, again, the noble Lord is right that this is an incredibly important service, and we often overlook and understate its impact, so I am pleased that it can continue. On proscription, yes, we are proceeding in the way that I outlined in response to the earlier question. We have sanctioned members of the IRGC but, as the noble Lord says, if there are additional powers through the means of proscription, we need to make changes in order to do that, but we are acting fully along with the recommendations of the Hall piece of work.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I have a very simple humanitarian question relating to what the Minister has just said. We do not know how many people have died, how many are injured or how many are missing, but we do know that the internet in Iran has been brought down. Simply, the restoration of the internet would allow family members to be in touch, to seek those who are missing and to know more of what is happening. What representations are the Government making on that issue, which would bring some solace to so many deeply hurting families in this appalling situation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
On the opening point about our lack of ability to understand just how many people have been killed so far, estimates range from 3,000 to many times that, and I think that, as information emerges, we will be horrified at what is revealed. He is also right to remind us of how vital communications infrastructure is, most principally, of course, through access to the internet. We want as much as anybody to see that restored. There is a reason that these things are removed by regimes at moments such as this, and it is not difficult to work out what that is—it is about hiding what is happening and preventing people from organising, communicating and supporting one another.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister commit that we will be unrelenting in working with like-minded nations in holding to account those who have been responsible for these atrocities, these massacres, on such a scale? Before the House debates the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on transnational repression, on 26 February, will she undertake to go back and look at the evidence about the persecution of BBC Persian journalists, independent journalists and pro-democracy activists in this country, and at the current inquiry of the Charity Commission into one charity which has been promoting the IRGC and its narrative? Secondly, will the Minister look at the potential use of Wilton Park as a place to bring together the disparate elements who form the opposition—not least people such as Maryam Rajavi but also supporters of other groups—to see whether a proper alliance can be constructed of like-minded groups to promote democracy and the rule of law?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord on accountability, and we have used our position on the Human Rights Council to further that and to get missions in place to gather the facts that are needed. I will of course read what he suggests on transnational repression; it is incredibly important, and I will make sure that I do that. I have not looked at the Charity Commission issue that he raised, but I will commit to doing so. I welcome the suggestion around Wilton Park; it is a very useful opportunity to get people together in a closed environment to have the kind of conversations that can make a real difference to these situations.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, the impression has been created that government policy has changed and that we are about to ban the IRGC or will do so at some point in the near future. Is that the case, or is it not, because some of us are starting to get a bit fed up with raising this?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I appreciate the frustration that my noble friend feels and I would never seek to make him feel that way—I have known him for a long time and I know how he can get. All I can do is restate the position. We commissioned the review by Jonathan Hall, and we accept fully his recommendations, which are that we need a change to our legal framework in order to do that which the noble Lord wants to see happen. We are committed to doing that, because we need to do that first, and we have made that commitment. If he wishes to continue to push with urgency on that, it would not be an unhelpful role for him to play and I know that it is one that he will do well.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I echo and support the comments made by my noble friend on the Front Bench. For clarification, approximately 35,000 unarmed civilians have been slaughtered already in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the figures for injuries run at about 350,000, so we are not talking about 3,000 victims here; we are talking about very many indeed. The last Government proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir. I therefore say to the noble Baroness that that, clearly, was a difficult thing to do as well, so I cannot for the life of me see what additional complications there could be to proscribing the IRGC.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
In that case, the noble Baroness could do a lot worse than read Jonathan Hall’s work, which explains this fully. We do need a legislative change. Clearly, this could have been done many years previously and was not considered at that point. Hizb ut-Tahrir was proscribed eventually and, obviously, we welcomed that. I would hope that we would get a welcome for the steps that we are taking regarding the IRGC as well.
US Department of Justice Release of Files
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, over the 34 years since Peter Mandelson was elected to Parliament, he has been disgraced and rehabilitated by successive Labour leaders. The Prime Minister brought him back into the fold for the final time as our ambassador to the United States. We now have a partial explanation of how Mandelson operated secretly. He and his partner were in receipt of electronic cash transfers from the notorious paedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. As money and benefits in kind flowed their way, he casually passed state secrets back to his benefactor. Epstein’s crimes were appalling: paedophilia, sex trafficking and child prostitution. We must not forget his victims, who suffered at his hands and are still suffering today.
It is right that Mandelson is no longer a Member of your Lordships’ House. It is right that there will be an internal investigation into his behaviour. And it is right that the police will investigate any potential criminality. While Peter Mandelson’s conduct is deeply disappointing, it is the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint him as the UK ambassador to Washington that almost defies belief. Mandelson’s claim in the years preceding his appointment as ambassador to the United States had been that he did not continue his relationship with Epstein once the latter had been convicted of soliciting a child for prostitution. Thanks to the excellent work of the Financial Times, it was already public knowledge in 2023, before Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, that this story was a lie. The Prime Minister now freely concedes that he was fully aware of this fact at the time that he appointed Mandelson.
I suspect that many in your Lordships’ House will, like me, find the Prime Minister’s decision to overlook this startling fact a complete dereliction of duty and an illustration of an appalling lack of judgment. The Prime Minister was under no pressure to appoint Mandelson. There were many able and distinguished career diplomats from whom he might have chosen—and, indeed, many able and distinguished career politicians, who, crucially, had not become embroiled in a disturbing private relationship with a known paedophile. I do not propose to ask the Lord Privy Seal to explain questions of conduct and judgment that the Prime Minister himself is seemingly incapable of explaining. Instead, I will focus on what we on these Benches feel ought to happen next.
Although it is clear that the Prime Minister disregarded the disturbing revelations made in the Financial Times, it is not presently clear whether the extensive security vetting to which Mandelson was subject had identified either the flow of payments from Epstein or the deeply compromising nature of the relationship between the two. Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm whether officials in the UK sought information from the US Government on the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson? If so, what information was shared?
Separately, we are told that there will be an internal government investigation led by the Cabinet Secretary. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has revealed publicly that he wrote to the Cabinet Secretary in September asking for a review of any further communications between Epstein and Mandelson, only to be told by way of answer that no relevant material had been identified. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House why, in light of this, the internal Cabinet Office investigation is being undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary? Would it not be better for this investigatory process to be led by somebody who does not report to the Prime Minister and whom a former Labour Prime Minister has not essentially accused of a cover-up?
Yesterday, the other place voted to require the Government to lay before the House all papers relating to the ambassadorship appointment. That is essential if the Government are to regain trust after this sorry saga. The Government caveated the humble Address to exclude papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. Such material will instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of both Houses. Can the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that all relevant material will be made available to the ISC, and that neither the Prime Minister nor any other Minister will seek to use their powers under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to prevent that committee from publishing its findings in full?
It is not sufficient for any of these investigations to look only into historic behaviour or to focus solely on Mandelson’s links with Epstein. Unfortunately, Jeffrey Epstein was not the only rich man of dubious repute with whom Peter Mandelson was known to share a close friendship. We need to know how Peter Mandelson conducted himself while serving as our ambassador in Washington. Did this conduct continue there? Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that neither the Cabinet Office investigation nor the Intelligence and Security Committee will be prevented from looking into all evidence relating to how Peter Mandelson has conducted himself, including while serving as ambassador?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My honourable friend Lisa Smart said in the House of Commons yesterday:
“We are having this debate today solely because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women’s bravery in speaking up about their experiences at the hands of a paedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out. We owe these women justice, and we owe it to them to make changes to create a system that works”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/2/26; col. 289.]
I agree with those words profoundly. One of the most upsetting elements of the release of the information from the United States has been the network of rich, wealthy, connected enablers, and the casual way in which they treated vulnerable girls and young women.
We agree with the Prime Minister on one element: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor must proactively work with any authorities who may wish to take this forward. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who has raised associated issues of how we make changes to uphold how we carry out our politics. I will refer to those in a moment. We called for the police to carry out investigations into Peter Mandelson’s activities, and are happy that they are now doing so, but we believe a public inquiry is now needed into the wider circumstances. We have raised that, and we hope the Government will accept the need for serious questions to be answered on not just process but judgment and actions.
A Minister said this morning to the media that, when it came to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador, the Government were relying on an established vetting process. I know that the Cabinet Secretary, as a civil servant, cannot reply in this House to questions that it has raised, but there are questions about securing independence in the process going forward and the role of the Cabinet Secretary. Any process must be conducted independently, not by the Cabinet Secretary.
We usually believe that enhanced vetting procedures for our most significant diplomatic postings should address whether the person who is being vetted lies. It is not acceptable simply for the Prime Minister to rely on the fact that Peter Mandelson lied; that is the point of an enhanced vetting process. But if elements of that process are set aside, because of either the relationship with or the judgment of the Prime Minister, we have to ask some very serious questions, especially as the Prime Minister knew of Peter Mandelson’s contact with a convicted paedophile and of their financial relationship, which had been reported as long ago as “Dispatches” programmes in 2019.
There is also a clear and demonstrable conflict of interest with Peter Mandelson and lobbying interests. Clear information was provided on using public office for public gain; why was this overruled in the appointment of him as our ambassador?
We welcome the Government’s change of heart on supplying information to the ISC, and we look forward to its work being carried out in a very speedy way. But we also believe that the Ministerial Code must be looked at very considerably now. There is little point in having a Ministerial Code that is self-policed by the Prime Minister if there are clearly conflicts of interest in those processes.
If Peter Mandelson had not resigned from this House, we have insufficient mechanisms of expulsion for those who bring the House into disrepute. These Benches called for action on this prior to the general election, and we do so again today. We will work with the Leader and across the House to bring about changes. We need to act now, before we are asked to do so, on the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, too. A self-regulating House needs to get its own house in order.
We also need to act immediately to remove Peter Mandelson from the peerage roll to stop him using that title for the future. Retirement from this House does not automatically mean removal from the peerage roll. It should be unacceptable for him to be able to trade on a peerage title in the future, which is allowed for if someone continues to be on the peerage roll. I checked this morning and he is still on it, so I would like to know if the Leader can indicate whether the Government are moving on that area.
We will also support the Government to accelerate any legislation to remove his peerage entirely. He cannot be allowed to trade on a title after betraying his own Government, this House and the public’s trust of someone who held public office. It is a privilege to serve in this House, not a right. There are obligations on someone who is on the peerage roll but insufficient means of correction, and they need to be addressed on a cross-party basis and urgently.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments and questions. At the forefront of all of our minds are those who were victims of a vile paedophile and how powerful people had a network in which there was no respect and it was almost as if they were casual playthings for their benefits. It is quite a horrendous thought, the consequences of which last for those young girls and women for the rest of their lives. They are often tragic consequences for them personally and for those who know them. I think a lot of this would never have come to light had it not been for their bravery in being prepared to stand up, be identified—which is a huge thing to do—and speak out. That has been at the forefront of my mind in all this, and it is one of the things that I find most distressing about it all.
On the noble Baroness’s questions on security vetting and investigations, as much as possible needs to be in the public domain. That is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee for taking on that role. Everything that is identified and deemed to be a matter of national security in some way will be reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee.
At the moment a lot of people are feeling very betrayed that their trust has been abused. The world outside basically thinks that you cannot trust any politician. We know from our work in this House—many of us have worked in politics for many years—that trust is the cornerstone of what we do, between and across parties. When that trust is betrayed, the people who feel it most keenly are often those who have put their trust in people who never earned it and did not deserve it. That is something for us all to reflect on going forward, which is why it is so important that information should be made as public as possible.
It is a completely understandable frustration that the police have said that some information cannot be released yet because of the integrity of their investigation. Information has been passed to the police but, if there is to be justice, particularly for victims, the police will have to decide what to do with that information. With that caveat, we will release the information when it is available, but it has been given to the police and to the ISC. We will do that as a matter of some urgency, and I give the noble Baroness that assurance, most definitely.
My only point of difference with the noble Lord is on a public inquiry—I am sure that will be looked at in due course—partly because of my experience of public inquiries. I initiated one as a Minister and it took something like 17 years to report. That length of time is completely and totally unacceptable to me. We have to do this quickly but thoroughly, and one should not compromise the other.
The noble Lord made some other points on vetting going forward. There is an established process, which was followed. If that process is found to be inadequate, it needs to be looked at.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness also raised an issue about who undertakes this. The Cabinet Secretary will at all times have the guidance of an independent KC on this, and will meet regularly with the ISC. The precise details of how that will happen have yet to be worked out, but the key is to ensure that all information is released. There is no desire on anybody’s part to try to hide something or cover it up; it has to be very transparent.
The noble Lord referred to lobbying interests and public office for profit. It is not just about the Ministerial Code; that was updated and this Prime Minister has strengthened it so that the adviser on this, the person in charge of the Ministerial Code, can initiate inquiries without reference to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has given them that greater independence. But I think this goes beyond that. Some of the emails that we have read, about information being given to an individual who may or may not have used it—we do not know—need to be investigated further. That information is available to the police as part of their investigations.
The noble Lord also asked about our mechanisms in this House. Being a Member of this House is an immense privilege and honour. I remember being in the other place: to sit on those Benches, I had to face an electorate, knock on doors and talk to people. It was a long process, and I could be deselected and unelected—as I was. We do not face that in this House. We are appointed. At the moment, we are appointed for life unless we choose to retire, and we have a committee looking at the participation issue now and we may have a retirement age.
But I think we need to go further, and the Prime Minister has said this as well. If standards are such that we feel someone should not be a Member of this House, do we really think it is appropriate for them to retain that title for life? It is not appropriate and it should not happen. The Government are preparing that legislation, and I will work with all parties on bringing it forward. I want to ensure that we get this right. That is not a reason for delay; it is to ensure thoroughness. This may not be the only case that we ever have, and I want to ensure that this House can hold its head up in the future to ensure that we believe in the integrity of every single Member. Getting that right and ensuring that this legislation has a long-term sustainable application is really important, so I will bring that forward and we will discuss it.
The noble Lord also mentioned the Code of Conduct. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. I wrote to him on Monday, in light of this, to ask him to look at our own Code of Conduct and whether we think it is fit for purpose. In our manifesto, we said that we would strengthen the circumstances for the removal of Peers who are disgraced. I am asking the committee to look at that in its work, and I think the whole House will want to work together on this. So there is work going forward, but we have to take responsibility for it as a House. If we fail to protect the integrity of the body, every single Member of this House will face those kinds of criticisms. I have great faith in this House and its Members but, if people let us down, they do not deserve the right to be here.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now move on to 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions. The House wants succinct questions, getting in as many noble Lords as possible. The House does not want speeches—this is not the time.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I agree with most of what the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has said, but I have two specific questions relating to Lord Mandelson. One is: why was he allowed to retain his shareholding in Global Counsel during the time he was ambassador to the United States? Who made that decision, and on what evidential basis was it made? The second point is: does the Minister really believe it is acceptable that I have asked three times since December—two months ago—whether Lord Mandelson received taxpayers’ funding via a severance payment when he was sacked as ambassador, and the Government have hitherto not answered the question? Is she now in a position to answer it? If so, how much of taxpayers’ money was given to this disgraced figure?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord: I do not have the answers to those questions for him, but I will get them. I do not think he has asked me about the severance pay, but I will ensure that he gets an answer. On the shareholdings, can I come back to him in writing? We will get an answer on both those points.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I have spent some of this morning looking at the US Department of Justice’s Epstein library. I note that the emails have a very matey tone and therefore obviously sit in a sea of emails over an extended period of time. Although these emails are obviously to a private email address of Peter Mandelson’s and are about market-sensitive things, there may well be emails about other things. I wondered, therefore, what steps were being taken to protect that email account and make sure that things are not being destroyed. I wondered also whether it would be sensible to contact the US Department of Justice, because it has quite a lot of other emails that it has not yet loaded on to the Epstein library, and there may well be other things of great interest.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I can assure the noble Earl that every effort has been made to protect all evidence and information that may be available. The Department of Justice has said that it has now downloaded all the emails from Jeffrey Epstein, but the noble Earl will understand that there are ongoing inquiries around those. I suppose the greatest assurance I can give him is that every effort will be made to get all relevant information, because, unless we have that relevant information, we cannot necessarily take appropriate action. So I can give him that assurance.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what role Peter Mandelson played as ambassador in convincing the American Government of the merits of the Chagos deal? Did he discuss it personally with the President and the Secretaries of State? In so doing, did he honestly tell them about the Pelindaba treaty, about the fact that we have an opt-out from juridical judgments of the ICJ, and other important matters, or did he, as was his custom, conceal the truth?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the issue of the Chagos Islands—which I know the noble Lord has strong feelings on—is not entirely relevant to the discussion we are having today, which I think is about the victims of a known paedophile and going beyond that. Obviously, an ambassador would have those discussions—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the noble Lord did not heckle from a sedentary position, as I want to try to answer his question. Obviously, an ambassador has ongoing discussions with the Administration during the time they are ambassador; other officials in the UK Government will be having those discussions with the American Government as well, and they are ongoing.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I note the Minister’s mention of the desperate need to re-establish political trust. I think all of us, on all Benches, need to understand how much Westminster politics is distrusted at the present moment and how we all, on all Benches, need to work together to restore that. Can she say a little more about what the Government plan to do on reforming the way Westminster and Whitehall work to restore public trust? There is a suggestion, for example, that, when Ministers take office, they should take oaths before the House to which they belong. On other measures, further reform of the House of Lords has also been mentioned. That would be welcome to know.
Can I also ask that the Government pursue the possibility of a Russian connection in this Epstein network? We know the Polish Government are very concerned about this. We see in the files the reference to a number of Russian connections—Russian women—involved. We have had substantial Russian penetration of British politics in the last 15 years. It may well be continuing, and we need to make sure, as we want to re-establish public trust, that we get it out in the open if it is still happening.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I will take the noble Lord’s last point first. All avenues of investigation are open. All information on the national security issues will be passed to the ISC so that those issues can be looked at in detail. I have to say that, with several million documents, I certainly have not been through all the emails, but I find those that I have read pretty unedifying and unpleasant to read. There are people whose job it is to go through all these, look at every possible link and get to the bottom of whatever has happened.
The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the issue of political trust. If you think about the work this House does, most of it is painstakingly detailed work on legislation to try to get things right. I do not believe anyone in this House comes into public service to do a bad job, but, if things go wrong and Members do not reach the standards we would expect of them—and that the public would expect of us—then they abdicate their right to be here.
On the points the noble Lord makes about the Ministerial Code, for example, that has already been strengthened: there is an independent level that was not there previously. Previously, the Prime Minister of the day could decide if somebody had broken the code and should be investigated. Now, it is for the holder of that code to make that decision on an investigation, which I think is a big step forward.
Legislation is currently being drafted about removing peerages from those who should no longer be entitled to have them. There will be discussion on exactly what form that will take and how we do that. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we want to get that right so that we are, in a sense, future-proofing so that, should any circumstances arise in the future where we think someone should not just not be a Member of this House but not be entitled to hold a peerage, that can be done in a processed, fair way. But it has to happen, and I think we can all think of other examples where it should have happened.
How do we restore trust? If I knew the answer to that, they would probably make me Prime Minister. But it is a really serious point, because this has been going on for a very long time. Trust in politicians has been eroded over time, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. It does not actually matter why: we need to ensure that we do everything we can—that, in our parliamentary and public-facing lives, we behave in a way such that people feel they can give us the trust we feel we deserve. If we do not, we have to move out of the public arena.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will go to the Labour Benches next.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the comprehensive Statement from the Leader of the House, but may I raise just one issue? There seem to be some questions to be answered about the role of the Cabinet Secretary in this. Is it appropriate for him to be involved in the investigation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the role of the Cabinet Secretary, working with the KC, is to ensure that all available documents are made public, that what needs to go to the police does—some documents already have, and there may be others as more is investigated—and that others can be made public. So there is a role, but it is being overseen by an independent King’s Counsel. So there is a legal element to that to make sure that there is no possibility of information being withheld that should be in the public domain or referred to the ISC because it is a matter of national security.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will now have the Cross Benches, then the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said about looking at whether the Code of Conduct needs to be strengthened. But would she agree with me that in this House we do have rules of behaviour, an independent investigative process, and sanctions available when those rules are broken? Would she further agree that the Code of Conduct binds every Member of this House—that binding is symbolised at the beginning of each Parliament by the signing of the Code of Conduct, but it applies all the time—and that it is very wide-ranging about behaviour and encompasses the seven principles of behaviour in public life, which cover a great many of the sorts of issues we are discussing today?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right. As a self-regulating House, we have a Code of Conduct and there are rules of behaviour, an independent process and sanctions. Is it adequate? Does it meet the test that it needs to meet? Does it do the job we want it to do? Does it give confidence in this House to the public? Those are the questions we want to look at. At the moment, it is very difficult for a Member to be removed from this House and there are no powers to remove someone’s title. I can think of only one occasion when a Member of this House has been expelled from it, but I can think of a number where somebody has resigned to avoid being properly investigated or expelled. We may want to look at whether we are confident and satisfied that it meets the test that the public expect of us.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
The noble Baroness the Leader will recall that, when she was shadow Leader of this House, the Privileges and Conduct Committee spent several meetings considering a disrepute clause similar to the one proposed by the Prime Minister. Has she advised the Prime Minister that we might have had such a clause in place 10 years ago had she and the other Labour members of the Privileges and Conduct Committee not failed to support such a clause and voted against it at that time?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right up to a point. It was not just on that occasion, when she made proposals, but on several other occasions since. Her proposals, as I recall, went further than most people would go, because they went into private lives. She shakes her head at me, but that was the main issue of dispute at the time. We have looked at it again since; there were times when the Conservative Benches have not supported such a proposal. It is important to look at disrepute not just in somebody’s parliamentary work, but in their public life. For example, in the last few years, when I was Leader of the Opposition, I raised an issue with the then Lord Speaker where somebody in their public life as a Member of this House behaved in a way that many in the House at the time found completely appalling and reprehensible. We need to look at disrepute, but I do not think this is a matter for private lives. Others may feel differently. How we conduct ourselves not just in our work here but in public as a Member of this House is important. I would like the Conduct Committee to look at that.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I very much welcome the openness of the answers that my noble friend has been giving to what are very serious, important questions. I want to raise an issue that has not been raised. I happen to be very keen to avoid having an elected president in this country, and therefore to preserve the monarchy. Mandelson was not the only person affected by the disclosure of these papers. What action is being taken in respect of the damage to the Royal Family in the disclosure of these papers?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been mentioned. One of the most disturbing things is this network of powerful people who seemed to think that they were above the law so it would not apply to them or they would not be found out. It is hard to know what is in somebody’s mind when they behave in this way. The noble Lord will be aware that he has been stripped of his titles and is moving out of royal accommodation to alternative private accommodation. His Majesty has been very firm on this and we support the way he has dealt with it. There are issues around the use of the Royal Lodge that are being looked at by the National Audit Office and work is being undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee.
Nobody can be above the law. Lord Mandelson has resigned from this House, the King has agreed with the Prime Minister that he should not be a privy counsellor and we are looking at legislating so that people in this position should not keep titles. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has lost his title and his privileges. This shows people that no one is above the law. That is important. The voices of the victims of powerful men and sometimes women were not heard when they should have been, and I hope that these actions go some way to ensuring that, in future, more notice will be taken of those who want to bring forward complaints.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
The Leader of the House referred earlier to powerful individuals. We have to say it as it is. It was predominantly powerful men abusing not only women but children. We have to be very careful about language. I want to follow up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised around the sharing of sensitive information by Lord Mandelson with Jeffrey Epstein, particularly around Poland and Russia. Have the Government assessed whether any further information was shared with other states and intelligence agencies? If so, will they disclose it? If that assessment has not been made, will they commit to carrying out that assessment as soon as possible to see whether other sensitive information was shared with other Governments across the world, friend or foe?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. His point about powerful individuals cannot be made often enough, and the impact this has had on the lives of very young people that will stay with them forever. On the sharing of sensitive information, he is right. This is a betrayal, not just of those whom Lord Mandelson was working with but a national betrayal. We do not know what damage could have been done, but certainly damage can be done when such information is shared. It is probably too early at this stage, with so many documents to go through and so many sources to try to retrieve documents from, to say exactly everything that is in there, but the Government are committed to transparency on this. We all need to know exactly what has happened. The documents in the public domain make unedifying reading. For those who were working in those areas at the time, to know that the conversations they had, the documents they signed and the decisions they took in the public interest were being relayed to somebody outside the very small number of people who should have known about them is a gross betrayal.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is now a matter of public record that, in February 2025, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote to the Cabinet Secretary asking for an investigation into
“the veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers regarding the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein”.
Did the Prime Minister know that his predecessor had made that request of the Cabinet Secretary? If he did not know, why was he not told? And if he did, why did he not instruct the Cabinet Secretary to undertake the investigation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Those are important questions. I do not have the answers for the noble Baroness. I have seen the press reports that former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whom I worked very closely with, has asked for the information. I do not know what trawl was done. I do not know at this stage what the former Prime Minister asked for and whether the Prime Minister was informed, but I will find out.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her full explanation of what has been going on. I want to raise again the Cabinet Secretary’s role. About five years ago, I had reason to complain to the Cabinet Secretary about what I thought was a Minister in the Commons misleading Parliament, so I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to ask if he could investigate. The answer was: “No, I would have to get the Prime Minister’s approval first”. I said: “There is not much point, because I know what the Prime Minister will answer”. I am pleased to hear that there is going to be a KC involved in the future work, but we have to be very careful about the relationship between the Cabinet Secretary and the then Prime Minister.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I do not know if he heard the answer I gave earlier, but it is now the case that it is not a matter for the Prime Minister to authorise an investigation into whether a Minister has broken the Ministerial Code. That is a matter for the holder of the Ministerial Code. So, on that point he would not have had that answer; today he would have a different answer and it would not be from the Prime Minister.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
This morning, the Green Party leader, Zack Polanski, has written to the Health Secretary expressing concern about the Palantir contract in the NHS. The papers have exposed the close relationship between Peter Mandelson and Palantir, and this disreputable company has caused a great deal of concern. I am not expecting the Minister to be briefed on the break clause that I believe occurs in that contract later this year, but my question is broader. The Government have had a very close relationship with US tech billionaires and their companies in the promotion of AI and the granting of contracts. Are the Government going to reassess, in the light of these papers, their relationship overall with US tech billionaires and their companies, and their close ties to the British Government?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
If there is anything in the papers that warrants further investigation in other areas then the Government will obviously look at that. The noble Baroness has asked me to give her assurance that, because we know X has happened, we will therefore investigate every tech company. I cannot give her that assurance. However, if there is anything in these papers at all to indicate that further investigation to get to the truth is needed, that will be taken.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
“(4A) Before the appropriate national authority makes regulations under subsection (1) for the purpose of implementing a new international agreement, or significantly altering an existing agreement, the authority must conduct and publish a comprehensive Privacy Impact Assessment.(4B) The Privacy Impact Assessment required under subsection (4A) must analyse and report on—(a) the necessity and proportionality of the information sharing arrangements,(b) the mechanism by which individual rights, including those under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, will be safeguarded,(c) the risks of non-compliance with the data protection legislation or of unintended consequences arising from the sharing of personal data, and(d) the nature and volume of personal data intended to be shared or accessed under the agreement.(4C) The appropriate national authority must lay before Parliament, no later than 12 months after the first regulations are made under this section, and annually thereafter, a report on the operation of regulations made under this section.(4D) The annual report required under subsection (4C) must include, in particular—(a) an assessment of the overall volume and categories of information shared under the regulations,(b) a detailed analysis of the impact of the regulations on the privacy and data protection rights of individuals, and(c) a summary of any internal reviews, audits, or legal challenges relating to information sharing under the agreements implemented by the regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a privacy impact assessment to be carried out before regulations are made under this section.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 464 I will speak to Amendments 467, 468 and 503, in my name. These amendments collectively address the governance of Clauses 192 to 194, which grant the Secretary of State broad powers to make regulations giving effect to international law enforcement information-sharing agreements. Following the recent passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, we are now operating in a new legal landscape, where the statutory threshold for protecting data transferred overseas has been lowered. These amendments are not just desirable; they are essential safety mechanisms to fill that gap.
Amendment 464 would be a safeguard of, so to speak, look before you leap. It stipulates that, before regulations are made under Clause 192 to implement a new international agreement, the authority must publish a comprehensive privacy impact assessment. The necessity of this assessment has intensified following the enactment of the Data (Use and Access) Act. The UK’s new test for onward transfers of data has lowered the bar. It no longer requires foreign protections to be essentially equivalent to ours, but merely not materially lower. This creates a dangerous new risk profile. The European Data Protection Board has explicitly noted that this new test omits key safeguards against foreign government access and removes redress mechanisms for individuals. If the general statutory floor has been lowered, Amendment 464 becomes the essential safety net. We must assess these specific risks via a privacy impact assessment before we open the digital borders, to ensure that we are not exposing UK citizens to jurisdictions where they have no legal remedy.
This brings me to Amendment 467, which addresses the nature of the data being shared. Where regulations authorise the transfer of highly sensitive personal data, such as biometrics, genetics or political opinions, this amendment would require enhanced protective measures. All this highlights the illusion of data protection when transferring data to high-risk jurisdictions that lack the rule of law. We know that in authoritarian states domestic intelligence laws will always override the standard contractual clauses usually relied on for data transfers. Because the Data (Use and Access) Act has removed the requirement for foreign safeguards to be essentially equivalent, we cannot rely on the general law to protect highly sensitive biometric or health data. My amendment would restore the requirement that transfers of such sensitive data must be demonstrated to be strictly necessary and proportionate. We cannot allow efficiency of data sharing to deny the reality that, in some jurisdictions, once data arrives, the state will have unrestricted access. Transparency must follow these powers.
Amendment 468 would mandate the production of an annual report on international law enforcement information sharing. This is vital because we are entering a period of divergence. The European Commission, at the urging of the European Data Protection Board, will be monitoring the practical implementation of the UK’s revised data transfer regime. If the EU will be monitoring how our data laws operate, surely Parliament should be doing the same. We need an annual report to track whether these law enforcement transfers are inadvertently exposing UK citizens to jurisdictions where they have no effective legal redress. Without this feedback loop, Parliament is legislating in the dark.
Finally, Amendment 503 would ensure that regulations made under Clause 192 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Given that the primary legislation governing data transfers has been loosened, it is constitutionally inappropriate for these specific law enforcement agreements to slip through via the negative procedure. Amendment 503 would ensure that these regulations, which may involve the transfer of our citizens’ most sensitive biometric data to foreign powers, must be actively debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
We support international co-operation in fighting crime, but it must not come at the cost of lowering our standards. These amendments would restore the safeguards that recent legislation have eroded. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendments and the importance that he has obviously placed on the right to privacy of the general public.
I support the principle behind Amendment 464. Sharing information often carries a risk with it, particularly when it is for the purposes of law enforcement, and especially when this is done internationally. Law enforcement data contains information that is far more personal to the individual or case in question than the norm. Any data of this sort must be handled with the highest discretion. Ensuring that the sharing of this data respects the right to privacy carries no unintended consequences and, most importantly, is necessary and should be the benchmark from which regulations are made.
If this amendment is accepted, I do not see the additional need for Amendment 468. At the very least, the privacy impact assessment under Amendment 464 should form the basis of any annual report that Amendment 468 would mandate. Less is more when it comes to admin and reports, so I am hesitant to support a new report that is not necessarily needed.
I think Amendment 467 is sensible. In general, internationally shared data should not include information prejudicial to any individual, let alone domestic citizens. This particularly extends to the sharing of biometric data for the purpose of unique identification or genetic identification.
These categories of data are obviously vital for the purposes of law enforcement, but law enforcement extra territorially risks placing this data in the wrong hands. This and similar data should therefore be particularly protected, which is the aim of the noble Lord’s amendment. I hope that the Minister can outline what the Government intend to do to ensure that the international sharing of personal data is undertaken in the most discreet and protected manner.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to kick off what I very much hope will be the last day in Committee—not to jinx it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out the case for these amendments, which relate to the provisions in Clauses 192 to 194.
International law enforcement information-sharing agreements are a vital tool that provide law enforcement officers with access to new intelligence to fight crime, increase public protection and reduce the threat of societal harm posed by international criminality. To clarify, these measures provide the appropriate national authority with the power to make regulations to implement both new and existing legally binding international law enforcement information-sharing agreements. Such regulations may, for example, make provision for the technical and, where appropriate, operational detail to facilitate the information sharing provided for in a particular agreement.
The UK is recognised globally for having one of the most robust data protection regimes, anchored in the Data Protection Act and UK GDPR, which ensure that privacy is protected even in the most complex areas of law enforcement and international co-operation. This Government are committed to maintaining these high standards and ways of working to ensure that data protection and privacy are not compromised as we strengthen cross-border security. UK law already requires data controllers to conduct a data protection impact assessment for any activity that is likely to result in a high risk to individuals’ rights and freedoms. Public bodies and law enforcement authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act, and they must duly assess activities accordingly.
Existing data protection principles and statutory requirements, particularly data protection impact assessments, already cover the concerns raised by the noble Lord’s amendments, making new duties duplicative and unnecessary. As is required under Article 36(4) of the UK GDPR, regulations made under this power as they relate to the processing of personal data will require consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The international law enforcement information-sharing agreements preceding the making of regulations under Clause 192 are subject to the usual treaty ratification procedures, including the provisions regarding parliamentary scrutiny provided for in Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Any such agreement will be laid before Parliament with an Explanatory Memorandum, which would include the background to why the Government are entering into the agreement, its implementation and a note of any existing domestic legislation and human rights considerations. Additionally, an overseas security and justice assistance assessment will be required. Introducing additional scrutiny requirements would risk duplication and provide no additional substantive information to Parliament beyond what is currently available.
We must also consider the operational sensitivity of such processing. Law enforcement data sharing involves sensitive systems and procedures. Publication of such assessments may inadvertently expose vulnerabilities or methods that criminals or adversarial parties may seek to exploit.
Ministers regularly update Parliament on international law enforcement co-operation, including data sharing. I have a long list of examples before me—I will not detain your Lordships with too many of them. The Cabinet Office issued the Government’s response to the EAC report Unfinished Business: Resetting the UK-EU Relationship on 23 January this year and published it shortly thereafter. A couple of days before, on 21 January, my noble friend Lord Hanson appeared before the EAC to discuss the UK-EU reset, which focused on the LEJC, migration and the border partnership. You do not have to go far back for another example: on September 8, the Foreign Affairs Committee questioned the Cabinet Office and FCDO Ministers on post-summit implementation, co-ordination and future UK-EU co-operation frameworks. That is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to parliamentary oversight of these matters.
Law enforcement authorities and government departments work closely together to assess international law enforcement capabilities and their effectiveness. Such assessments, by their very nature, are operationally sensitive and would not be suitable for publication. Specifically singling out international law enforcement data sharing also risks presenting a skewed picture of wider domestic operational activity, given that law enforcement outcomes are often the result of multiple capabilities and instruments being used. Owing to the breadth of law enforcement authorities that may be engaged in such information-sharing activity, and the likely multiple data systems, sourcing and collating operational data that would be suitable for inclusion in a published annual report would create significant demand and risk diverting resource from other critical law enforcement priorities.
We must also consider the implications for the international parties to such agreements, who may have concerns about the publication of such data and assessment, particularly where it may relate to operationally sensitive matters. That, in turn, may affect and limit the negotiability of future agreements. Such reports could potentially expose operational practices that it may not be appropriate to place in the public domain. We must be mindful that agreements will vary in scope with international partners; to publish detail on the volumes of data exchanged may inadvertently cause concern from international partners on differing operating scopes.
Finally, as to whether regulations made under Clause 192 should be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, I simply point the noble Lord to the report on the Bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which made no such recommendation. We are usually held to the high standards of that committee and admonished when it finds us wanting. In this case, we were not found wanting, which I think is a very good tick that I pray in aid.
I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about these clauses, but I hope that I have reassured him that data protection remains at the heart of our approach. With that in mind, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. It was very cheerful, which I find quite extraordinary in the circumstances. It is almost as though he has been reading Voltaire’s Candide: everything is for the best in all possible worlds. I will read carefully what he said, but there was an extraordinary amount of complacency built into his response about the nature of sharing data across borders—specifically that the existing regime is sufficient to safeguard these transfers and that my amendments would introduce unnecessary friction into law enforcement co-operation. That is because the rules of the game have changed since the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
The Information Commissioner can operate only within the legislation provided, which is no safeguard in those circumstances. I have the highest regard for the Information Commissioner and his office, but they have to operate within the bounds of the law, which have changed since the Act was passed. I mentioned the European Data Protection Board and so on. The Minister has performed some kind of parliamentary jujitsu by seeming to say that sensitive data, which I cited as being one of the reasons why I tabled my amendments, makes it far too difficult to do what I am proposing. I admire his speechwriting but I must say that I do not think that is an answer.
I will withdraw my amendment, but I believe that the Act that we spent so long debating has changed the rules of the game and that these amendments are necessary to ensure that international co-operation does not become a backdoor for the erosion of privacy. I will come back to this but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 192, page 223, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 192, page 223, line 27.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my late friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness had originally laid this proposal that Clause 195 should not stand part. I had signed it to support him because of my interests in human rights. His untimely death last week means that I am now leading on something that he, as an excellent lawyer, really understood and cared about. We shall in this debate, when we get into the detail, miss his incisive legal mind, combined with a passion for fairness and the rule of law. We miss him so much already. I am not a lawyer, but I will do what I can. I thank the Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum, or DELF, for its help and advice in the last few days, as well as its excellent technical briefing, from which I shall quote.
The core of asking that Clause 195 not stand part is straightforward. It would remove the right for a retrial following a conviction in absentia where the person convicted is deemed to have been present, even if there has been no contact between that person and their court-approved lawyer. As ever, there is more in the detail. Clause 195 proposes to amend Sections 20 and 85 of the Extradition Act, governing extradition following convictions in absentia. Following a stakeholder symposium convened in January, DELF identified material inaccuracies in the Government’s stated justification for the clause. Unfortunately, there are consequences as a result of these inaccuracies that will have serious implications for individuals facing extradition in future.
In the Government’s justification for Clause 195, they said that the proposed amendments
“ensure compatibility between UK domestic legislation and the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement”.
Article 601(1)(i) of the TCA, which governs convictions in absentia, already aligns with Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. Those safeguards, grounded in fundamental rights, reflect the carefully calibrated EU extradition framework, strengthened in 2009 to enhance protections for convictions in absentia. It sought to promote legal certainty and mutual recognition while respecting differing national legal systems. The problem is that Clause 195 risks making UK legislation inconsistent with the TCA in two material respects, thereby undermining the reforms advanced by the UK in 2008-09.
First, Article 601(1)(i)(iii) of the TCA permits refusal of extradition where a person did not deliberately absent themselves for a trial in absentia unless they have a right
“to a retrial or appeal … which allows the merits of the case … to be re-examined”.
That standard is reflected in Section 20 of the Extradition Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, but Clause 195 would dilute this safeguard by reducing it to a mere “right to apply” for a retrial, thus weakening protections previously secured across Europe.
Secondly, Article 601(1)(i)(ii) of the TCA deems a person present at the trial only where they have
“given a mandate to a lawyer … to defend him or her at the trial, and was indeed defended by that lawyer at the trial”.
However, new subsection (7A) in Clause 195 will weaken this protection, treating a person as present solely by virtue of their legal representation, even where there has been no contact or instruction between lawyer and client.
There is further concern over the Government’s inaccurate statement that the
“interpretation … changed as a result of … Bertino and Merticariu”.
The Supreme Court did not create new law by distinguishing between a right to retrial and a mere right to apply for one. Rather, it affirmed the settled meaning of “entitled”, endorsing established authority, which made it clear that entitlement does not mean “perhaps” or “in certain circumstances”. In doing so, the court in that case overturned the conflicting decision in BP v Romania 2015, which had erroneously treated a discretionary right to apply for a retrial as sufficient, having misapplied case law on procedural requirements that do not undermine a genuine entitlement.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling this clause stand part notice. I would like to add my reservations about this clause.
First, I am concerned that this clause has not received sufficient scrutiny and consideration by Parliament. It was added on Report in the other place on 17 June last year. The Minister moving the new clause dedicated only 255 words to explain its effect and it was not mentioned by a single other Member. It has not received adequate attention. For that reason, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has tabled this amendment to allow us to press the Government on the measures they are proposing.
The second point is the potential impact this clause could have on the right to a fair trial for British citizens. Under Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, where a person has been convicted in another country, the judge at the extradition hearing must first decide whether the person has been convicted in their absence and then decide whether the person deliberately absented themselves from the trial. If the judge is satisfied that the person was convicted in absentia and did not deliberately absent themselves from the trial, the judge must determine whether the person would be entitled to a retrial or to a review that amounts to a retrial in the territory to which the person would be extradited. If the judge does not believe that the person would be entitled to a retrial if extradited, the judge must discharge the prospect of extradition.
The Supreme Court in the recent cases of Bertino and Merticariu distinguished between the right to a retrial and the right to apply for a retrial. The court has held that a person’s entitlement to a retrial does not simply mean the person “might” be entitled to a retrial but that they “must” be entitled. This means that a conditional entitlement to a retrial that is dependent upon the finding of the court in the requesting country is insufficient for extradition to proceed. This places a decision on whether a fair trial can be had firmly in the hands of British judges. That is surely right. It is plainly preferable for the determination of the ability for a retrial to take place to be undertaken by a British judge, as opposed to merely relying on the decision of a foreign court.
However, in Clause 195, the Government are seeking to overturn this ruling, thereby removing a key safeguard against unfair extradition. If this clause is brought into force, the judge in Britain would have to order a person’s extradition on the simple assertion by the requesting country that the person could be permitted to stand trial in person, regardless of whether that is actually true or not.
Let us imagine a person who was tried in absentia and was not aware of their conviction in another country. If they were extradited and not permitted a retrial, they would not have been able to stand up in court and defend themselves against the charges they had been accused of. That is surely a recipe for serious injustice. In short, I am concerned that this clause will lead to more British citizens being extradited on the whim of a foreign judge and not afforded the right to a fair trial. For this reason, I very much support the proposition from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the clause should not stand part.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by saying how sorry I am that it is the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, moving her proposition and not Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who we will greatly miss. As we all know, he was a staunch advocate for the people of Orkney and Shetland. I served nine years with him in Parliament, as we crossed over during that time, and found him to be an exemplary public servant as Deputy First Minister for Scotland and as a Member of Parliament. I had less contact with him in your Lordships’ House and I am genuinely sorry that I cannot have contact with him today. I pass my condolences to his family. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Brinton for taking up the cudgels on this specialist subject and doing it in a way that is professional. I promise that I will try to answer the questions and follow up on the points she has raised.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding me of the constituency case of Paul Wright in Mold, which I dealt with in a former life as Paul Wright’s Member of Parliament, following the extradition case with Greece. I will have to google it to refresh all the details in my memory, but it was an important constituency case for me to take up as a Member of Parliament at that time. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, feels that this did not receive sufficient scrutiny, but I take his point, and I hope I can answer his points today.
Clause 195 standing part of the Bill means that, under the Extradition Act 2003, the UK may extradite individuals either to face trial or serve a sentence. Where a conviction occurred in absentia and the UK court finds the person did not deliberately absent themselves, the judge must determine whether they will be entitled to a retrial in the requesting state. This clause will amend Sections 20 and 85 of the 2003 Act to restore the original policy intention that the individual must have a right to apply for a retrial, not a guaranteed retrial, for extradition to proceed. The amendment is required, as the noble Baroness mentioned, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Merticariu v Romania, which interpreted the current drafting of the 2003 Act as requiring a guaranteed retrial—something some states cannot offer. Without this fix, certain legitimate extradition requests could be blocked, undermining justice for victims.
I know the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned this, but the amendment itself does not change any existing safeguards or processes governing extradition. The full suite of safeguards in the 2003 Act, including judicial oversight and human rights protections, remains unchanged. This includes the UK court’s powers to consider and determine whether someone deliberately absented themselves. I hope that gives her some reassurance.
The small government Amendment 537 makes minor drafting changes. It simply provides that Clause 195 will be commenced by regulations, as opposed to automatically coming into force on Royal Assent, as was originally planned.
I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has said and I have heard the complex case that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has mentioned. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether she could have a meeting with appropriate supporters to discuss this and I would be happy to do so. For the purposes of confirming that, I would be grateful if she could email me the details of who she wishes to attend that meeting. It is entirely up to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but I would be happy if the noble Lord, Lord Davies, wishes to attend—or I could offer him a separate meeting if he wants to have further discussions or representations. If that can be discussed outside Committee, I would be happy to do that.
In the meantime, I hope the reassurances I have given are sufficient for the moment. I would be happy if the noble Baroness would withdraw her opposition to the clause standing part, pending any discussion, which I will ensure takes place if possible—subject to our diaries—before Report, as appropriate. If not, we can still have the discussion, so that we can at least reflect on the points that have been made today.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for speaking in support of the clause not standing part, particularly for speaking about the very short time that it had for debate in the Commons, which obviously did not have the chance to go through some of the detail that DELF has provided for us in this Committee.
I also thank the Minister. He is, as ever, courteous and thoughtful. I am not sure we have closed the gap between where I believe that there are problems and where he and his officials think that this is all resolved. Therefore, I am very grateful for the offer of a meeting. I would be delighted if the noble Lord, Lord Davies, wanted to join us. I will indeed email him names, but in the meantime I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Age of criminal responsibilityIn section 50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, for “ten” substitute “14”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would raise the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from ten to 14 years so that no child under that age could be tried for or convicted of a criminal offence.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 469 is in my name and the names of the noble and learned Baronesses, Lady Butler-Sloss and Lady Hale of Richmond, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
I ask Members of the Committee to think back to when they were 10—if that is not too difficult. Perhaps they were studying the Victorians in primary school. If so, they might have been astonished to learn that children of any age, even younger than 10, could be prosecuted in the 19th century. But there was an important nuance; even in the Victorian Juvenile Offenders Act 1847 and its spiritual successors, the Children Act 1908 and the Children and Young Persons Acts 1933 and 1963, there was a presumption of doli incapax—that children below 14 are inherently incapable of forming criminal intentions. This had to be rebutted beyond reasonable doubt by any individual prosecution. This is the very thing that will have spared many of us from criminalisation at tender ages for our misdemeanours in formative years. Of course, most of us also have the safeguards of loving, diligent parenting and/or class privilege.
When we foregrounded this debate in an Oral Question just over two weeks ago, my noble friend Lord Watts, who is not currently in his place, in his own inimitable style, suggested that my concern about our low age of criminal responsibility was somehow a middle-class preoccupation. I agree that class is relevant to this question, but, with respect to my noble friend, his analysis is rather upside down. It is not children on the playing fields of our famous public schools who are likely to be referred to the police for the fisticuffs, minor thefts and criminal damage that is almost inevitable in early years; it is instead the poorest and most vulnerable, such as children in care, who are also preyed upon by groomers and exploiters, and even blackmailed with the threat of being reported to the police by their abusers.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment and I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said. This is the third time that I have tried to raise the age of criminal responsibility in this House. I tried first in the Blair Government and lost. I tried the second time in the coalition Government and lost. On each occasion, I asked for a modest increase, to 12. I would be content with 12, but I would naturally prefer 14. It is very sad, but I just wonder whether every Government, of whichever political persuasion, are so afraid of the press and the press headlines that they are not prepared to change the law. Some years ago, the four children’s commissioners of the United Kingdom wrote a joint report in which they said that the United Kingdom is the most punitive country in the whole of Europe. That has not changed.
I tried two relevant cases: the first was on the anonymity of the Bulger killers, aged 10; the second was Mary Bell, aged 10. I do not know whether noble Lords know that the two Bulger killers, aged 10, had found a pornographic video hidden under the bed of the father of one of them, and they watched it. It was a story of how to kill a small child after painting the child blue. Those two little boys went out and did exactly what the film had shown. That seems to me to be highly relevant to considerations. It was an appalling crime; there is no doubt about that, but one does really need to think—as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has reminded us—about the maturity of the brain, which is not properly completed by the age of 10, and is only still partly completed by the age of 14. There is substantial evidence that one Government after another absolutely refuse to recognise.
Ten is very young. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, let us think back to when we were 10—I find that particularly difficult at my age. One bears in mind one’s children or one’s grandchildren, how they behaved and the extent to which they really understood, not perhaps between right and wrong—I would hope they did—but the consequences of what they have done or might do. That seems to be something that is gained later in life than the age of 10.
One point that noble Lords might be concerned about is what would happen to a 10 year-old if they committed a really serious offence, particularly murder, with which I have been twice concerned. The fact is that Section 45 of the Children Act 1989 would send such a child who was a danger to him or herself or to others to secure accommodation. I am a patron of an admirable secure accommodation unit in Exeter. Every child in that unit has at least two carers, and some who are particularly troublesome have three. They are properly educated and looked after in a way that would of course happen to a child convicted of an offence; they would be sent nowadays to secure accommodation.
Mary Bell, however, was sent to prison. The very humane Member of this House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, arranged that the Bulger killers should not go on to an adult prison; they in fact left at the age of 18. Noble Lords might be interested to know the reason why I gave anonymity to those two young men. I received evidence from the police, sitting as a judge, that there were vigilantes out there determined not just to injure them, but to kill them. There was substantial evidence that there were groups of vigilantes in various parts of the country. That was why I gave them anonymity. I ask the Minister to reflect on what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I have said: 10 is very young.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has brought me to this point after watching the deliberations on this. I was someone who, through multiple decades of youth work in particular and community work, was reluctant to do this, but I feel that it is the right thing to do. I just note a few things that would need to happen to make this effective and safe for the wider public.
I have dealt with many gang-involved young men, in particular. There are groups of young men whose sole job is to recruit for those gangs. Sometimes, with our criminal age of 10 being so low, it has made a number of children safer because it has kept them away. If you raise that age, it means that those recruitment people can go around saying, “You’re okay. You can’t be prosecuted, you can’t go to court and you can’t get in trouble”. If we are going to make this change, it needs to be sounded very clearly that there is still a route for you to get in trouble—that it is very important.
The more important piece, I would argue, is to look at how the Metropolitan Police now approach all young children; it views them as a victim first and it is very reluctant to move them into being a criminal without some very serious evidence—that approach needs to be embedded somewhere alongside this change. However, I make the point that there are a number of 10 year-olds—there are not millions of them out there, but there are enough in some of our poorest communities—who are sophisticated enough to be a real danger.
If we are going to make this change, we should make sure that, alongside it, we still have a way to affect the behaviour of those young children, in particular around bullying. If we remove supervision from them—often, supervision from the police is the only thing that carries enough weight in their own mind—they become a serious source of bullying and can cajole other children into breaking the law.
While I will support the amendment, I have been moved to this position only very recently, because it has had to fight against multiple years of experience of dealing with some young children who are very criminally involved, deliberately so. I still see the noble Baroness’ point, but I make a plea to the Minister to make sure that measures are put in place to keep the community safe and to identify young people early, not labelling them as criminals but dealing with their ability to bully and cajole other young people.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 469, and I have listened with great care to the persuasive argument presented by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, whom I think I can also refer to as a noble friend. I have also been briefed by Justice, a body that I have the highest respect for; indeed, I have been a member of Justice—I think I joined in 1964—for up to 60 years.
I accept the widespread view in other countries that the age for findings of criminality should be 14 years, which is the proposition in Amendment 469. I accept also that Scotland has recently raised the age of criminality from eight years to 12 years. We should also take into account the alarming increase in crime committed by young children going down to the age of nine years, and even lower. I read, for example, from Home Office statistics, which record that 9,544 offences were committed by children aged nine or younger in 2024. That is a rise of 30% on the 7,370 under-10 crimes recorded in 2019, before the pandemic, and an 18% rise on the total for 2022 of 8,064. They range, alarmingly, over crimes concerning rape, arson, stalking, attacking police, making death threats and drug and racially motivated offences—that is for nine year-olds. In Cheshire recently, police faced an attempted murder suspect who was too young to go before the courts. I take full account of all that.
However, I have a sense of unease in raising the age of criminality from 10 to 14 years. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised the case relating to two year-old James Bulger, of February 1993. I need not go into the full facts, but it suffices to say that in a shopping centre in Bootle in Merseyside, a little boy, two year-old James Bulger, was separated from his mother and was met by two other boys, 10 year-olds Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. They proceeded to take him away, eventually to a railway line, where they committed the most horrendous murder of that little boy. Following that, they were tried and convicted in November 1993 and in June 2001 were released from prison on licence. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has dealt with their anonymity following their release.
The record is that—and I think this is very relevant—Robert Thompson is not known to have been a reoffender, but not so with Jon Venables. He has had multiple convictions, including for child pornography. He is currently in prison and recently, in 2023, bail was refused because he still posed a danger and a risk to the public. As I said, I have expressed my unease about this.
The only further comment I make on the horrendous case relating to poor two year-old James Bulger is that it is not the only recorded crime of horrendous behaviour by young persons. I recall reading in the newspaper of the recent murder of a pensioner, and I am fairly sure that it was underage children who were responsible for that. I also recall reading in the newspapers of the murder of a homosexual in a public park. Again, if I recall correctly, underage children were involved, including a young girl.
Juvenile crime, I suggest, should be kept on the record. It was highly relevant in the case of Jon Venables that it should be kept on the record. Perhaps we could make an exception for the very serious crime that I have outlined to your Lordships. But one way or another, that record of criminality should remain with the juvenile.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I am not going to repeat the wonderful presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. There is a sentiment in me which wants to go a long way with some of the things we have said. I listened quite intently to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the arguments were what I call suitable for a seminar, in that you can look at all sides of them. I am persuaded that some children may need greater care and support. It is quite possible that those who exhibit criminality could be helped and end up in a different place. Certainly, listening to the wonderful presentation by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the cases that she has tried, I do not think anyone could say a 10 year-old can commit a crime—that would be very strange. If they have committed a crime, they have committed a crime, and in questions of criminality it is not simply a matter of the law, because, say, you are, like me, an older man at nearly 77. In all of us, there is a propensity to be saintly and holy, but also a darkness which you have to deal with.
I am not uneasy about children having a criminal record if they have committed a crime; I am uneasy about the way they are then treated. We heard from the noble and learned Baroness about making sure that their identity is not put out in the public domain, because there will be vigilantes who want to terrible things to young children. On the fact that a judge took a decision on their being taken to another prison, there are appropriate ways of punishing people without feeling that all punishment must be the same because the nature of the crimes is like those of other criminals. I would have a thought that, with a child such as Thompson or Venables, and considering what they did to young James Bulger, you need to find appropriate ways of dealing with their safekeeping and providing help, but not in the same way as you would treat a John Sentamu. For instance, if I commit a terrible crime, although I am 77, I should be answerable to the rest of the population. The way we handle children often leaves a lot to be desired.
I was a chaplain in a remand centre, and some of those young people had committed horrendous crimes. When you looked back, nearly 99% of their habits had been learned from adults; it was not that they were dreaming of doing these terrible things. It was a borstal for the young, so I take on the arguments made. On the arguments about children that the noble Baroness gave us, I do not think it is a question of age. I do not know how their brains work, although that might help in terms of sentencing, but for me it is not a question of age.
During the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, we went to Wales, and we—and William Macpherson, who was the chair of the inquiry—were shocked that children as young as six were committing some of the most horrendous racist incidents. By the way, we call it the Stephen Lawrence inquiry but the rest of the population do not say that. They keep on calling it the Macpherson inquiry. It is not that; its title is the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Again, you looked at the parents and they were not responsible. It was a group enterprise. Kids in school were learning the language and there was not enough information to help them understand that behaving like that is not going to help them.
We as a nation should take the view that all children belong to us, and it is our responsibility to make sure we create an environment in which they are going to be helped. Locking them up and throwing away the key cannot be acceptable where children are concerned, no matter what crimes they may have committed. We should examine, in the streets where we live, how well we have helped and supported children.
I ask the Minister, as we have matters that need to be taken seriously, to consider whether it is best to do this through this Bill, or whether it would be better to arrange a seminar to examine the issue before Report, and find out what would be best for our children, instead of applying the unhelpful label “criminal” or deciding that a threshold of 14 or 12 will do it, because kids as young as seven can do some terrible things. We should put our hand on our hearts and say that maybe, as a society, we need to do much better.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
It is important to recognise the very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, in relation to the problems of gangs in London, but I do not believe that that should be the reason why we should not make a change.
There are three things one can say very quickly. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has dealt at length with the enormous improvement in understanding the development of the mind and the enormous scientific advances that have been made. Across the criminal justice system, we generally are very bad at adapting to science.
Secondly, it is right to pay tribute to the Youth Justice Service across England and Wales. It has improved, and we now deal with youth crime and young people in a much more humane and civilised manner than we did 20 years ago. The number in places like Feltham has fallen enormously, and thank goodness it has. I do not know how many of your Lordships have been there, but it is a terrible place, and you do not want to send people there, particularly young people.
Thirdly, this was an issue I looked at when chairing the Commission on Justice in Wales. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, that he is not to worry: I am not making a devolution point now, but I will come back to that at Report. However, I will say that the commission that examined this issue was firmly of the view that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 12, having heard a lot of evidence. It seems to me that this is something we cannot kick into the long grass again. We must recognise change, and we should make it now.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord may recall from his days at the Bar that the juvenile courts were very sensitive to their role; that the judge and the counsel did not wear wigs; that the young offender was not kept in the dock, but was placed alongside his lawyers, and so forth. So we have, stretching back a long way, been very sensitive when trying juveniles.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, as a former trustee of UNICEF, I rise to support Amendment 469, so clearly presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and signed and spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Internationally, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is recognised as 12, and UNICEF has always been clear that it should be 14. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, said, and understand his concerns about the very large number of young people and children being groomed and pulled into criminal gangs. He is right to say that we need more concerted support in terms of police, education and youth work intervention, but it is not the children’s—younger children’s—fault that they have ended up there. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, recognised that heinous crimes needed to be marked in a certain way, but both also commented on the fact that we needed to understand that these were children. I am really grateful for the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
Your Lordships’ House has been discussing this for many, many years and as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, she was campaigning on this long before she came into Your Lordships’ House. Now is the time; we need change. We need to do that because there is so much evidence now.
In 2011, Nicholas Mackintosh, who chaired the Royal Society study on brain development, told the BBC then that there was
“incontrovertible evidence that the brain continues to develop throughout adolescence”,
and that some regions of the brain, responsible for decision-making and impulse control, do not mature fully
“until at least the age of 20”.
That Royal Society report cited the
“concern of some neuroscientists that the … age of criminal responsibility in the UK is set too low”.
We are still discussing it today.
UNICEF’s view is that 14 should be the minimum age, using scientific research as a base, but it is very specific that no country should have the age below 12. This places England, Wales and Northern Ireland in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is bad enough, but the real problem is a court system that assumes that children have capacity to make decisions when all the research shows that that is not reliable. It is wrong for a Government to assert that any interference with a child’s human rights can be justified.
UNICEF says in its excellent guidance note on youth offending published in 2022, that children under the minimum age of criminal responsibility,
“should not be considered (alleged) child offenders but, first and foremost, children in need of special protection”.
It says that offending behaviour by such children
“is often the result of poverty, family violence and/or homelessness … their involvement in offending behaviour is an indicator of potential vulnerability that has to be addressed by the social welfare system. Special protection measures for children … should address the root causes of their behaviour and support their parents/caregivers. The measures should be tailored to the child’s needs and circumstances and based on a comprehensive and interdisciplinary assessment of the child’s familial, educational and social circumstances”.
That matches the advice of the medical specialists too. Frankly, it is time that the Government stepped up and took the brave decision that we need to recognise that we are out of kilter with the rest of Europe and, frankly, most of the world.
Prosecuting children and holding them in young offender institutions does not give them the time and space to learn how to live their lives differently. We have heard from both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about how the arrangements work for children in specialist secure accommodation. We can still use those systems but without giving children the label of being a criminal when, clearly, they are not capable of making the right decisions.
I am really grateful to my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who has been campaigning on this particular issue for decades before he came into your Lordships’ House in 1997. His Private Member’s Bill in 2017 resulted in a wide public discussion. It is a shame that, nine years on, we have not progressed further. Let us do so now.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a genuinely interesting debate. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would raise the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from 10 to 14. For the reasons I will set out below, I am unable to support it.
First, the purpose of the age of criminal responsibility has not been designed to criminalise children unnecessarily. Rather, it is to ensure that the state can intervene early and proportionately when a child’s behaviour causes serious harm. As the noble Baroness, Baroness Levitt, the Minister, stated in this House, setting the age at 10 allows the justice system to step in at a point where intervention can prevent further offending and protect both the child and the wider public, and, crucially, children are not treated as adults. They are dealt with through youth courts under a distinct sentencing framework with rehabilitation as the central aim.
The evidence shows that the system already uses this power sparingly. We are told that, in 2024, only 13% of all children sentenced were aged between 10 and 14, and that proportion has been falling year on year. Of the 1,687 sentences imposed on children in that age group, just 23 resulted in custody. Those figures matter. They demonstrate that the age of criminal responsibility being set at 10 does not mean routine criminalisation of children. It means retaining a backstop for the most serious and persistent cases while diversion remains the norm.
Raising the age to 14 would create a dangerous gap. It would mean that children aged 10 to 13 who commit grave offences—including serious violence, sexual offences or sustained harassment—could not be held criminally responsible. This would limit the state’s ability to manage risk, protect victims and, in some cases, protect the child. There are rare but tragic cases—
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Section 44 of the Children Act deals with children who are a danger to themselves and to others. The only difference in the criminal court is that it comes through the family proceedings court, but in fact the local authority would have to deal with it and the child would be put into secure accommodation. I wonder whether the noble Lord could take that on board.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for that. I do not dispute that fact; I quite accept it.
There are rare but tragic cases, such as the murder of James Bulger, where a criminal justice response is unavoidable and undoubtedly in the public interest.
I respectfully suggest that international comparisons cited in this debate are far from straightforward and can sometimes serve to confuse matters. In fact, certain countries are now moving in the opposite direction. Sweden, for example, is proposing to lower its age in response to gang exploitation of children who know that they cannot be prosecuted. That underlines a key point. If the threshold is set too high, it can incentivise adults to use children as instruments of crime.
It is also worth noting that, although Scotland recently raised the age of criminal responsibility, Scotland’s experience should not justify this amendment. Even after deciding the age of criminal responsibility should be raised from eight years old, Scotland raised the threshold to 12 and not to 14. The Scottish Government also retained extensive non-criminal powers to respond to serious harmful behaviour. This amendment would go significantly further without clear evidence that such a leap would improve outcomes for children or public safety.
It is worth noting that a number of Commonwealth countries retain the doctrine that a child is considered incapable of wrongdoing, which was abolished in England and Wales by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In many of those jurisdictions, the standard age of responsibility is similar to ours. Australia, for example, has a standard age of criminal responsibility of 10 years old, but a rebuttable presumption exists up to the age of 14. However, I should also stress that, simply because other countries may have higher ages than England and Wales, that is not, in and of itself, a justification to alter ours. We must ensure that the age of responsibility here is suitable for our needs—
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Before the noble Lord leaves the question of international comparisons, can he confirm that in Sweden the proposal is to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 13, rather than leaving that unsaid?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I cannot confirm that, but I will certainly have a look at it.
The question is not whether children should be protected but whether removing the ability to intervene criminally until 14 years old would make children, victims or communities safer. I do not believe that it would. The current system already prioritises proportionality and rehabilitation, while retaining the capacity to act when it is absolutely necessary. For those reasons, I cannot support this amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has a long and honourable record of raising issues on behalf of some of the most vulnerable in society. She and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, make a formidable team when moving this amendment. I am very grateful to them for ensuring that this important issue remains at the forefront of every Government’s mind, including this one.
It was about a fortnight ago that your Lordships’ House debated this issue in response to my noble friend’s Oral Question. I said at the time, and repeat today, that the age of criminal responsibility is a complex and sensitive issue. I want to take this opportunity to set out in a bit more detail than the Oral Questions format allows why the Government believe that we should keep the age of criminal responsibility at 10 years old.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in what I felt was a very thoughtful debate. Though it is invidious to do so, I would like to single out two contributions in particular.
The first is the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. It is quite a big thing to come to Committee and say, “I have listened. I still have concerns, but I have changed my mind in the face of an argument from the opposite side of the aisle”. I pay tribute to him for that, remembering that it was his party, not mine, that took us into the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in the first place. I am very grateful to him. He does great credit to his party and this House.
I must thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for a lifetime of public service and of considerable distinction at the Bar, on the Bench and in your Lordships’ House. It was she who gave the answer to the legitimate concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, about what would fill the gap in relation to dangerous and bad behaviour by young children if they were not to be criminalised: they would be dealt with in the family court and would be supervised and treated with a welfare approach, rather than a criminal justice one.
I thank everyone. I am obviously disappointed to some extent with my noble friend the Minister’s response, but I hope that the door is not slammed closed. I understand that a Back-Bench amendment is not necessarily the way to deal with something of this complexity and magnitude. However, I note, for example, that the Bar Council of England and Wales is currently conducting a commission into the age of criminal responsibility. I hope that, if the Government do not engage with it, they will at least watch those developments very carefully. This amendment was tabled on the basis of an age of 14; I may consider returning on Report with the proposition of age 12. For now, at least, and with thanks, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Safeguards against abuses by Covert Human Intelligence Sources(1) Section 27 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (1) substitute—“(1) This Part applies to criminal conduct—(a) under an authorisation under this Part, and(b) where the conduct is in accordance with the authorisation.”.(3) For subsection (2) substitute—“(2) This part also applies to civil liability in relation to any conduct which—(a) is incidental to any conduct within subsection (1), and(b) is not itself conduct an authorisation or warrant for which is capable of being granted under a relevant enactment and might reasonably have been expected to have been sought in the case in question. (2A) If a person acts in accordance with a criminal conduct authorisation under section 29B (covert human intelligence sources: criminal conduct authorisations), the nature of that authorisation and compliance with it shall be considered and deemed relevant to—(a) any decision as to whether prosecution for a criminal offence by that person is in the public interest,(b) any potential defences to such charges of criminal conduct, and(c) any potential civil liability on the part of that person, and the quantum of any damages.(2B) The protections in subsection (2A) only apply where the conduct is not carried out for the primary purpose of—(a) encouraging or assisting, pursuant to sections 44 to 49 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (incohate offences), the commission of an offence by, or(b) otherwise seeking to discredit,the person, people or group subject to the authorised surveillance operation.”.”Member's explanatory statement
These amendments replace provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 as amended by the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act 2021 granting complete advanced criminal and civil immunity for authorised operatives and agents, with a public interest defence as long as they did not act as agents provocateurs.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am trying the patience of the Committee, but Amendment 470 is in my name.
In a week when our entire politics is reeling from the betrayal, treachery and most likely serious criminality of a now disgraced Peer, I hope we might all empathise with victims of abuses of power by covert human intelligence sources—CHIS—or police or other agency spies. Notwithstanding the ongoing public inquiry into the decades-old spy cops scandal, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 granted prior and absolute criminal and civil immunity to officers and agents of a whole host of public bodies if acting under a new scheme of pre-authorisation to commit crime. By this one Act, the centuries-old principle of equality before the law was breached.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased to add my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. To me, it is the most important amendment to the Bill, and she laid out fully why it is so needed. As she said, this will be about trust in the police, and without this sort of regulation, that trust will be lacking—especially given the spy cops inquiry, which I have been following. That inquiry led me to want to put my name to this amendment, particularly because it has been going on for 10 years, involving three judges, and we should now have the lessons from it. If it had wound up, we would have had the lessons from that inquiry, and this amendment fills a bit of the gap from not having them.
The problem with that inquiry is that quite a lot of it is held in secret and a lot of the transcripts are heavily redacted, so it is very difficult for a Member of your Lordships’ House to follow, as I have tried to, what the lessons will be. For those reasons, we should support this amendment, even if it is just a stopgap until that inquiry eventually reports. That could be years from now, so I am pleased to support the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 470, which I, too, have signed. I agree with every word that we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Miller. This references a deep vein of misogyny that existed then in the Met police—and I suspect it still exists, in spite of all the promises to the contrary. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is so calm; it always astonishes me how calm she stays when I know she feels exactly the way I feel about this, which is absolutely furious. I know that when I stand up I am absolutely furious about quite a lot of things, but this plumbs the depths of my fury.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you, everybody. I tried to be a core participant in the spy cops inquiry—I think it was the first one—but the judge ruled that it did not apply to me because I had been spied on by the regular police, not the spy cops, so I could not be part of it. I was very disappointed about that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this amendment. I have to concede that, as usual, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made a beguilingly attractive case for the amendment, but in essence this would be a legislative overreach. This activity is not being undertaken with impunity. We have checks and balances, although I accept they can be improved. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that children are used because of county lines, where children are used to move weapons and drugs.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I will give way a little later as I want to develop my point, if the noble Baroness will be so kind as to allow me.
I think there are two sides to every story. When I was first a candidate and then Member of Parliament for Peterborough, I remember the sight every week of animal rights activists at Huntingdon Life Sciences. I do not support the activities of rogue police officers, as enunciated in what the noble Baroness said about spy cops, but we must not conflate separate phenomena: a full public inquiry—albeit in camera, which I do not agree with, as there should be openness and transparency—and specific criminal cases. One can also make the case that those police officers and others who were doxed by animal rights activists have suffered a huge degree of harassment and violent intimidation since the allegations arose, without having the opportunity to clear their names in a court of law. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I would like the noble Lord to give way to my noble friend.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful. The noble Lord referred earlier to children and county lines. The problem with this case is that relationships were formed under lies by police officers and children were born of those relationships, whose fathers then disappeared. It is nothing to do with the criminalised activity of children. Will he please reconsider his comments with that relevance?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. I was referring to the issue of county lines and why children may be used. I deprecate the unacceptable activity to which she refers; none of us would support the fathering of children in a pretended relationship, so she makes a very fair point.
I was talking about Huntingdon Life Sciences and animal rights activists. That violence escalated to a significant level over a number of years, which culminated in the violent attack on and near-death experience of the then chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences. It was a very unpleasant period. Therefore, there was a reasonable case to be made that the Metropolitan Police, Cambridgeshire Constabulary and others needed to embed officers and intelligence assets within the animal rights movement to alleviate the risk of further serious criminal activity. That was an animal rights issue, but it could easily not have been.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, concedes very fairly that she does not want to circumscribe cases where you have to do long-term surveillance of, say, a terrorist plot which might be carried out were it not for police activity and long-term embedding of people. That is separate to cases where there has not been an operational rationale for preventing criminal activity, so I accept that there is a difference.
That is why this amendment is rather heavy-handed. No doubt the Minister will refer to the commissioner, who will look at whether these activities are timely and appropriate, but words matter. Incidentally, when the noble Baroness mentioned the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021, I think she made an unusual inference that it was to facilitate criminal activity. I may have been mistaken in hearing that and she may want to intervene.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is completely right; that is the purpose of that Act. The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act is all about authorising CHISs to commit offences, because we understand that that is sometimes necessary to keep your cover.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
That is true as far as that goes. However, in the wider context, the principal objective of that legislation is not to enable people to commit crimes but to prevent people being subject to endless civil and criminal litigation that may arise from their duties as representatives of public bodies, be they the security services, the police et cetera. So I think that the noble Baroness is being slightly unfair to the Ministers at the time who put through that legislation. What she outlined was clearly a corollary of passing that legislation, but it was not the principal reason, as I am sure she will concede.
The reason I wanted to speak is to interrogate the details of this amendment. Looking at paragraph (2B)(b) of the proposed new clause, I wonder what is meant by
“otherwise seeking to discredit, the person, people or group subject to the authorised surveillance operation”.
That seems a very wide-ranging paragraph and a recipe for much litigation in the future. Should it eventually be found on the face of the enacted Crime and Policing Bill, the way that it will be interpreted will give rise to a situation where the police, the security services and others are much more reluctant to enter into long-term surveillance of the kind I discussed earlier in seeking to thwart a terrorist plot, because of that quite wide-ranging and open paragraph.
Generally speaking, the noble Baroness has made a very fine point and I agree with much of what she said, but I genuinely do not understand the point of that paragraph. If it is a way of describing an agent provocateur, I understand that—and, because she is a prominent lawyer, she will no doubt tell me where that is found in other pieces of legislation. However, currently, that paragraph could be misinterpreted, and it will circumscribe the capacity of the security services and the police to do their job and protect individuals. For those reasons, while I am not necessarily against the amendment, I would like further clarification if possible.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I have long had a responsibility for the investigation of matters involving CHISs and I fully accept that many people who agree to become CHISs do so in the public interest, because, without their activities, the intelligence that they are able to collect would be unavailable. I also accept that undercover activity of this kind has long been a feature of criminal investigation.
Nevertheless, while the CHIS Act, which was passed in 2021, provided a very necessary statutory framework for the operation of CHISs, because that was previously absent, it does not contain sufficient safeguards against abuse, particularly where such acts risk falling beyond the scope of the authorisation of the CCA, particularly where they are well concealed by those committing such crimes and not reporting back properly.
Regrettably, like many others, I have seen repeated abuses of authorisations of CHISs. I have also seen CHISs acting way beyond the scope of their authorisations, sometimes with the knowledge of those who manage them, to the extent that they value the CHIS more than dealing with unauthorised and perhaps criminal conduct by the CHIS.
When the CHIS is not an undercover officer—and, of course, not all CHISs are undercover state employees—there is less control and potentially a higher risk. Unlike in the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, we in Northern Ireland have been able to expose unlawful activities of CHISs to bring them to account. So it can be done.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I add briefly to this debate. When the matter came before your Lordships’ House with the passage of the CHIS Bill towards the end of 2020 and beginning of 2021, whether to move from the use of CHISs and their conduct being looked at ex post facto to it being looked at in advance was hotly debated. It is a difficult subject to debate in an open Chamber. We all accept that CHISs are necessary, but it is impossible to go into the details of those cases here. Further, it is important to concentrate not on what happened prior to 2020, although such cases are illustrative of the abuses that can occur; we are concerned with what has happened since 2021 and how well the Act is working.
As things stand at present, I cannot really add much to what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has said. My experience of this area of CHISs is that we have learned an enormous amount from Northern Ireland. We ignore at our peril what the judiciary and those who have experience of Northern Ireland tell us. That peril is that we need to be absolutely clear that the system we have of authorising when CHISs engage in criminal activity is subject to rigorous scrutiny. What disturbs me, and why I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is that the key to the new system was prompt, effective and detailed scrutiny, reported to the best extent possible, of the way in which the system is operating.
On what the noble Baroness has said, I have looked at these reports myself. They are necessarily vague—they have to be, because you cannot put the information into the public domain—but they are delayed. I hope that the Minister will look very seriously at this and maybe meet some of us so that we can see the reality. Is this system working? If it is not working, we must revert either to the old system or to what is proposed in this amendment. It is key to public confidence in the police that we do not have a repeat of what happened in the matters that are the subject of the inquiry that has been spoken about—though this amendment has absolutely nothing to do with that—that the CHISs operate properly, and that anything that goes wrong is properly dealt with. We cannot have another scandal on the scale of that which has been investigated for the past 10 or 12 years—I have lost count of time.
This is, therefore, a matter where the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness really should be investigated. I hope that the Minister will look very seriously at it. I had long discussions during the passage of the Bill in 2020 to try to ensure that we had a good system. At present, on what is available, there is no real democratic accountability and no independent scrutiny of it. We must have that, if public confidence in the police is not to suffer the kind of problems that it suffered, into which the inquiry is going on, in relation to pre-2020 events.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am so glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, have participated in this debate. Like myself, they attended the recent meeting chaired by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. It was very nice to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the admiration for the courage of the witnesses who came to speak to us at that meeting.
In any form of covert human intelligence, there has to be deception. It is the only way that the officer of the state, whoever he or she may be, can penetrate through to get the confidence of the criminals who they are there to investigate. But there should be, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti says in her amendment, some restraint in what they get up to.
When the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, got up, he started by saying that he opposed this amendment, but it was pleasing that, by the end of his speech, he was quite neutral. That was very reassuring.
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti referred to the 2011 case of R v Barkshire, which concerned an undercover police officer infiltrating a group of climate change activists. The police officer, who I will not name, indulged in a sexual relationship, for about seven years, with one of the ladies involved. It also involved the birth of a child. This police officer, according to my brief, had as many as 10 other sexual relationships during the course of his activity as an undercover officer. When it came to the court, it was said that he went “much further” than the authorisation given to him, and that he played
“a significant role in assisting, advising and supporting … the very activity for which these appellants were prosecuted”.
That is why my noble friend—I hope she notes that I am giving her full support in this amendment—is absolutely right to suggest that there should be restraint. I accept entirely the restraint which is contained in Amendment 470.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank JUSTICE and the group Police Spies Out of Lives, particularly the women who were on the receiving end of the treatment by the CHISs. I declare an interest as a director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, which has given grants to Police Spies Out of Lives for well over a decade, in the run-up to the beginning of the inquiry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about how long it has taken to get the abuses taken seriously, and it really has. The inquiry itself took many years to be established, and there was damage to those women’s lives in the aftermath every time they went to people in the establishment to ask them to please take their concerns seriously. There was stunning silence.
The trust had a chance to meet and hear from these extraordinary women, who were seeking justice for many decades. Without their determination there would be no inquiry, no TV documentaries and no newspaper articles. I salute them all for their refusal to be cowed and their strength of character, even in the face of repeated setbacks from the establishment, including the extremely slow inquiry—which is not expected to conclude before 2030, and quite possibly later—at an enormous cost to the public purse and, above all, to these victims of the police spies.
The glacial speed of the public inquiry into undercover policing is on a par with the long delays of other historic scandals including infected blood, Post Office Horizon and the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse. As young girls and women who were taken advantage of in the 1970s head towards getting their pensions, it is vital to ensure that there are no further delays.
As we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Amendment 470 would replace provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, as amended by the CHIS Act 2021, which grants complete advanced criminal and civil immunity for authorised operatives and agents with public interest offences, as long as they did not act as agents provocateurs.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, helpfully made clear her experience in Northern Ireland and the shortcomings of the CHIS legislation. The contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, also confirmed that we must continue to learn lessons from the new system. Amendment 470 would correct the law to ensure that, in future, those using CHISs must have a high standard of regulation and accountability. We, as a country, need more oversight of CHISs’ criminal activity and the mechanism to ensure that officers and their superiors meet these high standards and make decisions in light of the law.
From these Benches, we welcome Amendment 470 and the safeguard that it offers to the victims. I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, but the officers too, because it would give them a framework and responsibility to think about any actions, whether they need permission for them and, if so, whether they should really be thinking about doing it at all, which is long overdue.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it might not surprise the Committee to hear that I do not support this amendment and I am sure I will find myself making the same arguments as the Minister when he responds.
In 2021, Parliament passed the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act, which was introduced to this House by my noble and learned friend, Lord Stewart of Dirleton. Its effect was to create a legislative framework through which covert intelligence officers can be authorised to participate in conduct which would normally be criminal. The criminal conduct authorisation might be granted under Section 29B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, as inserted by the 2021 Act, only if it is proportionate and necessary, in the interests of national security, prevention of crime and disorder, or in the interests of our economic well-being. Subsection (6) of that section also requires the person authorising the criminal conduct to ensure—and this is important—that all alternative avenues that do not make use of criminality have been exhausted. Subsection (7) states that the decision to grant an authorisation is required to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. Finally, there is an explicit goal for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
Therefore, there already exists a number of safeguards to prevent covert intelligence officers overstepping the bounds of their authorisation and to ensure that the authorisation itself is tightly drawn and strictly necessary. When a criminal conduct authorisation is granted, the officer to whom it relates is permitted to engage in the specified criminal conduct and cannot be prosecuted for that conduct. It is perfectly well understood and accepted that covert agents do, on occasion, have to engage in such criminal conduct in the course of their operations. It is absolutely right that the law protects them when this is the case.
It is also worth noting that the 2021 Act did not create new powers for the police and intelligence services; it simply placed on a statutory footing the mechanism by which they can be authorised to engage in criminal behaviour. This is surely preferable to having the whole system working on the side and in the dark.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, proposes in her Amendment 470 to remove the criminal and civil immunity provided to officers when they commit a criminal offence in pursuance of an authorisation to do so. She proposes replacing it with a defence to criminal or civil charges. However, she has also included an exception to that possible defence—when an officer encourages, assists or attempts to discredit the person who is under surveillance. I find this a startling exception. If a covert officer is given a criminal conduct authorisation and that authorisation, taking into account all the available safeguards, includes permission to commit an inchoate offence, I cannot see why that officer should not be able to do so. Certainly, the officer should not be held criminally or civilly liable.
I am sure the Minister will have further points to add, but we on these Benches cannot support this amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Is the noble Lord saying that he supports officers or their assets acting as agents provocateurs, inciting crime rather than investigating it?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am not saying that at all. We all recognise that things have gone wrong, but what I say generally is that this type of policing—indeed, quite a number of aspects of policing—is about testing the law. Certainly, this is the case with the involvement of CHISs.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The noble Lord mentioned all the safeguards, but why does he think the safeguards failed not once, but multiple times, and over quite a number of years?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I cannot answer for all the cases that have gone wrong; indeed, I cannot answer for any cases that have gone wrong—it is not my place to do that. I can say, however, that it very much depends on good leadership and good supervision, and all of that comes down to good training. It has always been my view that training is at the core of all of this.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Does the noble Lord accept that statutory blanket immunity from civil or criminal action acts as a barrier for people who are affected by such unlawful activities? It is a significant concern because of the impact that barrier has on those who might need to bring such action, and who might have difficulty getting funding or access to the necessary support. Then, there is an ongoing huge impact on trust in the police.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Trust in the police in this area is essential. I am not sure I quite get the gist of what the noble Baroness is asking, but I am very happy to discuss it outside the Chamber later, if that would help.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
It was about statutory blanket immunity—the extent of the immunity.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Again, I would have to have a look at that before I give an answer. I am very happy to discuss it with the noble Baroness.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Can the noble Lord comment on the case of R v Barkshire, and does he endorse the behaviour of the counter-intelligence officer in that case?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am not entirely sure that I know all the facts of that case, so I am probably not qualified to answer that question. I spent my job putting people behind bars, not defending them. I am not a lawyer; I would not like to take that any further, frankly.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for her amendment. The discussion today has taken me back to my time in Northern Ireland, when I had to see the product of covert intelligence. As Counter-Terrorism Minister in 2009, I had to see the product of that intelligence, so I understand the value of that. I also understand that the amendment seeks to amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by removing the legal protections for covert human intelligence sources who have been tasked by the police and a limited number of other public authority agencies, such as the intelligence services, with engaging in specific, tightly defined, pre-approved criminal conduct. Furthermore, the amendment seeks to remove protections for CHISs engaged in such authorised criminal conduct where it engages the offences of encouraging or assisting an offender under the Serious Crime Act, or seeks to discredit those who are subject to a particular investigation. I understand the motive behind what my noble friend has brought forward.
I begin by addressing the undercover police inquiry, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I took office in July 2024, and the undercover policing inquiry had operated for nine years at that stage. It is clear that the historical allegations under consideration by the inquiry are absolutely appalling. Such behaviour should rightly be condemned. The inquiry is ongoing, and we await the findings and any recommendations, but let me assure all those who have spoken that I am now responsible in the Home Office for managing inquiries, and I wish to see recommendations as soon as possible, for the very reasons noble Lords and Baronesses have mentioned today.
The current landscape around undercover operatives is much changed, and since 2013 enhanced safeguards have been put in place, but the Government want to see the lessons of that inquiry and consider them as soon as possible.
Noble Lords may recall the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021, which has been referred to today, and the revised CHIS code of practice of 2022, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, which were subject to debate and approval both here and in the House of Commons. This scrutiny includes consideration of similar amendments proposed by my noble friend at the time.
I say to noble Lords generally, including my noble friend Lord Hacking, that CHIS play a crucial part in preventing, detecting and safeguarding the public from many serious crimes, including terrorism, drugs and firearms offences, and child sexual exploitation and abuse. Those who do it do so at such personal risk to themselves. I noted and welcome the support from the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Jackson—I will take the support where I can get it. It needs to be properly authorised and specifically defined criminality by the state, and they do so knowing that they will not be penalised for carrying out that activity, particularly by those engaged in criminal or terrorist activity, who may otherwise pursue legal action against them.
It is important that we place on record that CHIS authorisations and criminal conduct authorisations under Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 can be validly given only where the proposed conduct is necessary, proportionate and compliant with the Human Rights Act. Valid authorisations make activity carried out in relation to them “lawful for all purposes”, providing protection from criminal and civil liability. However—I know my noble friend knows this—should a court find that the authorisation does not satisfy these necessary requirements, or should the conduct go beyond what is permitted by the authorisation, it will not be rendered lawful.
Given the significance of these powers, it is important to note that there are independent and effective avenues of oversight and redress, and that these exist—I know that colleagues who have spoken know this, but it is worth putting on the record again—via the Investigatory Powers Tribunal for anyone who believes they have been subject to improper activity by a public authority using covert investigatory powers.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the recording of CCAs in a number of cases most recently, which appears to indicate a deterioration in that area.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always interested in what Sir Brian Leveson, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, says. From my perspective he provides robust oversight, which includes comments that he has made, and he and his inspectors pay particular attention to that criminal conduct authorisation. He produces annual reports—I know that they are time-lagged, for reasons that are self-evident with any annual report. In his annual report in 2024, he identified
“good levels of compliance for the authorisation and management”
of police undercover operatives and noted that the quality and content of police undercover operative criminal conduct authorisations was found to be of a “good standard”. I will always look and listen to what he says because we have a responsibility to ensure that these matters are dealt with for the product of that CHIS to help protect the public at large.
I assure my noble friend and in this context the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that the CHIS cannot be authorised to entrap people—which is one of the objectives of her amendment. Any such entrapment would be in conflict with Article 6 of the ECHR—as my noble friend knows, we are committed to maintaining our obligations under the ECHR—which protects the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, I point my noble friend to the publicly available Undercover Policing: Authorised Professional Practice, which states in clear terms that an undercover operative
“must not act as an agent provocateur”.
I hope that satisfies my noble friend on that point.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will ask a similar question to the one I asked the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If these safeguards are so wonderful and if it is all in good order, why was this allowed to happen? The evidence of the spy cops from the early days of that inquiry was that the people overseeing the CHIS knew what was happening regarding their relationships with the women. They knew and they let it happen. That does not sound like good order.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect, the noble Baroness is raising historical issues; there have been improvements in performance management and control over time. As I said, those historical issues are appalling but are currently under investigation within the remit of the John Mitting inquiry into undercover policing. I want to see the recommendations of that inquiry as soon as possible so that we can see where there are further issues. I see that the noble Baroness wants to jump in again, which is fine. Leaping up is part of the parliamentary tennis that we play, and it is important that she has the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It also keeps us fit. All through the inquiry, the police have blocked information from being given out. They have constantly tried to stop the truth becoming open. I can understand the Minister saying that he is waiting for the inquiry to report, but it could take another decade. In the meantime, we still have those concerns about the police. The women’s concerns were brushed away. There might have been various pathways for them to complain, but they were brushed away. Why does the Minister think it is any better today?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness tempts me to go into areas of the inquiry, which I will not do. The inquiry is looking at historical abuses, which we have recognised and which are appalling. In the meantime, there have been legislation and improvements by policing in the management of covert operations. I am giving the noble Baroness that assurance now that we believe there are improvements in that management but things that need to be looked at in relation to the previous operation.
The legislation that the noble Baroness is seeking to amend has also put in place a range of measures as a whole. I say to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that I have made clear that CHISs cannot be authorised to entrap. This amendment would impose broad and unintended constraints on intelligence gathering by CHISs where criminal conduct is a factor—for example, by preventing CHISs going along with offences that they do not instigate. I have seen the product of that type of activity by CHISs. It is extremely valuable for crime prevention and for bringing people who are committing criminal or terrorist acts to the courts.
My noble friend’s amendment would also rule out the possibility of discrediting the subject of an investigation—for example, a terrorist organisation—in cases where it is equally important to do so. My noble friend has fulfilled her duty. She is challenging the Government on these matters. Self-evidently, we are in a better place than we were many years ago. I await with interest the recommendations of the John Mitting inquiry on undercover policing and whether there are further issues for us to examine.
I want to touch on two other points. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, sort of asked for a meeting. I am always open to meeting with Peers. In my tenure in this job, I have tried to meet with anybody who has asked. But in this case, given that there is an inquiry ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to meet with him to discuss those matters now.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I was talking not about the inquiry but about the level of supervision and what is happening in the reports under this Act. I entirely agree with the Minister that what happened in the inquiry has nothing to do with this regime. The inquiry is relevant only because it shows the horrendous consequences of not supervising the use of CHISs. All I was concerned to understand better was why there are problems with the reports being so slow and what problems are being encountered. You cannot put this into the public domain, but it would reassure, from the point of view of democratic accountability, if we saw what the problems were and whether there were other means—such as strengthening the code of conduct—to put it right. The peril here is the discrediting of the police five years down the line. That is what I am concerned to avoid.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. Those are operational matters for the police, in my view, but we can make some judgments on that. I will reflect on what he has said and what he has requested, but my initial gut reaction—and I would like to trust my gut, on several occasions—is that it would not be appropriate to do that. I will reflect on what he said. I am trying to complete my remarks, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, wishes to speak, and I will always give way to him.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for his generosity. I find myself in complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I found his remarks, like those of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others, very helpful. I think I understand that he specifically ruled out our considering inquiries, but the suggestion that I—as someone who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, described, was hostile and is now more agnostic—would make to the Minister is that if he could look at secondary legislation, such as regulations, in terms of the timeliness of reports for the commissioner to bring forward, that would strengthen the scrutiny and oversight of the process. I fully agree with the process, but what seems to have come out as a consensus in the debate today is that people think the scrutiny process is clunky and not timely, so everyone loses in terms of reputation. If the Minister can perhaps give an undertaking that he will at least look at the issue prior to Report, that would be helpful.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Given what has been said, I will reflect on the comments that have been made. It is important that Sir Brian Leveson has his independence and oversight. I shall look at my gut feelings on this, but I will consider it, take advice and see where we are outside the debate today. In relation to my noble friend’s amendment, I still hope that, given what has been said today—a valuable discussion has been had—she will withdraw it.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Again, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what I think was an important and thoughtful debate. There is quite a lot of common ground, actually. There is common ground that we must have covert human intelligence sources. They must play a role in investigating the most serious crimes, in particular. There is further common ground that part of keeping someone’s cover in, for example, a criminal gang or a terrorist cell, must inevitably sometimes include participating in criminal activity; otherwise, those around them will spot that they do not belong. Again, that is common ground. There is also common ground that it was right to put activities that were previously completely in the shadows on a statutory footing, as happened in 2021.
The difference between some Members of the Committee and others is about whether, when someone is authorised to commit criminal offences in such a role, that authorisation should bring advance total immunity for all purposes, civil and criminal, or whether instead the authorisation should equip them with a public interest defence. That is the difference between us. It is a question of principle but also of practice as to where the balance should be struck, and which system—the one currently on the statute book or something like the one I propose—would give a better balance of safeguards for the brave and genuine public servants who do this work without abusing the trust, but also for the rights of citizens to be protected from abuse. That is the difference between us. Which mechanism provides the most proportionate approach? I do not think there is a gulf, but this is something to keep under review and keep discussing.
As I said earlier, in the report from which the Minister read selectively, Sir Brian Leveson talks about reporting being good, but even he concedes, in the same report, a lack of “specificity” on occasion, only a “general descriptor”, a “number of errors” and so on. So there are some issues that warrant serious and ongoing scrutiny.
My noble friend the Minister may regret telling the Committee that he now has special responsibility for inquiries in the Home Office—his kindness may be a liability—but I suspect that we will want to keep pressing him, not least on the progress of the inquiry on the past but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, on the way the system is operating today. The report suggests that the system today is not operating in the way that we would ideally like. With that, for the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“Universal jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and ancillary conduct (England and Wales)(1) The International Criminal Court Act 2001 is amended as follows.(2) In section 51(1)—(a) after “person”, insert “, whatever his or her nationality,”;(b) after “war crime”, insert “in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”.(3) Omit section 51(2).(4) In section 52(1)—(a) after “person”, insert “, whatever his or her nationality,”;(b) after “conduct”, insert “in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”.(5) Omit section 52(4).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause gives effect to the JCHR’s recommendation to amend the ICC Act 2001 to provide for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and ancillary conduct. This would allow for the authorities in England and Wales to prosecute persons suspected of these crimes without any requirement for a connection to the UK.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in moving all-party Amendments 472 and 473, I thank the co-sponsors and other supporters, who include the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Hodgson of Abinger, my noble friends Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Clement-Jones.
These amendments have been recommended to the House in two separate reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair. One of those arose from the legislative scrutiny of this Bill; the other was its report on how to deal with the atrocity crimes of Daesh against the Yazidis and other minorities. The recommendations and amendments of the JCHR were unanimous and enjoyed all-party support. They also enjoyed the strong support of the International Development Committee of the House of Commons and its chair Sarah Champion MP, and organisations such as Redress.
The Minister and others will have seen a letter from the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, signed by more than 30 of some of the most illustrious and distinguished practitioners in the field. These amendments are a response to what the JCHR saw as a justice gap. They are also compatible with practice in other jurisdictions and are limited in scope. They make a very small but indicative and incremental change by removing the requirement of UK citizenship and UK residence from Sections 51 and 58 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001. I will try to summarise the key arguments in favour of the amendments for the Committee, then tackle some of the misconceptions.
Under international law, the UK is already legally obliged to prosecute suspects of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes who are present on its territory regardless of nationality or residence. A failure to do so puts the UK at risk of becoming a safe haven for alleged perpetrators of international crimes. The rule of law is weakened when alleged perpetrators of genocide or crimes against humanity and war crimes can be here in the UK without facing justice, so this is about closing that justice gap.
These amendments give substance to the long-standing case for reform repeatedly raised since 2009 and are not directed at any particular country, individual or context. There is no concealed political agenda, and safeguards are included to ensure the continuation of prosecutorial oversight by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney-General of decisions about whether to prosecute. They also make a reality of the often-repeated desire for the United Kingdom to reinforce and renew its claim to leadership in promoting the rule of law. We will be doing so by ending impunity for the gravest international crimes and by empowering British courts to act where alleged perpetrators of international crimes are present in the United Kingdom.
It is a mirage to cite the role of the International Criminal Court, as it cannot single-handedly provide accountability for international crimes, even before considering the use of vetoes by those who would not wish such crimes to be referred to that court. Capable national courts must share the burden, as the German courts have done, in successfully prosecuting the crime of genocide. Other comparable democracies already prosecute suspects present on their territory, and that option should be open to us too.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord. This legislation presents a unique opportunity to close long-outstanding accountability gaps in the UK’s universal jurisdiction laws and ensure that the perpetrators of the world’s most serious crimes can be brought to justice on British soil, which is not always possible under current law.
Many organisations support these amendments, which, to be clear, amend the International Criminal Court Act. That Act confined universal jurisdiction relating to crimes under the Rome statute to those who had residency in or nationality of this country, so it is very limited. The United States law followed ours and limited certain crimes that would be covered by universal jurisdiction to nationality and residence. It has now amended its law to make sure that anybody coming through the United States who is suspected of serious, grievous crimes that would fall under this universal jurisdiction framework could be arrested. That is also the case in large parts of Europe.
Noble Lords will be asking what this business of universal jurisdiction is. UK courts can prosecute certain international crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction because it is a legal framework that allows states to pursue justice for the most serious offences committed abroad, even when the case has no direct connection to their citizens or territory. Noble Lords can imagine what those crimes are. They include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture. Universal jurisdiction reflects the global consensus that such crimes are so grave that they demand accountability wherever they occur.
At present, as I have said, the UK’s ability to prosecute grave international crimes under universal jurisdiction is limited. It is quite contradictory, but under the International Criminal Court Act, prosecutions can be brought for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity only where the suspect is a UK national or resident. As a result, individuals accused of serious international crimes can enter this country without facing justice—and, let me tell you, they do.
I hear this from reliable witnesses who have fled persecution. They know those who have come here, seeking independent schools for their children or university places—usually for their sons, it has to be said—and to shop at Harrods or vacation in London with all its amenities. They often come in civilian attire, not wearing the Iranian revolutionary guard or Russian general uniforms that they wear back at home. They come for all manner of purposes. They come and go, and we cannot act. When I was the master of an Oxford college, there was a scandal because the son of a revolutionary guard torturer found a place at an Oxford college, his father having accompanied him. This is happening in a subterranean way, and action could be taken.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendments 472 and 473. We have already heard how these amendments could help victims and survivors to seek justice for some of the worst atrocities. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and a moment ago from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, of cases of genocide and crimes against humanity. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also emphasised the reason why we need to care about justice and accountability for such atrocities. Many may wonder why we, in these islands, are best suited to investigate such crimes. How is it that alleged perpetrators enter the UK? Surely this should be regarded as a matter of national security.
However, my main purpose in speaking today is to bring the debate closer to home. In August 2024, Wales and the UK lost a remarkable man, described by his friends and families as a gentle giant—Ryan Evans. He was from Wrexham, not far from where I live. Ryan was then working as a safety adviser for Reuters in Ukraine. As it happens, Elinor and I took in a family of refugees from eastern Ukraine.
Ryan was in the east of Ukraine, with a news crew from Reuters news agency, when the hotel in which they were staying was hit by a missile. Ryan was killed and nine other people were injured in the attack. So, why was Ryan killed? He worked for Reuters, covering the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine. Russia does not want the world to know the scope and nature of those atrocities. Because of that, journalists and media outlets are specifically targeted. A recent report by Truth Hounds and Reporters Without Borders commented that, the case of Ryan Evans,
“stands not only as a testament to the dangers media professionals face but also as a call for accountability and reinforced protections for all members of journalistic teams”.
The killing of Ryan Evans is part of a wider pattern of similar atrocities and war crimes and crimes against humanity. As things stand, and without these important amendments, the family of Ryan have very limited avenues for justice and accountability within the UK. That is because the alleged perpetrators are not British citizens or, indeed, British residents. As such, when we talk about universal jurisdiction, we are talking not only about faraway cases in distant countries. British citizens may well be among victims or survivors, and we cannot continue denying them and their families an avenue for justice here in the UK.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the words of the family of Ryan Evans—namely, David and Geraldine Evans—who came to Parliament last year and made this plea in support of strengthening the laws. These are words that deserve to be brought to the attention of the House:
“It’s been sixteen months since we had the terrible news of our son Ryan’s death. For those who have lost a loved one suddenly, they will know that you’re in shock for months—even longer; and, as time unfolds, the questions that initially came into your mind come back stronger. In Ryan’s Case questions like - “Was the single missile strike on his hotel deliberately planned? Was he killed instantly, or did he suffer? What is our Government doing to bring the people responsible for killing him to justice?”
They go on to say,
“Some questions we have the answers to, yes, Russia did target our son’s hotel in Kramatorsk deliberately. He died helping to seek the truth, by working with independent journalists, an unarmed non combatant. Russia’s propaganda machine tried to justify the attack and his death with ridiculous statements, as they do in their horrifying attacks on civilians, including non Ukrainian citizens. We seek justice for our son’s murder”.
Their plea concludes with the words:
“We, his family, have a life sentence of grief, which will never go away. The impact on us, his parents, his siblings, his children and wider family and friends is incalculable and life-changing. We look to our government to change the law to work to bring the people responsible for such war crimes and deaths, to justice. As long as one of our family members is alive, we will seek justice and work with our government for help. Ryan would want that; he was a man of integrity, honour and courage, as the following quote reminds us, In the words of Lois McMaster Bujold: ‘The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them’”.
We need to do better for the families of victims and survivors, including the family of Ryan Evans. We need to make sure that the law in the UK enables them to seek truth, justice and accountability.
In December 2024, Reuters reported that Ukraine’s security service had named a Russian general it suspects of ordering a missile strike on the hotel and, in Reuters’ words,
“with the motive of deliberately killing employees of”
Reuters. The security service of Ukraine has named a deputy chief of Russia’s general staff as the person who approved the strike that killed Ryan Evans and wounded two of the agency’s journalists. Truth Hounds and Reporters Without Borders have identified two senior leaders in the army units that took the decision to strike the hotel. I understand that these names are known to the British Government.
At this stage, in view of the fact that we are considering the death of a British citizen, I would expect the authorities in the UK, at a minimum, to start investigations into the alleged perpetrators. The options to bring them to account in the UK are clearly limited, but I believe that Amendments 472 and 473 could help ensure that the alleged perpetrators are investigated for war crimes. I ask for the support of noble colleagues in memory of Ryan, for his family and indeed for justice.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I want to strongly support these amendments, and I shall be relatively brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, was kind enough to inform the Committee that in her presence I described the present situation as illogical. In fact, I think I spoke a good deal more strongly than that, and she has been kind enough not to repeat the totality of my remarks.
This is a reform which has been proposed and urged upon successive Governments for years. I found the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, utterly persuasive and completely unanswerable. I take issue with him on only one point, which is when he expressed a little bit of surprise that the CPS would be supporting him. When I was the head of the CPS, I strongly supported this reform. Indeed, shortly after I stepped down from that position, I wrote a column in the Times asking this question: what is it about prosecuting war criminals in this context that the Government do not like? I never received a reply to that question which I understood, and the question is still live.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also offer my support but express some concerns that I believe could be addressed. I do not think I need to say very much as to the reasons I support the amendments, because the speakers before me have all done such a stellar job.
The one point that I would perhaps clarify is that a number of these offences under international law impose on the UK an obligation to prosecute or extradite. The problem that we have is that, in many cases, we cannot extradite. We cannot extradite in some cases because there is no jurisdiction that can, in practice, begin a criminal prosecution. But sometimes we cannot extradite because the jurisdictions to which we would extradite are jurisdictions where the suspect would face the death penalty or torture. In those cases, the individuals would, in effect, find a safe haven here because of our generous human rights protection, to which I think we should all remain committed. So we may end up with individuals who cannot be deported or extradited and whom we cannot prosecute unless we have some reform of universal jurisdiction. That is the need for this change, which would also bring us into line with international obligations.
My concerns are the following. First, we need to remember that universal jurisdiction is the last resort. In a lot of these cases, it is true that the country where the offence was committed, or of which the alleged offender is a national, will not be able to prosecute. However, ideally, the prosecutions should take place in a jurisdiction that has a closer connection with either the offence or the offender. Where that is not possible, we need to look at other options. Another option is prosecution before an international court and tribunal. As we know, under the ICC statute, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is always complementary to national jurisdictions. Only in the third instance, and as a last resort, should we look at prosecution under universal jurisdiction. It is only when everything else fails, which unfortunately might happen quite often, that prosecution under universal jurisdiction should be contemplated.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I ask the noble Lord to continue the discussions with those of us proposing this amendment today, but our amendment is not as ambitious as he suggests. I wish it were, but actually it is much more limited. On some of the points he raised about the kinds of people who could be brought for prosecution to the United Kingdom under universal jurisdiction more widely, yes, that could happen in a country like Germany, but it would not happen under this amendment. This is about people coming here and being able to do so with impunity rather than immunity, simply because we do not have any powers to arrest them or take them to court.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
I appreciate that it is about only those who are within the jurisdiction, but a lot of officials come within the jurisdiction at different points in time and for different reasons. There was another case a few years ago in which I was also instructed, concerning the visit of the Egyptian head of intelligence to the United Kingdom. On that occasion, there was an attempt to arrest him, which failed, and his immunity was upheld. That is the sort of scenario where we need clarity.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am very glad that my noble friend has raised that point, because it is very relevant. If, for instance, the Foreign Office were to say to the Attorney-General, “We are bringing someone here to have discussions about how to secure peace in Sudan”, but they might have been involved with the RSF or the Sudanese Army in some of the atrocities there, there would be no requirement to prosecute them, because in those circumstances the Attorney-General simply would not allow the prosecution to proceed.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
It is not quite like that, because the Foreign Office would have to issue special permission for the person who came within the jurisdiction, and now that we have clarified the law, that would give that individual immunity. As for the Attorney-General’s decision not to consent, there is a risk that that could be subject to judicial review, and there have already been attempts in that space. But I agree that that is a very important procedural requirement, and it is already in the Act.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 472 and 473. On the arguments and all the difficulties and intricacies, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, cannot be doubted, given his involvement and the things he has done. In the end, however, I am a simple person. I know that there are complications and it is difficult, but if these amendments are accepted, it would allow the possibility of exploring all those intricacies and complications.
The really annoying thing for most of us is when people whom we know have committed terrible atrocities—when the evidence is incontrovertible—can leave the places they have devastated and come here to do their shopping and have holidays. This country, and particularly this present Government, say that everything is going to be best under the rule of law. Lord Bingham, in his book The Rule of Law, said some wonderful things—that the rule of law is the nearest thing we have to a universal origin. In other words, there are no areas the rule of law does not cover. I say that because there is a possibility of enshrining what Lord Bingham was talking about.
Globalisation has given we citizens of the world the possibility of living in a global village. It is no longer about living on this little island—we all belong to this huge global village, and whoever touches any citizen in our global village touches us. It is not just the people who live in Ukraine or somewhere else: they touch them, and they are touching us.
We are therefore partly involved in all this. The United Kingdom must not become a haven, as the noble Lord said, for those who committed such atrocities and are escaping justice and the places where they were done. We must not be a place that gives the impression that the door is open and they can come here. They do their shopping, and some even bring their children to send them to university or other places of learning; I have known this. They think that they are getting away with it. To me, that is what must not happen.
Margaret and I came to this country in 1974, and it was another nearly six years before Idi Amin’s Government fell. We were terrified to have any contact with the Ugandan embassy, because the people he had sent before his Government fell had committed terrible atrocities. Margaret and I knew these characters and they got away with it. In his regime, nearly 900,000 people were murdered, including the chief justice, the chancellor of the university, the head of the civil service—I could go on and on. These dictators and people like that seem to have a very long arm that prevents anybody getting near them.
For me, these amendments are opening a door for further conversation. The proposers of the two amendments were wise in saying that this, if it is to happen, should be laid at the door of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, who has a lot of advisers and very able people, will look at it and make a decision on whether prosecution happens. They are not simply opening it out to every court, to everybody, to think they can have a go. It is so limited. If we do not do this, as a country that really upholds the rule of law, and if we do not have this universal jurisdiction as an armoury in place, we will simply have people coming here when they have committed terrible atrocities, and they will look as though they are untouchable.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, all the speakers have made a powerful case in support of these two amendments, not least of course the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who moved the lead amendment. I apologise to him for missing the first few minutes. I was caught out because I had not remembered that Amendment 471 had already been debated. I have had the advantage of reading that part of the JCHR report, both on the account of—
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise, but the noble Baroness has just said that she was not in her place at the start of the group. Really, she should not be speaking to the group if she was not in her place. That is the usual convention and courtesy of the House and is set out in the Companion as well.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 472 and 473 from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, add a series of small but vital issues that would ensure that the UK can play its part in holding to account perpetrators of the most serious international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Above all, these amendments would give victims and their families the opportunity to achieve the justice that they deserve. I thank the British Institute of Human Rights, Genocide Response and Redress for their very helpful briefing.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the signatories to his amendments have set out in detail the legal reasons why the current laws in relation to these international crimes need to have certain loopholes closed ,and other noble Lords have spoken to them as well.
As chair of human rights at Liberal International, I attend the annual Geneva summit on human rights. Last February, I met people who had fled from Sudan, Iran, Cuba, Russia and Tibet, and Uyghurs from China, who had been on the receiving end of the most appalling crimes, from genocide to crimes against humanity, including torture and war crimes. All of them look to countries such as the United Kingdom to uphold the standards of universal jurisdiction. Sadly, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, we do not do that fully and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, put it, we need to share the burden.
By not being prepared to empower our courts to act where alleged perpetrators of international crimes are present in the UK, we let people down. Without the changes proposed in Amendments 472 and 473, the British courts lack jurisdiction over alleged perpetrators of international crimes—including leaders of the Iranian regime who may travel to the UK for medical treatment, despite there being credible allegations of their involvement in international crimes against humanity, and the alleged perpetrators of genocide in Darfur—because the alleged conduct falls under the Rome statute crimes but does not trigger universal jurisdiction under UK law.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I fully understand the noble intentions behind Amendments 472 and 473, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. The crimes he speaks of are among the most abhorrent and the work he has done is admirable. He is to be warmly congratulated. However, for reasons I will set out, the Opposition cannot support the amendments.
We must first recognise that the British justice system has, first and foremost, a responsibility to uphold the rule of law and punish criminality in Britain. Similarly, the British Government have, first and foremost, a responsibility to protect the security of Britain, and this must be our principal concern. The British Government are not a global Government; we cannot police the world, and we must be very open and honest about that.
It is also a more than unfortunate fact that there are a number of Daesh fighters and other terrorists who have been returned to Britain but have not successfully been prosecuted for the crimes the noble Lord, Lord Alton, refers to. Daesh committed widespread war crimes, genocide against Yazidis and numerous crimes against humanity. To pick up on the noble Lord’s point, if we have people in Britain who committed these heinous crimes but have not yet been prosecuted, I am not sure we should be adding even more by bringing prosecutions against people with no connection to the United Kingdom. Let us prosecute those who have been involved in genocide and war crimes who are in the UK first, before we start trying to prosecute others.
It is also very important that we do not simply welcome people with terrorist connections back into our country. We on these Benches are firmly supportive of the Home Secretary robustly using her powers to exclude people from the United Kingdom who pose a threat to the British people and, where necessary, to strip particularly dangerous people of their British citizenship.
Finally, there is also a question of where prosecutions should best take place. There is a compelling argument for prosecutions and investigations to take place closer to where the crimes were committed, which should allow for a better evidence-gathering process. Ultimately, we must be careful not to subordinate the safety and security of the British public for the purposes of advancing international law. For these reasons, we cannot support the amendments.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Can my noble friend comment on the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven? Did he find nothing in what they had to say the least bit attractive?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, my old home city, for the way in which he has approached these amendments. I thank him for the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which he chairs, and through him I pass on my thanks to my old colleague Sarah Champion, the MP for Rotherham, for the work she has done on this issue. As he knows, we had an opportunity to debate the committee’s report in Grand Committee. I was fortunate that my noble friend Lord Katz took the debate on that occasion and was able to set out the Government’s response, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will realise has not really changed in the intervening months since that debate. However, I am grateful to him, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for their supportive comments, and I will come on to comments from other noble Lords in due course. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is not in her place at the moment, and missed the start of the debate so was therefore not able to speak in this debate—although she tried—but if she reads Hansard tomorrow, she can make any points she was going to raise in a letter to me and we will consider those prior to Report, which I hope is a fair compromise.
Before I go on to the main bulk of the arguments, I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and his comments on the death of Mr Ryan Evans, of Wrexham, which is close to both him and me. It is obviously a deeply sad incident and his death in Ukraine in 2024 followed a Russian strike, as the noble Lord outlined. The UK Government continue to support efforts to ensure accountability for the crimes that are committed in Ukraine. This includes supporting the independent investigation of the International Criminal Court into the situation in Ukraine, as well as providing assistance to Ukrainian domestic investigations and prosecutions of international crimes. Although I cannot give him much succour today in relation to that particular issue, I hope he will pass on the Government’s condolences to Ryan’s parents. We are obviously happy to have further representations on that matter should he wish to make them in due course.
The points made by my noble friend Lord Katz in the previous debate—and those with which I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool—relate to the fact that the UK applies its universal jurisdiction only to a very few specific international crimes. Our approach to universal jurisdiction is designed to ensure that those suspected of, or accused of, crimes are investigated, charged and tried fairly and impartially at every stage, with access to all available evidence. This is in accordance with local constitutional and legal frameworks. It remains the case—and I know this will disappoint those noble Lords who have spoken in support today—that we do not believe that it is necessary at this time to extend the scope of the UK’s policy on universal jurisdiction to include genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is the long-standing view of successive Governments in general that where there is no apparent link between the UK and an international crime—and this goes to the point the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, made—we support the principle that such crimes are best investigated and prosecuted where they are perpetrated. That also goes to some of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, because the advantages of securing evidence and the witnesses required for a fair investigation and a successful prosecution are part of a credible judicial process.
It should be noted that the UK already has jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity where they are alleged to have been committed by UK nationals or residents. In some cases where the UK does not have jurisdiction, such as in Ukraine—I have just mentioned the situation in relation to Mr Ryan Evans, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—we are trying to ensure that we build domestic capabilities, and we support the work of the Office of the Prosecutor General to ensure that allegations of war crimes are fully investigated by independent, effective and robust legal mechanisms.
To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the most serious international crimes not covered by the UK’s universal jurisdiction policy are generally already subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which, again, I would argue today, is better placed to prosecute such offences where they are not being dealt with by the relevant domestic authorities. The UK is a strong supporter of the ICC and its mission to end impunity. I know that we will do what we can to ensure that the crimes that have been mentioned today are dealt with by that international court, but I have to say that the debate that we had in the Moses Room, led by my noble friend Lord Katz, and the response I have given to the amendments today are the Government’s position. I accept and respect the points that have been put to the Committee today, but given the considerations that I have mentioned, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to withdraw his amendment. In saying that, I suspect we will return to these matters on Report. The Government will always reflect on what has been said in Committee, but I hope in due course the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
I apologise for interrupting, but I just wanted to make sure that I am not misunderstood. The ICC is there where it has jurisdiction, but the problem that we have is that, in some of these countries, there is no ICC jurisdiction yet. Syria is not a party to the ICC; Ukraine has become a party to the ICC but only as of 1 January 2025. Any offence in Ukraine predating that would be an issue in terms of ICC jurisdiction. That is where the gap in universal jurisdiction policy is quite relevant. I just wanted to clarify my position, which was not to say that we do not need it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept that, and I thought I understood the noble Lord’s position clearly, but I am grateful for his clarification. It still adds to the general point that I have made today, and I go back to the original, overarching point that the UK applies universal jurisdiction to only a very few specific international crimes. Our approach—through long-standing support of successive Governments—is that, where there is no apparent link between the UK and an international crime, we support the principle that such crimes are best investigated and prosecuted close to where they are perpetrated. That may not be a position that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, or his supporters today, but it is one which I hope I have clarified. I note also—which I did not mention earlier—the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the general approach of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. With that, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in this important debate. I was particularly grateful, of course, to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, with her immense experience and as a colleague on the Joint Committee on Human Rights—we are beginning to miss her already, only one week after she rotated off the committee. This was a unanimous recommendation, not just in one but in two reports. We took evidence. This was not just about our inability to intervene in faraway places. We took evidence about British nationals who had been in north-east Syria and in northern Iraq and who had committed what even the Foreign and Commonwealth office has now decided was a genocide—it is willing now to use that word, which is very unusual on the part of the FCDO.
So we have the evidence. We know that 400 of the British fighters who went there came back, and not a single one has been prosecuted for the crime of genocide. Too often, there has been rank impunity. We also know that they have connections with other people who are not British citizens and who regularly travel to the United Kingdom. What this limited amendment seeks to do is not bring all those people before the British courts; it is about taking people who come into the UK with those kinds of links and bringing them to justice if the Attorney-General believes that there is a case to answer.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for reinforcing the argument, and I thank my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Wigley, and my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sentamu. I wish we could have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, but I suspect there will be an opportunity on Report, and I hope that omission will be put right. Nevertheless, I was grateful to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, said about being willing to hear what she has to say but on a one-to-one basis. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and of course the Minister himself.
Lord Cromwell
“Report: economic crime fighting fund(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the viability, and potential merits, of establishing an economic crime fighting fund based on the principle of reinvesting a proportion of receipts resulting from economic crime enforcement into a pooled fund for the purposes of providing multi-year resourcing for tackling economic crime.(2) The assessment specified in subsection (1) must also examine the impact of budget exchange rules on the functioning of the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. (3) In carrying out the assessment, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of the assessment by the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, today we have discussed at length some very important issues that are also pretty bleak. It has been lightened for me only by hearing the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to as neutral, which is not an epithet that I would normally attach to him. I am sorry that he is not in his place. I hope that my operational amendment will conclude with a more positive and optimistic outcome.
I thank the Minister and his officials for meeting me to discuss this amendment, along with Labour MP Phil Brickell who, with the support of the APPG on anti-corruption, championed this amendment in the Commons. I am also grateful to that APPG for the excellent policy note it provided to the Minister following our meeting. I thank the Minister also for his helpful subsequent letter of 9 December. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their kind support and for adding their names to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, wanted to be here but has been called away. He did, however, give me a statement, from which I will quote briefly when it is apposite.
The purpose of the amendment is to include in the Bill a requirement to undertake a viability study of the establishment of an economic crime fighting fund. I am mindful that this is Committee so I will mention only the following three summary points about the amendment. First, there are two statistics to illustrate the scale of the problem. Economic crime overall currently costs the UK £350 billion a year. That is equal to 17.5% of GDP, but we spend less than 0.05% of GDP tackling it. Also, of the £100 billion in illicit financial flows alone each year, law enforcement recovers only some 0.2%.
Secondly, crime-fighting agencies are currently trapped in a cycle of underfunding. The 2024 Civil Service survey found that only a third of National Crime Agency staff thought they had the necessary tools for their job, the lowest percentage of all 107 public bodies surveyed. This lack of funding limits vital recruitment, damages effectiveness and crushes morale. Meanwhile, despite fraud accounting for 43% of all reported crime last year, fraud prosecutions were down 50% on the 10-year median level.
Thirdly—this is where the fund comes in—despite the underfunding in the face of the almost overwhelming level of economic crime, the agencies still manage to generate an average of £566 million per year in fines and recovered assets. However, most of that £566 million recovered per year is not reinvested in fighting economic crime. Instead, most of it goes to the Treasury and the Home Office. Redirecting even a fraction of these funds to the key agencies fighting economic crime would be transformational.
This amendment would simply require a very timely viability assessment of enabling these agencies to break out of the current negative funding cycle, to fight more economic crime and to gain long-term sustainable funding for their vital work. Please note that the taxpayer would pay nothing. The funding would be paid for by the confiscated proceeds of crime—rather poetic justice.
I clarify the following points, which arose in discussion of the amendment after Second Reading. First, the fund would be wholly separate from victim compensation and would not alter the status quo in that area. There are also many cases where economic crime cannot be linked to specific victims—for example, where a criminal is laundering money from a drug-dealing gang.
Secondly, this is not a new or unique idea. All 13 supervisors for the accountancy sector retain penalties imposed for anti-money laundering breaches. The Ministry of Justice is permitted to retain part of the value of fines and fixed penalties collected, amounting to nearly £360 million in the financial year 2024-25. The FCA is allowed to retain a proportion of fines. This amounted to £71.6 million in the same period. These are just some UK examples. There are numerous other precedents of fines being reinvested, in the UK and internationally.
Thirdly, the current system is opaque and subject to the dreaded annularity rules, meaning that any money which the agencies retain must be spent by the year’s end or it is taken away. This encourages some truly bizarre behaviours to use up the money in time. One example we discussed with the Minister in our meeting was a sponsored yacht race.
There is also a specifically British wrinkle here. Police forces, as Crown servants rather than civil servants, are subject to different accounting rules. Thus the Met can keep some of the seized cash and spend it over multiple years, allowing it to plan and use it strategically. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe:
“The police force has been able to take a share of the criminal assets they seize, should a court so decide. Everyone accepts that the amount seized is a small fraction of the criminal assets out there. The police’s share of money is pooled in the Treasury and then returned to the forces—albeit that this process often takes 1-2 years. Nevertheless, this allows the police to invest in discovering and seizing further criminal assets”.
However, unfortunately, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, HMRC and the Crown Prosecution Service cannot do this. They are, as mentioned, captured by Treasury rules that require central government bodies each year to return what they have not spent. This confused and chronic underfunding cannot continue.
While I welcome the Government’s anti-corruption strategy and their interest in improving the economic crime levy and the ARIS systems, recent discussions with HMT and other officials suggest that they are not going to do anything substantive to move forward, claiming there is a lack of data from law enforcement agencies on the return on investments from the use of these funds. I therefore suggest to the Minister that consultation on the viability of the fund that the amendment proposes would be the right opportunity to speed up the frankly glacial progress made so far on data collection in the Home Office.
Finally, I remind the Minister and the Committee of two things. First, the amendment would not require the fund to be established, but simply that its viability be examined. Secondly, there was and is wide cross-party support for the amendment in the Commons. Details of this support have been provided already to the Minister. I therefore ask him the following question. If, as he may indicate in response, he or the Government consider that such a viability study could be undertaken without legislation, will he commit from the Dispatch Box today to implement such a study and tell the House when it can be expected to start and to report?
I give the last word to the former director of the National Economic Crime Centre, Adrian Searle:
“Substantive and sustained funding … is crucial. The resource currently deployed is not commensurate with the scale of the problem … Doing the necessary analysis appears to be a no brainer”.
I look forward to any comments from others and hope for a positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I do not normally get involved with money issues because they are too messy and convoluted. The last time I recommended any sort of money being given to the police was when I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority. It was going to scrap the wildlife crime unit, and I argued strongly that we should keep it. It was not about naughty squirrels; it was about people committing crimes against wildlife. I felt it was an incredibly important unit, but that is by the by.
This is a growing crime. I can remember discussing it 20 years ago and people saying, “We need more money to fund the work and we need better systems”, and all that sort of thing, so it is surprising that we need this now after so long. It addresses a persistent weakness in our response to economic crime—the lack of stable long-term funding. Economic crime undermines public trust and causes real harm to individuals and communities, yet the agencies tasked with tackling it are often operating on short-term budgets, dependent on annual settlements and unable to plan effectively. This amendment asks the Government to undertake a serious assessment of whether a proportion of the proceeds recovered from economic crime could be reinvested into a fund to strengthen enforcement. That strikes me as an incredibly sensible approach; it would also stop the Treasury from grabbing the money and using it in even worse ways.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, economic crime is not a marginal issue. It is a national crisis affecting millions of people every year but, generally speaking, it goes under the radar most of the time. These are not victimless offences: they destroy life savings, devastate small businesses and undermine trust in our economy and democracy. When economic crime goes unchecked, it is not the powerful who suffer but ordinary people.
The amendment is modest and pragmatic. It would not establish a new fund; it simply asks for a viability study. I know the Minister is never keen even on turning a semicolon into a comma but, in this instance, it is not asking an awful lot of the Government—the Minister must stop stabbing his heart—just to agree to look at a viability study. It is really not a big deal. There are already clear precedents for this approach, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just said; the FCA, the Ministry of Justice and parts of the police are already able to retain fines in different ways. If the Government are really serious about the UK’s reputation as a global financial centre, they must match rhetoric with resources. Can I persuade the Minister, for once, to move and just say yes?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for moving this amendment. Economic crime is one of the most pervasive threats to public trust and business confidence in the UK. In the year ending March 2024, fraud accounted for around a third of all crime recorded by police. Industry estimates suggest that economic crime costs the UK economy tens of billions of pounds per year, according to police statistics. These staggering statistics underscore the need for effective enforcement and resourcing.
In this context, the need to seek more sustainable and predictable resourcing for economic crime enforcement is understandable. The proposal to assess the viability of an economic crime fighting fund based on reinvesting a proportion of receipts from enforcement reflects a desire to tackle this persistent and widespread issue. I recognise that there may be merits to an approach that allows specialist technology and expertise to be built and retained over multiple years.
The amendment also calls for an examination of the impact of budget exchange rules on the functioning of the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. There have been reports that recovered assets sometimes cannot easily be redeployed by front-line investigators and that incentives can be blunted by accounting constraints. If funds that are recovered through enforcement cannot, in practice, be retained or redeployed effectively by those doing the work, it is sensible to ask whether the current framework is optimally aligned with the policy objective of strengthening economic crime capability. However, I recognise that any move towards hypothecation of enforcement receipts raises potential governance issues, and there is also the question of how such a fund would sit alongside existing funding streams and the Government’s wider strategy in this area.
I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment. I would be grateful if he could outline what steps the Government are currently taking to fight economic crime and whether they believe that any further action is required.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, not just for his amendment today but for his patience in sitting through the Committee debates prior to introducing his amendment this evening. I am also grateful for the meeting we had with him and Phil Brickell, MP for Bolton West, in October and the meeting we had on 18 November.
It is important that Amendment 482 is considered. It would require the Government to consult on the viability of a ring-fenced economic crime fighting fund, and the intention of the amendment is to examine whether such a fund could provide multi-year resourcing for tackling economic crime. I am grateful for the comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in support of the amendment. The amendment recognises the significant harm that economic crime causes—reflected in the contributions made—to individuals, businesses, the economy and wider society.
The Government remain committed to tackling economic crime. That is evidenced not just by words in this Chamber but by our continued investment through the asset recovery incentivisation scheme and the economic crime levy, which has allocated £125 million to tackling economic crime in recent months. These schemes are delivering state-of-the-art technology to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to stay ahead of criminals. It also includes an important factor, which is the recruitment of 475 new officers across the threat leadership, intelligence, investigative and prosecution capacity. We are putting people on the ground to deal with this issue as part of the, we hope, tangible benefits that we can get in the fight against economic crime. As a Government, we want to continue to work with our partners to ensure that we are most effectively investing the funding available.
I understand and accept—and did so in the face-to-face discussions we had with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the Member of Parliament Phil Brickell—that the call for sustaining funding is an important one that needs to be investigated. I want to confirm to the noble Lord what I hope is of help to him: the Government are committed to exploring the funding landscape with the aim of strengthening economic crime enforcement. This is witnessed by the statements we have made in the recently published economic anti-corruption strategy, which was published last December —particularly paragraph 42, on page 23, which I quote for the noble Lord:
“In the context of Spending Review 2025”,
we will
“explore the funding landscape with the aim of strengthening economic crime enforcement”
as a joint Treasury and Home Office priority commitment in that anti-corruption strategy.
This strategy is fixed and there was a timescale for it when published. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, will accept our intentions in identifying the issues that he has raised and not just doing what we have done to date, which is to ensure that we have put resources in already. I hope that that review commitment in the strategy from December is of help to the noble Lord regarding the objectives of his amendments here today.
With that commitment, I would be grateful if he would at least welcome it and hold us to account on it and, in doing so, withdraw his amendment today.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
First of all, I can certainly promise to hold the Minister accountable for it, so I hope that pleases him. I thank the speakers—the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies—who have kindly commented on this amendment. I thank the Minister in particular for engaging with me before and for his comments tonight. I am still not quite sure what I am looking at. I think he used the phrase “exploring the funding landscape” a couple of times. When does that exploration reach its destination and come up with a report?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have the strategy, which was published in December. It is a fixed-term strategy, which includes the commitment to examine the points that the noble Lord has mentioned. My time is quite stretched at the moment but, if the noble Lord would find it helpful, I am very happy for him to meet officials dealing with that aspect particularly. We can potentially explore from there whether his input is helpful in stretching that strategy and making some positive outcomes from it.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the Minister for that answer. I was described in a previous debate as a legislative terrier, so I can assure him that I would like very much to meet his officials and, if necessary, nip their heels, because I am after a date when we are going to find the result of this viability study. Let us leave it at that. I am very grateful for his positive response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Rural crime prevention strategy(1) On the day after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a rural crime prevention task force to develop proposals for tackling rural crime.(2) The task force must be given a remit that includes, but is not confined to, examining—(a) the particular types of crime that occur in rural areas, including but not limited to—(i) quad bike theft;(ii) equipment theft;(iii) animal rustling;(iv) fly tipping;(v) worrying of livestock by dogs;(vi) hare coursing;(vii) poaching,(b) crime rates in rural communities across England and Wales,(c) the current levels of police resources and funding in rural communities,(d) whether specific training in how to respond to rural crime call-outs should be undertaken by police control room operators,(e) the operational case, and the funding implications, of appointing rural crime specialists in Police Forces across England and Wales which serve areas that include a significant rural population, and(f) whether a National Rural Crime Coordinator should be established.(3) The task force established under subsection (1) must submit a rural crime prevention strategy to the Secretary of State within six months of its appointment. (4) The Secretary of State must, within a month of receiving the report made by the task force, lay the report and a written response to the task force’s recommendations before both Houses of Parliament.(5) The Secretary of State must, within a month of laying their response to the task force’s report, ensure that an amendable motion on the subject of the rural crime task force’s recommendations is laid, and moved, before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a task force to produce a strategy for tackling rural crime, makes provision for specific aspects of the task force’s remit, and requires the Secretary of State to bring forward a substantive motion before both Houses of Parliament on the task force’s recommendations.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for adding his name to our amendment and especially for spotting the rather attractive typo in an earlier Marshalled List whereby “animal rustling” had become “animal hustling”. The only animal hustling I am aware of is when my small dog hustles me out of bed in the morning.
I have tabled this amendment to probe the Government’s thinking about rural crime prevention. I appreciate that a recent rural crime strategy from the National Police Chiefs’ Council covered the years 2025 to 2028. It is very helpful to have that document and to see the priorities there. However, I do not believe it replaces a government-wide prevention strategy. Many issues would benefit from the Government having a complementary strategy, for example from the Department for Education and Defra, both of which have a huge role to play in educating the public with regard to the countryside and its wildlife on questions such as when lighting a fire in the countryside becomes a crime—something that is increasingly serious with climate change. What is criminal behaviour when you are in your boat and you spot a dolphin? I will not weary the Committee with too many examples.
Society as a whole and the Government need to take a role in ensuring that our rural areas do not become crime hotspots. Organised crime, sadly, sees rural areas as a soft touch. A big example of this was recently highlighted by your Lordships’ House’s Environment and Climate Change Committee: fly-tipping on an industrial scale. It has become almost a full-time job for my noble friend Lady Sheehan to go around the country looking at these huge fly-tips. She has done a terrific job, raising awareness of the scale of the problem and eliciting some response for the Environment Agency and the Government. It is a question of public awareness, because it is important to report very early on where something is going to become a fly-tip. It illustrates how rural crime has become big criminal business, as has wildlife crime.
In hare coursing, for example, there is big money to be made through the bets placed. That is disastrous for farmers, driving straight through their fences and hedges. It is hard to stand in the way when you are alone and facing a gang. It is also hard to police in remote rural areas. I hope the Government are paying attention to that sort of crime. They should be praised for pledging to introduce a closed season for hares, which is an excellent thing to do, but it will be a shame if hares continue to suffer from hare coursing. Peregrine falcon chicks—not something you would normally associate with commanding high prices and being the subject of organised crime—have become such a luxury item in the Middle East that there is now a need to police peregrine falcons’ nests. Eel poaching—not one or two eels for supper but glass eels, which are the babies, all illegally fished—is a trade worth £53 million at the last annual count and is wiping out the eel.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which I thoroughly support, despite it committing the legislative sin of having a list in it. It references animal hustling, which is probably already a criminal offence in a different area of the law, so I will leave that alone. The question surely posed by the amendment is: why is a rural-specific strategy needed? Not only does rural crime have specific characteristics, too often it happens out of sight and perhaps out of mind of the often metropolitan policymaker.
This concerns three related themes, the first of which is isolation. Rural homes and businesses are often isolated, making them vulnerable to crime, including violent and destructive crime, while the motorway network provides a rapid and anonymous escape route. A more recent phenomenon is the use, from the highway, of drones to scope out machinery or products for later theft —something we will return to with Amendment 486A. The police generally do their best to engage with the local community—I pay tribute to Leicestershire’s Neighbourhood Link scheme, which is local to me—but, on an area basis, police resources are spread very thinly.
The second theme is waste dumping, which has been touched on. There has at last started to be some press coverage of the large-scale and often toxic waste dumped by the lorryload at illegal waste dumps in the countryside, of which a growing number are now being recognised. Anywhere that a vehicle can pull over out of sight for just a few moments, there is constant fly-tipping of discarded furniture, building materials, tyres and unwanted household goods—to say nothing of the endless food wrappers, beer cans, bottles and seemingly ubiquitous Red Bull cans, which now form a continuous linear rubbish dump along the base of almost every rural hedgerow in my area. There is also the widespread dumping and then setting alight of stolen cars. Imagine the effect in a field of wheat when that happens.
I would also like the Committee to note that, in responding to a series of Written Questions from me, Defra—the “ra” does stand for “rural affairs”—has confirmed that it has no current obligation to address these matters beyond the immediate edge of national highways. Criminals know this, of course, and exploit it by driving up rural tracks or into fields to tip their waste.
The third theme is wider rural crime. I recently spoke to a farming family who, against everything they believe in, kill all the hares on their land every year. Why? Because, if they do not, violent gangs in four-wheel drive vehicles come and deliberately crash through their hedgerows, career across their crops and kill the hares on their land with dogs. Such “coursing”, as it is called, in some cases involves international criminal syndicates betting large sums on the outcome.
I could go on: churches are stripped of their roofs, there are armed gangs of violent poachers, raids and threats at village shops and post offices and widespread vandalism and theft. In short, rural areas are under siege from people who, with either criminal intent or anti-social indifference, are turning what we like to portray as a green and pleasant land into a rubbish-strewn hinterland whose population increasingly fear for their safety, livelihoods and property. That is why we need this amendment: to recognise that rural areas have specific characteristics, specific types of crime and an overall lack of focus, despite the best efforts of an overstretched police force.
Finally, I will refer briefly to the Minister’s answers to questions on the Statement on the police reform White Paper on Tuesday evening. He was asked a question on how rural policing would be covered. His reply was that the Government were looking at reviewing the funding formula and that the overall organisational model would include responsible, non-elected persons. I do not wish to express a view on the reforms, but I respectfully point out that he did not say anything about how rural areas would be affected by the reform.
Secondly, in response to a question on waste crime, the Minister said that organised crime was behind it—he was correct, of course—and that regional and national agencies would be looking “over time” at how to deal with serious organised crime. I suggest to him that a dedicated, rural-focused strategy is needed to prevent and tackle such crime, not just the Environment Agency, which largely deals with post-facto matters.
There needs to be a specific strategy to develop and enforce appropriate countermeasures to what is not a passing rural crime wave but a rising flood. I commend the amendment for highlighting this and I hope that the Minister and the Government will get behind it.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I seek to make a brief contribution to the discussion on this amendment. Noble Lords might ask themselves why somebody whose political experience was predominantly in a metropolitan area would seek to speak on rural issues, but I grew up in Weardale, in County Durham, and my mother still lives in the dale. From growing up there and from contemporary experiences, I know that the issue of rural crime is felt very keenly by communities in rural areas and can damage the fabric of those communities in a way that makes them feel further under threat.
To the list of examples of crime given by the noble Baroness who spoke just a few moments ago I can add the stealing of oil from fuel tanks, the stealing of logs from log stores, and drink-driving, which we know is more prevalent in rural areas than it is in urban areas. That is why I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing and reducing the drink-driving limits for the whole country.
In the context of this amendment, we need to reflect on why some of these issues occur in rural areas and what the root causes of the lack of response may be. Many rural communities have a greater sense of trust and of community spirit, but that can have a downside, in that it can make people more susceptible to fraud and more liable to be scammed, particularly online. Alongside the amendments under consideration, I welcome the measures to introduce stronger investigatory powers and a stronger national approach to such crimes. Although crime can affect people anywhere, for those living in rural or isolated areas without support around it can be quite devastating.
There is a challenge around the whole-scale withdrawal of police stations and a police presence from many of our rural communities. That has resulted in one particular case that I am aware of, because it affected my mother. She was subject to the theft of some logs from land that she owns. The police response in that area was, “We suggest you go out and buy some cameras from Amazon to see if you can record this”. I do not think that that is sufficient, appropriate or suitable in the circumstances. It implies that a small-scale crime such as that is of no grand consequence, but to somebody like my mother, it has a very real consequence, because it has affected her fuel supply over the winter period.
There is an issue about the particular nature of crimes that are more prevalent in rural areas. As we come to Report, I hope we can look more fully at ways in which the Government can work alongside police and crime commissioners, while they are still in existence, and whatever their successor bodies are, to ensure that rural areas do not feel second best when it comes to crime prevention and community safety.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his support, and those who have spoken already.
The amendment addresses an issue that has for too long been treated as peripheral: the growing crisis of rural crime. For those who live and work in our countryside, there is the reality of financial loss, fear, and a deep sense of vulnerability and isolation. After rising to around £52.8 million in 2023, the estimated cost of rural crime stood at around £44 million in 2024. Despite some improvements, the resources devoted to addressing this remain inadequate. Freedom of information requests from my party submitted last April uncovered the shocking fact that only 0.4% of the police workforce across England and Wales is dedicated to rural crime teams. In Norfolk, for example, there are just two dedicated full-time officers, and some forces have no rural crime forces at all.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for tabling their amendment. As a rural-dweller myself, I agree and recognise many, if not all, of the offences that have been identified. Our rural communities are incredibly important. On this side of the Committee, the Opposition have made it an absolute priority to support them in this difficult time. That support extends past simply fiscal policy following recent tax policies to all issues that affect them, including crime. It is promising that, last year, rural crime fell by over 16%, but there is still work to be done. Those offences still cost rural communities over £44 million a year—a fact that underlined our pledge to set up local taskforces to tackle rural crime.
Our objectives are not different from those of the noble Baroness; we simply differ on delivery. A top-down, centralised approach is never normally the most effective way to tackle local disconnected issues, and rural crime is a prime example of this. It is far less the operation of the highly organised criminal gangs we see in our cities, and more often the actions of an isolated few who sense an opportunity to steal or exploit the countryside and act on it.
Localised problems require localised solutions. Police forces are budgeted based on local needs, and are therefore the most alert to the specific issues facing their communities. It should be them organising taskforces to tackle rural crime, as they have the knowledge and ability to act and adjust to the changing crime picture in their area. While we agree with the noble Baroness’s intentions and entirely support them, we would much rather see funding directed to local forces and delegate responsibility to them and their taskforces to tackle the rural crime that we all want to see curbed. I hope the Minister agrees.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for raising these issues, and to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of her. As someone who represented a rural constituency in the House of Commons for 28 years, I can say that things such as sheep worrying, isolation and local policing were meat-and-drink on a daily basis. In fact, the north Wales rural crime unit was the model for a lot of the work that has been done on rural crime at a national level. I therefore appreciate and understand the problems that are faced by rural communities. I say to the noble Baroness and others that the Government remain committed to tackling those crimes that particularly impact our rural communities.
Noble Lords have spoken today about some of the government measures being brought forward, but I want to address them as a whole. As part of our safer streets mission, we are introducing important measures to protect rural communities that look at clamping down on anti-social behaviour, strengthening neighbourhood policing and preventing the very farm theft that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, spoke of, as well as the issue of fly-tipping, which has been mentioned by noble Lords today. I would also add shop theft to that. That is an important issue because, particularly in rural areas where there is perhaps only one shop, an organised crime gang, or regular shop theft, can impact small independent businesses very strongly. We are trying to deal strongly with those issues. Rural communities across England and Wales are already better protected from the rising threat of organised gangs, and we have new strategies to tackle crimes plaguing countryside areas.
I was struck by my noble friend Lord Forbes of Newcastle, who focused not just on the rural crime issues that I know he is aware of but raised important issues around fraud and the isolation that fraud can bring. I advise him that, in a three-year fraud strategy that we intend to publish in relatively short order, the Government intend to look very strongly at those issues and at what we can do in that space.
Developing a robust response to a rural crime is extremely important. I know that noble Lords have mentioned it, but the objective of the amendment is, as the explanatory statement says,
“to establish a task force to produce a strategy for tackling rural crime”.
I say to the mover of the amendment that, in November 2025, the Home Office, Defra and the National Police Chiefs’ Council published the Rural and Wildlife Crime Strategy, which, in essence, does what the amendment asks for, and which will bring together the points that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, asked for, with ministerial oversight. The strategy is a vital step in the mission to provide safer streets everywhere.
There is also a Defra-led rural task force that was set up last year—that sounds like a long way away, but it was just over a month ago—with the aim of gathering evidence through a series of meetings and workshops to look at the specific challenges faced in rural areas. The evidence gleaned from the workshops is being examined, and it will be used to outline the Government’s strategic ambition for rural communities.
Some of the points that noble Lords have mentioned today, such as tackling equipment theft, are a huge concern. I understand that. We intend to implement the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which will introduce forensic marking and registration on a database of all new terrain vehicles and quad bikes. I am also pleased to say that we recently announced removable GPS systems. Those are demands that I had just over a year ago when I went to the rural crime conference chaired by the police and crime commissioners for Norfolk and Cheshire. We have acted on that.
Clause 128, which has already been considered, contains a valuable tool for the police that will help them tackle stolen equipment. It will ensure that, where it has not been reasonably practical to obtain a warrant from the court, the police can enter and search premises that have been electronically tagged by GPS or other means and where items are present that are reasonably believed to have been stolen. That is a very strong signal for organised criminals that we are going to track and monitor them and have a non-warranted entrance to their property if they have stolen equipment—and we will hold them to account for it.
I was pleased to be able to announce last year at the police and crime commissioners’ conference a long-term commitment of £800,000 for the National Rural Crime Unit and the National Wildlife Crime Unit. We have committed to replicating this year’s funding next year, in 2026-27; in what are tight and difficult financial times, we have still managed to commit that funding to help to support the National Police Chiefs’ Council in achieving the aims of that strategy.
To go to some of the specific issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned, such as hare coursing, the establishment of that unit and work that it has done, and through that unit Operation Galileo, has seen a 40% reduction in hare coursing—again, that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as a specific problem that has existed and causes great difficulties in rural areas.
We have also looked not just at the excellent work of the National Rural Crime Unit but, overall, at how we can tackle rural crime in an organised way. Again, I recognise that there are challenges. The Government separately, through the Statement that we made only a couple of days ago in this House, are looking at reorganising and shrinking the number of police forces, and we are going to have a commission to look at that, with a review, in the next few months to come to some conclusions. We are trying to centralise some national activity on serious organised crime, which is very much behind a lot of that rural crime. That landscape will need to be looked at.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to what I said on Tuesday night. We are looking at how we review the funding formula—that is important. Again, I cannot give specific answers on that today, but I would say to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment and noble Lords who have spoken to it, including the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that significant work is being done on this. We have a strategy and a task force; we have co-operation with Defra and specific measures being brought in that have been called for for a long time on equipment theft and wildlife crime, as well as on the funding of the unit. We have looked at a range of other measures that we will bring forward to tackle organised crimes in rural areas. With the neighbourhood policing guarantee, we are looking at every neighbourhood police force having named, contactable officers dealing with local issues. We are putting 13,000 of those neighbourhood police officers in place over the next three to four-year period, which will mean that we have 3,000 extra neighbourhood police officers by March this year and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. That is focusing people from the back room to local police forces.
Again, there is a big mix in this, and I know that noble Lords will appreciate that it is a significant challenge at the moment, but I hope that that work is helpful and that the direction of travel suggested by the amendments is one that noble Lords can understand we are trying to achieve. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. There was a theme running through the debate of the difficulty faced by those in rural areas of isolation. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned that I was seeking a top-down solution—not at all; I think that I am probably in your Lordships’ House because of looking for localised solutions. But that does not replace having an overall government strategy.
I am very pleased to hear from the Minister that they are committed to the funding for that unit; that is very helpful. I asked specifically about heritage crime, besides wildlife crime, so, between now and Report, perhaps the Minister could help me and provide a little more on how the Home Office is co-ordinating with the DCMS. Might he be able to write to me on that and also answer my question as to why wildlife crime is not notifiable? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell
“Offence of failing to meet pollution performance commitment levels (1) A water or water and sewerage company (“C”) commits an offence where C has—(a) failed to meet its pollution performance commitment level for three consecutive years, or(b) experienced an increase in serious pollution levels for three consecutive years. (2) For the purposes of this section—(a) “water or water and sewerage company” means companies which are responsible for the provision of water, or water and sewerage, services and which are regulated by Ofwat and the Environment Agency,(b) “pollution performance commitment level” means the level of performance on pollution that the company has committed to deliver, and which is reported against by Ofwat in its annual water company performance report, and(c) “total pollution incidents per 10,000km2” and “serious pollution incidents” mean the relevant figures under those headings reported by the Environment Agency in its annual environmental performance report.(3) If guilty of an offence under this section, C is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to a fine;(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause creates an offence of failing to meet pollution performance commitment levels.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 484 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bakewell, who is unable to be here, I shall also speak to Amendment 485 in this group on pollution. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her support for both. The amendments address the critical, environmental and public trust issue of the persistent and systematic failure of water companies to stem the flow of pollution into our rivers, lakes and coastal waters. The amendments are designed to work in tandem as a linked pair of provisions specifically targeting persistent and sustained underperformance. They are not designed to punish one-off incidents. They are a measured response to prolonged and sustained regulatory failures that, in the public’s eye, have become a matter of criminal neglect.
Amendment 484 would insert a new clause into the regulatory framework, creating a clear corporate criminal offence for a water or sewage company. That offence would be triggered when a company already regulated by Ofwat or the Environment Agency either fails to meet its pollution performance commitment level for three consecutive years or experiences an increase in serious pollution levels for three consecutive years. The pollution performance commitment level used is the exact target that companies commit to under the existing regulatory framework, which Ofwat reports on annually. The data regarding serious pollution incidents is similarly drawn directly from the Environment Agency’s annual environmental performance data.
A three-year threshold is a deliberate and calibrated response. We recognise that water companies can face individual problems from climate change, weather events, rapid population growth and other unforeseen circumstances. However, when failures persist year after year, are reported in black and white in regulatory reports but nothing is done, that is a different matter. By setting this three-year window, we would offer companies ample opportunity to correct their course. If they failed to do so, as a result of this amendment it could result in the matters being criminal.
Amendment 485 would build directly upon this foundation by creating personal criminal liability for senior managers. Liability would arise where a corporate offence under Amendment 484 was committed and the individual had failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent it. We have adopted a functional or a robust definition of senior manager, mirroring successful legal models in health and safety and economic crime already in legislation. It would apply to anyone who plays a significant role in making decisions about how the company’s relevant activities are managed or organised. This ensures that no one could evade their responsibility through misleading job titles or a corporate web of complex structures.
Critically, this amendment includes built-in protections to ensure fairness. The core requirement is to “take all reasonable steps”. A manager who could demonstrate that they have done this would have a clear path to acquittal. This structure would pierce the corporate veil without being reckless. Decisions regarding budgets and infrastructure carry personal weight for those who operate at the top.
Although there has been change, there is a lot that still needs to be done. Bill payers are facing a 26% increase in their bills and, in 2025 alone, supply interruptions across England and Wales rose by 8%. Even more concerning is the 60% increase in serious category 1 and category 2 incidents, which climbed to 75 in 2024. I recognise that we have had the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Cunliffe review and the recent White Paper and that there is more legislation to come. We welcome a lot of the measures, particularly those in the White Paper. Regulators have also imposed record fines, some as high as £90 million, but we must confront the reality that we may have reached the limits of a solely fines-based model.
When penalties are too modest, they just become the cost of doing business; when they are too punitive, they risk bringing down the very water companies that we are trying to sanction. Despite these fines, executives continue to draw substantial bonuses. Shareholders continue to receive massive dividends, while the environment bears the scars. The public is being asked to fund a staggering £104 billion in the promised AMP8 investment, and much of it is publicly underwritten through government schemes. We must have a statutory mechanism that ensures that this money delivers verifiable environmental gains rather than just being siphoned into higher gearing and profits.
Some critics may argue that these amendments will deter talent and overburden regulators. I disagree. These provisions are carefully calibrated to protect those who work in this industry, and they could do exactly the opposite. They could attract into the industry those people we need who are motivated to make change. Having that protection of the “reasonable steps” defence could help to attract the very talent we need. These measures are in line with requirements of the Environment Act that the polluter must pay. For too long this has not happened, and individual poor performance has been allowed to pass unchallenged.
These amendments provide the precise tools needed to bridge the gap between reporting failure and enforced change. Persistent pollution is not a technical glitch or an oversight; it is a substantial betrayal of public trust and an environmental duty. These issues need more thought than I have seen to date from the Government, despite the legislation coming forward.
The new water regulator, when established, must have the necessary tools to hold individual companies and individual corporate members within them to account personally for any serious and persistent failings; otherwise, it will not succeed, just as other regulators have not. I hope that the Government will view these amendments as a timely enhancement to their own thinking and plans for further reform. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I love these amendments and wish I had tabled them myself. They are excellent. Water companies dumping sewage into rivers has been illegal for years: it is just this and the previous Government’s refusal to act that has let it continue without serious consequences.
The legislation allows Ministers to set a bar of what is acceptable behaviour and, so far, every politician in charge has refused to say what is and is not a major failure. The result of this political cowardice is that water companies continue to make a profit out of polluting our waterways and beaches, and the people in charge continue to collect their big pay cheques and bonuses.
Regulators such as Ofwat have been in bed with the water industry bosses, and the Environment Agency has lost staff and legitimacy. Labour are wedded to private ownership of water and refuse to consider public ownership, even though it would be the most popular legislation they could enact this Parliament. I keep making suggestions about how Labour can get some voters back, but it is not listening.
These companies are fleecing bill payers with the excuse that they need to carry out the investment they have failed to do for decades. They have taken the public’s money and given it directly to shareholders. They have run up debts to pay even higher dividends and the bill payers are now paying for those debts. What is going to stop them doing this all again?
These amendments take a direct route to stopping pollution by making this personal to the people at the top. If they do not spend the money to invest and reduce pollution, then that is a crime. They are taking the public’s money and failing to improve. My own preference would be to put them on long-term community service cleaning up the sewage from our beaches, waterways and riverbanks. I would probably put them in special uniforms so that everybody passing by would know exactly who they are. I would also put a complete ban on dividend and bonus payments.
I am happy—she says, through gritted teeth—to support this more moderate suggestion, as being something the Minister might accept. I would not give them three years to turn it around either, but setting some sort of firm deadline would be preferable to the inaction of this, and the last, Government.
Finally, the best way of stopping the crime of water companies dumping sewage in our rivers is to take them into public ownership. Reduce bills by reducing the money wasted on debt repayments and replace the current set of overpaid bosses with people who can do the job and care about our environment.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare a historic connection with the water industry in the sense that I was the chairman of a water-only company more than 10 years ago, but it means I know a bit about the water industry and perhaps that is helpful after the last intervention, because the truth of the matter is that this is not just a problem of the water companies.
First, it is the problem of those people who controlled the water companies. The way in which it was operated was a great mistake. There were two regulators and the Environment Agency was almost always overturned by Ofwat. Ofwat was leaned on by successive Governments to keep down the price of water. So I start by saying that we must have a system in which we are paying for the big changes that we know about—and, because I have been around for such a long time, I remember why privatisation took place. It was not anything to do with Mrs Thatcher wanting to privatise. It was because, when it had been public ownership, both municipal and national, there had never been investment. It is all right for the noble Baroness to say that that is what we want; if you look at the history, it is about the worst history of public investment that we ever had. We had Surfers Against Sewage and the filthiest water: the worst water in northern Europe. When we signed up to the water directive, as we did when were sensibly in the European Union, it was quite clear that we did not meet the standards. The Daily Telegraph used to say, “Oh well, of course our water is better than anywhere else because they drink bottled water in France”. The truth was that our water did not meet the standards of the whole of Europe.
The privatisation took place to get private money into the water industry, to make the changes that were necessary—and, for a bit, it worked. I was the Minister responsible after that had been done and it was murder to try to deal with it. As these companies brought new technology and the rest into it, they had to charge more and therefore we had all the arguments about keeping the water price down. Unfortunately, we have to recognise that water is not cheap and it is going to be more and more expensive. For example, Essex & Suffolk Water—which is about 200 to 300 yards outside Anglia, where I am affected, so I do not have a direct connection—has announced that it cannot provide new water for any new or extended industry until 2036. That is the effect of climate change and of not having the water we need.
We have to be frank about our problem: we are going to have to spend a lot more money on water, make it much more efficient, use new technology and do that through the privatised system that we have. There is no point in arguing about it; it is not going to be nationalised. The Government have made that quite clear and nobody else is going to nationalise it. So let us see how we can make this work. That is why I have come to be semi-supportive of this amendment: the reality is that we have not been able properly to regulate water and we need to do so. Directors of companies in these areas need to be personally responsible when, for a period, they have clearly not done the job which they are supposed to do.
The noble Baroness wanted us not to have three years. Frankly, you have got to have a period in which you can see whether this a persistent problem or a one-off. We are going to have lots of one-off problems. I know it bores the Committee for me constantly to talk about climate change, but the point about climate change is that it is really climate disruption. It means that we have very significant changes in weather which we cannot predict in advance and therefore we can have real problems, with so much water that we cannot deal with it or not enough water so we cannot provide for people. That does not mean to say that the people of Tunbridge Wells do not have a very considerable complaint about the fact that, yet again, they have not been able to have the water that they ought to have.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is very brave of the noble Lord to say categorically that this Government will not put the water companies into public hands, because they are famous for their U-turns, so who knows what is going to happen next week? Secondly, all these bonuses and huge payouts surely show a level of incompetence. They had the money to do the investment and they gave it instead to shareholders.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am sorry, the second part of the noble Baroness’s comments are ones she makes about everybody who is in the private sector. That is what she thinks about the private sector and I do not agree with her. The Polanski mechanisms of this world are devastating politically and economically and, really, I am not going to answer that because I just think it is not true and is nonsense.
However, the first part is actually quite important. The reason the Government do not want to nationalise the water companies is that it would cost a great deal of money that we ought to use for other things—and it does not necessarily end up with a better system. I am a historian: I always like to look at what happened before. When it was in the public sector and was run by municipalities, we did not spend the money. That was the problem. And we still would not do so, because there is always something better to spend the money on immediately. We are politicians; you do it for what the next moment is. The trouble with investment in water is that it is crucial, but it is long term.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
First, I do not want to get into a spat with the noble Lord but could he not mention people by name in this Chamber? That is quite rude. Secondly, I am an archaeologist and I know exactly how these things start. The fact is, it may be that public ownership did not help but private ownership has made it much worse—and it is not true that I condemn all private businesses.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
We are straying away from the amendment and strolling into a bigger debate. If we can get back to the amendment, that will be fantastic.
Lord Deben (Con)
On the personal attack, Mr Polanski is the leader of a party. If he cannot be referred to in this House, I wonder what on earth we are coming to.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I will follow the strictures just put on us to stay with the amendment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, as he still came back for another bite, that as someone who sat on the Industry and Regulators Committee that looked into the water industry in detail, I know that the Victorian system reached its capacity in 1960, and public and private ownership both failed in different ways for the simple reason that he gave: short-termism. That is the problem we face: the multiple billions that have to be spent over a long period, and no Government looking to get re-elected for the next five years will ever spend it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling this amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting their names to it and contributing today.
Although we understand the noble Baroness’s intention, we do not believe that this amendment is the right approach to ensuring that our water companies act ethically and serve the customer. Neither do we believe that increasing offences for companies or for individuals is the right approach to decreasing water pollution. They are already subject to the powers of Ofwat and the Environment Agency; additional measures will just drive up legal costs and encourage hostile behaviour.
The Water (Special Measures) Act of last year placed a new duty on companies to publish an annual pollution incident reduction plan, and we should wait and see what the outcome of that policy is before we attempt to legislate further. It is undoubtedly an important issue, but we simply do not believe that this is the best way to go about it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling the amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting her name to it and speaking to it. I enjoy—well, “enjoy”—sparring on issues of water ownership and water companies. Usually it is in Oral Questions rather than in the middle of the Crime and Policing Bill but, hey ho, you take your chances wherever you can. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for bringing his sense of history and active participation over a number of decades, if I may say so, on the issue of water ownership and stewardship. I found myself agreeing—which may not be too strange—in no small part with many of his comments.
Before I get into the meat of my remarks, I want to be clear: as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, the Government are not going to nationalise the water industry. It would cost around £100 billion.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy to direct the noble Baroness towards Defra’s costings on this. You have to take account of all sorts of factors, including debt that you inherit as well as the equity stake of the companies that they are currently valued at. It is a very simplistic economics that leads you down the primrose path of the valuations that some people like to think it would cost. That is not the case.
I also gently point out to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the £104 billion that comes up in PR24 to which he referred is an investment commitment from the water companies. We are building new aqueducts now and we have not built them for decades, and that is one of the main reasons why we have continual problems of lots of rain but not enough water supply, to which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred. Anyway, I will take off my Defra Whip hat and put on my Home Office Whip hat, and I will speak to the amendment.
Performance commitment levels, including for pollution, are set for Ofwat in the price review process. Where companies fail to meet these commitment levels, they must return money to customers through reduced bills in the next financial year. Companies are therefore already penalised for failing to meet their performance targets. In addition, this Government have already introduced the toughest sentencing powers in history against law-breaking water executives. Provisions in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred, extend the sentencing powers of the courts to include imprisonment in all cases where the regulator’s investigations have been obstructed by individuals and enable obstruction cases to be heard in the Crown Court. As a company cannot go to prison, the provisions ensure that directors and officers are held to account. The threat of imprisonment will act as a powerful deterrent as water companies invest in upgrading broken water infrastructure and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
The 2025 Act also allows the Government to expand and strengthen the current range of financial penalties available to the Environment Agency in a bid to clamp down on more water company offences. The Government have consulted on the scope for these new penalties and their value. The changes will make it much easier and quicker for the Environment Agency to hold water companies to account. Through the 2025 Act, the Government have also given Ofwat the power to ban executive performance bonuses where companies fail to meet certain standards. Since this was introduced in June last year, six companies out of nine—Anglian Water, Southern Water, Thames Water, United Utilities, Wessex Water and Yorkshire Water—have triggered the bonus ban rule, and more than £4 million of potential bonuses have been blocked. This is the legislation working in action.
The Government announced, in response to the Cunliffe review, that they will establish a single powerful regulator for the entire water sector, with the teeth to enforce the standards that the public rightly demand. We have also accepted the recommendation from Cunliffe to end the era of water companies marking their own homework through operator self-monitoring. We will introduce open monitoring to increase transparency and restore public trust. We have set out our wider vision for the future of the water sector in a White Paper published on 20 January. This marks the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation. When parliamentary time allows in a new Session, we will introduce a water Bill creating the laws that we need to fundamentally change the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked whether the Government are committed to this. The Water (Special Measures) Act last year, our response to the Cunliffe review, the water White Paper and our commitment to legislate are a down payment on our commitment to do right by the industry, the environment, the consumer and those who wish to invest in our water system. I hope that the measures I have set out demonstrate that the Government and regulators are taking firm action to hold water companies and their executives to account for poor performance. For these reasons, in the knowledge that we will bring forward further legislation in due course, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken. That was a more interesting group of amendments than I expected it to be. I apologise—at the start I should have declared my interest as a board member and director of the Water Retail Company.
This has been an interesting debate. My amendment was not really about the ownership or privatisation of water—my party has a middle way on that—but about ensuring that the Government have the tools to change the behaviour and direction of water company executives. I take the Minister’s point about the £140 billion, but a lot of that is underwritten. We need that to be invested to get the change. I recognise the issues of climate change and the problems that we face, but this amendment is carefully crafted and is about adding this extra tool to the toolbox.
Fundamentally, my worry is that when we create the new regulator, which I welcome, it needs to be set up to succeed and to deliver—when, frankly, no other regulator has to date delivered in this space. My worry is that fines alone may not be enough to change corporate behaviour. I do not want to come back in another five or 10 years, when the climate has moved on and the problems we face are worse, and see that more money has gone in but the systems have not changed. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, and I thank all those who have spoken.
Lord Garnier
“Joint enterprise(1) The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 is amended as follows.(2) In section 8 (abettors in misdemeanors), after “shall” insert “, by making a significant contribution to its commission,”.”
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 486, co-signed by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Berkeley of Knighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, is a probing amendment designed to enable the Committee to consider the criminal law on joint enterprise and the Government to tell us how and when they intend to reform this troubling aspect of our law. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, regrets that he cannot be here this afternoon. He had wanted to refer to the law of Scotland, which I will not—simply because it would be a mistake for me to venture into that dangerous water. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, after having listened to what I have to say and endured my speech, might regret that he could be here, but I am very grateful to him for being here.
The instigator of this amendment is Kim Johnson, Member of Parliament. She presented a Private Member’s Bill to this effect in the other place in February 2024, and initiated a debate on joint enterprise through her Amendment 13 to this Bill on Report in the other place in June 2025. Amendment 486 is framed in the same terms, and its supporters come from across your Lordships’ House. Legal academics and practitioners outside Parliament have argued for it as well.
Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, if changed by my amendment, would provide that “Whosoever shall”—and here I add the amending words—
“by making a significant contribution to its commission”,
and would continue,
“aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender”.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will address the corresponding need to amend the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 later this evening.
The last Government rejected this proposal because they said it would be too difficult for the prosecution to prove a significant contribution. I disagree. This amendment may not provide the best or only answer, but the intention is to bring to Parliament’s and the Government’s urgent attention the need for clarity, and therefore justice, in an aspect of our criminal law that has, over the years, led to confusion and injustice, as our courts have wrestled with how to deal with defendants who agree to commit one crime but who go on separately or together to commit another one. Over the years, that has led to a version of the law of joint enterprise that has allowed several people to be convicted of a crime, usually murder or manslaughter, even if only one person committed the fatal act. In some cases, there have been demonstrably unjust convictions.
Let me mention a few recent developments. The first is the combined Supreme Court and Privy Council decision in two appeals, Jogee and Ruddock, from England and Jamaica respectively, heard in 2016. If I may, I will refer to those two appeals as Jogee. The question of law relating to the liability of a secondary party was whether the common law took a wrong turning in two cases, one called Chan Wing-Siu, in 1985, and the other the Crown v Powell and English, in 1999.
The Jogee appeals concerned a subset of the law of secondary liability for a crime relating to the person who did not himself forge the document, fire the gun or stab the victim—the person who did so is the principal—but who is said to have encouraged or assisted the principal to do so. There is no question that persons who are indeed together responsible for a crime are all guilty of it, whether as principals or secondary parties. Sometimes it is not possible to determine exactly whose hand performed the vital act, but this does not matter, so long as it is proved that each defendant either did it himself or intentionally assisted or encouraged it.
Jogee did not affect that rule. In Jogee, the court was considering a narrower subpart concerning secondary parties who had engaged with one or more others in a criminal venture to commit crime A but, in doing so, the principal had committed a second crime, crime B. In many of the reported cases, crime B is murder committed in the course of some other criminal venture, but this aspect of the law is not confined to cases of homicide or even to cases of violence. The question in Jogee is the mental element that the law requires of the secondary party. This narrower area of secondary responsibility has sometimes been labelled joint enterprise. To speak of a joint enterprise is simply to say that two or more people were engaged in a crime together. That, however, does not identify what mental element must be shown in the secondary party. The narrower area of secondary responsibility in question, where crime B is committed during the course of crime A, has been in the past more precisely called parasitic accessory liability—a phrase that I have to accept does not exactly trip off the tongue.
The two cases of Chan Wing-Siu and Powell held that, in the kind of situation described, the mental element required of the secondary party is simply that he foresaw the possibility that the principal might commit crime B. If the secondary party did foresee this, the case is treated as continued participation in crime A—not simply as evidence that he intended to assist crime B but as automatic authorisation of it. So the secondary party was guilty under this rule, even if he did not intend to assist crime B at all. This set a lower test for the secondary party than for the principal, who will be guilty of crime B only if he has the necessary mental element for that crime, which is usually intent. That was in contrast to the usual rule for secondary parties, which is that the mental element is an intention to assist or encourage the principal to commit the crime.
Jogee held that Chan Wing-Siu and the Crown v Powell had taken a wrong turning in their reasoning. The decisions departed from the well-established rule that the mental element required of a secondary party is an intention to assist or encourage the principal to commit the crime. They also advanced arguments based on the need that co-adventurers in crimes that result in death should not escape conviction without considering whether the secondary parties would generally be guilty of manslaughter in any event. The Supreme Court decided that the law must be set back to the correct footing that stood before Chan Wing-Siu.
The mental element for secondary liability is the intention to assist or encourage the crime. Sometimes the encouragement or assistance is given to a specific crime and sometimes to a range of crimes, one of which is committed. Either will suffice. Sometimes the encouragement or assistance involves an agreement between the parties, but, in other cases, it takes the form of more or less spontaneous joining in a criminal enterprise. Again, either will suffice.
Intention to assist is not the same as desiring the crime to be committed. On the contrary, the intention to assist may sometimes be conditional, in the sense that the secondary party hopes that the further crime will not be necessary. If he nevertheless gives his intentional assistance on the basis that it may be committed if the necessity for it arises, he will be guilty. In many cases, the intention to assist will be coterminous with the intention that crime B be committed, but there may be some where it exists without that latter intention.
In most cases, it will remain relevant to inquire whether the principal and secondary party shared a common criminal purpose, for often this will demonstrate the secondary party’s intention to assist. This will be a matter of fact for the jury after careful direction from the judge. The error, Jogee says, was to treat foresight of crime B as automatic authorisation of it, whereas the correct rule is that foresight is simply evidence—albeit sometimes strong evidence—of intent to assist or encourage. It is a question for the jury, in every case, whether the intention to assist or encourage is shown. The correct rule, therefore, is that foresight is simply evidence—albeit sometimes strong evidence, as I say—of intent to assist or encourage, which is the proper mental element for establishing secondary liability.
The story does not end there, I am sorry to say—for those noble Lords who are still with me. For those convicted post Jogee, there is now a concern in the minds of some academics and practitioners that the Court of Appeal has subsequently lowered the conduct element and removed causation once again to widen liability through another error of law.
This criticism follows two cases in the Court of Appeal in 2021 and 2023, one called Rowe and the other called Hussain, where it was held—if I have this right—that, save for procuring a crime, conduct is enough, causation is not necessary and contribution is implicit and need not be measurable. The consequence is that the statutory language of “aid, abet, counsel or procure” is lost, and liability through complicity does not require proof that the accused person made a significant contribution to the crime in which he is alleged to have been complicit. Without a significant contribution, an alleged accomplice is not meaningfully involved in the principal’s crime.
Professor Matthew Dyson in his paper “The Contribution of Complicity”, published in the Journal of Criminal Law in 2022, suggests that judges should direct juries on contribution. This would retain the necessary derivative nature of complicity. Dr Felicity Gerry KC, who appeared for one of the defendants in Hussain, argues that the result of Dyson’s research
“is a much safer legal framework to ensure only those who make a significant contribution to the crime are at risk of conviction. The current approach fails to make it clear that there must be some nexus between the alleged acts of assistance and encouragement and the principal’s commission of the crime. Dr Beatrice Krebs has explained that without further guidance on the level of contribution made by the accessory’s action towards the principal’s commission of the offence, the jury has no tool to distinguish between an accessory who was merely present and one who by their presence has assisted or encouraged. Put simply—the decision in Hussain leaves a real risk of convicting people who make no significant contribution to the crime. The fundamental problem both Dyson and Krebs identify is the Court of Appeal focus on the accessory’s conduct rather than proof of the contribution to the principal’s commission of the offence”.
Dyson’s proposed test of a significant contribution, which I import into Amendment 486, is a measure that could have tightened the conduct element in complicity, just as Jogee envisaged greater care in fault.
Dyson argued that Jogee passed over the important issue of what contribution an accomplice needs to make to a principal’s crime. He submitted that
“English law is too willing to assume that such a contribution has occurred and has little detailed law to test for it”
and that a more rigorous approach is needed. He suggested a two-part approach:
“to be liable for assisting or encouraging a crime, the accomplice must make a substantial contribution to the principal’s commission of it; to be liable for procuring the principal’s crime, the accomplice must bring the crime about”.
Whether the accomplice’s assistance or encouragement had made the necessary substantial contribution would be a question for the jury. This approach, he argues, would be consistent with what was said in Jogee about overwhelming supervening acts. Where such an issue arose, a jury would first have to decide what level of contribution the assistance or encouragement of the accomplice had made and would then have to decide whether that had persisted to the point when the principal committed the offence.
The Court of Appeal rejected that proposition in Hussain, so, in addition to all those wrongly convicted before Jogee, there is a growing cohort of prisoners whose contribution to a crime has never meaningfully been measured. With no minimum threshold for the conduct element and, in murder, the consequence of lengthy tariffs on life sentences, this latest approach to joint enterprise contributes to overcriminalisation and overincarceration. Prison overcrowding and perceived injustice are, I suggest, a toxic mix. Absent a further case before the Supreme Court, we look to the Law Commission and the Government to find a way through.
In December 2024, the Law Commission announced a review of homicide and the sentencing framework for murder. It will, among other things, examine the law on joint enterprise following the Supreme Court ruling in Jogee. I suggest that the published timetable for the review is too long: opened in August 2025, with two separately focused consultation papers to be published in 2026 and 2027, it will not report until 2028. Would it not be possible to conclude the proposed review with two separate, if linked, reports—first, much earlier, on the offences, and, secondly, on defences and sentencing—rather than waiting until 2028 to publish one final report? Depending on what is in the legislative programme for 2028-30 and bearing in mind the delays caused by a general election and changing political priorities, it could be well over two years before anything is done.
I know from my own experience in government and opposition in Parliament since 1992 that Governments are reluctant to do anything that looks like being weak on crime, especially violent crime, but getting the law on joint enterprise understood and settled in statute is not a sign of weakness but evidence of the search for justice. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for introducing this matter so fully. He started by saying that this was a troubling aspect of the law. I want to talk about how troubling it is and to reflect on the academic research which underpins many of the comments he made. I was a youth magistrate for many years, and my experience is underpinned by the academic research which I will refer to.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if ever there was a day to consider whether we should just assume guilt by association, then today’s political context provides us with a reminder that it is complicated. I have added my name to Amendment 486 on reform of joint enterprise, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. Having listened to the elegant and legally erudite contribution from the noble and learned Lord, followed by such a well-informed contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I am rather nervous that I am going to let the side down somewhat, but let me take a different approach.
Reading through the first-hand accounts in In Their Own Words produced by the Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association grass-roots campaign group that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to, really brings home that this tool of criminal justice is destroying too many young lives by incarcerating them for crimes which they made no significant contribution to. Sending people to prison for life and labelling them as murderers when they have not killed anyone, or were in many instances effectively bystanders, is something Parliament must address. Why? We have a responsibility to make sure the law is fit for purpose and applied properly and as originally intended. I think joint enterprise fails on all those counts.
I think we can all understand what the intention of joint enterprise is and was. Sometimes those who do not actually wield the knife do seem equally culpable—the armed robber involved in the heist that has gone wrong is the example always used. It could be deemed that he is as guilty as his accomplice who shot the cashier because he significantly contributed to the crime by, for example, carrying or supplying the gun or threatening the cashier. We can all acknowledge that in the brutal murder of Stephen Lawrence a group was closely involved in the killing.
Interestingly, if you look back to the ancient history of the law, which was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, in a Times article a couple of years ago, it also brings home that things can be complicated but people can be equally guilty. It began, apparently, with duelling aristocrats in the 18th century. The courts hit on the idea of reducing the number of duels by making seconds and surgeons liable for murder alongside the principals, so once more we can blame the hereditaries for everything that has gone wrong since—that was a joke.
It is important to stress that this is not about getting the guilty off the hook because behind each of these joint enterprise cases, the victims of crime, the families of those brutally killed, must not be forgotten, but justice for them is ill-served by overcriminalisation or overpunishment of the wrong culprits.
I want to use a couple of examples. Faisal Fiaz found out about the murder that he “committed” at the same time as everyone else because he saw it on social media. He did not know beforehand that there had been a murder because he was waiting in the back of a car as two of his colleagues in the drugs gang he was involved in went round the corner intending to steal cannabis from a local dealer. I want to stress that Faisal was no angel—he was involved in the drugs trade; he was a teenager in a gang—but he did not know that his gang accomplices were carrying a knife or that they had gone on to stab the dealer to death. The stabber fled the country to Pakistan and is still at large, whereas Faisal was jailed for life, with a minimum of 23 years, without any compelling evidence of intent or knowledge of the crime about to happen or even that it had happened. His presence in the vicinity and guilt by association was deemed enough to suggest to the CPS that he contributed to the murder in such a way that he is in prison for life. He was punished as harshly as he would have been had he wielded the knife, but I do not think that was the original intention, which was for the heist gone wrong or a duel.
That seems to be the crucial weakness in the current law of joint enterprise: the courts seem indifferent to the precise contribution to the crime of the accused, and this breaks the link between any action and accountability for that action. In this context, of course evidential standards are watered down and can even be dispensed with.
I was struck listening to Joseph Appiah, who was part of a group that clashed with rival schoolboys when he was 15. He was 200 yards away from the fatal stabbing of a 16 year-old. He did not stab the victim, nor did he see the stabbing, and he assumed that that would all be taken into account. He said:
“I didn’t see it, I didn’t know what happened and I can account for where I was, I could prove it. I always thought, well, you know, I didn’t do it, so when all the evidence comes out, eventually they will see the light, but that’s not how it went”.
Despite no DNA or evidence that he was directly involved or that he saw the act or knew that a knife was involved, he was found as culpable as the teenager who did in fact commit a stabbing.
Understandably, people conclude that the law of joint enterprises is so loosely interpreted by the criminal justice system because it makes it easier to secure convictions. It removes the faff of investigation, evidence gathering, proof beyond reasonable doubt and so on. In other words, it fuels cynicism in criminal justice. There are also side injustices created by the courts wielding joint enterprise as a blunt instrument. Fear of being convicted that way means that defence barristers have been known to persuade innocent clients to plead guilty to lesser charges such as GBH to avoid a trial of joint enterprise.
All these problems are well known, as we have heard. Back in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the law around joint enterprise had taken a wrong turn and been used wrongly for three decades. The court thought that it was rightly restoring the proper law of targeting those who intended to commit or assist in a serious crime. But, as we are all too aware, Supreme Court clarifications are not always used to rectify wrong readings of the law—the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies has revealed that, in the three years leading up to the ruling in 2016, 522 individuals were charged, but in the three years afterwards, 547 were.
As others have noted, reform of joint enterprise has gone as far as it is possible for it to go in the courts, and it now needs a change in the law. I give credit to Kim Johnson MP, who has used her voice in the other place to draw attention to this and inspire us all. Her attempts have failed so far, but the Government should now grab this chance, here in Committee, to right this wrong.
I have some qualms with one part of this debate, however, which is the implication that this is an actively racist law, or, to quote Jimmy McGovern, that its purpose is allegedly
“to keep scum off the streets, that’s how I think the police see it. That’s how they see all these young people – as scum”.
I loved Jimmy McGovern’s powerful 2014 drama “Common”, but I do not think that that is what is going on here. Joint enterprise has been used by many in good faith to try to tackle the scourge and blight of gang violence.
Yes, young Black people are 16 times more likely to be prosecuted for joint enterprise—there were also lots of young people, with 14% between the ages of 14 and 17 and 40% between 18 and 24, and 93% of defendants were male—but let us be honest: there is a real problem of young Black men stabbing each other. I live in Wood Green in Haringey, and it is real and it is not racist to note it. It is something we have to take into account.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
We need them to understand that the criminal justice system is not targeting them personally for crime but is fair and proportionate. That is what we should do.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 486 and thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for his excellent introduction to it, which was very clear to follow.
Over the decades, thousands of people have been wrongly jailed for life in appalling miscarriages of justice because of the use of joint enterprise to charge those present with the commission of a serious crime. Sometimes that might be someone who was present and thought they were going to be involved in a low-level crime, whereas they had no involvement at all in the actual violence or murder committed by another but were still charged under joint enterprise as if they had also committed the act of violence or murder. That is very similar to the example that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gave us.
Even worse, there are those who have been jailed for murder simply because they were present at the act of murder, although they had not been members of the gang involved. Over the last 15 years, this House has seen various amendments and had debates and questions trying to correct and clarify when charges should or should not be used for those who did not commit serious acts of violence. As has already been mentioned, a decade ago the Supreme Court recognised that joint enterprise had been used repeatedly and incorrectly in many cases, but nothing has really changed since then. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for quoting the figures for the three years before and after 2016, because that judgment has not changed the numbers either.
The key questions addressed by the Supreme Court, including what qualifies as assistance and encouragement, remain obfuscatory. It is still not clear whether presence at a serious crime is in itself enough. I will not repeat the data that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and others have mentioned in the briefing we got from Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association. I differ slightly from the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. It is quite notable that over 50% of those prosecuted are not just young Black men and women, but there is also substantial overrepresentation of disabled and neurodivergent people, as well as many under 25. I might understand the last, but not the others on their own.
The proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, would completely change the approach to considering who has been involved in serious crime. The amendment would ensure that, rather than guessing the individual's state of mind, associations and foresight of what might occur, the CPS must look at actual material actions, making that the baseline objective threshold for prosecution. I hope that the Minister is finally prepared to change the injustice in the use of joint enterprise and start a new era based on facts, not suppositions.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I fully support this amendment. I agree effectively with every word that has fallen from the lips of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, and almost every word uttered by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I hope that the Government will listen and give careful consideration to this amendment.
The law of joint enterprise has long been unsatisfactory. It was substantially improved by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Jogee case, as explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. The present state of the law in the light of Jogee is that an offence is committed by an accessory only if the defendant charged as an accessory intended to assist the principal in the commission of the offence. Even so, the law is still unsatisfactory and unclear, as extensively supported by the academic evidence cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and it sorely needs reform.
The phrase “significant contribution” to the commission of the offence used in the amendment is apt. It would overcome the difficulties mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, with the Court of Appeal’s position on the related accessory offences of procurement. The phrase has been proposed by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and widely by academics. It was the phrase used in Kim Johnson’s Private Member’s Bill, which was supported by, among others, Sir Bob Neill, who was then chair of the Justice Select Committee, and therefore one presumes by the committee itself.
While the expression may in some ways seem vague, it sets exactly the type of test that juries can and do recognise and regularly apply, rather similarly to the test for dishonesty used in relation to Theft Act offences. The amendment would make an offence of being an accessory much more comprehensible and justifiable than the present test. The present test, I suggest, focuses disproportionately on the mental element of accessory liability, whereas the amendment would focus on the actual contribution of the accessory to the commission of the offence.
There is considerable cause for concern that joint enterprise law in its operation is discriminatory. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned the research showing that Black people are 16 times more likely to be prosecuted on the basis of joint enterprise than white people. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned the same research. What neither mentioned is that that staggering figure—I suggest that it is staggering—was based on the CPS’s own figures for 2023.
I accept that there may be cultural issues, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but they have to be judged against the caution that was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Brinton. There is also serious evidence of unjustified, unwarranted group prosecution. There is significant concern about evidence of racial bias and the risk of guilt by association in consequence. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—that it sometimes may seem easier to prosecute for joint enterprise than by establishing individual guilt—is, or may be, justified. Concerns about guilt by association and gang involvement are entirely legitimate. I think they are shared by the public, and they are evidenced by the clear examples we have heard today. They evidence a lack of principle in prosecution and in the application of the law.
In evidence to the Leveson review, Keir Monteith KC and Professor Eithne Quinn from the University of Manchester argued that joint enterprise was overused. They went so far as to say that it contributed, as inevitably statistically it does, to the growth of the backlogs. They cited the trial of seven Black teenagers in 2022 who were accused of murder, where the prosecution accepted that they could not be sure who stabbed the victim, but asserted that all of those who went to the park where the killing occurred
“shared responsibility, at the very least contributing to the force of numbers”.
That was an inaccurate or, at the very least, incomplete statement of the law in the light of Jogee. Six of the seven defendants were acquitted, but the fact that they were tried and went through the period that they did prior to trial highlights the confused state of the law, which makes the essential ingredients of the offence difficult for jurors and sometimes even prosecutors to understand.
We should also take into account, particularly given the delays in bringing trials to court, the serious risk of charges based on joint enterprise leading to defendants who are ultimately acquitted being held on remand, as one of the seven defendants in the case I mentioned was for no less than 14 months.
Finally, I have a technical point that was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, to whom I had mentioned it. While I support the amendment completely, it needs to be reworded or supplemented to cover summary offences. That is because, as a result of the amendment of Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 by the Criminal Law Act 1977, the accessory offence under the 1861 Act applies only to indictable offences—offences that are either indictable only or triable either way. A parallel amendment to Section 44(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 is required to cover summary offences. There is no justification for distinguishing between them. With that rather academic point, I hope that the Government will act on this.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for bringing forward this amendment and for the care and intellectual rigour with which he has set out the case for revisiting the law on joint enterprise. He has laid out a clear case for why this area of criminal law generates much concern, not least because of the length of sentences involved and the understandable anxiety about culpability and clarity in attributing criminal responsibility.
My noble and learned friend has, rightly, reminded the Committee of the complex and often unsettled journey that this area of law has taken, from the missteps identified by the Supreme Court in Jogee through to more recent Court of Appeal decisions, which some commentators argue have again widened liability in ways that risk injustice. His concerns about overcriminalisation and the potential for convictions where an individual’s role is marginal are serious points that deserve careful reflection. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on them.
That said, while I welcome this debate and acknowledge the force of many of the arguments advanced, I am not persuaded that this amendment provides the right statutory solution at this stage. The introduction of a requirement that an accessory must have made a “significant contribution” to the commission of an offence raises difficult questions of definition and application. What amounts to “significant” is not self-evident. If left undefined, it would inevitably fall to the courts to develop meaning over time through case law, creating precisely the uncertainty and inconsistency that this amendment seeks to address. Alternatively, attempting to define “significant contribution” exhaustively in statute risks rigidity and unintended consequences across a wide range of factual scenarios. Tied to this, there is currently a wealth of case law that can be applied by the courts when considering joint enterprise. This case law would be made redundant in many scenarios if the law were to be changed by this amendment, which would surely not be desirable.
I believe that my noble and learned friend acknowledges that this amendment may not be the only way, or even the best way, but rather uses it as a probing amendment to draw attention to the problem. There is clearly an ongoing need to ensure that the law of secondary liability remains anchored to principles of intention, causation and moral culpability and that juries are properly directed to distinguish between meaningful participation and mere presence.
However, given the Law Commission’s ongoing review of homicide and sentencing, which includes consideration of joint enterprise in light of Jogee, I am cautious about pre-empting that work with a statutory change that may generate further ambiguity. Reform in this area must be evidence based and coherent. While I welcome the discussion sparked by this amendment and commend my noble and learned friend for his persistence in pursuing clarity and justice, I cannot lend the amendment my support today. However, I hope the Government will reflect carefully on the concerns raised and indicate how they intend to ensure that the law on joint enterprise is both fair and clearly understood.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 486 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raises an issue that has long troubled the criminal justice system. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving me sight of his speech in advance.
The criminal liability of secondary parties is an important but sometimes controversial concept in the law, and the Government acknowledge the anxiety over the consequences for those prosecuted and convicted as a result of the application of the rule. On the one hand, there are very real and understandable concerns. First, we recognise the anxiety that this has a disproportionate effect on young people and on those from certain ethnic groups. Secondly, it is a matter of serious concern that the law is widely misunderstood. For example, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in relation to her powerful speech, but in fact she said several things that were not quite right. For example, we have no law of collective responsibility, and mere presence without more is never enough to convict. Even lawyers and judges sometimes struggle with the application of this concept, as any of your Lordships who attempted to follow the limpid explanation of the law in this area from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, may well understand.
On the other hand, and seriously, it must be remembered that the reason why the rule exists is to ensure that it is possible to prosecute those who take part in group crimes—often, but not always, crimes of violence. Please remember that if your son or daughter was attacked by a large group, one of whom may have held the weapon, but others of whom were assisting and encouraging, you would want the entire group to face justice—more so if, because it was not possible to distinguish which of the many feet was kicking the victim, you could not prosecute any of them because you could not show which foot in fact delivered the fatal blow among the others which contributed to it. This is what, among other things, the doctrine of joint enterprise is there to cover.
I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord’s amendment is intended to probe the Government’s position. While the intention behind the amendment is understandable, as drafted, we believe that there are flaws in it which mean that it is not acceptable and would cause more difficulties than it solved for the courts which have to apply it. The issues about which the Government have concerns include the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about what would count as “significant”. For example, is purchasing the weapon or acting as a lookout significant? What about shouting encouragement or driving the getaway car? You could not just leave this to a jury to decide, because then there would be a real risk of unacceptable disparities in decisions made on the same facts. In one part of the country, acting as a lookout could mean you were guilty of murder, but in another part, on the same facts, you would be acquitted. You could even get those results in courtrooms next door to each other in the same building. Such uncertainty would make prosecutions in group violence cases pretty much impossible, as well as leading to verdicts which would not command public confidence.
There are further issues, one of which has been identified by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in relation to the magistrates’ court, but the amendment does not apply to the full range of offences because it does not address how it interacts with other forms of secondary liability, such as encouraging or assisting a crime under the Serious Crime Act 2007. The noble and learned Lord’s summary of the development of the law pre and post the landmark case of Jogee in 2016 illustrates, I venture to say, the great complexity of this area, but I reassure your Lordships that the Government are listening.
Mention has been made of the few important pieces of work that are going on in this area. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has said, the Law Commission’s review of homicide offences and sentencing for murder is considering the implications of the current law on joint enterprise. I note the noble and learned Lord’s concerns about the length of time, but I should make it clear that the Law Commission is an independent body—in a sense, that is part of the point of it—which decides how to run its projects. It is not looking at joint enterprise on its own but at how joint enterprise is related to homicide offences and sentencing. One of the things it is considering is whether we should adopt a first and second degree murder to reflect the different roles played in sentencing, if not necessarily in conviction for a particular offence. As the noble and learned Lord will know, there is a significant interaction between the categorisation of homicide offences, the impact of partial defences and mandatory sentencing requirements, which makes separating out of these aspects of the report more complex.
Secondly, the Law Commission’s review of criminal appeals is examining if or how historic convictions are considered, which is a key area of concern for many people. Thirdly, the CPS has been consulting on its policies on gang-related prosecutions. This includes the controversial use of drill and rap music as evidence. It is also improving data collection on joint enterprise cases. As a number of your Lordships have referred to, last September, the CPS published its first annual data report on joint enterprise homicide and attempted homicide cases. The Government also recognise the important work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Miscarriages of Justice and the Westminster Commission, in which the noble and learned Lord is involved. I need not remind him that it is in the process of taking evidence and considering reform of joint enterprise, and we look forward to its report.
So, while the Government recognise the concerns about joint enterprise, and work is under way to address these issues, we cannot support this amendment today for the reasons I have given, and I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Can I just ask the Minister to reconsider, or at least explain, her argument that it is significant in this regard that different juries might come to different conclusions on the same or similar facts in different parts of the country, on one day or another? Is not her experience as a judge that that is an everyday event? Does she not consider that that is one reason why juries do not give reasons and are not asked for their reasons for any given decision that they make? Because it is a fact of life that we all accept.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Not giving reasons is of course one of the criticisms that is sometimes made of jury trials. In the Government’s view, the wider and broader concept in the current law of an act of assistance or encouragement, combined with the intention to assist or encourage, gives a broad enough scope to allow juries to look at the conditions in every different case—whereas, when you are saying a “significant contribution”, it would be a matter of value judgment for particular juries as to whether they thought that a lookout was a significant contribution or not. For that reason, we think it would introduce significant uncertainty and significant risk of disparity in verdicts.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been, for me, an interesting and educational 55 minutes and I hope that the Government will have found it so as well. Although the Law Commission is of course an independent body, I dare say it might be sent a copy of this evening’s debate, which might encourage it to accelerate the way in which it is looking at this admittedly difficult and complicated question. I do not think that any of us who have spoken this evening thinks it is an easy question.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Brinton, and my noble friend on the Front Bench Lord Davies of Gower for their thoughtful and useful—I do not say “useful” in a demeaning way; I genuinely mean it—contributions to this debate, because it is, as I have said, difficult. The Minister was the first to accept that. She and I—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others—will have summed up to juries and directed juries on the question of joint enterprise in one case or another. I dare say, at Snaresbrook Crown Court, there were probably quite a lot of difficult cases that had to be dealt with. However, I do not accept the Minister’s suggestion that juries would find it difficult, or that it would create other sorts of difficulties, to work out what “significant contribution” means.
Juries can work out, following proper direction from the judge, how to deal with actions taken in self-defence. You could get a different set of facts which would allow the defence to run, whereas, in other cases, it would not. Significant contribution is not a difficult concept, and it is not one that 12 members of a jury, when properly directed by the judge and having heard arguments from the lawyers for the respective parties, the prosecution and the defence, could not grapple with. They could. One has to think not just about “significant contribution”: let us work out what “no contribution” means. What does “insignificant contribution” mean? It strikes me that by simply posing those questions, one should not be frightened of the “significant contribution” question.
As I say, I understand the public policy, I understand the politics and I understand that my Government in the past, and now this Government, are worried about being seen to be weak on crime. For goodness’ sake, we have heard that record played year in, year out. But I hope that this evening’s short discussion will encourage others outside Parliament to keep pressing their arguments, both in court and academically. I hope that those who have taken part in this debate will continue to press for reform in this area. And I hope that the Law Commission, if it is listening, will accelerate its process.
It is now nearly 7.15 pm on a Thursday and it is almost a capital offence to talk in Committee stage on a Thursday at this hour. So I will bring my remarks to a conclusion by finally repeating my thanks to all those who have taken part. I beg the leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cromwell
“Use of drone technology: offence(1) A person commits an offence if they use drone technology to—(a) conduct reconnaissance of land or buildings with the intent of committing a further crime, or(b) carry items including controlled drugs, stolen goods, illegal weapons, harmful substances, or other items intended for illegal use in respect of people, property or good order. (2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).”
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have just been informed by the noble Lord, Lord Garnier, that I am about to commit almost a criminal offence by speaking at all. “We few, we happy few”. I will be as quick as I can. I start by thanking the Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord Hendy, for their kind assistance in considering this amendment, and the former’s very helpful letter to me of 29 January.
Drone technology has transformed many aspects of life and it would be foolish to suppose that it would not be used by criminals as part of their activities across the world. The technology continues to evolve, to become autonomous and t be coupled with AI. Legislation, almost by definition, cannot keep pace with such evolving technologies. While noble Lords will be relieved to know that I am not going to tilt at AI windmills tonight, I put down this amendment to highlight the abuse of drones for criminal purposes just for reconnaissance and for illegal deliveries. I have been on the receiving end of the former, finding drones buzzing around business premises to scope out what machinery or products are stored there which criminals can later return to steal. I understand that drones are similarly used along railways, for example, to look for copper wiring to steal.
The Minister’s letter of 29 January argues that the necessary law is, on paper, largely there, and that the real challenge lies in practical enforcement. His letter explains that, while technically it may be possible to show that someone is, under the Theft Act 1968, committing the offence of “going equipped for stealing”, reconnaissance as such is nevertheless not a criminal offence, essentially because it is very hard to prove intent. I entirely accept this, and also the Minister’s point that it would not be practical or proportionate to create no-fly zones over every possible target of theft.
However, I worry about people who feel unprotected when drones are routinely flown over domestic, commercial or public property in a way that is plainly intrusive and potentially preparatory to crime. It seems that nothing can be done. They and the police must stand off and wait until an act of criminality under existing laws is committed. I suspect that we may, in that case, see people start to take the law into their own hands.
As regards the use of drones as a means of delivery, their use to get drugs and other items into prisons is already well known, but there is a growing and wider use of drones as a delivery service for illegal items elsewhere. I was recently told about a delivery drone seen regularly flying back and forth between a drug dealer’s hilltop house and the settlement below.
The Minister’s letter encouragingly points out that new regulations now require drones to be equipped with what is called direct remote identification, which works like a digital number-plate that can be detected, apparently by anybody with a smartphone, who can then report this to the police.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, as the Home Secretary observed in the recent White Paper, policing has not always kept pace with a rapidly changing world. Airspace has indeed become a new frontier for both opportunistic and organised crime. Drones are now being used by burglars and organised gangs as near-silent scouts, identifying empty homes, weak locks or high-value items through windows. The law can, of course, address the burglary that follows, but it struggles to capture the preceding act of reconnaissance. This is particularly relevant to rural crime, where drones are acting as the advance guard for the theft and export of GPS equipment.
In our prisons, drones are described by residents as “almost routine”, delivering drugs, phones and weapons straight into exercise yards. Ministry of Justice data shows more than 1,700 drone incidents in a single year. That fuels violence and instability across the estate. However, as the Justice Committee pointed out last October, the problem is not only the drones but the conditions that allow them in: broken windows, unmaintained netting and faulty CCTV. Creating a new offence may have value, but it cannot by itself remedy years of underinvestment in the prison system.
I want to raise two further concerns. The first is an operational one. With core capital grants under severe strain, how can we realistically expect overstretched forces to invest in drone detection and countersurveillance technology? Secondly, until national integration plans are fully delivered, data on drone incursions will remain largely trapped in 43 police silos, leaving us blind to the wider intelligence picture.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for tabling his amendment. We entirely understand the intention behind it and support its aim.
In government, we gave police forces the power to intercept or seize drones suspected of being used to break the law, and those that attempt to smuggle drugs or weapons into prisons. Before the 2024 election, we announced our intention to implement no-fly zones around prisons, extending the current provisions over airports. We therefore entirely support the aim of prohibiting drone use for criminal ends. Using drone technology as a reconnaissance tool for a crime is self-evidently wrong and that should be reflected in the law.
Similarly, using drones to carry drugs, stolen goods, weapons, harmful substances or anything similar must be tackled by the police. For the police to do so, they must be given the means. Nowhere is this more evident than in prisons, where drugs and weapons are being transported in by drones in order to run lucrative illegal businesses. Reports suggest that some offenders are deliberately breaking probation terms in order to sell drugs in jail, where they can make more money. Anything that enables this must be stamped out. If drones are indeed a means of transport for many of these drugs, we should target those who operate the drones and play a part in criminal enterprises. I hope that the Minister recognises this problem and will agree with me that the amendment is entirely correct in its aims.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for setting out the case for his amendment. In tabling the amendment, he wrote to my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint and to my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill at the Department for Transport on the issue.
I think across the Committee we share the same concerns. I stress that the Government take the issue of the use of drones to facilitate illegal activity extremely seriously. However, my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint set out in his letter to the noble Lord that the challenges of responding to these are not gaps in our criminal law so much as limitations on the practical enforcement tools available and in regulation to improve the visibility and compliance of drones. We are working to address these issues by supporting the development of counter-drone technologies and operational approaches, and ensuring regulations are in place that enable the legitimate use of drones while assisting operational responders in identifying illegitimate users.
Amendment 486A seeks to criminalise the use of drones for criminal reconnaissance and the carrying of illicit substances. The act of criminal reconnaissance is not in itself currently an offence, as proving intent, prior to an act being committed or without substantive additional evidence, would be extremely difficult for prosecutors. Criminal reconnaissance using a drone encounters the same issue. It would be impractical and disproportionate to arrest anyone for taking photos of a property or site, or for piloting a drone. In both instances, the act of reconnaissance would not be practically distinguishable from legitimate everyday actions, making the proposed offence effectively unenforceable. Where intent could be proven, it is likely that such acts could be prosecuted under existing legislation—for example, the offence of going equipped for stealing in Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968.
The carrying of illicit materials, whether it is in and out of prisons or elsewhere at large, is already an offence, regardless of a drone’s involvement. There is already a comprehensive regime of offences relating to the possession and supply of drugs, weapons and other illicit materials. I do not think that the amendment would address any gaps in the criminal law.
The Government have already made changes to the unmanned aircraft regulations to require drones to be equipped, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, set out, with direct remote identification, which will improve visibility and accountability of compliant drones. This system will allow drones to broadcast identification and location information in-flight and will help identify drone operators who may be acting suspiciously or breaking the law.
I share the sentiment of the noble Lord and the Committee in seeking to curtail the use of drones for criminal purposes. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I ask that he withdraw his amendment and let me sit down—as I have a cough.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part; I am not going to namecheck—you all know who you are.
It would be an act of cruelty to encourage the Minister, with his cough, to say anything further. I was tempted to ask him to go into a lot more detail, but I do not think that is a good idea.
I suspect we may need to come back to this issue as drone technology continues to advance. I cannot resist mentioning that, more locally, the large giraffe fence that is erected in front of this building will be absolutely no defence against a drone attack—so let us hope it does not come. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(za) sections 40 and 41;(zb) section (Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(1) and Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified provisions.
“(aa) section (Pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation: Scotland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84).
“(aa) sections (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland) and (Possession of advice or guidance about child sexual abuse or CSA images: Scotland);” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified new clauses (inserted after clauses 63 and 64).
“(za) section (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to make regulations containing amendments consequential on my new clause, (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland), inserted after clause 36.
“(za) sections 40 and 41;(zb) section (Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(2) and Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified provisions.
“(aa) section (Pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation: England and Wales and Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84).
“(aa) section (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified new clause (inserted after clause 63).
“(ca) section (Child abduction: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to make regulations containing provision consequential on the specified new clause (inserted after clause 104).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new power of the Secretary of State to amend the list of prevention orders in clause 51 (inserted by my amendment to clause 51, page 68, line 30) is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations made by the Secretary of State under the specified new clauses (inserted after clause 84) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
“(c) regulations under paragraph 10(4) of Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new power of the Scottish Ministers to amend the list of prevention orders in paragraph 10 of the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders in Scotland (inserted after Schedule 5) is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
“(c) regulations under paragraph 10(6) of Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new power of the Department of Justice to amend the list of prevention orders in paragraph 10 of the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders in Northern Ireland (inserted after Schedule 5) is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts provision about regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to take account of Part 2A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (which is inserted by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025).
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, these are minor and technical amendments to the process by which Welsh Ministers will make regulations under powers conferred by the Bill. Recent legislation passed by the Senedd created “Welsh Statutory Instruments”, which are subject to three kinds of procedure in the Senedd that are similar to the affirmative and negative procedures followed in this place. These two amendments simply update the Bill’s provisions to reflect this new process, ensuring that the regulation-making power conferred on the Welsh Ministers by Clause 192 reflects the provisions of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 as recently amended. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is a short and uncontroversial amendment. The 15 days in Committee we have had on the Bill have been a very long but important process, and I thank all the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite for the many hours dedicated to the Bill so far. The amendment makes an amendment to the regulation-making powers of Welsh Ministers in consequence of the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025, and for that reason I have no objection.
“(8) Regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 192 are subject to the Senedd annulment procedure (see section 37E of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts provision about regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to take account of Part 2A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (which is inserted by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025).
““regulations” means regulations under any provision of this Act except section 201.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments to clause 201, page 232, lines 25 and 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes section 40(5), which should extend to England and Wales only, from a list of provisions having UK extent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for Schedule 7 (which lists the offences to which clause 65 applies) to have UK extent.
“(ja) section (Pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation: England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (5);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the amendment to the Online Safety Act 2023 in the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84) extends to the whole of the UK.
“(ja) sections (Obscenity etc offences: technology testing defence) and (Technology testing defence: meaning of “relevant offence”);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clauses (inserted after clause 84) to have UK extent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that clause 36(1), which inserts new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, extends to England and Wales and Scotland. At present it extends only to England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the subsections of the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84) that amend the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified provisions of my new clause (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland), inserted after clause 36, to extend to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the subsection introducing the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Northern Ireland (inserted after Schedule 5) extends to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the specified new clause (inserted after clause 105) extends to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the specified new clause (inserted after clause 104) extends to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new subsection inserted by my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17 extends to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clauses to extend to Northern Ireland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Northern Ireland (inserted after Schedule 5) extends to Northern Ireland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the subsection introducing the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Scotland (inserted after Schedule 5) extends to Scotland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84) extends to Scotland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Scotland (inserted after Schedule 5) extends to Scotland only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives clause 28(2) the same extent as the provisions it amends, with the effect of allowing trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
“(ba) section 36(2);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for clause 36(2) to have the same extent as the provision it amends. It is related to my second amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
“(ba) section (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland)(4);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified provision to have the same extent as the provision it amends.
“(ca) section (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clause (inserted after clause 63) to have the same extent as the provisions it amends.
“(ca) section (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clause (inserted after clause 63) to have the same extent as the provisions it amends.
“(da) section (Possession of advice or guidance about child sexual abuse or CSA images: Scotland)”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clause (inserted after clause 64) to have the same extent as the provisions it amends.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes clause 195 (extradition) from the list of provisions that come into force on Royal Assent. The effect is that it will be commenced by regulations under clause 201(1).
“(ba) sections (Obscenity etc offences: technology testing defence) and (Technology testing defence: meaning of “relevant offence”);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clauses (inserted after clause 84) to come into force 2 months after Royal Assent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the Scottish Ministers to make commencement regulations rather than commencement orders.
“(za) section (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland)(1) to (3), and section (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland)(4) so far as extending to Northern Ireland;” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for my new clause (Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland), inserted after clause 36, to be commenced by order made by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
“(za) section (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Northern Ireland) so far as extending to Northern Ireland;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to commence the specified new clause (inserted after clause 63) for Northern Ireland.
“(za) section (Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(2) and Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to commence the new provisions about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Northern Ireland.
“(aa) section 94(3);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department for Justice in Northern Ireland power to commence the provision inserted by my amendment to clause 94, page 121, line 17.
“(aa) sections (Stalking protection orders: Northern Ireland) and (Guidance about disclosure of information by police: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to commence the specified new clauses.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to commence the subsections of the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84) that amend the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, in so far as they extend to Northern Ireland.
“(ba) section (Child abduction: Northern Ireland);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland power to commence the specified new clause (inserted after clause 104).
“(8A) Section (Safeguarding vulnerable groups: regulated activity (Northern Ireland)) comes into force on such day as the Department of Health in Northern Ireland may by order appoint.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Department of Health in Northern Ireland power to commence the specified new Clause (inserted after clause 105).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to commence the specified new clauses (inserted after clauses 63 and 64) for Scotland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers to commence the subsection introducing the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders for Scotland (inserted after Schedule 5).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to commence the specified new clause (inserted after clause 84).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Scottish Ministers power to commence the new Schedule about CCE prevention orders (inserted after Schedule 5).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the Scottish Ministers to make commencement regulations rather than commencement orders.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments to clause 201, page 232, lines 25 and 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 201, page 232, line 33, inserting a new subsection after subsection (8).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments to clause 201, page 232, lines 25 and 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 201, page 232, line 33, inserting a new subsection after subsection (8).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 201, page 232, line 25.