House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
We were elected on a commitment to close all asylum hotels, and that is what we will do. In June 2024, there were 29,561 asylum seekers in hotels, which later peaked at 38,054 in the following December, thanks to the awful legacy of the Conservatives. As we started to grip the crisis in asylum accommodation, those numbers had reduced to 36,273 by September 2025. The next release of statistics is coming at the end of this month, and I have absolutely no doubt that the number will have fallen significantly even further.
Charlie Dewhirst
The Minister has just made it quite clear that since the general election the number of individuals in asylum hotels has risen by 22%. That is clearly at odds with his party’s manifesto pledge. What further action is he taking to reduce the number of individuals in migrant hotels? Can he guarantee to the House that there will be no new migrant hotels in this country?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman is undertaking an adventure in statistics. He compared one statistic from before the season of crossings with one statistic from the end of that season, so let us compare like for like. In September 2023, the last time that his colleagues were in government, there were more than 54,000 people in asylum accommodation. By September 2025, that number had reduced to 36,000—a reduction of a third. That is what has happened. We want to go further, because one person is frankly too many. That is why we have introduced the asylum policy statement and are introducing the use of large sites, which is opposed by Opposition Front Benchers. The hon. Gentleman talks about wanting to ensure that no hotels are opened. We will not open new hotels, but if he thinks that that can be done without opening large sites, he is wrong, and Members on the Opposition Front Bench will soon have to learn.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
A number of my constituents have written to me requesting details on the future of the George hotel, which is one of the asylum hotels in Solihull town centre. Given the statistics that the Minister has just provided, can he provide some clarity to my constituents on when the George hotel will close?
Alex Norris
I have seen previous contributions that the hon. Gentleman has made; I know that it is exceptionally important to his community that that hotel is closed, and it will be. I will not give a running commentary in the Chamber on when each individual asylum hotel will be closed, but my message to Solihull—and to any community that has an asylum hotel—is that these hotels were opened by the Conservatives, and they will be closed by Labour.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Trust and confidence are the cornerstones of a functioning asylum system, yet both were damaged in Wrexham recently due to an unclear and poorly communicated proposal for large houses in multiple occupation to be used for asylum accommodation. Following years of Tory failure, we have inherited a chaotic system and wasteful contracts which were signed by the previous Government that frequently bypass local input. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that the Department is finally moving away from this inherited mess and reforming its strategy to ensure that local communities are fully informed and respected?
Alex Norris
I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I know from my own community and across the country that when a system is orderly and controlled, the British public lean into it; we saw that with the Afghan scheme, the Syrian scheme, Homes for Ukraine and British national overseas passports. When systems are not orderly and controlled, people get frustrated. One aspect, exactly as my hon. Friend says, is better engagement between the Home Office and local authorities to ensure that local authorities know where HMOs may be opened, in this case, and to know what populations need to be supported so that the community can lean in. I can give him an absolute assurance that we will work much more closely with local authorities to ensure that they have that information.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
While we are on the issue of immigration statistics, when the previous Conservative Government signed the contracts that led to those hotels opening, the average cost per asylum seeker was £17,000 a year. By the time of the election, that cost had risen to almost £50,000 per asylum seeker per year. This Government have been locked into the contracts signed by the previous Government. What is the Minister doing to drive down this appalling waste of public money? What is his view on the break clause that created these hotels in the first place?
Alex Norris
I am pleased that during our time in government we have already been able to reduce by a third the amount of money that the British taxpayer is spending on hotels, but the right level is zero. As my hon. Friend says, we also have the asylum contract. That is an eyewatering contract which, to be as kind as possible to Opposition Front Benchers, does not reflect any system that was intended to be procured. We are in those conversations with suppliers now. Crucially, with a break clause coming up and the end of the contract in 2029, we are looking at that closely to get the best possible system at the best possible financial level for the British people.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
We are ensuring that forces have the tools and resources they need to deal with rural crime by providing funding of over £800,000 this financial year to the specialist national rural and wildlife crime units. We are strengthening neighbourhood policing through the neighbourhood policing guarantee, including in rural areas, by ensuring that every neighbourhood has named, contactable officers, more visible patrols and a commitment to respond to non-urgent queries within 72 hours.
Sir Julian Smith
The reorganisation of policing proposed by the Government risks a double whammy for areas with already under-resourced policing, as they face further distance between themselves and decision makers. May I urge the Minister to look carefully at how the reorganisation will impact the sparsest areas of our country, such as North Yorkshire?
Sarah Jones
I am very happy to have more conversations with the right hon. Gentleman to reassure him on exactly that point. People in rural areas often feel that they get the short straw in policing. Our reforms will end the postcode lottery by setting central targets, increasing transparency and taking robust action where forces are not performing. Our local policing areas will be accountable to the right hon. Gentleman and to local communities, and they will be 100% focused on tackling the scourge of everyday crime.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
As well as Harlow, I represent a number of rural communities such as Great Canfield, Matching Tye and Nazeing. When I speak to residents in those parts of my constituency, they tell me that farm theft and fly-tipping are having a devastating effect on their families and their livelihoods. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we strengthen neighbourhood policing in those rural areas?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for representing his constituents and their very real problems. We are taking legislative action to tackle farm theft. We know that this scourge has been on the rise for some time, so we are ensuring that we can tackle it. Alongside that, we are introducing new powers and statutory guidance for local authorities on fly-tipping, and we are putting 13,000 more officers on our streets, in our communities and in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Rural communities fear that mega-police forces will suck resources into cities, and police officer numbers are already down by 1,318 under this Government. How does the Minister expect police forces to protect rural communities when the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has confirmed that it is facing a £500 million funding shortfall this year?
Sarah Jones
The last two Budgets have seen police funding increase by £2 billion, and the public have not forgotten how the previous Conservative Government acted. They slashed police numbers by 20,000, decimating neighbourhood policing. They then tried to reverse their own cuts and increase officer numbers to chase a headline, but they were not bothered that 12,000 of them were sat behind desks, not out in our communities. While Conservative Members have amnesia about their own record, the Home Secretary and this ministerial team are bringing the bold changes we need to reform policing properly.
Matt Vickers
Anybody listening to that garbage would not realise that there are fewer police on the streets now than under the last Conservative Government. Research done by the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society shows the huge scale of crime affecting rural retailers. Since this Government came into office, shoplifting and robberies against businesses have surged. Does the Minister think this is because the Government have cut 1,318 police officers, or because they refuse to mandate tagging, curfews and bans for serial shoplifters and those who assault retail workers? Which is it—fewer police or weaker consequences?
Sarah Jones
In the last two years of the previous Conservative Government, shop theft rose by 60%—[Interruption.] No, it was 60% in the last two years of the previous Government.
We are taking action through the new offence to protect shop workers, which the previous Government failed to do. We are tackling antisocial behaviour with respect orders. We are putting specialist rape and serious sexual offences teams in every police force. We are taking thousands of dangerous knives off our streets, and knife crime is falling. This Government are taking action that is supported by the police—putting 13,000 more police in our neighbourhoods, and ensuring that they tackle the scourge of everyday crime.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Asylum hotels were a legacy of the last Conservative Government—at their peak, there were 400 open across the country, as asylum case working had ground to a halt. We have already restarted decision making, increased returns and opened new military sites. We are now closing asylum hotels, and by the end of this Parliament, we will have shut every single one.
Euan Stainbank
The Tories’ asylum hotels have divided communities and endangered vulnerable people in communities such as Falkirk, but we must be honest: the Inverness barracks proposal is controversial, and will aggravate community tensions in Scotland rather than cool them if there is no corresponding urgent move to close asylum hotels in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State join me this month in visiting Kemper Avenue to see at first hand why the Cladhan must now be fairly prioritised for closure in the hotel exit plan?
Shabana Mahmood
There are no easy options having inherited a broken asylum system and in which there are asylum hotels, which were opened by the Conservative party, in operation across the whole of the country. We believe that large military sites are a better way of reducing the burden felt by communities across the country, including in Scotland. I reassure my hon. Friend that, by the end of this Parliament, we will get out of every single asylum hotel, including in his constituency.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
In her response, the Home Secretary noted the speeding-up of processing times, but I wonder whether enough is being done on that. Surely, making sure that asylum seekers are processed as fast as possible is the route to closing the hotels.
Shabana Mahmood
Asylum claims are being processed at the fastest rate for 20 years, so we are moving very quickly to deal with those claims. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, though, many of those people go on to appeal, and there is a backlog at the court. That is why we will be reforming our appeals system in legislation later this year.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Alongside publishing the new VAWG strategy, the Government have already launched our behaviour change campaign and rolled out domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas. We are embedding domestic abuse specialists in police control rooms under Raneem’s law and strengthening the tools available to the police and courts to safeguard victims. We have also established a national policing centre for violence against women and girls and public protection with £13.1 million of funding, and have appointed Richard Wright KC to lead a review of stalking legislation.
Dr Sandher
Too many women come to my surgery with heartbreaking stories of violence and abuse, sometimes when they had left their partners. Too many people are falling through the cracks. I thank the Minister for her help with those cases, including before she came into office—it is a great comfort to me and to people across this country that she is sitting on the Front Bench—but there is a lot more that we need to do. Will the Minister please set out how this Government will help the women in my constituency in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages to be safer?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words—I will continue to do that for the rest of my life. Women and girls must be safe at home and in public, which is why the Government are strengthening early intervention, improving police responses, and ensuring that women facing domestic or post-separation abuse receive protection and support. We are embedding VAWG considerations into things like transport guidance, updating national design standards to ensure public spaces are safer by design. Together, these measures will make communities across England and Wales safer, including women and girls in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages, so that they can live confidently and without fear.
Alex McIntyre
I recently met a survivor of domestic abuse and stalking who has repeatedly moved home and then been followed by her perpetrator. She told me of the impact, not just on her but on her son, who has repeatedly had to move schools through no fault of his own. After the last move, her perpetrator was permitted to move to a caravan park just a few miles away from her new place of safety and within a few hundred yards of where her son plays football. Although an exclusion zone was put in place, her perpetrator was permitted inside it twice a week to attend parole meetings, because asking him to travel further would be “inconvenient to him”. Can the Minister give some detail on how this Government will support victims such as the one I met recently to live safely in their homes after experiencing domestic abuse?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I suppose I want to say from this Dispatch Box that I want that perpetrator to be inconvenienced. Inconveniencing him is exactly what we should try to do, which is why this Government are tackling perpetrators —that is essentially about shifting the focus on to those who cause harm. We are rolling out domestic abuse protection orders, removing the burden on victims by placing stronger, enforceable prohibitions and requirements on the perpetrators, such as electronic monitoring and positive requirements to keep victims safe. Importantly, a breach of that order is a criminal offence.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The child maintenance system is being used, as the Minister knows, to abuse women after they have left their relationship. One of my constituents lost her home after she was manipulated into selling it. Her ex-partner put the money into a joint account, and he then bought a new house in his own name. He left her and is now living the life of Riley while she is doing three jobs and cannot get a penny out of him in child maintenance. I have written to the Minister to ask her to meet my constituent and two other women. Will she please agree to meet us, so that we can give those women the visibility they need in holding the men to account?
Jess Phillips
The hon. Lady’s constituent’s experience is not unfamiliar to any Member of Parliament who has ever had to deal with the Child Maintenance Agency. That is why child maintenance was included in the violence against women and girls strategy. We will ensure that the abuse of women through child maintenance can no longer happen. Like always, I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituents.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Around one in eight women were victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse and stalking in the year to March 2025. Victim Support is concerned that there is not enough focus in the strategy and, in particular, that funding is not matching increasing demand. What assurances can the Minister give victims of stalking in Bath that there will be enough resources and funding for those services?
Jess Phillips
I give credit to the stalking victims and stalking organisations that took out a super-complaint against the previous Government, I think, on the many different areas where stalking legislation needed to change. This Government are acting on every single one of those recommendations. The violence against women and girls strategy had more than £1 billion of investment, of which £550 million will go into victim services. I can assure the hon. Member that as a victim of stalking myself, I take the issue very seriously.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
When the violence against women and girls strategy was announced, I asked the Safeguarding Minister whether she had considered the impact that mass migration is having on the safety of women and girls and why it was not mentioned. I was not sure from her response then what the answer is. Can she please explain whether the Government will address that issue specifically as the strategy is implemented? If not, why not?
Jess Phillips
What I would say to the shadow Minister and to everybody is this: I do not care who you are or where you come from; if you abuse women in our country, we will come for you. There is no lever in the Home Office that I can pull to get reliable data on this issue. That is why under this Government, unlike the previous one, we will start collecting it.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
We understand how important the details of the proposals are to people, and that is precisely why the Government opened a public consultation to gather views on those proposals. Once the consultation closes, we will analyse those responses, which will help to inform the development of the final earned settlement model. We have also committed to publishing the impact assessments for the settlement proposals, as well as the Government’s response to the consultation.
Carla Denyer
Some 300,000 children living legally in the UK will face a decade of living in limbo under the Government’s earned settlement proposals, according to new research out this week by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Those children’s wait for settled immigration status will be extended by at least five years, during which many families will face no-recourse-to-public-funds restrictions, and we know that that raises the risk of homelessness and destitution. How does the Minister reconcile that poverty-increasing measure with the Government’s new child poverty strategy, which states:
“Reducing child poverty is a moral imperative”?
Mike Tapp
When migrants enter the UK on economic routes, it is expected that they will be able to support their families. We are maintaining that principle, and it is right that we look into how we can do so better in response to circumstances. We will continue to ensure that migrant children are considered when we make decisions on requirements for settlement. As for the bigger picture, we saw an unprecedented influx of migration under the last Government that will put a massive strain on public services, so it is right that we extend the period from five to 10 years. That is what the British people expect, that is what we hear on the doorsteps, and that is what the hon. Lady’s constituents are saying as well.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
We work very closely with our allies, but EU designations are a matter for the EU. It is the Government’s long-standing position not to comment on the detail of intelligence and security matters—for instance, whether specific organisations are being considered for proscription in the UK—but I can say that in concert with our international partners, we will use all appropriate tools at our disposal to protect the UK from state threats.
Peter Prinsley
Given Iranian malign influence on the streets of London, Iran’s web of proxies, the menace that it poses to world peace, and recent reports that as many as 30,000 protesters may have been killed by the IRGC, will the UK join the EU, the United States, Canada and Ukraine in imposing further sanctions? Is it not time for our Government to formally proscribe the IRGC, which is surely not the servant of the Iranian people?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to raise his concerns in the way that he does. I can inform him and the House that on 13 January the Foreign Secretary set out the action that the Government are taking in co-ordination with allies, in response to the consistent threat that the Iranian regime poses to stability, security and freedom, and that last week the Foreign Secretary announced a further sanctions package targeting 10 individuals and one organisation involved in human rights abuses in Iran. We are continuing to monitor the situation very closely, and we urge Iran to protect fundamental freedoms, including access to information and communications.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that the IRGC is responsible for many acts of terrorism? While we appreciate the difficulty that arises from its being a state organisation and the reluctance to proscribe a state organisation, is it not a fact that Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has come up with a formula to allow that to happen? If so, why do the Government not bring it forward with the maximum speed?
Dan Jarvis
We are very grateful to Jonathan Hall for the work that he has done. We are taking forward all his recommendations on strengthening our state threats powers, including the development of a proscription-like tool that will allow us to ban the activity and operations of foreign state-backed organisations.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With asylum claims falling in Europe and rising here, we must reduce the incentives that pull people here. The permanence of refugee status in this country is clearly a pull factor, and we are therefore making it temporary. The ability to melt into our illegal economy lures people here, so we have raised immigration raids to record levels. Effective removals send a clear message, and returns are now up by about a quarter under this Government.
Ms Minns
Illegal immigration, illegal working and illegal trading frequently go hand in hand, and all too often manifest themselves in the proliferation of dodgy shops on our high streets. While I welcome the shop raids in my constituency last summer, without action to tackle illegality at source the police and trading standards face a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. Can the Minister please assure my constituents that this Government will redouble their efforts to clamp down on both illegal immigration and illegal working?
Shabana Mahmood
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Illegal working undermines honest employers, undercuts local wages and fuels organised immigration crime, and this Government will not stand for it. Since we came to power, enforcement action has increased nationwide, with an 83% rise in the number of illegal-working arrests, and we will be stepping up that action even further in the year ahead.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
One of the main reasons behind the false narrative that Britain is broken is people’s sense of despair that neither this Government nor the previous one could deal with illegal migrants. It is simply driving our people mad. Let me give this advice to the Government, if the Home Secretary will forgive me: they are not going to solve this problem by getting rid of the Prime Minister or anything like that; what they need to do is finally deal with the pull factor. The only thing that will work is to arrest, detain and deport anybody who arrives illegally in this country, and to have a temporary derogation from any convention that prevents us from doing so. If they do that, the nation will be so much more confident, the Prime Minister will be more popular and people will not drown any more.
Shabana Mahmood
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am always willing to listen to advice, wherever it may come from, but I point out that in 14 years under his party in government, we did not see any such action. It is very easy to say from the sidelines, “Just deport everybody.” If it was so easy to derogate from international obligations, I am pretty sure the previous Administration would have done so. The fact that they are only now saying that from the sidelines says a lot about them and their attitude to government.
There is no one silver bullet in dealing with the problems of illegal migration, and that is why I am taking action across every potential forum. We are changing our human rights laws, passing legislation later this year on the application of article 8, dealing with our appeals processes, talking about reform of the European convention on human rights, and getting the number of illegal working raids up. Those are all important steps to try to get the system under control. I am determined that we will deal with the problem of illegal migration, but there is no one silver bullet. That is why I am taking action across all fronts.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Last week, The Times reported that companies and company directors who have previously abused the work visa system have been allowed to continue sponsoring visas, despite the Government’s promise of a clampdown. One social care business has been able to sponsor 116 visas, despite being caught hiring illegally. As the Home Secretary just said herself, being able to work here illegally is one of the greatest pull factors, so what message does she think this sends to companies that break the rules?
Shabana Mahmood
What the shadow Minister should have done first is apologise for being part of an Administration who opened the social care route, which was open to such horrifying levels of abuse. That route was closed by this Government, which was the right action to take. Since we have been in government, 1,000 sponsor licences have been revoked, and we will continue to take action. We are already following up on the newspaper investigation that the hon. Lady refers to, and we will keep revoking licences, so that only legitimate businesses with proper jobs are able to sponsor workers to come to our country.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
British people have watched in horror over the past weeks as President Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement squads have murdered, kidnapped and oppressed people. Even infants and children have not escaped this rough treatment. The Conservatives have suggested that they would like to introduce a removals force styled on ICE, and we can only guess what the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) would do if he was in charge, even if he concedes that ICE has “gone too far” on occasion. Will the Home Secretary condemn Trump’s ICE squads, and will she reassure us that we will not see ICE squads on the streets of Britain?
Shabana Mahmood
Unlike most of Westminster, I am not plagued with “America brain”, and I do not spend any of my time worrying about what is happening over in the States. As the Home Secretary, I focus on my day job, which is protecting people in our country. The hon. Gentleman will know full well that we do not have anything like the sorts of arrangements that we have seen over in America, but we already have record removals without having armed immigration enforcement—just under 60,000 since we have been in government. We will go further, but we will do so in line with the arrangements that we already have in place and our British values.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
The murder of Martha Giles in 1959 was particularly horrific, and I can only imagine the pain and suffering that her family have been through, given that the case is still ongoing and there has never been justice. I am advised that decisions about opening or closing the National Archives’ records on the murder of Martha Giles are a matter for the Metropolitan Police Service and not for us, but I am very happy to facilitate the introductions that the right hon. Gentleman might want with the Met police.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I know that the Minister is a deeply compassionate lady. On 12 February 1959, Martha Giles was brutally murdered leaving her work at New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton. She left behind five children. Only one of those children, Mrs Edwards, is still alive today, and she desperately seeks answers. I know that it is not within the Minister’s gift, but if there is any way to convene officials and officers in the Metropolitan police, just to be able to bring some closure to this awful chapter, it would be deeply appreciated.
Sarah Jones
I thank the right hon. Member, and I again offer my condolences to Martha’s family, who have been looking for justice for many decades. I am happy to do what I can within the bounds of what I am allowed to do, and I will ensure that we make the appropriate introductions for him.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
We are investing a record £140 million in state-of-the-art technology to make our communities safer, including the roll-out of the live facial recognition technology that is already transforming policing. Investing in technology means more time for the police to be where we want them, which is out on the streets fighting and deterring crime in our communities.
Dr Gardner
I recently met Home Office Ministers to discuss the use of synthetic cathinones, often referred to as monkey dust, in Stoke-on-Trent. These substances cause significant harm to users and, indeed, communities. They are frequently sold via the dark web and imported through the post. Can the Secretary of State provide an update on her work with the National Crime Agency and Royal Mail to detect illicit substances using technology, and advise whether existing opioid detection methods can be adapted or applied to synthetic cathinones?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the scourge of synthetic cathinones. Let me assure her that the work of the National Crime Agency, Royal Mail and others continues apace. The use of synthetic drugs is a concerning development in the global drugs market, but this Government and law enforcement are taking action. We continue to innovate and seek new methods for screening and identifying drugs using emerging technologies, including AI, to tackle this challenge.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I recently visited a major retailer in my Spelthorne constituency, and it reported that corporate systems for getting information to the police are so clunky that to transfer evidence of shoplifting, the police have to resort to sending round an officer to film the retailer’s footage on their body cam. As well as sorting out the technology within the police, will the Home Secretary encourage and reach out to big corporate retailer chains, so we have a seamless flow of information to drive down shoplifting?
Shabana Mahmood
I am very pleased that the hon. Member raises that issue, and I am happy to look at the detail of what he has seen in his constituency. Let me assure him that there is a lot of work happening with retailers, and I know that different platforms are being adopted. The pace of technological innovation in this area is very quick indeed, and we will do everything we can to make sure all these systems are joined up and that the police are in the best possible position to go after the criminals as quickly as possible.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
This Government are restoring neighbourhood policing with nearly 2,400 additional neighbourhood officers in post since last September, and we are ensuring that every community has named contactable officers dedicated to tackling the issues it faces. Of course, the provision of in-person services, such as front counters, is a matter for local police forces to decide, but I want the police out on our streets catching criminals.
Lisa Smart
The community of Woodley in my Hazel Grove constituency has been plagued by shoplifting on the precinct. We have had far too much antisocial behaviour and recently we have had some really worrying violent incidents as well. Bredbury police station was closed by the mayor a few years ago, but we know many people want to access police services in person for all sorts of accessibility reasons and because it is much more reassuring to have such conversations in person. The police also tell us that they can pick up on things in person that they just cannot when they receive an online form. We Lib Dems have a plan for a police counter in every community, in places such as supermarkets where people already are. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those in communities such as Woodley can access police services in person?
Sarah Jones
Every ward will have a named community officer whom people can get in touch with, which I think is the priority. The hon. Member talks about retail crime, which, as I have said, increased by 60% in the last two years of the Conservative Government, and we are taking such steps to address that. For example, we are scrapping the previous Government’s £200 rule, which meant that any theft in a shop of under £200 was not even investigated by the police, and making sure that there are more officers in our communities. I am sure innovative things can be done to make sure there is such visibility, but having a named police officer whom people can contact in their ward is massive progress on what we had before.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Humberside police, and the trade unions representing them, have raised concerns about the potential closure of counters under Operation Balance. Further to the Minister’s remarks, can she offer any reassurance to my local community that they will be able to contact local police as and when they need to?
Sarah Jones
Absolutely. Of course people are worried about having access to police officers, particularly when they need them. That is why we are introducing targets to ensure that the response is quick and there when we need it, and why we are putting more money into policing. Police forces will have £796 million of additional funding this year, which is a 4.5% cash increase and a 2.3% real-terms increase. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend to make sure that our neighbourhood guarantee is delivered in her constituency.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Our cross-cutting Government strategy commits £1 billion over the next three years to support victims of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse. That includes a £30 million uplift under this Government on refuge and safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse, and millions extra on funding the domestic abuse perpetrator schemes, which specifically target the repeat offenders who pose the highest risk of harm.
Olly Glover
After years of enduring domestic abuse, a constituent of mine came forward to Thames Valley police. She was badly let down by process and communication failures, resulting in the perpetrator avoiding prosecution despite a positive charging decision. She is now worried for her personal safety and has a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis. I appreciate what the Minister says she is doing to help victims of domestic violence, but what more can she do to make sure they are taken seriously so that other victims do not have the same experience as my constituent?
Jess Phillips
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly good point. We would save ourselves a lot of time and people a lot of harm if we just got it right in the first place. That is why the Government have invested £13.1 million specifically in a policing centre for tackling violence against women and girls, which seeks to look at all the gaps in the policing system and make nationwide standards against which the police will be held accountable.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
In my constituency, I am grateful to Derbyshire Wish, which provides support services to victims of domestic violence and abuse. It uses my offices for free to speak with victims of domestic violence and abuse in a safe and neutral environment. What is the Minister doing to tackle domestic violence and abuse in rural communities, where isolation plays a significant part in it going undetected?
Jess Phillips
I pay tribute to the organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency and to all such organisations across our constituencies, and I pay tribute to her for doing that work in her own surgery. I encourage everybody to do the same—I am sure many do. Rural communities experience domestic abuse the same as those in urban areas, but they have different needs that have to be met. That is why the Government—I invite her and all Members to join me in this—will work with Members from rural areas to consider what specifically needs to be done to make sure that, when police standards are written, that isolation is fully taken into account.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
How the police respond to domestic violence incidents at the first instance oftentimes is critical for the criminal justice process, but also for interpreting events on the ground. I know the Minister—who in my view does a very good job, by the way—likes to look at best practice from across the world. Will she look at best practice in Europe, where academics have proven that when a male and a female officer respond to such incidents, the process of prosecuting is often far easier as a result of having, where possible, a mixed-gender patrol?
Jess Phillips
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. I will ensure that our officials look up that particular study. I will do anything that shows an improvement in this area. It never surprises me that gender parity makes things better. That is another thing I have committed my life to.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s determination to tackle violence against women and girls and to support victims. Does the Minister agree that as well as improvements to our criminal justice system, improvements to our family justice system will play an important part in that?
Jess Phillips
While these are questions to the Home Office, and people will rightly bring questions about policing across the country, only 10% of domestic abuse victims will ever see the inside of a police station or interact with policing, so every other element of our system—including the family courts, the family justice system and our civil courts—absolutely has to play a part. Those things are a fundamental part of the violence against women and girls strategy.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
My hon. Friend is a great champion for Huddersfield’s high street, and I am pleased to be able to tell her that tackling money laundering is key to delivering on this Government’s mission to make our streets safer and to deliver economic growth. The new high streets illegality taskforce will bring together Departments and agencies to systemically disrupt money laundering and related crime on the high street, while new funding will boost trading standards capabilities and fund an increase in law enforcement officers.
Harpreet Uppal
Police operations last year saw hundreds arrested and thousands of high street shops raided across the country, including in West Yorkshire. What further steps are being taken to tackle money laundering, including by connecting information across agencies and flagging suspicious entities, so that such operations can be closed down quickly?
Dan Jarvis
We are taking more steps. The new high streets taskforce will look at whether the current data sharing between agencies in supporting enforcement teams is appropriate in order to maximise our response to be as effective as possible. The Government will also publish a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy this summer, which will set out further ambitious measures to strengthen our fight against money laundering, including through better sharing and exploitation of financial information across the system.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Organised criminality is behind much of the money laundering that we see on our high streets, which is why my Committee last week launched an inquiry looking at organised criminality and the role it plays in the crime we see in neighbourhoods up and down the country. Will the Minister set out the support the Home Office is giving to the National Crime Agency on this issue and how he envisages the NCA working with the 12 mega-forces and the national police force envisaged in the White Paper?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Chair of the Committee for setting out the work it will be doing. I have long believed in the importance of working closely with the National Crime Agency to tackle serious organised crime, which is a blight on all our communities. We are working closely with the NCA to ensure it has the appropriate level of resourcing and the correct strategic priorities, and I meet the director every single week. We would be very happy to co-operate closely with the right hon. Lady on the work that her Committee is doing. She is right to mention the importance of police reform; we are obviously looking carefully at that process, and will ensure that we configure ourselves in a way that will maximise the ability of the National Crime Agency to tackle serious organised crime.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government pledged to restore order and control to our borders, and our work is taking effect. Since we took office, removals of illegal migrants are up 31%, to nearly 60,000, forced returns are up 45%, and deportations of foreign criminals are up by a third. In December we imposed visa sanctions on three countries—Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—and those sanctions have worked, with each of those countries now accepting its citizens back. I know that the public want us to do more, and we will: we will reform human rights law and our appeals processes to swiftly remove those with no right to be here. This country will always offer sanctuary to genuine refugees, but with those who do not play by the rules, we must be firm. The previous Conservative Government lost control, and it is this Labour Government who are restoring order to our border.
Rupert Lowe
As the Secretary of State knows, our independent rape gang inquiry hearings are ongoing just a short walk from this Chamber. Last week I sat opposite one woman who was raped by between 600 and 700 men. She estimated that 98% were Pakistani Muslims. The evidence we are collecting is brutal. We have been told again and again of attempts to traffic raped and abused women overseas to Pakistan and elsewhere; thankfully, those attempts failed, but how many did not? Will the Secretary of State agree to urgently review cases of missing girls in target areas and launch a full state investigation into reports of such trafficking?
Shabana Mahmood
The testimony of the victims that the hon. Gentleman has heard from is absolutely horrifying, and the grooming gangs scandal was one of the darkest moments in this country’s history. Victims and survivors of these hideous crimes deserve justice, and we will make sure that they get it. Our inquiry is a full, statutory independent inquiry, with all the powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to deliver justice. I urge the hon. Gentleman and anybody else who has heard any allegations or evidence of criminality to share it with the police immediately.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his community. He has raised the issue of these hotels with me on multiple occasions and I know that he will continue to do so until they are closed. He is exactly right; for the reasons he mentions, hotels are a very bad place to accommodate those seeking asylum. He will have heard the commitment from myself and the Home Secretary: we will get them closed, and we will do so within this parliamentary term.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Deng Majek from Sudan is an illegal small boat migrant who was sentenced last week to 29 years in prison for the brutal murder of Rhiannon Whyte. He stabbed Rhiannon 23 times as she desperately tried to defend herself. Given timing of Majek’s arrival, in the summer of 2024, he would have been eligible for deportation to Rwanda, but Labour cancelled the Rwanda plan and instead accommodated this illegal immigrant in a hotel at taxpayers’ expense. Does the Home Secretary now accept that it was a huge mistake to cancel, just before it started, the Rwanda plan, which would have seen Majek deported, thereby preventing Rhiannon’s murder?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me say first and foremost that the murder of Rhiannon Whyte was an abhorrent crime and our thoughts are with her loved ones. I would caution all Members against using individual cases to make a bigger political point, as the shadow Home Secretary has just sought to do. He knows full well that his Government’s Rwanda plan was nothing more than a gimmick—£700 million was spent on four volunteers going to Rwanda. There is no silver bullet in dealing with the mess of the migration system left to us by the previous Conservative Administration, but we are taking action across every front to get illegal migration under control and to secure our border.
Chris Philp
The Rwanda scheme never started because this Government cancelled it. The Home Secretary talks about gimmicks. Her Government’s gimmicks have failed, and that is why cross-channel migration is up 42% since the general election.
I am afraid that this is not an isolated case. Hundreds of crimes are being committed by illegal immigrants, including a 30-year-old woman raped on a Brighton beach, a 15-year-old girl raped in Leamington Spa by two Afghan small boat migrants, and a girl aged just 12 strangled and raped by two illegal immigrants in Nuneaton. Does the Home Secretary agree that this cannot go on, that only radical action will fix it and that, just as the Father of the House said earlier, we need to leave the European convention on human rights and deport all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival, because then the crossings will stop?
Shabana Mahmood
The shadow Home Secretary has only picked up this new policy of leaving the ECHR in opposition; it is not one that the Conservatives took up when they were in government. [Interruption.] I am afraid he is now just carping from the sidelines, to which he has been condemned by the British people for failing to control our borders. It is this Government who are sorting out the abject mess in our migration system left by the Conservatives—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Philp, please can you calm down? It does not look good on TV for anybody to be shouting somebody else down.
Shabana Mahmood
We are already taking action. We will go much further, and we will not stop until we have restored order to our border.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
We are putting more money into policing. We are introducing respect orders. We are bringing back the rule that any theft of items whose value is under £200 must be investigated by the police. We are putting thousands more officers into our town centres. We are working with retailers to use new technology to tackle crime. We are introducing live facial recognition to get these nasty criminals locked up where they belong. I am very much looking forward to working with my hon. Friend, and perhaps even visiting her constituency at some point.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
In recent weeks, those warning that a rapid dip in net migration could harm public services and the economy span left and right, including commentators such as Fraser Nelson, not known for his softness on this sort of thing. It is no secret that the Government are struggling to deliver growth after their two damaging Budgets and stubborn refusal to join a customs union with the EU. Is the Home Secretary totally certain that her plans on immigration will not further harm the economy and public services like our precious NHS?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes, I am, because having an ordered migration system both for legal migration and to sort out the problems of illegal migration is absolutely critical to maintaining public confidence across the country and making sure that we can hold our country together. I back all of these reforms, and I know they will have nothing but a positive impact.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
In Aldershot and Farnborough, we have a brilliant police team, but recruitment of officers is difficult because of the pay difference along the Hampshire-Surrey border. Officers can earn more by working just a few miles away, leaving our local police team understaffed and overstretched. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to address those recruitment challenges, to ensure that we have bobbies on the beat in every community?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We need to make sure that we are paying our police well, which we have done through a pay uplift, and looking after them. The number of police officers leaving the service—not to retire, nor due to ill health, but because they were fed up with it—tripled under the last Government. We will put a stop to that.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
It is for the Scottish Government to undertake an inquiry because, unlike in Wales, justice is devolved in Scotland, as are education and health—all of which will be vital facets of the inquiry that will run across England and Wales. I do not disagree that there needs to be no stone left unturned in Scotland. We will make sure that anything that is found through the work of the inquiry’s committee is shared with Scotland.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the Security Minister give us an update on the work of the defending democracy taskforce to tackle the level of disinformation on social media and in our democracy?
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The defending democracy taskforce is the fulcrum point that co-ordinates activity across Government. We work very closely with other Departments specifically on the issue of countering misinformation and disinformation, not least as we move towards the important elections taking place in May. This is an important body, which has recently had its mandate renewed by the Prime Minister. We work very closely with law enforcement to make sure that our democracy is properly protected.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
Let me condemn in the strongest possible terms all the antisemitic incidents that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted in his question. This Government will not stand for any antisemitism in our country, and we will take every step we can across Government to wipe out this evil from our society. He will know that I am reviewing police protest powers, and I have already made some announcements on changes that we will make. Lord Ken Macdonald is conducting a review, and I will not hesitate to take further legal steps in order to protect our Jewish community.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
What action is my right hon. Friend taking to disrupt the finances of the organised crime groups facilitating illegal migration to the United Kingdom, and what steps is her Department taking with international partners to prosecute those who are funding those operations, both domestically and internationally?
Alex Norris
I can report to the House that we have made 4,000 such disruptions of organised immigration crime. We are working with partners on all flows of illicit trafficking of peoples across the world, at every stage. We are of course working closely with our French neighbours, as well as all the way round the world, to disrupt those flows, and to send a clear signal to those who traffic in persons that their time is up.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I was at the Westminster Hall petition debate on indefinite leave to remain. Some 60 Labour MPs turned up and unanimously rubbished and disparaged the Home Secretary’s proposals. I got the impression that they were highly unlikely to support them, so can she guarantee that any changes to ILR will be brought to this House for debate and a vote?
Shabana Mahmood
These are the right reforms. We have set out our proposals for an earned settlement scheme, and they are being consulted on. That consultation closes in a matter of days, and the Government will consider all responses. If there are any changes that we wish to make, we will make them in the usual way.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Town centre crime in Hartlepool has fallen by 15% in the last year, thanks to the brilliant work of our police force under the leadership of Helen Wilson, but far more needs to happen. My constituents deserve to feel safe in their town centre, so can the Secretary of State tell me what more we can do to make sure that our town centres remain safe?
Shabana Mahmood
I am delighted that town centre crime has fallen by 15% in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It has fallen in many towns across the land since this Government came to power—not just because we are introducing new technology, including live facial recognition, where we need to; not just because we are introducing more neighbourhood policing; and not just because we are changing the law to ensure that all crimes are investigated; but because we are all working together to get this done.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My constituents are concerned about the imminent closure of volunteer-manned Pinner police station, as part of a programme of closure by the Mayor of London that leaves the whole London borough of Harrow with no in-person access to the police. Thus far, the volunteers who man the front desk and I have had no response at all from the Mayor of London to our attempts to raise this issue. Will the Minister intervene to ensure that we at least get a response, and that the Mayor of London listens to my constituents’ concerns?
Sarah Jones
I am sure that the Mayor of London listens to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents’ concerns. We have increased funding to the Metropolitan police, and we are doing everything we can to reverse the increases in retail crime that we saw under the previous Government, and which we are beginning to tackle now.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
On Friday, I visited St James primary school in Haydock in my constituency, where, after learning about the dangers of knife crime, year 6 children are campaigning to install bleed control kits in their community, in case the worst ever happens. Can the Minister please assure them and all my constituents that this Government are doing all they can to tackle knife crime, and will she join me in paying tribute to the children and staff of St James for their efforts?
Sarah Jones
Absolutely. I welcome the conversation that my hon. Friend is having with his constituents and the children, who I know are deeply worried about knife crime. This Government have a target to halve knife crime in a decade. Since the start of this Parliament, knife crime has fallen by 8%, and knife homicides are down by 27%, but we will not stop until we reach that target.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Home Office has said that a new licence to practice will be required by all police officers. Can the Minister explain how that will differ from what is required under police conduct regulations, the police code of ethics and current police training programmes?
Sarah Jones
The licence to practice is being introduced to ensure that all officers, at whatever stage in their career, are getting the right support and the training that they need to do the jobs that we demand of them. We have said explicitly that we will design this with policing, so that we can get this right, but it is about supporting the police to do the jobs that we all need them to do.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Rasheed Afrin, co-director of the al-Roj camp in Syria, recently commented that several ISIS-linked individuals have been repatriated from that camp to the UK. Can the Home Secretary say how many ISIS-linked individuals have been repatriated to the UK, and whether they were held in custody on their return?
Dan Jarvis
I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not get into the specifics—we do not comment on individual cases—but I can tell him that the Home Secretary will use all the tools at her disposal to ensure that we keep the public safe.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I would like to pass on my heartfelt sympathies to the family of Khaleed Oladipo, who was tragically killed in a knife crime incident last week in the city of Leicester. I am sure that no Member of this House wants to see another life cut short and another mother’s heart broken, so will the Minister back my calls for the Government to appoint a dedicated Minister to tackle knife crime?
Sarah Jones
I am that dedicated Minister. It is my job to tackle knife crime; it is what I have campaigned on for many years. I am glad to say that we are having some success, but every knife attack and every knife murder is an absolute tragedy, and we will continue to do all we can.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The police officers and police community support officers in North Shropshire work hard, but PCSOs’ hours have been cut because of budget constraints, and there are no front desk services at all in my constituency, despite it having five market towns. Can the Minister outline how we will ensure better and more visible community policing in North Shropshire?
Sarah Jones
The officer maintenance grant, which kept the uplift in officer numbers, became a barrier to more visible policing, and actually the number of PCSOs halved under the previous Government. We are giving the police more flexibility, and we are putting 13,000 more officers on our streets in our communities, where they can tackle the scourge of everyday crime, and as a result, I think that the hon. Lady will get the right mix for her constituents.
Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the 20-year sentence imposed on our brave British citizen, Jimmy Lai.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I thank the right hon. Member for his question on this serious matter. He will know that the UK condemns in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British national Jimmy Lai. As the Foreign Secretary said this morning, 20 years is tantamount to a life sentence for a 78-year-old man. We remain deeply concerned for Mr Lai’s health. We call on the Hong Kong authorities to release him on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family.
Sadly, this sentence is not a surprise. The national security law was imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing precisely to silence China’s critics. That is why the Government have long called for the repeal of the national security law, and for an end to the persecution of all individuals charged under it. It is also why the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case with President Xi on his recent visit to Beijing. The Prime Minister’s visit allowed us to open up discussion with China. Making our case directly to the Chinese President is an approach being taken by the USA, Canada, France, Ireland and many other allies. In relation to private conversations that have happened, the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with Mr Lai’s family, and I know that many in this House will want to express their support for the family. We recognise their fortitude at this incredibly difficult time.
This Government remain steadfast in our support for the people of Hong Kong. That is why today the Home Secretary has announced the expansion of eligibility for the British national overseas visa route. The UK has welcomed around 200,000 Hongkongers since 2021, and we will unequivocally continue to uphold our commitments to them.
This Government’s utmost priority is to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, an elderly and unwell British citizen. He has endured an extraordinary ordeal for five years, and we call for it to end now. That is why we are focused on the action that will help him the most: sustained engagement with China, so that we can make our case consistently and directly. As the right hon. Member knows, we should not sit outside the room, refusing to engage and unable even to have that conversation. I am grateful for this opportunity to reiterate the Government’s call for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
Today, as the Minister said, Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, has been sentenced to a further 20 years in prison. Given his poor health and the fact that he sat for five years in solitary confinement, that is not a sentence; it is a death sentence for that brave man. The authorities have trashed everything that we would consider reasonable in law. For example, like others, I was named—nine times—in the prosecution case, and I have never even met Mr Lai, or spoken to him, sadly.
I simply ask the Minister why the statement that the UK Government released today refers to Jimmy Lai as a “British National”. Lord Cameron finally changed that, and made it clear that Mr Lai was a British citizen. Will the Minister change the statement and refer to him as a British citizen, which is what he is?
Why do the Government constantly refer to Hong Kong and the national security law? The reality is that the British Government have sanctioned absolutely nobody in the Chinese Government for trashing the Sino-British agreement and installing the Chinese national security law, which is the reason why Jimmy Lai was arrested. He has been convicted and sentenced for nothing more than standing up for freedom of speech and peaceful protest for democracy.
The Government went on a visit to China recently. Before doing so, they granted full planning permission for the huge and ghastly Chinese embassy in London. Why did they not at least hold back on planning permission, so that they could say to the Chinese Government, “You must release Jimmy Lai now and cancel the prosecution altogether, or you will not get your embassy”? Instead, we have given them the embassy for nothing, and the Prime Minister was treated like dirt while he was out there.
Sebastien and Claire Lai, Jimmy Lai’s children, have fought for him. I feel sorry for them, and my thoughts go to them. Surely, this is a sad day for anybody who believes in freedom, justice, and the legitimate rule of democratically made law. Will the Government now call for a humanitarian parole?
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member may have missed my earlier reference to Jimmy Lai as a British citizen, but I reiterate it. It is also important to reiterate our call on the Hong Kong authorities to release Jimmy Lai immediately on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family and receive all necessary medical treatment, and have full access to independent medical professionals.
The right hon. Member will know that the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case with President Xi on 29 January in Beijing. Since the visit, the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Mr Lai’s family. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is also in close contact with Mr Lai’s international legal team at Doughty Street Chambers, and with his son and daughter, Sebastien and Claire, whom the Foreign Secretary last met on 8 January.
On the Chinese embassy, national security is our first duty. The planning decision was taken independently by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It was the conclusion of a process that the right hon. Gentleman may remember began in 2018, when the then Foreign Secretary provided formal diplomatic consent for the plans. It is also important to say today that we stand with the people of Hong Kong. We will always honour the historic commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, and China must do the same.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Jimmy Lai is 78. He has rotting teeth. He has diabetes, heart issues, and recently he has visibly been losing weight. He has now been sentenced to 20 years. It is effectively not a life sentence, but a death sentence. I urge the Chinese authorities to end this elderly man’s appalling ordeal, and I would ask that they exercise clemency, and allow him to be reunited with his family. Does the Minister agree that concern for the suffering of Jimmy Lai extends far beyond his family, and touches the hearts of so many British people?
Seema Malhotra
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She is right to say that the situation Jimmy Lai is in, and the urgent need to release him on humanitarian grounds so that he may be reunited with his family and receive the independent medical treatment that he must have, goes beyond his family and touches the hearts of Members across the House and this country. He has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. My right hon. Friend will know that his case remains a priority for this Government and the Prime Minister.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important urgent question. Today Jimmy Lai, and the democracy and freedom that he has campaigned for in Hong Kong, has been sentenced to 20 years. As his son Sebastien has said, Jimmy
“dedicated his life to defending the freedoms of Hong Kong. For that heroism, he’s being punished; he’s essentially getting a death sentence for that.”
Jimmy is a hero and deserves to be back home with his family, not hauled in chains before the courts and languishing in a prison cell. We call for his release. The fact that Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years—the longest sentence ever under the national security law—is not only a reflection of the cruelty inflicted by the Chinese Communist party, but it is a monumental diplomatic failure of this feeble and gullible Prime Minister. Just over a week ago, he was with President Xi defending engagement with the CCP. He gave China permission for its super-embassy spy hub, but failed to secure Jimmy’s release. Will the Minister now have some backbone and tell us exactly what details were discussed between the Prime Minister and Xi? Did the Prime Minister call for Jimmy to come back home, or demand that he gets access to the healthcare he needs?
The official readout of the meeting published on the Downing Street website did not even mention Jimmy Lai’s name. We need answers, Mr Speaker. Jimmy’s family, and the whole country, want to know when this weak and pathetic Labour Government will finally stand up to China and show some backbone. Will the Foreign Secretary actually do something, such as summon the Chinese ambassador and prepare a list of diplomats to expel in response to China’s refusal to free Jimmy Lai? Will the Government revoke the planning permission granted for the super-embassy spy hub, and will China now be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme at long last? With the UK holding the presidency of the UN Security Council, what diplomatic steps will be taken to escalate this case, put some pressure on China for once, and secure global support for Jimmy’s release? Jimmy must be freed now, and this is a day of shame for this weak Labour Government and their failure to stand up to China.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her comments. She will know that this situation has been ongoing since before we were in government, and that we continue to seek the release of Jimmy Lai immediately. We assess Jimmy Lai’s prosecution to be politically motivated, but in order to have a conversation with the Chinese Government, we need to be in the same room. That is why the Prime Minister raised the matter during his visit, and we continue to raise it at every level of Government and at every opportunity.
The right hon. Lady will know that on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary, the British Consul General attended the sentencing, and that we continue to keep in regular touch with the family. We continue to do all that we can, publicly and privately, to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, and we will continue to do so.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The whole House is angered by the sentencing, but no one is more devastated than Jimmy Lai’s family. Jimmy is a British citizen: every single international pressure must be put on the Chinese Government to secure a humanitarian response to the situation. Will the Minister tell us how we will build an international coalition to put on that pressure and secure a humanitarian response?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and for her work on behalf of her constituent, Jimmy Lai. I can confirm that we are in discussions with our allies, including the United States, Australia, Canada and the European Union, about what we can do internationally to continue to advocate for and to secure the immediate release of Jimmy Lai.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The whole House shares my horror and disgust at the politically motivated imprisonment, conviction and sentencing of Jimmy Lai. Last week, following his trip to Beijing, the Prime Minister suggested that he could change outcomes for Jimmy Lai and Hong Kongers by speaking softly with President Xi. It is clear now that the Prime Minister’s trip to Beijing failed spectacularly to secure Mr Lai’s release. Have the Government summoned the Chinese ambassador to make clear this House’s shared outrage? Jimmy Lai’s experience is the most visible example of Beijing’s efforts to supress any and all criticism of the Chinese Communist party, but it is far from the only example. Pro-democracy Hong Kong activists living in the UK continue to face intimidation, repression and threats from Beijing. Can the Minister provide any guarantees to those Hong Kongers that they will not face further persecution or intimidation at the hands of the CCP?
Seema Malhotra
We continue to raise Jimmy Lai’s case with the Chinese Government, publicly and privately. In December, when the verdict of the trial was announced, senior officials in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office summoned the Chinese ambassador to condemn the development in the strongest terms. There is a public readout of the representations made during that meeting. It continues to be the case that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate, harass or harm individuals in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. We have taken action to do more to support law enforcement and training in this country to ensure that that is the case.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Many members of Jimmy Lai’s family, including his son Sebastien, are my constituents. They are devastated by today’s sentence, which risks being a death sentence for a 78-year-old British citizen. It is a much longer sentence than that given to any of the co-defendants and the longest ever given under the national security law. Will the Minister assure the House that now this sham trial is over, the Government’s position is that there are no more phoney procedural reasons for us not to work with our international allies to negotiate Jimmy’s release?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done to support the family. Let me be clear that we see this as a politically motivated prosecution, and we believe and continue to state that Jimmy Lai should be released immediately. We will continue to work directly with the Chinese Government, raising our concerns and views in public and in private. We will continue to engage closely with the family and to work with our allies, as I have mentioned. My hon. Friend will know that the Foreign Secretary has discussed this case with Secretary Rubio, and officials are in regular contact on the matter with the US Government.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Many of us in this House were sanctioned by China, and the Prime Minister went over and somehow managed to sell the partial un-sanctioning of a few of us as a victory. I would have welcomed a victory that was the release of Jimmy Lai, but sadly the Prime Minister conceded all his cards before getting on the plane, leaving himself nothing to negotiate with. Can the Minister find anything else that China wants that the Prime Minister could negotiate with? Maybe he could offer them the Isle of Wight or the Outer Hebrides—he is trying to give away everything else anyway. At least the job of the Prime Minister would then be to protect a British citizen—one who, as we all recognise, has been given a death sentence by the Chinese, not the Hong Kong authorities.
Seema Malhotra
Perhaps I can answer the substance of that question with a more serious response. It was important to see the progress that was made in lifting the ban on parliamentarians being free to travel to China, and what the Prime Minister said last week is absolutely right. There is more to do, and it is important to get clarity on how we move forward where those bans have not been lifted. It is very important that we continue to see that progress.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is really disappointing to see those on the Opposition Front Bench treating this as if it is some kind of party political issue. They do not have a monopoly on outrage about this; it really should be a cross-party issue. I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister about a specific element. As she and the Government work for the release of Jimmy Lai in this outrage, can she keep in consideration his freedom of religion or belief? I understand that he has been denied access to the Eucharist. As we are making representations on his behalf, as all of us should, can we keep that in mind?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does as our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We certainly continue to keep in mind and advocate for that matter on his behalf.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Now is the time not to lambast the Chinese Government for the wider issues between us, but to focus 100% on securing clemency for Jimmy Lai. Surely the granting of clemency and a one-way ticket back to the UK and to his family would be a win for everyone, including the Chinese.
Seema Malhotra
Perhaps we can agree on this matter. We want to see an immediate release on humanitarian grounds so that Jimmy Lai can be reunited with his family. He must be supported to receive vital independent medical treatment to support his health and wellbeing right now.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Last year, the UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled that Mr Lai has been unlawfully and arbitrarily detained. In 2022, the same UN working group concluded the same thing about Jagtar Johal. Today, Jagtar turns 39, but instead of celebrating, he is languishing in a foreign prison like Jimmy Lai. I caution the Government that if we do not stand up for our citizens unlawfully imprisoned abroad, we risk becoming beholden to the whims of others, rather than standing on firm principles. How are the Government making meaningful representations to our Indian and Chinese counterparts to bring these British citizens home?
Seema Malhotra
We take the UN working group’s opinion on Jimmy Lai incredibly seriously, which is why we continue to call for his immediate release. My hon. Friend will also know the work that we continue to do in relation to Jagtar Singh Johal.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
In December, I asked the Prime Minister to make it clear that his visit to Beijing could go ahead only if Jimmy Lai was released. He responded:
“It is important that we continue to engage, so that we can raise this issue”.—[Official Report, 17 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 910.]
That clearly achieved nothing. Will the Minister also bear in mind the fact that, alongside Jimmy Lai, six other senior members of Apple Daily received lengthy prison sentences in what Reporters Sans Frontières has described as
“the complete collapse of press freedom in Hong Kong”?
What action will the Government take during the two-week period in which an appeal has to be lodged to ensure the release of not just Jimmy Lai but all of them?
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the appeal is a matter for Jimmy Lai, his family and his legal team, but he is right that it is important that we continue to call for an end to the national security law, and for the release of all those being held or prosecuted under it. That is our position, and it will continue to be.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, I want to say on my behalf and that of many of its members how we horrified we are. This case exemplifies the systematic dismantling of Hong Kong’s judicial independence. The proceedings under the national security law do not operate within the independent or impartial judicial framework, and judges are designated by the Executive of the Hong Kong special administrative region. Trials are conducted without juries, evidential thresholds are lowered and the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence is gone. How will the Government ensure that, on behalf of not just Jimmy Lai but all Hongkongers who live in the UK, we protect them from nefarious activity and this illegal law?
Seema Malhotra
We absolutely continue to be concerned about the erosion of freedoms, and my hon. Friend will have seen that expressed in the six-monthly reports published by the Foreign Office. We continue to, and always will, stand with the people of Hong Kong. It is essential that we continue to honour historic commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, and it is absolutely clear that China must do the same.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, Jimmy Lai’s conviction is a massive failure for the Prime Minister, who said that he could change outcomes. This sends a worrying signal to Hongkongers living in Wokingham and across the UK, many of whom face intimidation from China when they are simply standing up for their civil liberties. What steps are the Government taking to protect pro-democracy Hongkongers in Wokingham and across the UK, who feel themselves to be under threat from Chinese authorities in our country? These residents are very concerned, and many of them fear for their lives.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his important question. It is essential that any attempt by a foreign state to harass, intimidate or harm individuals in the UK must not be tolerated. That is why we support increased training and support for law enforcement in these matters, so that they can respond with the required urgency, as well as with important intelligence sharing.
In relation to Jimmy Lai and the Prime Minister’s visit, let me also say that I disagree with Members of this House who are seeking to make this a party political matter. Jimmy Lai has been imprisoned since before this Government came into power, and we continue to work—as we should—across the House to do all we can to make sure we are not just advocating for his release, but that it remains a priority for the Government. We continue to work to have him released immediately on humanitarian grounds.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her answers, but I think it is fair to say that when the sentence was handed down, the CCP baked in that our reaction would be to reiterate calls for Jimmy Lai’s release and put out warm words and demands regarding his wellbeing. Of course, there are now concerns that he may be transferred to a prison inside China, where access to legal representation will be even more difficult. What practical and tangible changes will be made today as a result of this shift in the relationship with China, now that it has sentenced a British citizen to 20 years, and is the Minister able to say a bit about what actions her Department is going to take in the weeks ahead to give practical support to Jimmy Lai, so that we do not have another statement or question in a few weeks’ time lamenting an appeal that was unsuccessful?
Seema Malhotra
I reiterate that we continue to work with our allies and to speak directly with China, both publicly and privately, as part of the work we continue to do to secure Jimmy Lai’s release. The Government also remain in close contact with Mr Lai’s family to discuss the actions we are taking. We will continue to do that, because securing Mr Lai’s release remains a priority for this Government and for the Prime Minister.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I say to the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) and to the Minister that this is not party political—the last Government were as bad, if not worse.
The Minister spoke about condemnation in the strongest terms. That is a complete waste of breath; the Chinese Government understand one thing, which is that there has to be a cost. Will the Minister sanction those responsible?
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member will perhaps disagree, but the key point is that we cannot move forward unless we are in dialogue. That is why what the Prime Minister did in going to China and raising this matter directly has opened the doors to further conversation. It is important to say that we continue to advocate in public and in private for Mr Lai’s release, and that we remain in close contact with Mr Lai’s family on the steps we are taking.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government have been pretty generous to the Chinese Government—first the embassy, then the Prime Minister’s visit to China and trade concessions. In return, the Chinese Government have conferred a death sentence on Jimmy Lai. Will those in Hong Kong’s Administration and judiciary who undertook this politically motivated sham trial be welcome in the United Kingdom, or will they be sanctioned?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will know how important it is that the Sino-British declaration is upheld. We expect the standards established by the declaration to be upheld, and not just in relation to historic commitments by Britain—we expect China to do the same.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
As the Minister is aware, there is cross-party consensus that we are horrified by the jailing of Jimmy Lai. She will also be aware that there are consequences when a UK Government are perceived as being weak, including for British citizens. The Minister said that the Prime Minister spoke softly; he also spoke ineffectively, so will she tell us what is next?
Seema Malhotra
Perhaps I will just say again what I have shared with the House today. In relation to the announcement, we continue to advocate publicly and privately for Jimmy Lai’s release. We have not hidden our view over his imprisonment. We have not hidden that we see it as politically motivated. We have said clearly and unequivocally that he should be released on humanitarian grounds. That remains a priority for this Government, and it remains a priority for the Prime Minister. The hon. Member will know that.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Parallel to the terrible injustice inflicted on Jimmy Lai, my constituent Chloe Cheung still has to live with a £100,000 bounty on her head. I spoke with her this weekend, and her resolve has never been stronger, despite knowing that anyone in the UK can claim that bounty. In the spirit of keeping the conversation going, can I ask the Minister to use everything in her power to convince the CCP to lift that bounty from Chloe and, indeed, all the other UK residents who have bounties placed on them under Hong Kong’s national security law? The only crime these people have committed is telling the truth about the repressive regime in Hong Kong.
Seema Malhotra
I agree with my hon. Friend. We will not tolerate this harassment and intimidation in the UK. The safety of Hongkongers in the UK is of the utmost importance for the Government. He will know that training and guidance on state threats activity is now offered by counter-terrorism policing to all 45 territorial police forces across the United Kingdom. That includes upskilling dedicated 999 call handlers on transnational repression. [Interruption.] Perhaps the last Government did as much of that—I do not know. This new package of training allows frontline police officers and staff to increase their understanding of the threats that foreign powers present, and we will continue to work with my hon. Friend in relation to his constituents.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sorry, but this is really hopeless. I mean no disrespect to this particular Minister, but I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, have noticed, as I have, that whenever something indefensible comes up, the Government always put middle-ranking or junior Ministers on the frontline. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary is abroad or perhaps she is in her sick bed, but otherwise, why is she not voluntarily making a statement, rather than sending someone else to take the flak? This is really not fitting for the outrage that hon. Members—there are hon. Members on both sides of the House—feel about the fate of Jimmy Lai.
Seema Malhotra
I am not sure whether to take not being directly targeted by the right hon. Gentleman as a compliment, but as the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, I take great interest in this case. It is important that we are in front of the House today.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I do not know whether the Minister has read Confucius, the Chinese philosopher of 2,500 years ago, and his “Silver Rule”, which talks about mercy and compassion. While all of us in this House will continue to campaign for Jimmy Lai’s release, can the Minister at least confirm whether there is consular access to Jimmy Lai, and not just consular communication? Will she call upon President Xi, who no doubt has studied Confucius, to revisit compassion and mercy and at least allow Jimmy Lai medical treatment, the correct diet and to be released from solitary confinement?
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member may already be aware that we continue to seek consular access. It is important that we continue to advocate for the release of Jimmy Lai on humanitarian grounds. I am sure that that message is going out loud and clear from this House.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Trump Administration are not known for their record on human rights, yet the United States has been perfectly prepared to sanction Chinese Communist party officials who have been abusive, whereas the United Kingdom has sanctioned no one. Why is that, and when will the judges and prosecutors involved in Jimmy Lai’s sham trial be sanctioned by this Government?
Seema Malhotra
What I will say, in relation to what we expect to see in Hong Kong, is that it is unacceptable that we have not seen the upholding of the historic commitments made at the time of the Sino-British joint declaration. It remains a matter of concern that the national security law was brought in at all, and it remains a matter of concern that people are being prosecuted under it. We seek an end to the national security law, and we seek the immediate release of Jimmy Lai.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Strong words of condemnation are appropriate and necessary, but when will the Government’s actions match those words of condemnation?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. and learned Member will know that this case is a priority for the Government and is raised at every opportunity and at every level of government, and that we continue to work on it publicly and privately. I know that it is a matter of great concern to the House and to the country. People want to see all of us working as much as we can and wherever we can to bring about the release of Jimmy Lai, and that is our priority.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Prime Minister was happy to trot back from China heralding the successes of the visit without having secured the release of Jimmy Lai, and now we see Jimmy facing a 20-year prison sentence—in effect, a life sentence. Does the Minister think that was a price worth paying?
Seema Malhotra
I reiterate that the most important thing is that we focus on doing everything we can to secure the release of Jimmy Lai. That is our priority. We will continue to raise this matter, publicly and privately, and we will remain in close contact with the family on the steps that we are taking.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister appears to have come to the Chamber today with absolutely nothing to say. The recent visit to China was an absolute disaster, with people taking burner phones and a burner plane—we even appear to have taken a burner Prime Minister. The Minister referred earlier to progress being made in these discussions, so can she outline exactly what progress has been made, and what was the response from the Chinese Government when the Prime Minister raised the case of Jimmy Lai with them directly?
Seema Malhotra
The Prime Minister’s recent visit allowed us to open up discussion and dialogue directly with the Chinese Government at the highest level. The Conservatives seem to have forgotten that it is actually quite important to engage in such discussions and dialogue with other Governments, including on incredibly difficult issues. There is absolutely no point in trying to call for something when you are shouting into a void, and the Conservatives should know better. It is much better to have a relationship that allows us to make our case directly to the Chinese President, rather than talking to ourselves. As the Prime Minister has said, the purpose of engaging is to seize the opportunities that open up as a result of engagement, but also to provide an opportunity for those discussions. If you sit outside the room, if you refuse to engage, you cannot even have the conversation. I come back to the point that I have made a number of times in the Chamber today: we continue those discussions, publicly and privately, to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, which is this Government’s priority.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will have heard me ask numerous times over a number of years for interventions on behalf of Jimmy Lai, who is a British citizen, as other Members of this House have done—indeed, we have been very strong collectively. His sham trial has now ended and, unsurprisingly, Jimmy will be held in unknown conditions for 20 years until he is 98, if he lives that long. He will be denied his religious beliefs, with no mass, and will be unable to worship his God, as he so wishes to do. This surely cannot be acceptable to this Government, whose Prime Minister and Attorney General have been at the forefront of using human rights as a panacea for every decision. Are we in this House truly to believe that Government abandonment of Hong Kong has meant that there are no options for those who are British in Hong Kong and whose only crime is not agreeing with Beijing?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the importance of seeing progress in this case. He is right to say that the sentence of 20 years—tantamount to a life sentence or, as has been said in this House, a death sentence—is unacceptable. That is why we continue to call for the release of Jimmy Lai, and it is important that we see that release on humanitarian grounds.
Standards in Public Life
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Last week, I came to the House in the wake of information released by the United States Department of Justice about the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I outlined the immediate steps that this Government took, including an initial review of material, which ultimately led to a referral to the Metropolitan police, and steps taken to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. I am here today to update the House on further action that the Government will take to rebuild trust in public life in the wake of the damaging revelations since my statement last week. [Interruption.] I will finish my statement first, if I may.
I am sure that the House will agree that issues of standards, while important in and of themselves, do not meet the scale of disgust that we all have when we see powerful, rich men misuse their positions to abuse women and girls. The procedural rules, and the rules that I will talk to the House about today, are important given what has been able to happen in the past, but we should start by recognising that our collective response requires wider changes in the culture and use of power, wherever it rests. This goes to the heart of who my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is. It is why he became a human rights lawyer in the first place, why he became Director of Public Prosecutions, why he changed the Crown Prosecution Service to be more victims-oriented, and why he became Prime Minister.
As I set out last week, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes. The Epstein scandal is another awful example of a culture that did not value the lives, let alone the voices, of women and girls. The series and sequencing of events across the last week has made it clear to us all, rightly, that for too long, and too often, influential people in positions of power—overwhelmingly men—have been able to avoid proper and just scrutiny because of the perverse power structures that incentivise their belief that rules do not apply to them. [Interruption.] If I may say so, Members who are chuntering from the Conservative Benches, while I am talking about the victims of sexual abuse and the abuse of power, should know better and recognise that they should be quiet and listen when we are talking about victims and the justice that they deserve to seek.
Peter Mandelson’s disgraceful behaviour raises a number of questions about the ability of the current standards system to catch those few individuals who seek to break our rules. This damages all Members across the House. The vast majority of public servants, whether officials or elected Members, come to serve the public, not themselves. This House, and indeed this building, is full of people working hard, unsociable hours, and making significant personal sacrifices, in order to try to make a difference to people’s lives, to do what is best for their country, to fight for their communities, and to use their position in this place to give a voice to those whose voices are too often not heard. The issues associated with Peter Mandelson, however, show that we must go further to ensure that no one can ever again behave in this way.
Since entering government, we have delivered on our manifesto promises to strengthen the role of the independent adviser, and we have set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, while also publishing Ministers’ interests, gifts and hospitality more frequently and reforming severance payments to ensure that they are proportionate and fair. This is significant and important reform after years of repeated ethics scandals under the last Administration. This includes restricting payments for Ministers leaving office following a serious breach of the ministerial code, and requiring repayment of severance for those found in breach of the business appointment rules. It is also why the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—a landmark piece of legislation to tackle injustice—so that when tragedy strikes, the state is called to account.
In response to the latest revelations in the past week, the Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Councillors. We are changing the process for the relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that in cases where the role requires access to highly classified material, the selected candidate must have passed through the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed.
However, we recognise that we need to go further. We will work with the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that it achieves its aim of promoting the highest standards in public life. We will consider whether the current arrangements for the declaration and publication of financial interests for Ministers and senior Government officials are sufficient, and whether regular published financial disclosure forms or other additional transparency measures should be used in the future.
We will look closely at our system for providing transparency around lobbying, and it is clear that we should consider again the use of non-corporate communication channels within Government. Revelations from the Epstein files have shown that it has been far too easy to forward sensitive information via unofficial channels. There is a lack of clarity about the use of non-corporate communication channels within Government, which has raised concerns about the security of official information, as Conservative Members know from their former Ministers forwarding information from the Government via private email accounts to people when they should not have done so. The Government recognise the consistent calls for a strategic review of these channels, the role they play in Government, the legal framework in which they sit and whether the current codes of conduct and guidance relating to them are effective.
This work will focus on the issues for the Government, but it will complement a range of work being carried out both in this House and in the other place. The Government are committed to the principle that second jobs for Members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions, such as maintaining a professional qualification. The Committee on Standards is currently conducting an inquiry into second jobs, and we are working with the Committee to deliver meaningful change as quickly as possible. The House is considering the legislation currently before Parliament to introduce a duty of candour, and the Prime Minister has been clear that we will bring forward legislation to enable the removal of peerages from those who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. The Government will ask the Lords Conduct Committee to expand its work reviewing the code of conduct in the other place to consider whether standards issues, including the rules relating to peers and lobbying, need to be reformed.
Finally, I want to provide the House with an update on the response to the Humble Address motion passed by the House last Wednesday. The Government are committed to publishing all relevant documents in line with the motion agreed by the House, and we are working at pace to do so. As the House agreed on Wednesday, papers that the Government believe should not be published on national security or international relations grounds will be referred to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister wrote to the Chair of the Committee on Friday, acknowledging that it is important that documents are made available to Parliament as soon as possible. As the Prime Minister has set out, the Government are committed to being as transparent as soon as possible and in full compliance with the motion. The Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to liaise with the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I will ensure that the House is kept updated on this work.
We have all been appalled at Jeffrey Epstein’s disgusting crimes and Peter Mandelson’s despicable behaviour. It is utterly contrary to what the Prime Minister stands for and the values at the heart of this Government. We are resolute in our commitment to fighting men’s violence against women and girls and to supporting their victims. Delivering on this mission is a critical part of our response to the terrible misogyny at the heart of the Epstein scandal. We also recognise that Peter Mandelson’s behaviour has posed difficult questions about our safeguards against corruption. I have set out today the steps the Government are taking to ensure that the British public can have confidence in the integrity of public life, and as I said last Monday and today, I will continue to update the House on these matters as our work develops. I commend this statement to the House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
We cannot have points of order; we are just beginning the statement. [Interruption.] Those are the rules of the House. I am not going change them especially for you.
I call the shadow Minister.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
The Prime Minister’s authority is gone and his Government are starting to collapse. The Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson raises massive questions about standards in public life—questions that the Chief Secretary’s statement today just does not answer.
Advisers advise, but Ministers decide. On that basis, can the Chief Secretary explain why it was right for Morgan McSweeney to resign, but not right for the Prime Minister to resign? Morgan McSweeney might have provided the advice, but it was the Prime Minister who made the decision to appoint the best friend of the world’s most notorious paedophile to be His Majesty’s ambassador in Washington. The Prime Minister did that despite knowing that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail for child prostitution. The problem is not the structures or the processes—the information was there; the warnings were there. The problem is that the Prime Minister had all that before him and yet chose to ignore it. He cannot keep blaming others. He cannot blame the process. He must start taking personal responsibility.
The record of this Government on standards is truly extraordinary. First, the Prime Minister was embroiled in the freebies scandal: £107,000 in gifts given to him since 2019 and a personal donor given a Downing Street pass. Then, the Prime Minister was reprimanded by his own ethics adviser over the appointment of a non-disclosed Labour donor to be the football regulator. His Transport Secretary, an ex-cop, had to resign over misleading the police. His anti-corruption Minister had to resign over corruption. His homelessness Minister had to resign for making people homeless. And then his Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary had to resign over a £40,000 unpaid tax bill on her house.
No wonder even the leader of the Scottish Labour party now says that the Prime Minister must go. Mr Sarwar says:
“There have been too many mistakes”
and that he has no choice but to be
“honest about failure wherever I see it.”
He is right.
Let me turn to some specific questions. First, can the Chief Secretary confirm whether Peter Mandelson received a golden goodbye severance payment, signed off by the Government? Why have the Government refused to answer that question since September? It has been reported that the golden goodbye was between £39,000 and £55,000, which is more than the average person earns in a year—that is grotesque. What steps are the Government taking to retrieve that incredible payment for resigning in disgrace? It sounded like the Chief Secretary was saying that he could not do it. I have to remind him that, at the moment at least, they are actually the Government. They can take action.
Secondly, will the Government agree to a full investigation of Peter Mandelson’s behaviour while he was our ambassador? On 27 February, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Global Counsel—his own company. It was not recorded in the Prime Minister’s register of meetings; it emerged only later. Palantir was then directly awarded a £240 million contract by the Government. I make no criticism of Palantir. I simply ask: why was that not recorded? How many more such lobbyist meetings were there with the Prime Minister and what other inside information was being shared? Will the Chief Secretary agree, yes or no, to a full inquiry into Mandelson’s time as our ambassador?
Thirdly, let me ask about another new Labour veteran put forward for a public office despite his known association with a paedophile. No. 10 has said that it investigated Matthew Doyle’s relationship with a convicted paedophile, Sean Morton. No. 10 gave Doyle, the Prime Minister’s former director of communications, a peerage after purportedly examining this matter, but it has never clarified whether their relationship continued after Morton’s conviction. If Doyle cut ties with Morton upon his conviction, why do the Government not just say so? I ask the Chief Secretary to clarify that. Will he agree to publish all the documents relating to that appointment?
Fourthly, the Chief Secretary told the House on 2 February that a review of the decision to appoint Mandelson was under way. What form will it take? Will a statement be laid before Parliament, and when? Will Mandelson be interviewed as part of that review? Will it include the potential involvement of hostile intelligence services? Finally, have the Government responded substantively to the ISC’s request for more resourcing so that it can do its job properly in reviewing the papers that are about to be released?
No amount of process or fiddling about with procedures can compensate for a Prime Minister who lacked the judgment to act on the information put before him. The Prime Minister was warned about Mandelson—he knew, but he decided it was a risk worth taking. As the leader of the Scottish Labour party pointed out today, it is not just the Mandelson affair; time and again, the Prime Minister has got it wrong, from the winter fuel payment to the family farm tax. Just like with the grooming gangs inquiry, the Prime Minister has once again put his own political interest ahead of the interests of victims. At the start of his statement, the Chief Secretary said that the Prime Minister’s choices in this case go to the heart of who he is, and that is what we are worried about.
The Prime Minister’s head of communications has resigned; the Prime Minister’s chief of staff has resigned; and the leader of the Scottish Labour party says that the Prime Minister should resign. It seems like even in the Labour party, more and more people are now coming to the same conclusion as the public: this country deserves better.
Darren Jones
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the public had their say at the last general election, and they elected a landslide Labour majority, with the Conservatives suffering an historic defeat. In my view, one of the reasons the public booted that lot out of office was their repeated failings in standards and ethics, from the personal protective equipment contracts for dodgy friends to lying to Parliament and the sexual misconduct scandals. The hon. Gentleman asks me why it is that Ministers who have breached the code have resigned. It is because we fixed the system. The reason we have an independent ethics adviser who cannot be directed by the Prime Minister, as was the case under the previous Government, is that they are independent. When Ministers have been found to have broken the code, they have gone, because that should be the consequence for doing so.
The hon. Gentleman asks me what the Prime Minister knew at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, but the Prime Minister has already answered that question repeatedly. The information that has come out since his appointment has made it clear that Peter lied to the Prime Minister about the state of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Had the Prime Minister known at the point of appointment what we all know now, with the privilege of hindsight, he would not have appointed him in the first place.
The hon. Gentleman asks me a number of questions about the process flowing from the Humble Address. As I have already informed the House, the Government are working with the leadership of the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that we can comply with the Humble Address and co-operate with transparency to release the documents as we have said we will, in compliance with the Met police investigation and other constraints that are currently being managed. We will ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is given all the available support it needs to be able to service the House effectively in line with the Humble Address.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement and for telling us that relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles where the appointee will have access to highly classified material, will have to pass the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed. [Interruption.] That may sound surprising to Conservative Members, who probably did not hear what my right hon. Friend said as they were barracking him so much, but that is to be—[Interruption.] That is to be welcomed.
The Foreign Affairs Committee believed that Peter Mandelson should have come before our Committee before he was sent to Washington, and we were right. We should not have been prevented from seeing him. In the past, political appointees to ambassadorial roles have nearly always appeared before the Committee, but only at the Foreign Office’s discretion. We do not want it to have that discretion any more. We would like it written into the rules that before someone is appointed to an ambassadorial role or to be chair of the British Council or director of the BBC World Service, those political appointees must appear in public before the Foreign Affairs Committee and answer our questions.
Darren Jones
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question. She raises important points about the process for appointing ambassadors and the delay between announcement, appointment and the host country accepting their appointment to the role. That is why we have made it clear today that the security vetting process will now have to be concluded before announcement and confirmation.
My right hon. Friend asks me about the role of pre-appointment hearings. I know that the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office has already informed her Committee that it is entitled to invite ambassadors to appear before the Committee to answer questions. Of course, we continue to keep all other pre-appointment hearings under review.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We must remember that we are having this debate today because of the courage of the women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him. Their bravery has forced us to confront uncomfortable truths about power, accountability and the standards we must demand from those in public life.
There are many questions swirling around this place about judgment, and rightly so. While poor judgment cannot be legislated out, a better system can be put in place that leaves as little to chance as possible, but successive Governments have failed to do that. From partygate to ministerial code breaches that went unpunished, we have witnessed a systematic deterioration of standards, and the current system is broken.
The ministerial code lacks legal force. We need structural reform, and I welcome some of the measures that the Minister has mentioned in his remarks today, including the ability to boot out peers whose behaviour falls below the standard we should all expect. The ministerial code must be enshrined in law, with genuine sanctions for breaches. The ministerial code must extend beyond its current parameters to include senior public servants such as ambassadors, and we agree that vetting standards must also be made tougher and should include trade envoys like Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
We must ban those who have served in any capacity for a current foreign Administration from donating to political parties, think-tanks or campaign organisations. We must end government by WhatsApp. All ministerial instant messaging conversations involving Government business must be placed on the departmental record. They should be published quarterly, alongside emails, letters and phone calls, to ensure greater transparency. We should also protect whistleblowers through a new office of the whistleblower, with legal protections and criminal sanctions on Ministers who fail to report wrongdoing.
Just this morning, I met the lively and engaged year 12 students from Hazel Grove high school. When the next election rolls around, they will all be able to vote. They deserve better than this broken system, and we should all be working hard to restore the public’s trust in politics.
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I think we can all agree that we need not just effective rules but effective enforcement for people who break those rules. These issues have highlighted the fact that there is more work to do, and I look forward, as do the Government, to working on a cross-party basis to make sure that, as she said, we bring justice for victims who are affected by the abuse of power.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
In December 2025, Palantir won a three-year contract from the Government worth £240 million. The contract, which is three times larger than any that Palantir has previously won, was awarded without tender. Will the Minister ensure that there is full transparency about how this decision was made and who was involved?
Does the Minister agree that resignations under the last Government meant that true accountability could be evaded and obscured? More widely, does he agree that all our constituents wanted from us and this Government was the change that we promised to deliver?
Darren Jones
On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can assure her that all procurement rules have been followed, but if there is any suggestion of wrongdoing, we have powers under the Procurement Act 2023 to take action if required. On the second part, I agree that the public were calling for change at the last election, partly because of the repeated scandals that happened under the last Administration. That is why we have already taken action to make the ethics adviser independent and institute the Ethics and Integrity Commission, and as I said in my statement, we will go further.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Can I ask the Chief Secretary the following points? He said in answer to an earlier question that the documentation would be released in compliance with the Metropolitan police. Can he ensure that his Department, No. 10 and the Met understand what parliamentary privilege means and assert it on behalf of this House? Secondly, he has mentioned that the Bill that would remove Mandelson’s titles is in preparation, but that is a short Bill. Could he tell us when he expects to see it introduced in this place and guarantee that there will be a one-day process for all stages of the Bill?
The statement today is entitled “Standards in Public Life”. Knowing that Mandelson was a friend of Epstein—forget the extent—and all of Mandelson’s baggage, could the Chief Secretary finally explain to the House why Mandelson was ever on the shortlist of people considered to be appointed to what is probably our most important ambassadorial role?
Darren Jones
On the first question from the Chair of the Select Committee, I do not for one second question the supremacy of Parliament or the basis of parliamentary privilege; all I meant to say was that the Government are in discussions with the Met police, who have launched a criminal investigation, and that it is important that we work with them to ensure that information that is released does not then affect their criminal investigations. The Cabinet Secretary and others are in discussions with the Met police about that, and we hope to be able to say more soon.
On the Bill, as I informed the House last week, the Government’s preference is to bring forward legislation that could be applied to any peer who has breached the rules and brought the other place into disrepute. We have begun the work of looking at the scope and ability for such a Bill to be introduced. I have been informed that a Bill of that nature has not been brought before Parliament since 1425—[Interruption.] No, the 1917 Bill was about a collective group of peers who had been, I think, collaborating with the Nazis around the second world war. This issue is different; it is about standards that should apply to all peers in the House of Lords, and there should be appropriate mechanisms for that to be instigated. We are working on that, and liaising with the House authorities to ensure that we do it right. We will bring the legislation forward very, very shortly.
On the final question, about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly if he had known at the point of his appointment what we know now, he would not have appointed him in the first place.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. Could he tell the House how the Prime Minister is considering strengthening the role of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, given his commitment to improving standards in public life?
Darren Jones
The Ethics and Integrity Commission was set up only very recently by this Government to play an important role in relation to standards in public life. We want to work with the commission to ensure that we set it up for success in delivering on the issues and reforms that I have outlined to the House today. That is the basis on which we will collaborate with it.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I never comment on any conduct or standards issues that may impact individual MPs, precisely because of my adjudicatory role on the Committee on Standards, and I do not propose to refer to the Prime Minister in respect of the potential that, if not all the documents are disclosed to the House, there might be a breach of privilege.
However, let me say this gently: the Minister constantly refers to the past, and to my party’s role in government with regard to breaches of standards issues. From this moment on, will he accept that, given the litany of issues that have befallen the Labour Government, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) at the Dispatch Box, it would really behove the Minister to stop doing that, and just to ensure going forward that the Labour Government act with the same standards of conduct that they demanded of my party in government?
Also, given the Minister’s statement, might he request that the Prime Minister attend a meeting with the Committee on Standards to outline exactly how, moving forward, the Prime Minister will uphold the highest of standards?
Darren Jones
On the first question, I agree that we need to ensure that we have a standards system, both in this place and the other place, that meets the challenges we are talking about. That is not a party political issue. I merely referred to the performance of the last Government given the chuntering from those on the Opposition Benches when I talked about the reforms that we are bringing forward to ensure justice for victims and appropriate powers to tackle corruption in the future.
On the second question, I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman writes to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s office will engage with him and his Committee on the invitation.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I think it is worth reminding my right hon. Friend that one of the things that people keep going back to is that a decision was made that this appointment was “worth the risk”, and we finally found out that some people decided that the rules did not apply to them. Considering how important tackling violence against women and girls is to this Government and this Prime Minister, would my right hon. Friend agree to meet women Back Benchers in particular to discuss the possibility of exploring further how we tackle misogyny in public life?
Darren Jones
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues and to do anything I can in pursuit of that outcome.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is jaw-dropping how many rich and powerful people were within Epstein’s orbit, and how many of them believed that they were untouchable. It is important that we have a culture that is supportive and trusting around whistleblowers, so does the Minister agree that we need to have an office for whistleblowers as the backbone of such a positive culture?
Darren Jones
I agree with the hon. Member that we need to ensure that those processes are available in all circumstances. My understanding is that the legislation was updated in recent years, but I am happy to consider any inputs from him and other Members if they wish to send them to me.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Could my hon. Friend confirm the actions that the Government have taken to ensure that direct ministerial appointments, including political appointments, must pass the appropriate security vetting processes prior to being announced or confirmed?
Darren Jones
I can confirm for my hon. Friend that the rules have been updated to ensure that national security vetting must receive full clearance before any direct ministerial appointments are confirmed publicly, or then confirmed for appointments at later stages. As I recently said to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the process for ambassadors in particular can often be stretched out over a number of days—from announcement to being confirmed by the host country and then fully being in post—but we will update the rules to ensure that what happened in these circumstances with Peter Mandelson cannot happen again.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to put things right. What I slightly doubt today is this: everything is about the Prime Minister’s judgment right now, and this looks a lot like smoke to me—this is right, but not right now. The point is that all this stuff about Mandelson was known in conversation and discussion. He was sacked twice for impropriety in Government office. He ended up on Deripaska’s yacht when the EU was discussing taxation on aluminium—improper again. All this stuff leads to the final question: why him? Then, of course, the vetting was not good enough, but it could have been, had they bothered to check everything. There is a big question to be asked here. Surely this is ultimately about the Prime Minister’s judgment in overruling anything that he found and deciding for his own purposes that this man should be appointed as our ambassador.
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister apologised last Thursday for having appointed Peter Mandelson to the post. As he said repeatedly, had he seen the information that we are now able to see from the release of documents from the US Department of Justice—which showed not only the level of corruption but the deep and extensive relationship that existed between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, about which Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister at the point of his appointment—he would never have appointed him in the first place.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. My biggest concern, and the biggest concern of my constituents, is that the impact of behaviour like Peter Mandelson’s undermines trust in our politics and our democracy. Quite frankly, all parties in this House have had scandals related to someone in their party, and it gives us all a bad name. I ask from the bottom of my heart: can this Government get a grip of this, and end the sleaze and scandal culture that has engulfed all our politics and all our parties, so that I can go back to my constituents and say, “No, we’re not all the same”?
Darren Jones
As I said in my statement, the vast majority of Members of this House, and also civil servants and other political appointments in the other place, come into politics to serve the public, not to serve themselves, but the Peter Mandelson issue has shown that, for all the rules we have in place that work for the majority of people doing the right thing, there have still been loopholes for people who want to do the wrong thing. We are now going to close those loopholes.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement—it was clearly preferable being here than at the reception that the Prime Minister is hosting for Scottish Labour MPs and MSPs later on. I have lost count of the number of times I have spent here dealing, in one way or another, with Westminster chaos. It often relates to Members of the House of Lords, who are there for life—be they Labour, Liberal or Conservative. This statement is tinkering. When will the Government commit to doing what they have promised to do for 115 years and deal with the obscenity that is the House of Lords?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will know that the Government are committed to working with peers in the other place to modernise the House of Lords and that we agree that that needs to happen. That is why we are in the process of removing hereditary peers and are working with the authorities in the other place to ensure that we deal with the issues we are talking about today.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement and his focus on the victims of these appalling crimes. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that victim-survivors of these vile crimes are heard by those in power?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right to bring us back to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and to all women and girls who have been subjected to these atrocious crimes across the country, because evidently their voices continue to not be heard and these crimes continue to perpetuate. That is why the Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls and why we have introduced measures to ensure standards of public life are enforced in this place and in the other place.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
May I tell the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, in relation to his previous answer, that the Foreign Affairs Committee repeatedly asked for Lord Mandelson to appear, but he refused to come, and that what the Committee did hear, from the permanent under-secretary, was that Lord Mandelson would be entitled to a payoff in relation to the terms of his contract? Can the Chief Secretary say how much Lord Mandelson received and whether he will be asked to repay it?
Darren Jones
The Foreign Office is currently reviewing the terms of the contract that led to the suggestion of severance payments when Peter Mandelson was sacked, and it is due to update the House in due course.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. It is refreshing to see a Government who are committed to making those in positions of trust accountable. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are clearly angry today. Maybe it is because this is in marked contrast to the record of people who voted to cover up for one of their friends. For ordinary people in Bishop Auckland, the crimes of Epstein are truly shocking and disgusting. They are shocked to see this global web of power and people acting with complete impunity. In addition to looking at improved vetting, are the Government looking at how we can have improved surveillance and vetting of those in a position of trust to make sure that those who are entrusted cannot do these sorts of things?
Darren Jones
As my hon. Friend will have heard in my statement, the Government are pursuing a number of avenues, including the potential for more routine annual disclosure of financial and commercial interests, which we hope will shed more light on some of these issues where individuals are getting away with breaking the rules.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will know that there are too many Members on both sides of this House who enjoy situations like this, and it belies the seriousness of the situation. Does he recognise that an integrity and ethics adviser would not be able to solve the appointment of somebody removed from Government twice if the Prime Minister wished to appoint them; would not be able to assist a former director of the public prosecution service whose professionalism should have been able to discern the truth in accepting lies; and would not be able to inject honour in a situation where a Prime Minister accepted the advice of an individual, and then accepted his resignation but received the advice?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Member is right that the public do not expect party political bickering on these issues; they expect problems to be solved and justice to be sought for those who deserve it. On the question of the advice that the Prime Minister received, as I have said a number of times, Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister. Questions were asked, and Peter Mandelson lied in his answers. I am sure that that will become clear as part of the disclosure of documents, in compliance with the Humble Address, in the coming weeks.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for all that he is doing to overhaul standards in public life, following the absolute bin fire that the Conservative party left behind. Peter Mandelson is reportedly in receipt of a severance payment. As a former regulator, I know that clawback is an important tool. If possible, Peter Mandelson should be forced to pay back every single penny to the British people. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Darren Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, the Foreign Office will come forward with more information in due course.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Intelligence and Security Committee wrote to the Prime Minister last Thursday. The letter, which has been published, included the following request:
“The Committee would be grateful to, now, be told the date on which we will receive those papers such that we are able to plan the resourcing requirements”.
I do not doubt what the Minister said about the Government’s commitment to being as transparent as possible, but in his statement he repeated the phrase “as soon as possible”. Will he go beyond ASAP, so that the Intelligence and Security Committee can make resourcing plans before receiving the papers?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that the Government will be working with the Intelligence and Security Committee; meetings are happening today and tomorrow morning about that. The Government are liaising with the Metropolitan police on the criminal investigation. Once that matter has been clarified, we will be able to move forward with disclosures to the House.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister elaborate on how the Government will work with the Committee on Standards on proposals to ban second jobs for Members of Parliament, in order to deliver meaningful change?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will know that it was a clear manifesto commitment of our party to ban second jobs for Members of Parliament, except in limited circumstances such as those involving the maintenance of professional qualifications for doctors and lawyers. The Committee is considering those issues, on which it has been working in detail. The Government are working with the Committee to move those proposals forward as quickly as possible. I know that the Committee wishes to do the same.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is notable that despite the Government’s huge majority, they have run out of people to stand up and defend their position. The Minister is—I am not being patronising—a very intelligent man. I therefore ask that he does not insult the intelligence of the rest of us by talking about the Prime Minister having believed Mandelson’s lies after he asked him questions. We now know from the forensic questioning by the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein carried on—“ongoing” was the word—after Epstein was jailed for offences related to paedophilia and prostitution. The Prime Minister apparently chose to ask more questions after that, and was lied to. What more did he need to know to realise that that man should never have been allowed within a mile of the post of ambassador to America?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman will, in due course, see papers disclosed, in compliance with the Humble Address, that will be very clear in showing the questions that the Prime Minister asked of Peter Mandelson, and the lies that Peter Mandelson responded with.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
We in Wales know how this story ends. The former Welsh First Minister, Vaughan Gething, was forced to resign following a serious error of judgment; the Prime Minister had expressed full confidence in him. The Prime Minister then went on to appoint Peter Mandelson, despite his association with a convicted paedophile being a matter of public record. What lessons, if any, does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister draw from this pattern of poor judgment at the very top of Government?
Darren Jones
As I have repeated to the House, there must be rules that apply in all circumstances, to all people, in respect of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and to appointments to such roles, as well as clear consequences for people who lie or breach those rules. Those are the reforms that the Government are bringing forward.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister’s adviser, Morgan McSweeney, resigned because he had advised the Prime Minister to make this appointment. What advice did the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, give the Prime Minister? If he gave the same advice, should he not resign as well?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will know that it would not be appropriate for me to speak from the Dispatch Box on behalf of civil servants and special advisers. The statements released by Morgan McSweeney and Keir Starmer yesterday answer his questions about Morgan McSweeney’s decision to resign from his post.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
A Government in thrall to men and corporations drunk on power is the rot at the centre of the Mandelson scandal. When people operate in the shadows, they think they can act with impunity. Of all seven Nolan principles, openness can help to build back the most trust. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that we must drive out corporate influence and money, and as a start, will he cap political donations, and ask all MPs and peers to follow my example in releasing logs of all lobbying meetings, so that people can know that we work for them?
Darren Jones
As I said in my statement, on a number of those measures, we are looking at current procedures, and at whether they can be updated to provide more transparency. The hon. Member is right to say that although individual rules can be improved, that alone will not be sufficient to tackle the cultural issues that lead to some of these challenges. It is on us all, cross-party, and any other people in power, to call out such behaviour, and to make it clear that it is not acceptable in public life.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), this looks like smoke today. The horse has bolted so far that it is at Wetherby racecourse, and the right hon. Gentleman is not giving the answers that we need to hear. He said that this goes to the heart of who the Prime Minister is, so why did the Prime Minister believe that somebody who took loans that, in today’s money, would be worth more than £1 million, and who was found to be flogging passports, should ever be rewarded?
Darren Jones
On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I would just remind him that the reforms that this Government have made in the past 18 months, and those we are talking about today, will be the most wide-ranging reforms to standards in public life that we have seen for a very long time. I would not call that smoke and mirrors; I would call that progress. On the second part of his question, as I have said repeatedly to the House, if the Prime Minister had known the depth and extent of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Mandelson would not have been appointed in the first place. [Interruption.] It is easy for Opposition Members, with the benefits of hindsight, and with access to documents that were not available to the Prime Minister at the time of the appointment, to say that things should have been done differently.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
This is not about process; it is about the judgment of the Prime Minister, and we cannot legislate out the poor judgment that has been in evidence today. Perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has considered our calls for an office of the whistleblower, but does he agree that, in order to mitigate the frailties and the human error that we see here, we must ensure that there are proper criminal sanctions for Ministers who fail to whistleblow?
Darren Jones
I point the hon. Lady to the duty of candour provisions that we are bringing forward in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which will include criminal sanctions for those who breach the rules. As I said to her hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am happy to consider the wider recommendations for whistleblowers that she mentions.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Given the importance of standards in public life, why is it that the adviser who suggested that Peter Mandelson be made ambassador to the United States had to resign, but the person who actually appointed Peter Mandelson—the Prime Minister —is still in post?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister apologised last Thursday for having appointed Peter Mandelson. Had information that is now available been available at the time of his appointment, he would not have appointed him in the first place.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We all know that the Prime Minister is a lawyer, and lawyers must understand and test the veracity of information that is being provided. The Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box that he took a risk, and that he had known that Mandelson had kept up his relationship with Epstein. I suspect that the risk was of the public finding out, and the public do now know about this. Is it not simply time for the Prime Minister to go?
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The Minister’s statement is insulting. The first, but not the last, time that Peter Mandelson resigned in disgrace from a Labour Government—on that occasion, it was Tony Blair’s Cabinet —I was seven years old. Is the Minister seriously telling us that our Prime Minister needs tweaks to process to know not to hire somebody who has been a nationally notorious crook for over 25 years?
Darren Jones
As the hon. Lady will have heard, if the Prime Minister had had access to the information that he now has about the depth and extent of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, Peter Mandelson would not have been appointed in the first place.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to whistleblowing. I am hopeful that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister knows that during the passage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I was promised a meeting with him about whistleblowers; I look forward to that. Is he aware that current legislation dealing with whistleblowers directs them to seek an employment tribunal, but that there are 47,000 employment tribunal cases waiting to be heard? We have to do something about whistleblowing, and we have to ensure that protections are in place. I look forward to meeting him with a number of my colleagues, so that we can discuss the matter in detail and in full.
Darren Jones
As I have said to the hon. Lady’s Liberal Democrat colleagues, I am happy to receive further representations on reform of the law relating to whistleblowers. If we need to go further, we will be happy to consider doing that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister has managed to throw out more chaff than a B-52. He mentioned security vetting. Does he mean developed vetting, of the sort applied to very senior officials, including military individuals, before they are appointed to extremely sensitive positions, or does he have something else in mind? Will that vetting be repeated periodically, as it is for officials? Will it be applied to both political appointees and ministerial appointments, where those positions are particularly sensitive?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are different processes for the different types of role that we have in government, from due diligence through to developed national security vetting, which he mentions. The important thing is that the right process is applied to the right person at the right time, and that is what we are reviewing right now.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The only statement that my constituents want today is a resignation statement. The only reform that they want is the reform that takes this Prime Minister out of No. 10 Downing Street, and it does not matter how many reviews, inquiries or fireguards the Government put in the way. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence and trust of the British people. We need a Government who will end this chaos. This Government promised to end the chaos when they came to power, but instead, it has gone through the stratosphere. The Prime Minister knows, everybody in this House knows, and everybody in this country knows that he is toast, so why do the Government not just get on with it and get rid of him?
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman seems to be wishing for more chaos in our country. The public voted to end that at the last general election, and that is why this Government are getting on with delivering change for people across this country.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Today’s statement is little more than a smokescreen, and a chance to distract from the key issue, which is about Peter Mandelson and our Prime Minister. More questions are being asked, but there are still no answers, so may I take the Minister back to the central point? How much was the golden goodbye for Peter Mandelson?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Of course we need a commissioner who has the power and ability to expose corruption and deal with it, but today’s statement was not required. We already knew that the Prime Minister made a bad judgment. What the public want to know is how he will be held to account for the things that he knew but ignored. Will the Minister assure the House that when he looks at extra powers for commissioners, he will not go as far as was gone in Northern Ireland, where the discredited former standards commissioner used her powers to silence Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who were questioning Ministers too vigorously, or who were not showing enough empathy when they made public statements about security situations in their constituency? I ask this particularly because when heckling fails, some Members of this House now threaten other Members by reporting them to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to try to silence them that way.
Darren Jones
It is important that we take good practice wherever it exists and learn the lessons where reforms have not worked, whether it is in our Parliament or in devolved Governments across the United Kingdom. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to write to me with his examples in more detail to ensure that we avoid that in the future. I assure him that the Government have no intention or desire to try to limit the voices of people in this House or anywhere else.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Let me go back to the process that the Prime Minister followed. He received information from the vetting and security services that Peter Mandelson might have had an ongoing relationship. He then questioned Peter Mandelson about that. Did he then test the answers that Peter Mandelson gave with the vetting and security service? If he did not, it can mean only one of two things: either the Prime Minister has committed a dereliction of duty or he is a credulous fool. Either way, should he not resign?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
May I take the House back to where this debate started? It began with the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), reminding us that advisers advise and Ministers decide. On the back of that, I want to give the Chief Secretary the opportunity—for the fourth time in this debate, I think—to answer a fairly fundamental question that my constituents and I would like to know the answer to. If it is right for an adviser to resign, why not the far more culpable decision maker?
Darren Jones
As the Prime Minister has made clear, he apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of ambassador. Had the information that is now available been available at the point of his appointment, the Prime Minister would never have appointed Peter Mandelson in the first place.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
May I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement about the new rules and legislation that he is bringing forward? I have missed something, though. Can he point to what he is bringing forward that would stop a Prime Minister from appointing a twice-sacked best friend of the world’s greatest paedophile?
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
Many of us, including myself, spoke in this House against the ill-judged appointment of Peter Mandelson, which flew in the face of logic, given his poor relationship with the US and his history of misfeasance in public office. Will the Chief Secretary undertake to obtain all redacted evidence from the US pertaining to all UK persons in positions of influence referred to in the Epstein documents and expose them to the public? That is the only way to clear up this global scandal for the UK electorate.
Darren Jones
Where the Government have jurisdiction over documents and in compliance with the Humble Address, we will publish them, as I said to the House earlier today.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Chief Secretary keeps making reference to, “If we had known then what we know now,” with regard to Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The key fact is that we already knew of Peter Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as the Prime Minister spoke about at PMQs last week, just as the Government knew about Matthew Doyle’s relationship with Sean Morton and still gave him a peerage after the internal investigation. Let me come back to the resignation statement of the chief of staff yesterday. He stated that he
“did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process”.
Can the Chief Secretary explain who did oversee the due diligence and vetting process?
Darren Jones
Those processes are administered by the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office, by the Foreign Office and by all the normal, appropriate authorities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Chief Secretary is an honourable man. He is answering incredibly difficult questions, and we have to recognise that. He will know that I seek to find solutions rather than prioritising point scoring in this House—I say that very respectfully—and in this instance it is clear that the public want a solution to the seeming litany of trust-breaking decisions taken by successive Governments. While we cannot please all people, the issue of a basic standard for public servants is non-negotiable, and this breakdown has highlighted the need for accountability at the highest level. Does he believe that that can be achieved without a complete overhaul of the appointment system?
Darren Jones
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; a number of changes evidently need to be brought forward. As he suggests in his question, that should be done on a cross-party basis in the interests of how we serve the public.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Confidence in the Prime Minister is at an all-time low, and many of the reasons for that have already been discussed. However, one particular issue is that the Prime Minister visited Palantir’s head offices in Washington DC in February 2025. Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether Peter Mandelson advised the PM to visit Palantir? What was the purpose of the visit? Will the Government publish details and minutes of the discussions that took place at that meeting? Will the Government review all existing contracts with Palantir and suspend any further engagement with it until the investigations are completed?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister engages with a whole host of businesses, whether in the United Kingdom or abroad. The hon. Gentleman’s question suggested particular wrongdoing; as I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), we have powers under the Procurement Act to act on these issues if we must. If evidence comes to light, we reserve the right to do so.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The problem with the list of measures that the Chief Secretary read out is that, unfortunately, not one will protect us from the Prime Minister’s poor judgment. Before asking my question, I point out the fact that—as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) knows, and as the Chief Secretary has mentioned himself—the Government are currently introducing the duty of candour Bill, which will legally require Ministers to answer questions frankly and with any information that people could usefully think they should know. I ask for a third time: how much is Peter Mandelson due to take as part of his pay-off?
Darren Jones
As I have said, the Foreign Office will update the House in due course.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I definitely agree that Epstein’s crimes were disgusting and Mandelson’s behaviour despicable. I remind the Chief Secretary that, under the last Conservative Government, the now Prime Minister said,
“a fish rots from the head”
and that real change had to be
“led and modelled from the top”.
Yet here we are, and the issue is back. Despite the colour of the rosette changing, the Prime Minister’s closest circle must now take the fall for his poor decision making in appointing a man who was best friends with a paedophile. Given that there is now a criminal investigation into his closet advisers, should he not do the honourable thing and take his own advice?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister, as he said today, is getting on with the job of delivering the change for this country that the electorate voted for 18 months ago, rewarding my party with a huge majority in this House. These issues are important and we will fix them, not least keeping the victims of sexual abuse and abuse of power at the centre of our thoughts. I know that Members across the House will want to work with us to ensure that that is done.
Business of the House (Today)
Call Lists
Procedure committee
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Procedure Committee. Lee Dillon will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on its subject. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to Lee Dillon, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may of course take part in questioning.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Procedure Committee about our fourth report of the Session, which looks at the idea of introducing call lists. I am happy to stand in for the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), on this occasion. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time today, and my colleagues on the Procedure Committee for the thoughtful and constructive way in which they have approached this work.
We launched this inquiry because Members from all sides of the House raised concerns with us. Some colleagues told us that they wanted more certainty in the sitting day, and others spoke about the challenges they face because of disabilities, long-term health conditions or caring responsibilities. Colleagues from smaller parties explained how difficult it can be to know whether they will be called at all in a debate. For many of them, call lists seemed like a straightforward answer. We also heard the opposite view, which is strongly and sincerely held. Some Members were worried that call lists could change the very character of debate in this Chamber. They feared that we would lose the spontaneity, energy and genuine back and forth that makes this place what it is.
Our task was to look at all of this in a balanced and evidence-based way. We took written and oral evidence from a wide range of people, including the former Deputy Speakers Nigel Evans, Baroness Laing and Baroness Winterton, smaller parties, the Hansard Society, Centenary Action and the presiding officers of the devolved legislatures. Their insights were incredibly helpful, and we are grateful to all of them. After weighing everything carefully, the Committee concluded that call lists should not be introduced. This was not a decision that we reached quickly or casually, so I want to explain the main reasons behind it.
First, we found that there is not a single, clearly defined problem that call lists would solve. The concerns raised with us were varied; they included accessibility, work-life balance, speaking opportunities, and the general flow of business. Call lists might help with some of those issues, but not all, and certainly not in a consistent or fair way. They are simply too blunt an instrument to deal with such a wide range of issues.
Secondly, we heard real worries about what call lists would do to debates themselves. Many Members reflected on the pandemic period, in which call lists were used out of necessity. Those arrangements were right for that moment, but they undeniably reduced spontaneity—interventions were limited or banned, and the Chamber felt flatter. The natural rhythm of debate was lost. That experience made clear that call lists can change the atmosphere of this place in ways that we might not want to repeat.
Thirdly, we looked at how other legislatures use call lists. It was a useful exercise, but in truth, those legislatures’ systems operate in a very different procedural environment. Many of them allocate speaking rights proportionately between parties; that is not how this House works. We cannot simply lift one feature from another Parliament and drop it into ours without considering the procedural ecosystem around it.
Fourthly, we examined how call lists would fit in with the way time is currently managed in this House. Our existing system strikes a careful balance between certainty and flexibility; we know when the day starts and ends, and we know how long different types of business can run, but we also have the ability to respond quickly to events through urgent questions and statements. That flexibility is essential to the House’s role in holding the Government to account. Introducing call lists would disrupt that balance, and would require a much wider rethink of how the parliamentary day is structured.
Finally, we considered the role of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Their discretion in calling Members is fundamental to how debates are managed. They are elected by the House, they are impartial, and they are trusted to use their judgment fairly. Call lists would inevitably limit that discretion. We did not find a strong enough case to justify restricting the Chair’s ability to steward debates effectively, and we note that informal mechanisms are already in place to support Members who have genuine health or accessibility needs, and that the Speaker’s Office handles these with care and sensitivity. Our report also suggests that the Modernisation Committee should set out how it intends to approach its upcoming work on the use of time in the Chamber. That broader perspective will help the House to think about these issues in the round, rather than in isolation.
We fully understand why some colleagues may be disappointed by our conclusions. We listened carefully to all the views put to us and took them seriously, but our recommendation is based on detailed evidence and a clear view that call lists are not the right solution to the concerns raised. They would change some of the fundamental features of how this Chamber operates, and not necessarily for the better. This report is not the end of the conversation; what it does is give the House a structured foundation on which those conversations can continue.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this report to the House.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is very rare—in fact, I cannot think of a previous occasion over what is approaching 29 or 30 years in this House—that I have heard a statement from a Select Committee, every word of which I entirely agree with. This is one of those occasions, and I congratulate the Committee and the Members who were involved in the preparation of this excellent contribution.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) very much for what he has said, and I agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—it is not often that we have two people agreeing spontaneously with the Member speaking on behalf of the Committee. I think that I have the strongest legs in the Chamber, because I am nearly always called last. In the previous statement, Madam Deputy Speaker, you brought me in fourth from the end, so that record has been beaten today for a change.
I enjoy the spontaneity that we have in the Chamber, and I do not think there is any need whatsoever for change. I am not a traditionalist, but I love the way we do it—let us not change it.
UK-India Free Trade Agreement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK-India Free Trade Agreement.
I will start by saying why this deal is so important. That may seem obvious, I suppose. We did £47.2 billion-worth of trade with India last year. That was up 15% year on year, and India is now our 10th-largest trading partner, but it is the future potential that stands out. India has the highest growth rate in the G20. It is likely to become the third-largest economy in the world by 2029. By 2050, India will be home to more than a quarter of a billion high-income consumers. Demand for imports is due to grow as well, reaching £2.8 trillion by 2050. Assuming global foreign direct investment into India continues on its recent trajectory, it could grow to £1 trillion by 2033.
Despite all that, India’s markets have been behind some of the highest barriers in the world. It has some of the highest tariff rates in the G20, with gin and whisky at 150%, cars at 110% and cosmetics at 22%. Soft drinks, lamb, fish, chocolate and biscuits—I know that is an odd combination—are at 33%. In 2024, India was ranked as the eighth most restrictive services market by the OECD. That inevitably either prices many UK products out of the market or makes them a premium product beyond the reach of many in India.
Some 42% of UK businesses surveyed by Grant Thornton in 2024 said that they would want to build a presence in India, and 72% said that a free trade agreement would encourage them to explore the Indian market. The agreement that this Government secured was a momentous achievement. Others had been trying to get a deal like it for years and failed, but this Prime Minister, along with the then Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander)—I pay tribute to them—brought home the goods.
Chris Bryant
Oh dear. I will give way, but I think I know what my hon. Friend is going to say.
Gareth Snell
The UK is the single largest importer of Indian ceramics. The trade deal removes some of the tariffs that we apply to Indian imports. The removal of those tariffs, along with industrial energy pricing in India, means that those imports become incredibly competitive in comparison to our domestic market. In some cases, those imports are well below our own market production point. Bricks are also affected. We are the single largest importer of Indian bricks, yet our own brick kilns stand at two-thirds capacity. Can the Minister set out the protections in this trade deal to ensure that while we get the new markets for our exports, we do not undercut our domestic market with cheaper imports?
Chris Bryant
I thought my hon. Friend might be about to talk about ceramics. He regularly speaks up—privately to me and publicly in the House and elsewhere—on behalf of his constituents, and he is right to do so. As he knows, I visited some of the businesses in his constituency, and I am keen to ensure that we do everything in our power within the Department to support, protect and enhance the British ceramics industry, which is an important part of our work. I just say to my hon. Friend that the overall impact of this agreement on the ceramics industry will be limited, because 543 out of 577 lines—steel lines, for instance—were already at 0%. The remaining 34, which we brought to 0% as part of the deal, all currently have tariffs of just 2% or 3%, and India is not a prominent source of imports for those sectors.
I accept that there are broad issues for the ceramics industry, and I have seen everything that Mr Flello, a former denizen of this place, has produced. I do not think that this agreement is the problem. There are other issues that we need to address, not least the issues that my hon. Friend raises in relation to energy costs, which are very specific to the ceramics industry.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The evidence that we took in the Business and Trade Committee did raise concerns about the impact of the deal on both the brick industry and the ceramics industry in the UK. The Minister knows that the Trade Remedies Authority is not really equipped with the tools that it needs to defend us in this new world; nor has the Competition and Markets Authority yet seen fit to finalise its foreign subsidy control regime, despite two years of consultation. Will the Minister at least assure the House that he will keep a very close eye on this matter, and will not hesitate to bring forward protections or trade remedies if the need arises?
Chris Bryant
Yes, of course. I read the report from my right hon. Friend’s Committee over the weekend, and it is a very fine report; indeed, some of what I have already said was lifted directly from it. Broadly speaking, I have the impression that the House might be content to proceed with the agreement, and the Committee was certainly content to proceed with it. As my right hon. Friend will of course know, I guaranteed to him that we would have a debate during the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 period, and we are now having a debate in the House during that CRaG period.
My right hon. Friend made a good point about trade remedies. In a whole series of sectors, we need to keep our review alert to that. He may wish to make some points later about labour in brick industry that are made in his report, but let me point out again that nearly 90% of ceramics imports from India already come into the UK tariff-free, so I am not sure that the agreement will lead to the particular problem that some in the sector expect.
The agreement goes well beyond India’s precedent in opening the door for UK businesses. As the Select Committee said in its report,
“The UK-India Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is the UK’s most economically significant bilateral free trade agreement since leaving the European Union.”
It boosts UK GDP by £4.8 billion, which is 0.13% of GDP. It boosts wages by £2.2 billion, and it boosts bilateral trade by £25.5 billion every year in the long run, by 2040. India will drop tariffs on 90% of lines, covering 92% of current UK exports, giving the UK tariff savings of £400 million a year immediately on entry into force, rising to £900 million after 10 years, even if there is no increase in trade. India’s average tariff will fall from 15% to 3%.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his enthusiasm and energy in doing this job. I think that we welcome the tariffs.
The agreement was projected to give Northern Ireland’s economy a boost of some £50 million. Three distilleries in my constituency— Echlinville, Hinch and Rademon—will take advantage of the reduction in the whisky tariff. The opening of markets for manufacturing and engineering has also been referred to. Let me say with great respect, however, that six months after the agreement, Northern Ireland has not yet seen much happen. I know that the Minister is keen to make it happen, but may I ask him, please, when it will happen?
Chris Bryant
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a is a teetotaller. Is that right?
Chris Bryant
Sometimes! Perhaps a tee-slightly-er or a tee-occasionally-er, but not total. [Interruption.] Yes, only in the early morning. Well, I got that completely wrong.
Anyway, I think all Members will want to celebrate the fact that we are managing to get the whisky tariff down from 150% to 75%, and then down to 40%. That will be transformational. Incidentally, this is not just about whisky itself; the other day I was with one of the founding members of Fever-Tree, who pointed out that it is also about soft drinks, including the soft drinks that go with the whisky, ginger ale being a classic instance. If we can get Fever-Tree ginger ale out to India at the same time, or for that matter—who knows?—perhaps even Indian tonic water, that will be a significant benefit for us.
The hon. Gentleman made a perfectly legitimate point about timing. Plenty of companies are asking me, “When is it all going to start?” We have to go through a ratification process, and what we are doing now is part of that. India has its own process, which is largely in the hands of Mr Modi directly, but I am very confident that that can happen fairly swiftly, and I hope very much that in the next few weeks and months we will be able to declare a date for entry into force.
There is always a slight moment between concluding the negotiations, the signature, the ratification and then entry into force. We cannot ever be precise about the date of entry into force until ratification has proceeded, but we are working as fast as we can. There is one other element that we always said we wanted to happen simultaneously: the double contributions agreement, which His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is negotiating with India. As soon as all that is completed, I hope we will be able to get to entry into force. I will come on to the implementation.
I should just say that I slightly confused all my tariff lines earlier between steel and ceramics. We will tidy that up a little later, if that is all right with you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Every region and nation will benefit from the agreement, including a £210 million boost for the north-west, driven by aerospace and automotive wins; a £190 million boost for Scotland, supported by cuts to whisky and satellite tariffs, and by financial services access; and a £190 million boost for the east of England, generated through tariff cuts and improved rules for medical devices and clean energy products. There are some big winners, and I have already talked about whisky. We estimate that whisky exports will increase by £230 million—an 88% increase. The tariffs on autos will fall from over 100% to 10% under quota, which will phase from combustion engines to electric vehicles. Auto parts and car engine exports are expected to increase by £189 million—a 148% increase.
The tariffs on cosmetics will fall from 20% to as low as 0%, which will boost exports by £400 million—a 364% increase. I talked to Charlotte Tilbury about this the other day, and she was absolutely—[Interruption.] The Whip is very keen on Charlotte Tilbury, so I will pass on her request for further information. I think you are putting in a request as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. The important point is that we need to make sure that businesses know that there is this new opportunity out there in India, and we need to maximise the exploitation of the new tariffs.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
According to the Government’s figures, this trade deal will add only 0.14% to our national GDP. What are we giving up in return for that measly amount of benefit, and is it really worth sacrificing our commitment to human rights to sign these kinds of trade deals with countries and leaders who are reported to have breached human rights?
Chris Bryant
I will talk about human rights in a moment, but if the hon. Gentleman can come up with a better way of finding a 0.14% increase in GDP, I would be very happy to hear it. Frankly, the idea that we would just turn our backs on one of the biggest economies and largest democracies in the world, and not say yes to a trade deal, is for the birds.
There is a whole series of human rights issues that we always want to raise with our trade partners, and we do so. When we are negotiating a free trade agreement, they are not necessarily a central part of it, but in this deal, for the first time ever, we have clauses on a whole range of human rights-related issues. The hon. Gentleman could easily point out that these are not legally enforceable, but they are an opportunity—both at the first review, which will come at entry into force, and on future occasions, which are laid out in the free trade agreement—for us to talk through these issues. Human rights issues are primarily the responsibility of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, through which we raise issues relating to Kashmir, particular individuals, labour laws and so on.
I am aware that non-tariff barriers are being removed through improved customs processes, reductions in technical barriers to trade, increased facilitation of digital trade, supportive intellectual property commitments and greater collaboration on new technologies. This will all help to make trade quicker, cheaper and easier.
On services, which are obviously very important for us as a services superpower, market access is locked in, including ensuring that UK companies are treated on an equal footing with Indian companies. The deal includes India’s first ever financial services and telecoms chapters. The free trade agreement is expected to boost services exports by £1.6 billion. On procurement, which again is very important for the UK, brand-new access to India’s federal procurement market will be locked in, guaranteeing access to approximately 40,000 tenders per year, worth at least £38 billion per annum, and exclusive treatment for UK companies. For the first time, UK companies will have access to India’s procurement portal.
I hope the colleagues will agree that CETA is a good deal for the UK, but I want to respond to a couple of points made in the Business and Trade Committee’s report. First, the deal will only be of any use if it is actually used by UK companies. We know that it will not always be plain sailing, thanks to varying rules in different states and provinces—that point was made in evidence to the Committee—the staging of tariff liberalisation will need explaining, and non-tariff barriers can be just as important as tariff barriers.
As the first Minister for trade policy and for exports, I am keen to ensure that businesses have all the support they need to exploit this deal. That is why we are protecting the Department for Business and Trade team in India, and why we have already engaged with more than 5,000 UK businesses on how to exploit CETA, through guidance, events and roadshows. As I said earlier, this is not just about Scotch whisky; it is also about Fever-Tree ginger ale to go with it and its Indian tonic water. We have also provided specific support to the UK cosmetics industry to exploit the cut in cosmetics tariffs, which will benefit companies such as Charlotte Tilbury and Dr.PAWPAW. As the Committee suggests, once we get to entry into force, we will monitor the operation of CETA’s provisions, including through the regular reviews built into the agreement.
This is also not the full stop in our developing relationship with India. Vision 2035, agreed with India alongside the free trade agreement, sets out a shared framework for deeper co-operation across technology, defence, climate and strategic exports, reinforcing the long-term direction of the bilateral partnership. We will also try to resolve other market access issues not solved in the free trade agreement—for example, legal services, recognition of qualifications and other specific state-level barriers. The UK is open to continuing negotiations for a bilateral investment treaty, as long as it works for UK businesses.
As I have said, this is a trade agreement, but I want to assure Members that it also promotes British values. We have secured India’s first ever chapters on anti-corruption, consumer protections, labour rights, the environment, gender and development, and the agreement includes the strongest environmental commitments that India has ever made in an FTA. Our key commitments and red lines have been maintained throughout, including protecting the NHS; ensuring that our immigration system is not affected; carving out defence and protecting our export controls; excluding sensitive agricultural sectors, including pork, chicken, eggs and milled rice; maintaining our food standards and animal welfare levels; and keeping the carbon border adjustment mechanism out of the deal.
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, so I am glad that the European Union has now reached political agreement on its own FTA with India, for which it seems the UK deal was used as a baseline, but the UK retains first mover advantage. I am hopeful that we will get to entry into force before the end of the summer, so that UK businesses can start exploiting the reduced tariffs this year, while the EU will still take some time to achieve ratification, and only the UK has secured access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market.
Let me make one final point. The UK is a trading nation: we rely on free and fair trade, and we believe that global trade needs a set of rules. The World Trade Organisation will meet in Cameroon in the next few weeks. We believe that it needs upholding and reforming so that it can tackle the challenges of today, including electronic commerce, unfair subsidies, dumping and secure supply chains with agility and dependability. However, we also believe that trade agreements such as these, along with our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, help to secure our prosperity and enhance our international standing. We are still pursuing new or enhanced deals with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Türkiye, Switzerland and Greenland, and we are completing the text of our economic prosperity deal with the United States of America and our deal with the European Union. I commend this deal to the House, and I congratulate the former Ministers who secured it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I am delighted to see not just the excellent Minister for Trade, but the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I did; just bank the win. I read that the Secretary of State is being earmarked as a caretaker Prime Minister, so we are pleased that he has the time to spend with us—I think we have 10 minutes before Labour colleagues have to run upstairs.
Richard Cobden said:
“I believe that Free Trade will do more to civilise the world than all the treaties of peace that have ever been signed.”
He was the former Member of Parliament for Stockport, but he was a resident in my own West Sussex constituency, near Midhurst. His advocacy of free trade, including in this House, was always about its benefits for ordinary people: cheaper food, higher wages and fewer incentives for people to wage destructive wars that had a huge impact on ordinary people.
We Conservatives agree. Those on the Conservative Benches will always be the party of free trade, where it benefits our country. That is why it was a Conservative Government who signed new landmark trade agreements with the EU, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and negotiated the entry of the UK to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It is why it was the Conservative Government who laid the foundations for this free trade agreement with India. And let us be absolutely clear: this agreement is a tangible benefit of the decision the British people made in 2016 to leave the political institution of Europe; the fruit of the independent trade policy we regained, allowing the United Kingdom to negotiate once again as a sovereign state, just like Canada, Australia and Switzerland —Britain first, not Britain hoping against experience that its interests would float to the top of a soup of 27 other conflicting flavours.
Since July 2024, the Indian economy has grown by 11%. For context, the European Union has grown by 1.9% in the same period. Under this Government, the British economy has grown by just 1.6%. Exports matter, so this deal has the potential to be a key part of a growth plan for our economy. However, as any business leader will tell us, the devil is not just in the detail of such deals, but in what is not in them. I welcome the excellent report by the Business and Trade Committee, which is very thorough and an important part of the scrutiny process of this House.
We are a nation for which services represent nearly half of our global exports. I am afraid it appears that the Government have accepted a deal that is disappointingly thin on the sectors where Britain leads the world. The inclusion of services in this deal was the No. 1 priority of the previous Government’s negotiations. Instead, this deal settles for locking in existing levels of liberalisation—all good—rather than breaking new ground on services. There is an absence of provisions for mobility to allow our service industries to really integrate in India, restricting our consultants, engineers and architects from practising on the ground.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend reflect on the view, which I hear a good deal in a constituency, which contains very many entrepreneurs both of Indian heritage and with connections to business in India, that this deal shows a Government who are not listening to the voice of business that has that level of experience, because they are missing out, as he is describing, on so many of the opportunities that those existing business links contain.
Andrew Griffith
Well, I was going to be generous to the Government and say something slightly positive. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Governments of all flavours could do an infinitely better job of listening to businesses. They are the people at the frontline in the real world. His constituents have very deep links to the economy of India and it represents a real opportunity. We support the deal, but the only tone today is one of slight regret about the missed opportunities. Of course, it is easy for a Government to get a deal if they take the deal being offered, rather than negotiating and seeking to improve that deal. Therein is some of the difference between the approach of our Government and—[Interruption.] Well, we did not get it because we were not willing to take the deal that was on the table. We were holding out and negotiating for a better deal.
Let me give the Minister an example of that—a quite surprising example, in many ways—which is the complete omission of a legal services sector deal from this agreement. The Law Society called that
“a missed opportunity for a significant breakthrough”.
The chair of the Bar Council said it was
“a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity”
missed. How ironic that a Government of lawyers, led by lawyers and stuffed full of lawyers, could not get even that aspect of the agreement across the line. The deal places a 36-month target—I hope it is a target, not an aspiration or ambition—for the conclusion of a mutual recognition of a professional qualifications agreement. That would be a great opportunity. Our services sector would welcome that, but I hope the Minister will agree with me that not to achieve that now would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It would be a humiliation for this Government and I hope he will address, when he winds-up, the precise plans to secure that agreement.
In a similar vein, the bilateral investment treaty that was planned to be agreed at the same time—it was in the original objectives for our deal—has also not been delivered. This is the deal that was offered, rather than the deal that could have been negotiated and improved. That leaves British investors exposed to sudden policy changes, unfair treatment and expropriation. I could, of course, be talking about the policies of this Government, but in this case I am talking about the Indian Government and the jeopardy for some significant British investors. Again, this is another missed opportunity—a deal that we support but that could have been better. I understand that the chief negotiator on the deal has confirmed that, sadly, there are no plans to return to the table to get an investment treaty across the line, but I would be very happy to stand corrected on that. Perhaps that point could be addressed in the Minister’s winding-up speech.
As we heard from the Minister, on day one the deal will grant Indian exporters of such wonders as textiles, gems and engineering goods immediate duty-free access to the British market. This is a welcome deflationary measure. It will come as good news for households as the price of goods in their weekly shops fall. Leather shoes, clothes, home furnishings and more will be cheaper under this deal. However, it is disappointing that this welcome reduction in tariffs is very far from symmetrical. Indian exporters benefit immediately, while British exporters sit in the waiting room. Scottish whisky producers, whom we have heard about, manufacturers of electric vehicles, the medical consumables industry and chemical producers will have to wait for between five and 10 years before tariffs are fully reduced.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman briefly mentions whisky. The deal is broadly welcomed by the Scottish whisky sector and I have welcomed it myself as an MP for a constituency with 49 distilleries—I am trying to visit them all. He talks about asymmetry in the deal, but is there not asymmetry in Labour Government policy, between the export deal, where they are trying to get the best possible deal for whisky, while whisky is still paying the highest levels of duty for alcohol in the UK? That is putting undue pressure on a sector that is already under pressure.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not want to simply agree with him for the sake of it: it is not easy for Chancellors of whatever flavour to balance the books, but where we have wonderful industries such as all our drinks and spirits industries, including, if I may say so, our English wine industry, the Government must do everything they can to promote them—
Andrew Griffith
And Welsh, and from other parts of this wonderful kingdom.
This Government, as the previous Government, have by and large got the importance of the wonderful Scottish whisky industry, but it is important to do anything that can be done to help. Of course, the way that one reduces taxes over time is by making tough decisions on Government spending, which would be one of the key things the Conservatives would do in order to be able to lower those taxes.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is no longer in his place, made an important point about the protection of ceramics and related industries, such as our brick and energy-intensive chemicals industries, which are all important. A trade deal, however wonderful it may or may not be, will do nothing to help the ruinously high energy costs faced by the ceramics, brick and chemicals industries, along with so many others. This debate is not about that issue and it is not the responsibility of the Minister, but it is nevertheless an important factor; if we are going to lower barriers and frictions so that we can boost trade, increase the prosperity of our citizens and grow our economy, that absolutely must involve the full stack, including energy and what one does about employment law and regulation.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I hope I am not stretching the boundaries of the debate excessively, but I would be interested to know whether the agreement has any implications for defence exports to India and, if it does, what safeguards would be in place, given the unhealthily close relationship between India and Russia.
Andrew Griffith
The document produced by the Select Committee lays out the impact for defence, modest as I believe it is. I will leave it to those on the Government Front Bench to answer my right hon. Friend’s important question about security—
Chris Bryant
I wonder if I could talk through the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis): our export control system for any exports from the UK into any other country in the world bears in mind diversion from one country to another. That is a very important part of what we look at. The FTA does not affect that process at all.
Andrew Griffith
I hope that my right hon. Friend is reassured to a degree by the Minister’s response. I will move on now—you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my speech is not as comprehensive as the work of the Select Committee.
I would be grateful if the Government could clarify a few points about the position on food and agricultural products. There are protections for sugar, chicken, eggs and pork, and that has been welcomed by producers. However, there are concerns from the British dairy industry about opening the market, which describes the deal as a one-way street: dairy is excluded from UK exports to India, yet tariffs on Indian dairy coming into the UK are removed.
Chris Bryant
I will try to keep up as we are going along, if that is okay. On dairy, I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making; it has been made to me before and was also made in Committee. However, I am not aware of any Indian cheese company that has been able to export into the UK, as it would still need a licence. We were very keen to secure arrangements so that we were not abandoning any of our food standards, which obviously have to be met before any export can come here.
Andrew Griffith
I will try to leave the Minister with a short list of questions, rather than going through each and every one as we go.
Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said—perhaps we can revert to this later—there are also concerns about the Government’s hypocrisy in respect of pesticides and animal welfare, particularly with regard to crustaceans. I do not know whether the Minister has quite the same degree of expertise in crustacean welfare and in particular prawn eyestalk ablation, which sounds more trivial here than it would to the prawn whose eyestalks are being ablated. Those concerns are particularly relevant because despite the Government publishing and vaunting their virtue in terms of animal welfare, these poor blinded prawns seem to be victims under this deal. [Interruption.] I would be happy to give way to the Minister on prawn eyestalk ablation, which is an important point; perhaps, on winding up, he could make a more general point on trade deals and how the Government will protect our animal welfare and food safety standards.
Andrew Griffith
I am in no way qualified to answer that. However, it is the Government’s position about crustacean welfare, and they should speak to it. Just before Christmas, they published a significant proposal to change the law on that. As ever in trade, this is not a point about the underlying fundamentals, on which the Minister will be advised by Government scientists and others—I did part of his job as Minister for Exports; it is a point about the symmetry and balance of the issue.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend will recall that during the debates about post-Brexit trade agreements, the highest possible standards of animal welfare were raised frequently across the House on a cross-party basis. The matter my hon. Friend is talking about involves swapping prawns and other types of seafood caught in British waters to the highest possible standards with creatures reared using a method that involves pulling off their eyeballs while they are alive in order for them to lay more eggs so that more prawns can be produced more cheaply. I am sure we would all agree that is cruel and would not meet the expectations set out across the House. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a powerful point that illustrates the asymmetry in this deal, which he is quite rightly seeking to criticise?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend puts the point in a better and more informed way than me. It is important, and it is for the Government to set out very clearly how they propose to maintain or create a level playing field on these matters so that producers operating here to British standards are not disadvantaged, while we all get the benefits of trade and prosperity that I spoke of.
Chris Bryant
We are all joking about it, but this is a serious matter. The centre of the point is that whatever the tariffs may do, companies can only sell products in the UK that meet our food standards—precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). In order to ensure that is true, companies have to have a licence to sell in the UK. In addition, all Indian aquaculture products are currently subject to intensified controls with 50% consignment checks at the border. This is one of the many areas where we need to ensure that we protect our producers in this country, who are abiding by very high standards. I could apply that to all the different agriculture and foods that we are talking about, as well as to aquaculture.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the Minister for that intervention; I drew some comfort from it, but we will have to see the detail of the exact crustacean protections we end up with.
Finally, there is one glaring area that—even beyond the missing benefits to our important services industry—was a point of difference in the negotiations that we conducted and a reason why, when we were in government, we did not consummate that deal and why the negotiations remained outstanding. The Leader of the Opposition has been very clear about this: when she was leading the negotiations, she refused to sign this deal because of the double contributions convention. The Minister will know precisely what I mean by that.
We still have not seen the detail of that convention, and every Member of the House should be concerned. This is a very limited part of the process of scrutiny of trade deals—the rights of Parliament are perhaps not fully discharged just by the CRaG process. However, we have not even seen what the Minister referred to earlier as the HMRC agreement on this. What it means in substance—I will choose my words very precisely—is that Indian workers who come here to work will not pay a penny in British national insurance contributions, and neither will their employers.
The Government decided that they would open this deal—this two-tier tax system for India—at precisely the same time as hiking their jobs tax on every single British worker. I am happy to be rebutted or corrected, but by my calculations, under this agreement it could be up to £10,000 a year cheaper to hire a software developer on an average British salary from India than to hire someone from Britain for the same role, as employers will not be liable for those national insurance contributions. These are big numbers, and this will mean a big disadvantage to hiring an identical British worker at a time when there are 9 million people of working age not in work and when unemployment is rising—in fact, it has risen every month under this Government.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does this not suggest that when a deal was presented to the then Conservative Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she declined to sign it because she judged it not in the British interest? It does rather seem as though this Government have rolled over on this key point, which will allow Indian firms to import Indian workers in preference to British ones.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The former Secretary of State—the current Leader of the Opposition—has been very clear that that was a deal breaker. It was deal or no deal, and if that had been an absolute red line, we would not have signed this deal. It is not a virtue to take any deal that is offered. As I say, the Conservatives are in favour of trade, and we value our relationship with India, but we would not have crossed that red line.
Iqbal Mohamed
Does the right hon. Member agree that anybody who comes to our country and does not pay into the system through national insurance and taxes should not be allowed to benefit from services that taxpayers fund, like the NHS, education, GPs, dentists and so on? It is a two-tier system if we are treating our care workers and healthcare professionals who come here on official visas differently from imported labour.
Andrew Griffith
I am glad to hear agreement across the House on the desire not to have a two-tier system. We all understand the need to pay our taxes to support our public services, but it will not feel right if two people are sitting cheek by jowl, side by side in the same place of employment—a factory or other work environment—but are contributing at a very different rate to the Exchequer for the public services that we all support.
Andrew Griffith
Let me finish my point, and then there will be plenty of opportunity for interventions. I will not anticipate the Minister’s point, but there are other agreements such as this in place—I want to be full and clear about that.
There are social security agreements where contributions are both paid in and taken out. We have them with the European Union, for example. They are a long-standing feature, and they were under previous Governments. Again, to be very clear and open, we also have a limited number of agreements like this with some selected other countries, including the high-skilled economies of Japan, South Korea and Chile and, to some degree, Canada. But we do not have an agreement like this of any sort with a mostly English-speaking nation of 1.5 billion people, all of whom would potentially be better off availing themselves of this arbitrage—this two-tier system—under this deal.
Astonishingly, this part of the deal was left out of UK Government communications, so not only do we have two-tier substance in terms of the economics of the deal; we also have two-tier communications. The Indian Government boasted about this element as a significant and attractive feature of the deal, but there was not a single mention of it in the UK Government communications. That, in and of itself, should send alarm bells ringing about this two-tier tax deal.
Chris Bryant
I was not going to make the point that the hon. Member went on to make—that his Government signed up to lots of similar arrangements—but I was going to respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). It is important that we make it clear that under the double contributions convention, a detached Indian worker and their employer in the UK would need to pay into the Indian provident fund. On top of that, they will need to pay £3,105 in NHS surcharges, and up to £769 in visa fees. On top of that, the employer would pay an immigration skills charge of £3,000, and £525 to issue a certificate of sponsorship, so I do not think that the numbers add up in the way that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley was suggesting.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The shadow Secretary of State has already spoken for longer than the Minister, which must be something of a record. I appreciate that there have been a lot of interventions on the shadow Secretary of State from Government Front Benchers, but perhaps he can draw his remarks to a close. The Minister will have ample time to make his points in the wind-up.
Andrew Griffith
I shall take good heed of those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We support having a sovereign trade policy, and this is an excellent example of where it could have advantages. We are talking about one of the largest economies on the planet, which is growing approximately five times faster than the European Union. However, the deal could have been better. We are passionate about supporting our investors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and the wonderful services industry. We believe that they can compete anywhere in the world, provided that the field is level and the rules are fair, but we did not need to get a “good enough” deal across the line. British businesses needed something with a really good kick in it to get this country growing. Instead of a vindaloo of a deal, the Prime Minister came back with a bag of soggy poppadoms.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
As I begin my remarks in this important debate, I want to be absolutely clear that I do not oppose free trade deals. They have immense benefits, as was set out by the Minister. For once, or certainly on this very rare occasion, I accept some of the points made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), about missed opportunities. There has been one big missed opportunity in this deal: at what point do we sacrifice our obligation to protect human rights in favour of free trade? That is what I will focus on.
The free trade agreement before us raises many serious questions about our trade policy and human rights, but for many of my constituents in Bradford East, the debate is about not abstract trade policy, or distant diplomatic calculations, but an issue very dear to their heart: Kashmir, which continues to be occupied. I represent thousands of British Kashmiris with close family ties to Jammu and Kashmir. For them, the actions of the Indian state are not theoretical, but lived realities, felt through family separation, fear, arbitrary detention and the systematic erosion of basic freedoms. That is why the UK-India free trade agreement raises such serious and urgent concerns. It is a major agreement with over 30 chapters, as pointed out by the Minister, yet it contains no explicit enforceable human rights clause. It goes much further than tariffs; it is about standards, co-operation and the institutional machinery that will shape the relationship for years to come. The central question for many of my constituents is: how can we seek to deepen economic co-operation with India while remaining silent on the grave ongoing human rights violations in Kashmir and beyond?
Let me be clear at the outset: economic engagement can never come at the expense of human rights, and must never come at the expense of the Kashmiri people. For nearly 80 years, Kashmiris have endured persecution, repression and injustice. In recent years, the situation has dramatically worsened. Since the illegal revocation of articles 370 and 35A in 2019, Indian-occupied Kashmir has experienced prolonged restrictions on civil liberties, mass surveillance, arbitrary detention and repeated internet shutdowns. Political dissent has been criminalised. Journalists have been silenced, and human rights defenders have been targeted.
These are not isolated incidents; they form part of a deliberate and sustained policy to strip Kashmiris of their dignity, voice and agency. I hear about this from the wider community I represent. Their family members have been detained without charge, have their communications monitored, and have their basic freedoms denied. This is not an abstract foreign policy issue; it is a human rights crisis that reaches directly into our communities here in Britain.
Political prisoners remain behind bars without due process. Khurram Parvez, a globally respected human rights defender, has spent years imprisoned for documenting abuses. Yasin Malik has recently been convicted, following proceedings that have been widely condemned for lacking fairness and transparency. These cases symbolise a broader reality about the use of national security legislation to silence dissent, criminalise peaceful political activity and intimidate those who speak out. Despite that context, the UK-India free trade agreement contains no binding human rights safeguards, no accountability mechanisms and no credible system of monitoring. There is no dedicated human rights chapter, and under the agreement, no monitoring body would be required to monitor human rights risks, such as the risk of arbitrary detention and repression.
The Government present this agreement as a landmark deal, designed to deepen economic ties and open new markets, but trade agreements are not neutral instruments simply for economic gain; they reflect political choices and moral priorities. This agreement seeks to formalise and deepen economic co-operation with India, while deliberately excluding enforceable human rights provisions. What kind of message does that send? It sends the dangerous message that human rights violations can be overlooked in the pursuit of market access. It tells those responsible that there will be dialogue, but no consequences.
Engagement without conditions does not drive reform; it signals impunity. Independent organisations, including UN bodies and human rights non-governmental organisations, have documented widespread, systematic torture and ill treatment by Indian police and security forces, including custodial violence and abuse of pre-trial detention. India signed the UN convention against torture in 1997, yet by choice remains one of the few countries in the world never to have ratified it. The House will know that torture is absolutely prohibited under international law. That is not culturally relative and not negotiable, and it cannot be ignored while negotiating preferential trade access.
I also note that the agreement’s labour commitments are explicitly excluded from the dispute settlement mechanism, which means that they cannot be enforced in practice in the way that provisions in the core economic chapters can. If we are serious about a modern partnership, then workers’ rights and decent standards cannot be treated as optional add-ons. Warm words are welcome, but without clear accountability, they offer little reassurance to those at risk of exploitation, and they leave an imbalance between what the agreement compels and what it merely encourages.
Parliament’s duty to get the safeguards right is all the greater, given that UK-India trade is at around £43 billion, and given the deep ties across our communities. It is troubling that there are no monitoring triggers, safeguards or accountability mechanisms that speak to Kashmiri or minority protections. There are no graduated remedies for serious abuses—there is nothing short of tearing up the whole agreement—and there is no meaningful lever to use when violations occur. The agreement may have come before us, but what real influence does Parliament have, even in a debate like today’s? What ability do we have to add safeguards or human rights clauses?
Let me use the little influence that we have to ask the Minister some questions; I look forward to direct answers —he is normally very good at giving those. How can the Government justify advancing a trade agreement of this scale while excluding binding human rights protections, particularly in the light of the situation in Kashmir, which continues to worsen? What mechanisms are there, linked directly to this agreement, for monitoring and responding to credible reports of human rights violations? What assurances can be given to British Kashmiri communities that their concerns are not being sidelined in the name of economic convenience? Finally, the Minister will be aware that Indian-occupied Kashmir remains disputed territory. What safeguards are in place regarding any trade that occurs, as a result of this agreement, directly with an occupied territory, as recognised under international law? The agreement remains silent on that important point.
This agreement is not yet in force, and Parliament still has a responsibility. We must insist that trade policy strengthens justice, rather than undermines it. We must refuse to send the message that human rights, especially the rights of an oppressed people, are negotiable. For the Kashmiri community I represent, I cannot stay silent and see injustice continuing. I cannot accept a trade agreement that deepens economic ties while turning its back on human dignity and justice. The world has ignored Kashmir for far too long. Britain must no longer be part of that silence. We have a moral, legal and historical duty, and it is about time we honoured it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding the business that I founded in 1996, BDA partners, in which I still hold a stake but have no role or responsibility.
Economically, this agreement offers some benefits. As per the Government’s impact assessment, and as the Minister stated, the UK’s gross domestic product is estimated to increase by 0.13% as a result of this FTA. That is equivalent to £4.8 billion. That is in the long run— 0.13% by 2040. Let us put that into context: the hit to our economy from Brexit is around 6% to 8% of GDP—in the region of £210 billion—so its impact is 44 times larger. That is now, compared with the 0.13% we get in 15 years’ time.
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Gentleman quotes a Brexit hit of 6% to 8% of GDP. Has he just invented that figure or has he got some evidence for it?
Charlie Maynard
The National Bureau of Economic Research, in the United States.
Charlie Maynard
I certainly like the States.
While we are making comparisons with Europe, I note that under the UK’s free trade agreement 92% of our exports to India will enter tariff-free. Under the EU’s deal, 96.6% of its exports can enter India tariff-free. Perhaps there is some logic, after all, to bigger trade blocs having more leverage. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) about national insurance contributions. I am also deeply concerned about that, as is my party. I also take the Minister’s point about visa fees and everything else, but by the time we add all those together, I think that UK Inc—whether in my constituency of Witney or across the UK—will still be at a major disadvantage. This risks undermining British labour—
Charlie Maynard
I really hope I am wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Moving beyond the numbers, I highlight the concerns of civil society groups, which many Members have mentioned, about clauses in the agreement on labour, the environment and human rights being characterised by a pattern of aspirational language and a lack of enforceability, with the result that they are not subject to the dispute settlement mechanism—cute words but no teeth. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a set of minimum standards to benchmark future trade agreements, which would include human rights, conflict and oppression and environmental, labour and safety standards, where they can be negotiated, based on a UK trade and human rights policy and a trade and development policy.
I want to ask some question about India’s role in busting the trade sanctions that the UK has put on Russia. To recap: Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, and both the UK and the EU banned direct imports of Russian oil and petroleum products in December 2022. However, a loophole stayed open that allowed derivative products including petrochemicals imported from third countries into the UK to continue using Russian-origin crude oil and gas. In July 2025, the EU amended its sanctions legislation to target imports of petrochemicals from third countries that used Russian-origin oil. This has now taken effect in the EU. The EU has blocked this loophole. In October 2025, the UK announced a further sanctions package targeting specific third-country entities that supported Russian fossil fuels. That included India’s Nayara Energy, which is part-owned by Russia’s state oil company Rosneft.
On 2 December 2025, the Trade Minister told the Business and Trade Committee, of which I am a member,
“we want India to do less business with Russia because we want Russia’s machine to be debilitated. There are lots of things that I want to achieve in the world and not all of them can be achieved through FTAs.”
The Trade Minister and the trade team fully understood, therefore, that India was, and is, selling Russia-originated petchems into the UK. We had leverage when we were negotiating the FTA, but instead the UK decided to turn a blind eye to India’s sanction-busting, helping Russia’s war effort. This continues right now, with the UK importing jet fuel and other petrochemicals from India that are manufactured with Russian oil and gas. The refining loophole is still there because His Majesty’s Government have not yet legislated to ban imports of derivatives from Russian crude. The Government say that they expect a ban to be enforced in spring 2026, whenever that is.
Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air shows that between the ban on direct imports coming into force in 2022 and the end of 2025, the UK has imported £4 billion-worth of jet fuel and other oil products made at refineries in India and Turkey, which run partially on Russian crude, and that every month the UK delays banning oil products made from Russian crude, it is effectively writing the Kremlin a cheque for around £44 million.
It gets worse. Four of the five largest oil refiners in India are majority-owned by the Indian Government, with Reliance being the fifth, so it is not just the Indian refiners that are helping Russia by selling us petchems; the state of India itself is right now selling jet fuel and other petrochemicals derived from Russian oil and gas into the UK. What have we done about it? We have signed a free trade agreement with India. To add insult to injury, the loophole to be closed, as far as I can tell, just covers oil derivatives, but petrochemicals are derived from natural gas, too. What is happening with those?
I have five questions for the Minister. First, what is his justification for signing an FTA with a country that is helping Russia to breach its sanctions? Secondly, was this issue discussed in the FTA negotiations? Thirdly, does the planned ban cover petrochemicals imported from India and other third countries derived from either oil or gas? Fourthly, please will the Minister tell us the specific date on which the ban will come into force, what steps will be required to effect it and what the timeline is for each of those steps? Finally, what are the reasons for the delay in implementing the ban? Why have the Government not already closed the loophole?
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I welcome the UK-India free trade agreement. It is truly historic and a groundbreaking deal for the UK, for Scotland and for my West Dunbartonshire constituency. As the Minister said, India is the fastest-growing country in the G20 and it is set to become the third-largest economy in the world by 2028. For this reason, it is crucial to secure a strong and mutual relationship with India. In the current geopolitical climate of uncertainty and instability, these relationships are more important than ever. This Government have delivered a favourable deal that brings hope and investment for the future. Through this deal, we are making significant progress towards achieving our growth mission.
For West Dunbartonshire, the impact of the new trade deal will be immediate and tangible. It will result in much-needed investment for West Dunbartonshire and its residents. The Scotch whisky industry supports thousands of jobs in my constituency, and this trade deal will hopefully result in many more. These businesses provide skilled, well-paid jobs and anchor our local economy. It is a vital industry to my constituency for workers, local economies and tourism, and it is one that we are very proud of.
My constituency is home to Chivas Brothers, the Auchentoshan distillery, the Loch Lomond Group and a number of smaller distilleries. The Chivas Kilmalid bottling site in Dumbarton employs more than 1,100 people on permanent contracts alone, and we are proud to be home to its state-of-the-art bottling site. Its recent multimillion-pound investment programme continues at pace. This deal gives the industry the added confidence to invest and, in doing so, gives the workforce added confidence and security in their future.
Scotch whisky distilleries are among the most visited tourist attractions in Scotland, drawing domestic and international visitors who support our hospitality sector. Long-term export growth will, of course, strengthen this. Scotch whisky has faced sky-high import tariffs for decades—as high as 150%—and under this new agreement, those costly tariffs will be cut in half and further reduced to 40% within 10 years. Furthermore, the deal is expected to increase spirit exports to India by 180%. This is a massive win for Scotland, for the whisky industry and for West Dunbartonshire. Increased bilateral trade, increased wages and GDP growth are set to grow the Scottish economy by £190 million a year, and the Scotch Whisky Association has described the tariff cuts as “transformational”, with the potential to increase exports by around £1 billion over the next five years.
This deal is a clear statement of intent that the UK is open to trade, serious about growth and prepared to engage constructively with the world. However, these deeper relationships bring deeper responsibilities. I am encouraged by the growth in relations between India and Britain, which is why I hope that we can open up meaningful dialogue about diplomatic issues.
As most of the House will be aware, my West Dunbartonshire constituent Jagtar Singh Johal has been arbitrarily detained in India since 2017. It has been over eight years now—3,020 days. In 2022, the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention concluded that his imprisonment was arbitrary and called for his immediate release. Last year, he was acquitted of all charges with respect to the only case against him that has proceeded to trial. Despite this, he continues to be detained on eight other cases—all similar charges with the same witnesses and the same discredited evidence. We must do more as a Government than simply raise his case with Indian counterparts. It is often remarked that we must respect the Indian judicial system. However, any legal system that remands an individual—a UK citizen—for over eight years is not worth our respect. Worryingly, he has recently been transferred to Tihar jail in New Delhi, which is infamous for its overcrowding and violence. I hope that his case can be resolved and his release advanced following this closer and friendlier relationship with India.
I advise the House that today is Jagtar’s birthday. He will be 39 today; this will be his ninth birthday detained in an Indian prison. His family in West Dunbartonshire are deeply concerned about his wellbeing. They have shown extraordinary resilience and dignity over many years, and they continue to hope for progress.
This agreement marks a new phase in our UK-India relationship. It establishes regular channels of engagement and strengthens trust between our two Governments. I truly hope that this renewed partnership can support continued constructive discussions about Jagtar’s case, with the aim of securing his release and return to his family in Dumbarton. I urge the Government to continue raising this matter consistently and carefully with the Indian authorities, and to ensure that Jagtar and his family know that he remains a priority to us.
On behalf of West Dunbartonshire, I warmly welcome this comprehensive economic and trade agreement. It is a deal that will deliver real economic benefit by supporting jobs, driving investment and strengthening our whisky industry. It means opportunity for workers, business, tourism and future generations. It is a major milestone in our relationship with India—one that is future-focused and built on renewed trust. It is testament to this Government’s promise to deliver, and it positions our United Kingdom to grow and compete in a rapidly changing world.
The deal invests in our future and will have a real, meaningful impact in my constituency. I fully support it and look forward to seeing it deliver for West Dunbartonshire and the United Kingdom as a whole, but I also hope that this closer relationship can help bring resolution to the deeply troubling case of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal and deliver the outcome that he and his family deserve.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The Indian Government are highly unusual in their approach to trade agreements. Unlike most other countries, India has a long-standing policy of using trade deals to try to secure favourable treatment in the immigration system. This deal, unfortunately, is no different. Under the terms of the agreement, Indian companies will be able to transfer their workers to this country far more easily and, once they are here, those workers will be able to avoid national insurance for up to three years, needing only to pay into the Indian social security system—payments that are, unsurprisingly, much lower than here in the UK. This national insurance holiday will make it much cheaper to hire Indian workers, especially in fields such as IT and engineering, than domestic talent.
Imagine a British IT firm is set to hire a computer programmer for £60,000 a year. On top of that, an employer must pay £8,250 in national insurance. That totals £68,250. To hire someone on the same salary, their Indian competitor would only need to pay about £1,470 to the Indian employee provident fund, to which mandatory contributions are capped at 15,000 rupees a month—about £120. That totals £61,470. Under the Government’s deal, it would, therefore, be at least 10% cheaper to hire an Indian worker than a British one. That is absurd.
Iqbal Mohamed
Does the hon. Member agree that employees of Indian companies who are sent here to work for three years and who then may stay on would normally not be paid the British salary level and would be happy to accept a lower salary? As well as saving on national insurance, these companies will be saving a lot more money by underpaying their employees.
Katie Lam
That is an important point because, as I am about to talk about, we have double contribution conventions with other countries, but not with other countries with economies like India’s where so many people—well north of a billion people—would be happy to do these jobs for much lower salaries than our workers at home would expect.
As I say, it is true that we have double contribution conventions with other countries. These aim to simplify intracompany transfers for international businesses. However, these agreements are usually struck with countries that have compatible economies, similar educational outcomes and comparable social security systems, such as Japan or Canada. India stands alone as by far the largest and least wealthy country on the list. In exchange for a deal with India, this Government have chosen to sell out skilled British workers who have worked hard to get where they are by allowing Indian firms to undercut them. We will see highly skilled British workers in cutting-edge fields, such as engineering, priced out by Indian workers. Given the relative markets and educational systems in the UK and India, we should not expect that always to be a like-for-like swap in terms of talent.
We have already seen this model take hold in the United States. There, Indian consultancy firms lease their workers to American companies, who are then able to pay an Indian worker far less than they would need to pay an American. The result has been a massive expansion in the number of lower-cost Indian workers at the expense of American workers. Most other countries are perfectly happy to strike trade deals without forcing us to undercut our own workforce. This Government should have expected India to do the same.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I want to start with huge thanks to my colleagues on the Business and Trade Committee for helping to inform the debate with a report that was agreed cross-party and that provided, if anything, a reasonably warm welcome for the Government’s work in securing this free trade agreement, but with a number of caveats, which I will touch on.
Before I set out the Committee’s evaluation of the agreement, it is worth marking this moment. The Minister, who is not known for underselling such moments in the House, actually could have sold this one rather more. Although we do not know quite when he will get the Gulf co-operation deal, which is no doubt imminent, over the line, or the Swiss deal—presumably it is not too far off—this could well be the year when he crowns a number of free trade agreements signed since we left the European Union. They could, in effect, create a triple ocean system of alliances that basically brings UK free trade agreements to about 46 countries in all, home to 2.5 billion people and blessed with something like 60% of world output. That is quite an achievement.
Pro-Europeans on the Government Benches will, of course, say that we can now look at the prize of what free trade agreements have brought compared with the losses entailed since we left the European Union. About £14 billion of GDP uplift is forecast as a result of the free trade agreements that we have signed. That is much less than the perhaps £140 billion hit to GDP that we have had since leaving the European Union. But I will not provoke you, Madam Deputy Speaker, by dwelling on that point for too long. None the less, this India free trade agreement is the keystone of that new architecture. It connects us to one of the world’s fastest growing economies and anchors us in the Indo-Pacific for decades to come. It is also worth saying that this is a significant moment for India, because this is not the only deal that India has signed, as the Minister said; it has also signed the EU deal, and it appears that there is a deal with the United States. India is on the cusp of the biggest transformation in its trade policy since independence. It is a country that has long been defined by its protectionism, but it now chooses to use its trade agreements as the anchors for ambitious domestic reform. If these agreements hold, as I hope they will, with the exception of agriculture, India is now moving from selective liberalisation to something approximating a near-open economy. That is a very significant moment in India’s long history, home as it is to about a sixth of humanity.
These trade deals are not the traditional kind of “Swiss cheese deals” with lots of carve-outs, delays and exemptions. India is now set to almost fully liberalise its manufacturing sector within seven to 10 years. That is a step change by any historical standard. For the first time, India has agreed deals that will be policed by powerful external partners, not just the Minister—a powerful interlocutor in any trade negotiation—but by the combined might of the European Commission.
For an Indian Government who have been protectionist by conviction for a long time, this represents an important reversal of deep nationalist instincts. As one of the world’s great homes of free trade, our nation should celebrate that. I hope that the Minister can use Delhi’s new-found philosophy in his conversations at the World Trade Organisation and elsewhere over the course of the year. Let us face it: we all need more allies for free trade in this world. If we are to build what the Finnish call “values-based multilateralism”, which is probably the best safeguard for peace in this world, India’s role in promoting free trade could be an important component. Another important dimension of that new posture relates to China. If India does indeed grow a low-cost manufacturing sector, the world will need to depend much less on China.
All in all, it is important that the UK has played its role in securing that agreement. The Committee’s report confirms that the agreement secures substantial tariff liberalisation in what is a highly protected market. As the Minister said, Indian tariffs are reduced or eliminated —by our reckoning—on 92% of UK exports by value, with around 64% of tariff lines liberalised on day one. The Government modelling, such as it is—always a bit speculative; always some interesting assumptions; always a bit long term; and always a bit difficult to pressure-test—suggests that the deal will add nearly £5 billion a year to UK GDP by 2040, and raises UK-India trade by £25.5 billion. Those are the numbers that the Minister rehearsed in his opening speech tonight.
The Committee’s analysis, however, presents more meaningful numbers for UK business. The £400 million-worth of tariff savings in year one is real revenue for UK businesses. That will flatter the bottom line, and, for businesses that are under pressure for reasons that we will set out in a report on Wednesday, it could provide much important cash flow. Those tariff savings could rise to about £3.2 billion over 10 years, as export volumes improve. There will be clear future gains for particular sectors. We think there could be a significant prize in the automotive industry, although there are implementation challenges, and clarity is required on how the quotas will work in practice.
As the Minister said, and as we heard from other hon. Members, spirits exporters will do extremely well from this new bargain. They will see reductions in the extremely high tariffs of today. As the Minister belaboured, UK firms will for the first time secure access to India’s central Government procurement market. That is a very large number. Whether our firms can genuinely compete for those new contracts is something that the Committee plans to study carefully.
When the deal was signed and first published, there was a lot of noise in the media about migration and mobility, and the Committee took a lot of evidence on that. We concluded that the agreement is not, in fact, a big migration deal, and nor does it materially change overall migration policy. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), pointed out well, it provides limited facilitation of mobility for skilled professionals linked to trade and services delivery. It could go much further in the future, but given where the Home Office positions itself on that policy at the moment, we accept that there will not be much progress in the near term.
The other real advances reflect years of negotiation and should not be dismissed, but the Committee wishes to underline that there are very significant risks attached to this agreement. India is not a frictionless market; tariffs were never the only barrier. The regulatory system in India is complex, decentralised and highly discretionary. Many of the barriers—be they licensing requirements or certification documentation—are at the state level, and the state-level variation, and state-level stubbornness in bringing those barriers down, will require an awful lot of work in India by His Majesty’s Government. That is why the successes of this agreement depend less on what is written in the treaty text, and far more on whether firms can operationalise it in day-to-day, week-to-week business.
I am glad that the Minister sought to take this bull by the horns in his opening remarks, because we are being asked to debate a treaty at a time when the Department for Business and Trade is seeking 40% reductions in export support staff. He went out of his way to stress that those headcount reductions would not be in India—I think that was the guarantee that he gave the House. That is important because those officials are responsible for helping firms to navigate the rules of origin, quota management, regulatory blockages and enforcement failures. They will also be required to staff a lot of the working groups that he and his counterpart will oversee. I worry that the reduction in export support staff in the United Kingdom will deny firms in Britain the knowledge and connections they might need to exploit the full possibilities of this new agreement.
Iqbal Mohamed
The UK is well regulated: we have auditing and verification, and there is a level of trust in the system for products, services, food, pharmaceuticals and agriculture. I am a big fan of India—my heritage is Indian, and my family is from India, so I am not here to criticise India unnecessarily—but the culture of compliance there is not on the same level or as embedded as it is in Europe and the UK. We would need more audits and external inspections to confirm that the products coming to our shores meet our standards, and for that the Government must invest more in resources, not reduce team sizes. Does the right hon. Member agree?
Liam Byrne
The hon. Member is exactly right. When the Committee published our report, we lamented that there was not a full-scale, full-blown implementation plan alongside the proposals. To a degree, those are difficult things to write, because it is difficult to forecast how quickly the treaty will go through the ratification process needed in India, for example, but we heard evidence that some markets—not least in automotives—had been chilled. Of course, if people know that there are huge tariff and price savings on the way, why would they not delay their purchase rather than make it today? We think that there could have been some wisdom in at least attempting an implementation plan, not least a resource plan that goes alongside the treaty—and perhaps even something tabled in time for tonight’s debate, to reassure the House that the Government will watch the implementation of this deal like a hawk.
The Select Committee has decided to go to India in March to understand how this deal will be implemented in real life. If our export support work is hollowed out, the consequences will be predictable: smaller exporters will walk away, utilisation rates for the treaty will remain low, and the headline gains will fail to reach the wider economy and benefit the constituents who sent us to this House to debate this treaty. I hope that the Minister will, as quickly as he can, rustle up an implementation plan to tell us how the agreement will be implemented. I very much hope that he will be able to align the ambitions for the treaty with the level of resource that he and his Department are investing in it.
The House will want to know that the Committee also tested the treaty against the deals secured by our allies in the European Union and the United States. Compared with the EU-India deal, it seems that the UK has moved faster and secured earlier liberalisation on some tariff lines. We have liberalised 92% of the value of our exports, while the EU has secured 96.6% of its exports, but both were for roughly the same level of market access offered to India—offers covering over 99% of India’s exports by value to the UK and EU markets.
The EU deal obviously covers a much wider volume of trade than we deliver with India, so the EU will therefore enjoy much bigger total tariff savings and a much bigger quota access, particularly for the automotive sector, among others. However, as the Opposition spokesman rightly flagged, there was limited progress on services—we flagged that, too. Services are the lifeblood of the British economy and of our exports—we are a services superpower. The EU’s negotiating position appears at first blush to be broader and deeper, but the final outcomes will remain unclear until the final text is published.
Compared with the United States, the contrast is different again. It appears that the White House has prioritised strategic leverage and tariff pressure over comprehensive liberalisation, extracting concessions through market power, not through traditional FTA approaches. The UK has chosen a different path: ruled-based, negotiated commitments and long-term engagement. I think that choice can work for us, as long as we are ruthless about ensuring good implementation.
We are sceptical about the level of services mobility that has been delivered, and about the absence of a bilateral investment treaty—we think that is a significant gap in our long-term framework. We also recognise that policy volatility and regulatory risk still matter. In particular, India’s record on investor protection remains uneven, and its tax administration is still too often used in a way that is, frankly, weaponised. Ensuring that we have good ways to monitor and escalate this will be important if the deal is to be a success.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) flagged up, some UK sectors, like textiles and ceramics, will face increased competitive pressure, and although the agreement does contain binding human rights provisions, the responsibilities of UK firms do not end at the border. Being strong on human rights protection, upgrading the dysfunctional Trade Remedies Authority and pressuring the Competition and Markets Authority to publish a foreign subsidy control regime would be extremely welcome.
The final point I want to flag is an issue that came up during the Minister’s appearance in front of the Committee, and I have not heard enough tonight or since he came to the Committee about its progress. The reality is that India remains one of the biggest customers of Russian oil. That money is fuelling Putin’s war machine, and as recently as January, His Majesty’s Government had not introduced controls that were in place in the European Union to ensure that oil derivatives made from Russian oil were banned from this country. Indeed, when Politico reported on this earlier in the year, it noted that something like one in six units of Britain’s aviation fuel imports were derived from Russian oil. That is not something that the Minister will want to tolerate for very long. For a long time, he has been one of the leading voices in the House in standing up to Putin and the evil of Russia, so I hope during the wind-ups he will say more about exactly what he is doing, along with his colleagues, to ensure that we are stopping the possibilities of importing Russian oil derivatives from India.
In conclusion, our overall take is that this is a good deal that is in the UK national interest, but I do want to supply one final note of dissent. When the CRaG legislation was introduced to the House in 2010, it was always the intention of Parliament that when free trade deals came for debate, there would be a votable motion. That would allow Parliament to exercise the licence that it was promised to delay ratification if it was discontent with the terms of an agreement before us. I am grateful to the Leader of the House and the Minister for ensuring that there is a general debate tonight, but it is not a debate on a votable motion. If this Parliament is to be a strong watchdog and guardian of the Executive, it is important that what were once prerogative powers are transferred to us, here in this House. I hope that this is the last debate on a free trade agreement that takes place on a general motion; in a democracy, we decide things by voting.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
May I thank the officials who have been working with the Minister on this trade deal? I am sure he will not mind me doing so. These trade deals are difficult, and they take a while to come to fruition. I would also like to acknowledge the reduction on whisky duty—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) rightly highlighted, that has to be matched by domestic policy towards the whisky industry. That being said, I know that distilleries such as Arbikie in my constituency, which trade globally, will be absolutely delighted with that measure. It would be helpful, as we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench, to know more about some of the safeguards that have been put in place in relation to food and drink; the Minister has mentioned some, and I hope he will mention a little more later on.
This is exactly the kind of deal that we were told only Brexit Britain could deliver—that only if the UK left the European Union would we be able to deliver these kinds of deals. Except that the EU has gone and done exactly the same. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that all that stuff about Brexit Britain was absolute nonsense, and that the EU has been able to do exactly the same!
Stephen Gethins
It would be remiss of me not to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Jim Allister
What the hon. Member has not mentioned is that it took the EU 20 years to get a deal with India. It took the United Kingdom three.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) says that I have not mentioned that, but I had just started. Of course, he represents a part of the United Kingdom that we have all been told gets the best of both worlds by being in the single market and the customs union. Imagine: the best of both worlds, as we have been told by Conservative and Labour Members!
On that point, will the Minister tell the House why the EU has been able to remove more tariffs on its EU goods? There is also—I wonder whether he will talk about this—a stronger commitment on climate sustainability as well as trading, including elements dealing with climate change. Of course, on bilateral income, although the EU is a bigger market and therefore the figures will be bigger, we know that the percentage for EU savings is also higher. I know that the Minister used to be a European enthusiast, although since he has gone into government that has dissipated somewhat.
Iqbal Mohamed
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that being inside the EU would have given us much more bargaining power? The reason the EU has a better deal with India is because it has collective bargaining with so many countries. We are a lone wolf, a little island, and countries agreeing trade deals with us know that they have got us over a barrel.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member is right. The UK as a second-tier power has left itself poorer, as the Minister, to his credit, has acknowledged, as did the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard); it is just a pity that the Liberal Democrats do not agree with me and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that we should rejoin.
Stephen Gethins
I did say that the previous intervention would be my last, but I really ought to give way to the Minister.
Chris Bryant
If the hon. Member is in favour of collective bargaining, surely he is in favour of Scotland doing its collective bargaining within the United Kingdom.
Stephen Gethins
But if only we were listened to! We feel about as listened to as the leader of the Scottish Labour party at the moment, and that is not terribly well listened to. I am a great believer in a 21st-century model of Union based on the treaties—one that listens to its different member states, makes its members richer and gives them more rights, rather than a pretty out-of-date and outmoded 18th-century version of the Union. I am glad the Minister has given me the opportunity to make that point.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) rightly talked about services and other issues. The EU has negotiated higher levels of freedom of movement. On services—again, it would be remiss of me not to talk about the higher education sector, and I wonder whether the Minister will mention that when he sums up. He will be aware of the huge impact that trade with India has on our higher education sector. In Dundee, for example, there was a huge amount of student recruitment from India—more than from the entire European Union, although post Brexit that fell off and we were left more isolated. There were 810 Indian students in 2022-23, and 365 in 2024-25—a decrease which led to that university’s significant financial crisis. It is not alone in that within the higher education sector.
The former principal, Shane O’Neill, talked about the “negative impact” of UK policy, and Universities Scotland has said that the loss of dependants and the “toxic” rhetoric around migration in the UK have had detrimental impact on the higher education sector. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I still do a little bit of teaching at the University of St Andrews, and I have to mention the value that comes from having more international universities. It is not just about the value that comes from the income; it is the value to the richness of the teaching regime, through our students having access to others from across the world, and to our research. It is exceptionally important. I wonder whether the Minister will touch on that point, because UK policy has had a hugely detrimental impact on my constituency, particularly in relation to the financial challenges faced by the University of Dundee, and I am truly sorry to say that we saw the toxic legacy of the Conservatives’ migration policy continued by the Labour party in government.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North spoke about scrutiny. If we were Members of the European Parliament we would get full access to the trade agreements, so will the Minister look at the way that the European Parliament deals with issues such as voting rights, scrutiny and publication, and see what examples of good practice the UK Parliament could pursue?
I am glad that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) has not taken up the offer of being across the road at No. 10 and that he is here. I am pleased that he raised his constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal —he made a great case and, if he does not mind me saying, continues the good work done by Martin Docherty-Hughes. I think we all want to wish Mr Johal a happy birthday, but we all sincerely hope that he will have a happier birthday this time next year. I thank the hon. Member for his work, and I add my voice to those asking the Minister to respond.
Finally, a number of hon. Members have raised the question of Russian oil. Will the Minister set out what is happening with Russian oil, what conversations were had with Indian officials and whether there are any refineries that could be targeted as part of the broader sanctions process?
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We all want a trade deal—a symbiotic relationship through which not just our country succeeds, but any other country that we trade with also succeeds—but that must not and cannot be a compromise that undermines the core British value of upholding the law, as well as ethical and moral values. However, when it comes to this agreement, that is exactly what we have done. Our commitment to human rights, climate change and justice have been sidelined for obvious commercial gain, and this kind of moral weakness has become a defining feature of pretty much everything that this Government have done on the world stage, discarding human rights at the first sign of pushback and branding cowardice as pragmatism.
Time and again we have seen the same story. We all know that when the Prime Minister went to China, the Uyghurs—who we all know face forced assimilation, abuse and genocide in Xinjiang—were the last item on his agenda, if not left out entirely. Today, British Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years in jail for defending democracy in Hong Kong, so it is clear that any attempts to move the dial on that front have failed miserably.
Without doubt, the same can be said of the Prime Minister’s trip to India. He promised to raise the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, who many hon. Members have mentioned—a British Sikh who has been imprisoned for eight years without conviction, all because he stood up for the most basic human rights for Sikhs in India. Environmental and labour standards have been neglected too. The Government refused even to complete an independent human rights risk assessment that would have highlighted the violations that British money was at risk of perpetuating. That refusal speaks volumes.
Nowhere is this Government’s moral abrogation more glaring than in their silence on Kashmir. A region born out of the catastrophic failure of partition in 1947, Kashmir has endured decades of broken promises and betrayed commitments, yet the Prime Minister did not even pretend to raise its plight with Prime Minister Modi. For a people long accustomed to British indifference, this was simply the latest insult. The region is not only occupied partly by India, but had its constitutional autonomy removed in 2019. For decades, the people of Kashmir have seen their most fundamental rights trampled upon; we have military occupation, political repression, arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings, and restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly.
The suffering endured by the Kashmiri people at the hands of India is nothing short of horrifying, and yet it is in that context of systemic and unashamed oppression that Kashmiri people’s fight for self-determination continues to be ignored, overlooked by nations that are more interested in kowtowing to an occupying power for economic gain. For more than 75 years, successive British Governments have washed their hands of a crisis they helped to create, hiding behind the fiction that it is merely a matter for India and Pakistan.
Even now, when we have presidency of the United Nations Security Council, we are silenced by our political objectives and paralysed when it comes to addressing injustice around the world. This Government are always talking about their non-tolerance of affronts to justice, but when the time comes to act on those promises, they falter. It is not just about priorities—it is a sign of the discrimination that this Government are willing to tolerate on our own shores, when it suits their interest. It speaks to the responsibilities they are willing to flout when sorting out the mess that our empire left behind.
Wherever there are human rights violations, we cannot neglect our moral and legal obligations abroad for quick wins at home. Just as there should be with any trade deal struck by this nation, the free trade agreement with India should have included a clause that made the benefits of trade conditional upon the protection of human rights, the release of political prisoners, the enforcement of labour standards and the liberation of the oppressed. I heard the Minister mention the fact that we have such a clause, but it is not enforceable; unfortunately, that might as well not have been included in the documentation, because it has no bite.
If there are no meaningful sanctions to deter nations from committing such atrocities, how can we expect them to change? I gently request that the Government reflect on how committed they truly are to upholding international law and on their willingness to have tough conversations with our allies. In a world where, I am afraid to say, we are losing international law and the values aligned to it, Britain must be a binding force that holds it together no matter what. I echo what the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has said repeatedly in this Chamber: we must uphold our moral and legal obligations. Wherever there is injustice, we must be the force that stands up to it.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It would remiss of me not to touch on the fact that the roots of this trade deal stretch back to the previous Conservative Government, and not to mention that the then Secretary of State Alister Jack—now Lord Jack of Courance—sent an aircraft carrier stuffed with dancers and pipers from the Edinburgh military tattoo to India, to highlight the unfairness of the regime that whisky faced out there, which this deal does much to address.
I have the pleasure of serving on the Business and Trade Committee, chaired adroitly by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). When we talk about these trade deals in the Committee, the Government figures worry me, and he touched on them himself. We have heard time and again that the expected lift in GDP from this deal is around £4.8 billion, or 0.13% of the UK’s GDP, but those figures seem incredibly low. That may be because of a lack of ambition—I hope not—or because of caution on the part of the Government, which is perfectly understandable, but it is incredible that we are expecting so little from these trade deals. We could raise those figures—they must be a floor, not a ceiling—and do much better.
A difficulty that hon. Members have touched on is that the Department for Business and Trade is cutting its head count. Of course the bloated state has to be reduced, but we have to apply those cuts judiciously. It is good that the in-country team in India is staying put, but if the teams in the UK that help businesses here to export are cut, then we will have a problem, and we will kill growth.
We expect modest gains from the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, yet it offers a tremendous—an absolutely huge—market at a time when the EU’s share of GDP is drifting away. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) is keen on returning us to a customs union, but that customs union would commit us to applying EU-set tariffs, taking away the freedom we got from Brexit to strike out and do our own deals. The EU is potentially looking at the CPTPP, but we are already in the partnership. We have first-mover advantage. We should strike out with the confidence that Brexit gives us as a trading nation. Adam Smith literally wrote the book on free trade; this country is a trading nation—that is what built this country—and we should get back to that confidence.
On agriculture, the Business and Trade Committee took written and oral evidence from Tom Bradshaw, the president of the National Farmers Union. He was concerned that while lamb exports could do well through this deal, dairying is once again left wide open to difficulties. That is an issue in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway; we have some of the most productive grassland in the UK. We make fabulous Galloway cheddar, and I would love to see more of that exported to India. Not much paneer probably comes to this country from India at the moment, but that will change. India is moving at incredible pace. It is hard to believe that in five or 10 years’ time, the Indian dairy industry will not have moved on. The licences that the Minister talked about will be in place, and there will be a flow this way from dairying, which is a concern for that sensitive sector.
The other thing that worries me on the Business and Trade Committee is the much-vaunted EU reset that the Government are seeking. Part of that is a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which will affect agriculture in the round. Can the Minister tell us what impact that might have on future trade deals? At the moment, these trade deals are struck with the UK based on UK rules and regulations. If we accept dynamic alignment with Europe, we are no longer rule makers in this area; we are rule takers. Will those countries with whom we are striking deals have to look to the EU? Where does that leave us? Does it not hamstring us at a time when, as I say, we have this fantastic opportunity to strike our own deals and hopefully drive growth?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Minister was one of the most ardent remainers that this House produced, yet he is proposing a trade deal that would not have been possible if he had had his way; I am sure the irony is not lost on him. It is only because of Brexit that it is possible for the United Kingdom to reach trade deals with countries across the world.
Jim Allister
I will deal with the fact that the EU just signed one.
As I said in an intervention, I was a Member of the European Parliament when Peter Mandelson was a Trade Minister, and I well remember him trumpeting the fact that the EU was going to negotiate a trade deal with India. That was in 2007. It took the EU until 2026 to cobble together a trade deal, such is the pace at which it proceeds. The post-Brexit United Kingdom has been able to reach this deal since 2022, so although EU fantasists seek to draw a parallel, what they say does not stack up.
Stephen Gethins
If Brexit has been so great, why on earth has nobody else followed the UK out the door?
Jim Allister
I suspect that one of the reasons is that the EU made the process a punishment beating of the United Kingdom, in respect of Northern Ireland, so that any other country that was thinking of daring to assert its sovereignty would be frightened out of it. I will return to the impact of this deal on Northern Ireland in a minute.
It is good to see the tariffs fall. Across the board, tariffs on UK products going to India will generally fall from 15% to 3%. However, I have a question for the Minister. From what I read in this deal, it seems that once the deal is confirmed, there will be an immediate, uninhibited flow of Indian goods that come under the deal into the United Kingdom, but it seems that the reciprocal movement of goods will be on a progressive basis, rather than immediate. Perhaps the Minister will explain to the House why that is. Why do the Indians get immediate access, but we get truncated and delayed access? We would all be interested to hear that.
I note that the deal reduces the horrendous tariffs on whiskey, but they are still at a very high level of 75%. I have Bushmills in my constituency, which provokes my interest in this issue. It provides good jobs. Ultimately, we are told, over 10 years, the tariff might reduce to 40%, but that is still a whopping tariff, though, yes, it is much better than 150%.
I want some clarification from the Minister on a point relating to vehicles. A portion of this agreement deals with access to the Indian market for United Kingdom vehicles, but that access is capped. May I ask explicitly if that includes buses, or is it just cars? It is very important that it includes buses, because in my constituency we have Wrightbus, which produces quality buses, and we also have buses produced in Falkirk in Scotland, and elsewhere. It is important that there is access across the vehicular market, that it includes buses, and that it is not unreasonably capped. Perhaps the Minister can explain the why of the cap.
I come now to the absurdity of the implementation of this deal, the Windsor framework and the protocol that afflicts Northern Ireland. Under the Windsor framework, we in Northern Ireland are left under the EU’s customs union. That means that any imports from India come to Northern Ireland subject not to the tariffs set forth in this deal, but to EU tariffs. Our exports, such as Bushmills whiskey, go out under the deal, but imports are blocked from having whatever tariff applies for the rest of the United Kingdom. We are subject to the EU tariffs; that is a common feature across all the deals that have been done and will be done.
Iqbal Mohamed
Maybe the hon. and learned Member can enlighten me. A provision like that had to be introduced to keep the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland friction-free. Would not removing the Windsor framework impose a hard border between the two nations?
Jim Allister
No, it most certainly would not. In modern times, there is abundant opportunity to develop a scheme, with the assistance of modern technology, that would allow for mutual enforcement when it comes to something as fundamental as international trade.
If a company in my constituency wants to sell buses to Germany—I will stick with buses—it must make them to the standards of the German customer. If a German company wants to sell buses to the United Kingdom, it must make them to the standards of the United Kingdom. That is the fundamental starting point for trade. We create a circumstance wherein each country enforces the standards of the other, and we thereby protect the market of the other. To underwrite that, we introduce a criminal sanction saying that if any company in the United Kingdom breaches those rules, there is criminal liability, and we will look for reciprocal arrangements. That is the essence of mutual enforcement. That would work, but instead, we have sacrificed sovereignty over part of our country to a foreign jurisdiction, namely, the EU. We have said to it, “We will subject all our economy to your rules, which we do not make and cannot change,” and we did that utterly unnecessarily.
The real bite of unfairness in that is that many companies in Northern Ireland do not trade outside the United Kingdom—many do not even trade outside Northern Ireland—but they are caught by the same rules as if they did. They must make and market their goods as dictated by the foreign jurisdiction. They need none of the protections necessary for the EU single market, but they face the imposition of unnecessary restrictions.
The issue really reduces to this: are we a United Kingdom? If we are a United Kingdom, the laws of this nation should be made by this United Kingdom, not by a foreign jurisdiction, which imposes on my constituents in 300 areas of law. These are laws that we do not make and cannot change. We are a supplicant rule taker. That is so fundamentally wrong. The Minister will give me—and has given me before—a rather trite response: “Oh, that is all because of Brexit!” Sorry, but it is not. It is because we in Northern Ireland did not get Brexit; the Windsor framework denied us Brexit. It kept us in the EU’s customs union and single market, whereas the rest of the United Kingdom escaped. That is why we have this absurd situation where we do not get the full benefit of these trade deals. As a representative of my constituency, I ask other Members of this House: why are my constituents less important or entitled in these matters than those of every other Member from Great Britain?
We then have some in this House, such as the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), who want us all to rejoin the customs union so that we cannot make trade deals, whether with India or any country. We could then have only the deals that someone else makes for us—it is such absurdity. Those are the fundamental issues that I would like to see addressed.
As for getting the best of both worlds, that is a fantasy for Northern Ireland, and there is a very simple reason why. We might have access to the EU market—as GB does through its trade deal with the EU—but we forget that to bring all our goods and raw materials from our main market in GB, they have to pass through an international customs border, with paperwork, checks and extra costs.
Jim Allister
It is not Brexit but the Windsor framework. We did not have a Brexit, and that is what causes the Irish sea border. There is this fantasy that Northern Ireland is in some special position, but we have the worst of all worlds. Although we were told that, under the Windsor framework, we would become the Singapore of the west, not one extra job has been created by foreign direct investment, which proves what a fantasy it is. The reason it is a fantasy is that no company will set up on the basis that they could sell into the EU—as they can from GB—and forget about the fact that the raw materials will be subject to an international border and the associated extra costs, which more than cancels it out. I have probably tested your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will leave it there.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Like everybody across this House, as a proud British citizen, I of course support the Government’s intentions in the growth strategy and their efforts to agree mutually beneficial trade agreements between countries after the debacle of Brexit, with which we lost collective bargaining and the benefits that we enjoyed from EU membership.
I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on the absolutely mandatory obligation on Britain to ensure that, whatever trade deals we negotiate with whichever country, wherever in the world, human rights are front and centre in those negotiations.
Thousands of my Kashmiri diaspora constituents and their families are suffering. They have been suffering for nearly 80 years, and it is about time that Britain took a lead in helping alleviate the occupation of Kashmir and the illegal treatment of citizens there to allow them the right to self-determination. Building on the issue of human rights, I also join the hon. Member and my hon. Friend in expressing my profound sadness and disappointment that we are signing a free trade agreement with a leader of a Hindu nationalist governing party that has, for decades, violently persecuted Muslims, Christians, Dalits and other minorities in India for their religious belief or their class status, and the millions of people in occupied Kashmir.
Most egregiously, as Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2002, Modi facilitated a pogrom that resulted in over 1,000 individuals, the majority of whom were Muslim, being murdered amidst widespread reports of sexual violence, looting and property destruction. The exact death toll of the Gujarat riots is unclear, but it is estimated to have exceeded 1,000 men, women and children, the vast majority of whom were Muslim. According to Genocide Watch, during the massacres at least 250 women and girls were gang-raped before being burnt to death. A mob of 5,000 people set fire to houses of Muslims in Ahmedabad’s Naroda Patiya neighbourhood, resulting in the deaths of over 65 people. Before being burnt and hacked to death, women and girls were gang-raped in public. Their male family members were forced to watch the rapes, and they were then killed.
I have a couple of heartbreaking examples. Hina Kausar from Naroda Patiya was pregnant when she was raped. Several eyewitnesses testified that she was raped and tortured, and that her womb was slit open with a sword to extract the foetus, which was then hacked to pieces and burnt alive alongside the mother. Bilkis Yakoob Rasool was five-months pregnant when she was gang-raped, and 14 members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter, were murdered in front of her eyes. The Gujarat Government have now granted early release to all 11 of her convicted rapists.
I was in Ahmedabad myself on the first and subsequent days of these riots. I climbed to the rooftop of my uncle’s home, and I watched the city burn around me. Black smoke was billowing from every direction. I saw at first hand how the leader of a state facilitated and stood by as fanatics murdered, raped and pillaged their way through Muslim communities and neighbourhoods. Modi was complicit in this ethnic cleansing, even if attempts at achieving legal justice have so far proven futile. Since then, he has continued to refuse to accept any responsibility or to apologise for the events that took place, thereby adding insult to injury for the bereaved victims and families.
As Prime Minister of India, Modi continues to engage in faith-based oppression of India’s Muslim, Christian and other minority populations. Homes, businesses and places of worship are unlawfully and arbitrarily demolished —a phenomenon that Amnesty International has labelled “bulldozer injustice”. Communal violence against Muslims is rife, with mob violence and lynchings on a daily or weekly basis.
I gently remind the Government of how innocent civilians are being treated by the Government with whom we are signing this trade deal. I urge them to do everything in their power to get the best deal that we can, but without compromising the principle of human rights for all. Muslims, Christians, Dalits and others are relegated to the status of second-class citizens and subject to collective punishment. The Government should instead pursue an economic diplomacy that recognises the importance of religious tolerance and pushes to promote peaceful co-existence of groups with different beliefs. Signing this trade agreement—and with it, exchanging a reduction in tariffs for our values—sends a dangerous signal to the world that religious bigotry and violations of international human rights law are permissible.
Since Brexit, successive UK Governments have shifted away from integrating enforceable human rights clauses into trade deals; they have instead opted for profit over people by adopting a values-free approach that starkly diverges from the human and workers’ rights provisions that the EU—albeit imperfectly—championed. Shame on them, and shame on this deal! The Government should follow the Human Rights Committee’s proposals that standard human rights protections should be included in all agreements, and that we should begin to treat human rights as something that applies to all individuals of any religion, anywhere in the world.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Soggy poppadoms, buses, a lot of whisky, pottery, bricks, some Galloway cheddar and even an aircraft carrier promoting whisky—those are some of the colourful items mentioned in this debate, which brings to life the impact across all our constituencies of this UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement. As such, it is a pleasure to close today’s debate on the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement. This debate forms part of the process of constitutional reform and governance that Parliament has adopted, whereby we spend 21 sitting days scrutinising agreements such as this one.
Despite the fact that other things happening in this building this evening have perhaps distracted the attention of some Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, we have heard that this agreement carries a lot of significance. In particular, I draw attention to the excellent and detailed speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam); she highlighted some of the economic incentives this agreement will create when it comes to employing British people versus Indian people to do the same jobs here in the UK. When the Minister responds to the debate, I would be interested to hear him answer those points. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) also raised an important issue about dairy. As I understand it, there are currently no licences for dairy products coming into the UK from India, but that could change in the future, so it would be interesting to know what process the Government would adopt to address that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) said in his opening speech, free trade is a key belief among Conservative Members. That is why we pursued trade agreements with the EU, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, as well as the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. Indeed, it was predecessors in the previous Government who laid the groundwork for the agreement that is before us today. As has rightly been acknowledged in many speeches this evening, this agreement represents a Brexit dividend—the ability to pursue an independent trade policy and to deepen our relationship with one of the world’s fastest-growing economies.
However, recognising that achievement does not mean we can ignore the areas in which this agreement falls short. Many of those points were raised by other Members in this debate. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), made the point that the Government risk undermining the benefits of the agreement through their planned 40% cuts in UK export support staff. I invite the Minister to once again reconfirm to the House that those cuts do not include staff in India who will be working on the implementation of this deal.
The House of Lords’ International Agreements Committee report highlights the stark disparity between goods and services in this agreement. For a country whose economy is so overwhelmingly services-based, that imbalance matters. The agreement contains no meaningful advance on mutual recognition of qualifications; the deal establishes a 36-month target for reaching a conclusion in that area, but what will happen if no agreement is reached within that 36-month period? As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs highlighted, the sequencing of market access is deeply asymmetric, with many Indian exporters gaining from immediate tariff reductions in this country while UK exporters face phased access and quotas. A striking omission is that of legal services, as the House of Lords’ International Agreements Committee has said:
“We view this as a missed opportunity given that legal services comprise a strategically important and growing sector of trade, both in their own terms and in relation to supporting trade in other sectors.”
As others have noted, another concerning omission is the absence of any investment protection. The bilaterial investment treaty that was expected to be agreed at the same time as this deal remains undelivered, so can the Minister confirm for UK firms investing in India what his plans and deadline are for implementing an agreement along those lines? When we compare this agreement with the EU-India free trade agreement, the contrast is quite clear; the EU managed to achieve a full investment protection agreement, and its investors will have stronger legal certainty than their UK competitors. On agricultural products, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway was absolutely right to highlight farmers’ concerns about dairy being an issue in the future. I invite the Minister to offer farmers up and down this country the assurances they need about the effect that these provisions might have on them in the future.
Finally, we must again address the double contribution convention. We do not know very much detail about it, but we do know that Indian workers posted to the UK will pay no national insurance, and nor will their employers. At a time when British businesses are being asked to shoulder increased national insurance contributions, it is hard to see how Ministers can defend a framework that makes it cheaper to hire from abroad than to employ a worker here at home. Can the Minister explain why the Government have created a two-tier tax system in which British businesses pay more in national insurance while employers hiring workers from India pay nothing at all, and what will he do if he sees British workers losing out in large numbers when this measure comes into force?
In conclusion, this deal is a welcome opportunity for British exporters to explore new markets, but one with many missed opportunities in areas where the UK should be leading, not lagging. The task now is to ensure that this agreement becomes a foundation and not a ceiling, so will the Government treat it as a living agreement? Will they return to the negotiating table and deliver the services access, investment protections and sectoral safeguards that British businesses and workers deserve, and what metrics and milestones can we in Parliament use to continue to hold the Government to account as they implement this agreement?
Chris Bryant
By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the debate. I know that you were once in this job, so if I get anything wrong, please feel free to intervene and correct me. I am going to crack through as many as possible of the questions that have been put to me. I know that hon. Members like to hear answers, so I will try to answer their questions as fast as I possibly can.
As always, it was a great delight to see the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) at the Dispatch Box. He had a bit of a rant about Brexit and how much he is still in favour of it—he will probably be the last person still in favour of Brexit, just as he is the last person still in favour of the Truss Budget, because he helped write it. He made a legitimate point about services. Of course we would like to go further on services, but there are two things that I would say to him. First, we have secured significant advantages in relation to telecoms and construction services, and I have already referred to the better deal that we have had on procurement than the European Union. Secondly, we have been guaranteed most favoured nation status in 40 different sectors, including accounting and auditing services, architectural services, engineering services, higher education, building cleaning services, photographic services, packaging services, convention services and interior design services.
That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) about whether this is going to be a living process. We do not need to return to the negotiating table, because we have a structure built into this FTA that enables us to take things forward. In fact, the first review of the deal will happen on the date it comes into force—as I said earlier, I hope that will be before the summer.
Chris Bryant
I am keen not to give way again, because there is not much time and I have to answer all the questions that I have already been asked.
Turning to legal services, of course we would have much preferred to have been able to secure legal services as part of this deal. We have a very strong legal services sector in the UK—it is excellent. I was with the head of the Law Society in Riyadh last week, celebrating some of the changes and opportunities that are happening in Saudi Arabia, for instance. The difficulty is that, as the Indians made very clear throughout the whole of the negotiating process, law is a noble profession. It is very specifically understood as such within the Indian constitution, so that would have required significant changes to primary legislation in India, and that was not something we were able to achieve.
Similarly, we would have preferred to have been able to secure a bilateral investment treaty, but we stand ready to start that process whenever India would like to do so. I am glad that we have a digital trade chapter, because so much of the trade we do internationally is now digital, and lots of other arrangements do not end up with that provision.
On services, the way we transacted this deal means it is supported by the Federation of Small Businesses, HSBC, Standard Chartered, EY, TheCityUK and Revolut, and I do not think they think of the deal as “soggy poppadoms” at all; I think they think of it as a fine tandoori.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and several other Members referred to Kashmir, and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) gave us some shocking stories about the situation there. I was once the curate in High Wycombe, which has a large Kashmiri population. They have felt many of the issues relating to Kashmir ever since the 1940s. It has been a long-standing British position that India and Pakistan need to come to a settlement of their agreement. For the purposes of the CETA, the core text chapters define India’s territory as set out in India’s constitution, but emphasise that that is without prejudice to territorial sovereignty or compatibility with international law.
An important point that nobody has referred to is that Pakistan enjoys preferential tariff rates when trading with the UK under the developing countries trading scheme, which offers significant preferential access. Approximately 94% of Pakistani goods are eligible for 0% tariffs, and that runs out for India three years after the FTA enters into force. The deal is not silent, as it were, on the relationship between the two.
Some Members have said that there is nothing in the FTA about human rights. First, that is not true; there are provisions. It is also not true to say that none of it is legally binding. The whole agreement is legally binding, and review processes are built into it in a way that makes it possible for us to monitor human rights. I have to say, the EU deal does not enter into human rights issues either—traditionally, it does not. We want every element of how we engage with another country to reflect the values we want to protect, including opposition to the death penalty, to forced labour and to so many other things.
Chris Bryant
I will not, if the hon. Member does not mind.
A lot of that toolkit lies outside trade. It lies with the human rights monitoring that our high commission in India does regularly. We raise all the individual issues that have been referred to.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the hon. Member, because I can never resist him. We used to be on a Select Committee together.
Stephen Gethins
I have great respect for the Minister, but he talks about the EU deal not covering human rights. We are all covered by the European convention on human rights, but that umbrella does not exist for countries such as India. That is important, especially because the Minister’s party and my party are committed to remaining within that framework.
Chris Bryant
I am as committed to remaining within the European convention on human rights as I ever was, as are the UK Government. It would be a derogation of our international standing around the world if we departed from it. That is one of the many reasons that I oppose not only the Conservative party, which seems to have gone doolally in recent years, but those Members who were elected as Conservatives and have now joined another political party.
I want to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East and to others who have referred to these issues that Kashmiri Britons are of course listened to. The kind of stories that we have heard concern us.
The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) pushed in the other direction on Brexit, but he made a good point with which I completely agree. I might slightly disagree with him about the precise amount of harm that Brexit has done to our trade opportunities in the UK, but I note that a very large number of UK businesses no longer export to the European Union, and that is a massive failure for the UK. That is why we are keen to secure a better deal with the European Union, and that is what we are working on. He talked about sanctions and Russia. I am appearing before the Select Committee on which he sits, so he gets many bites of the cherry. I say to the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), that when I come to talk about trade sanctions in the next few weeks, I will be happy to go into the specific details that he has raised on Russia.
I gently say to the hon. Member for Witney that I get a bit irritated when I hear Lib Dems talking about Russia, because I remember being in this House in 2014 when Russia first invaded Crimea. I know he was not in the House, but the Liberal Democrats were part of the Government. It was not just that Government but many other Governments who essentially allowed Putin to take Crimea with impunity, which has left us with some of the problems we have today. I completely agree with him that we need to debilitate the Russian system as much as possible. We have introduced sanctions on entities, including India’s Nayara Energy Ltd, to ensure that we disrupt Russia’s energy revenues. We are undermining the shadow fleet wherever possible. We have announced a further 500 sanctions.
Chris Bryant
I am reluctant to give way, because I have only another four minutes. The hon. Member is on the Select Committee, so he will soon be able to ask me as many questions as he wants.
Chris Bryant
It will not be one second; that is an untruth.
On 25 October, we said that we will extend our ban on the import of oil products refined in third countries using Russian crude oil.
I will refer specifically to the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). It is that constituent’s 39th birthday today. My hon. Friend knows that I have met his constituent’s family. It is good that some of the charges against him have already been dealt with and he has been acquitted. We want to see the rest of the charges—I think another eight charges have been laid against him—dealt with as swiftly as possible. We make that argument to the Indian Government as frequently as we can. My hon. Friend did not refer to this, but I think he would agree that there should be a full investigation into his constituent’s allegations of torture. That is an important part of us maintaining an open relationship with India.
The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) made a speech primarily about one specific issue. It was brief and to the point, for which I commend her—if only I could learn to do the same. She referred to the double contributions convention. I just point out to her that the previous Conservative Government made almost identical arrangements with a large number of countries, including Chile, Japan, South Korea, all of the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Barbados, Canada, Jamaica, Mauritius, the Philippines, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Turkey and the United States of America. This deal will not undermine British workers—that is the Select Committee’s finding—and it will not make it cheaper to use Indian workers. This agreement is about highly skilled workers employed by Indian companies on a temporary basis paying contributions to their own country rather than in the UK. The deal has not finally been struck; negotiations are ongoing. That deal will be subject to its own process of going through the House, during which Members will be able to raise points.
Chris Bryant
I will not, as I have only two minutes.
The Chair of the Select Committee made lots of good points. He referred to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and said that a votable motion was guaranteed by the then Minister in 2010. I was the Minister, and I am not sure that I then guaranteed a votable motion, but I take his point about greater scrutiny. When I come to talk about the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, I hope we will be able to deal with some of the other issues to which he referred.
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) referred to higher education. I am delighted to say that higher education is one of the things that MFN applies to as part of the deal. I was proud that the Prime Minister was able to open two new higher education campuses in India when he visited in October. The hon. Member makes a fair point about the European Parliament’s good practice on trade deals, which I will reflect on.
I did not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said, but I understood the sentiment with which he said it. I just make the point to him that the whole agreement is legally binding. That is why I am glad that we have secured chapters in our deal that have not been in any others.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) said that Government figures seemed too low. One of the figures is probably too low, and that is because we tried to err on the conservative side. In particular, some of the figures presume that we will not be doing any additional trade as a result of the FTA, but I think that we will. I think we could say that we will do better.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said that it was an enormous irony for a remainer such as myself to be standing here and proclaiming this. The thing is, I deal with the world as I find it, not as I would wish it to be. I cannot unmake the past, but I can make sure that we exploit the present to the best benefit of British business, and that is what this trade deal does.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK-India Free Trade Agreement.
Backbench Business
Brain Tumour Survival Rates
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Dame Siobhain McDonagh, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that survival rates for brain tumours have seen little improvement in decades and that brain tumours remain the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40; expresses concern at the limited availability of clinical trials for brain tumour patients; calls on the Government to set out a clear plan to increase survival rates, including accelerating access to clinical trials and innovative therapies; further calls on the Government to support the expansion of tissue freezing and storage to enable research and the development of new treatments; and also calls on the Government to ensure the timely deployment of the research funding committed in 2018 through the National Institute for Health and Care Research for brain tumour research.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the allocation of this time, and I am grateful to have secured the debate, alongside the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), following the publication of the national cancer plan.
Now is the time for honesty about where the system is failing. For me, this is a deeply personal debate. My remarkable, brave sister Margaret died from a glioblastoma. I cared for her for 19 months, taking her to Germany for many months because there was no treatment in the UK to offer her. I learned far more about brain tumours, the clinical trials system and the barriers to access to trials for patients than I would ever have wished to know.
It is from a place of experience that I make this speech, but it is about more people than just my sister. It is about Phil Woolas, the Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth between 1997 and 2010 and a friend of many in the House today, who is currently in a hospice and could count his life in days and weeks, having been diagnosed with a glioblastoma. It is about the father-in-law of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who inspired him to do the amazing work that he has been doing on the Rare Cancers Bill, which I understand will go to the other place for its Committee stage on Wednesday. It is about the Minister’s auntie, who I understand brought him up, and who also died of a glioblastoma. It is about Sophie Kinsella, author of the best-selling “Shopaholic” series of novels, whose funeral I attended over at St Margaret’s a few weeks ago, and all those who saw her wonderful husband Henry and their five children follow her coffin. It is about Terry Long, who I met at his family’s fundraiser. He set up Liberty Flowers in Romford, raising thousands for glioblastoma research; he died just before Christmas. I would also like to dedicate this debate to Christine, who died of a glioblastoma on 20 January. She was the mother of a civil servant who is watching this debate, and who thanks all of us for discussing this matter tonight in the House in the belief that some progress may be made.
My speech is also about the thousands of people diagnosed each year for whom time is brutally short and options are limited. When someone is diagnosed with a glioblastoma in the UK, they are told to expect the “gold standard” of treatment, but in reality, that “gold standard” has barely changed for decades. It means surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It offers management for a short time, but no cure, and when it runs its course, patients are expected to accept the inevitable—to go home, and prepare to die. The reality is reflected in the outcomes. The UK now ranks 22nd out of 29 comparable countries for survival from brain cancer. That did not happen by accident. Outcomes like this are produced by systems—by priorities, structures and choices made over many years. The question before us is not whether we care. We all care. The question is whether the system as it is currently designed is capable of delivering something different.
The same institutions, structures and priorities have been in place for years, and we need to be honest about where responsibility sits. Is the current leadership of the National Institute for Health and Care Research going to make a difference for rare cancers, for brain tumours, if it has not done so already? Is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency going to? Is Cancer Research UK? These bodies have been in place for years, and yet, for glioblastoma, nothing meaningful has changed. The five-year survival rate has barely shifted. There are no routine, nationally available drug trials for patients at diagnosis. For most people, the pathway remains exactly as it is presented at diagnosis: surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, then reoccurrence.
This is not due to a lack of talented clinicians. I have met some of the most brilliant, dedicated and innovative medical professionals through this journey, one of whom I call my closest friend. It is the result of something far more dangerous: a system that is content with the status quo and able to deliver the illusion of progress, and organisations that are not held to account. When strategies are published, when funds are ringfenced and institutions endure, there is a real risk that activity is mistaken for progress. We cannot afford to confuse motion with change.
Let me give one concrete example of what I mean. Cancer Research UK recently highlighted what it describes as a flagship clinical trial for glioblastoma, a major national effort intended to bring new treatments to patients. In an organisation of such scale and influence, it is held up as the clearest example of what the system can offer patients. It is mentioned on page 77 of the national cancer plan. So far, however, only 13 patients have been recruited to that trial since 2024. This is an organisation that spent £715 million in 2023-24, and committed £419 million to cancer research. That is not a criticism of the trial, or of the clinicians delivering it—I sincerely hope that it delivers real benefit for those enrolled—but it is a criticism of how little the system has to offer people facing a diagnosis that amounts to a death sentence. To patients, this does not feel like progress; it feels like a system that has little to offer when it matters most.
There is something else that we need to be honest about. I know that many Members on both sides of the House who have fought for change in our medical system will recognise this: the system feels like a club, and if you are not already part of that club, you are positively excluded. Too often, the largest and most established institutions set the pace, define the terms, and face no real consequences when progress is slow. New ideas, new approaches and new entrants face procedural barriers at every stage. Innovation is talked about constantly, but is structurally discouraged.
That brings me to my own experience. Many Members of this House will know that, against the odds, a glioblastoma drug trial is now under way, in memory of my sister. Patients have been recruited, and although it remains at an early stage, we are encouraged by what we are seeing. But the road to starting this trial is an indictment of how the system treats rare cancers. The trial did not happen because the system was built to support rare cancer trials; it happened because an extraordinary number of obstacles were overcome by a small number of people, who were driven by grief and a refusal to take no for an answer. It required the backing of an exceptional clinician, who is based in a major London teaching hospital and supported by a leading university. It required a group of friends to campaign relentlessly and to raise more than £1 million in two years by selling teas, running marathons and organising fundraisers. And it required the direct engagement of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who was willing to listen and to help us get the trial over the line.
Even with all that in place, barriers were still put in our way, so we must ask ourselves an uncomfortable question: if it takes that level of access, funding and political intervention simply to begin a single trial, who else can realistically hope to do the same, and what does that say about a system that talks about innovation but is not structured to support it? The experience raises a simple question: what does the system count as progress? If something truly matters, we measure it, yet when it comes to rare cancers, there are no clear targets for clinical trials, no meaningful benchmarks for progress and no real accountability when nothing happens.
The absence of targets tells us something important about priorities. If we are serious about improving outcomes for rare cancers, the standard is clear: we should be able to say how many clinical trials we expect to see, how many patients will be recruited and who is responsible for delivering. Such targets create urgency. Without them, rare cancers will continue to be left behind, and without clear, measurable standards for both the number of trials and the number of brain tumour patients entering them, we have no way of knowing whether access is actually improving.
I note the Government’s recent announcement on greater access to breakthrough trials for rare cancers patients, including improved routes into trials through the NHS app. Any step that genuinely expands opportunity for patients is welcome, but access only matters if there is something to access. For many people with rare cancers, and particularly those with glioblastoma, the problem is not finding the right route into a trial; it is that there are so few trials to enter. An app cannot direct patients to options that do not exist. Until we address the shortage of clinical trials, improvements in navigation risk becoming improvements in presentation, not in reality.
Much of the focus remains on the development of entirely new drugs. Of course, new science matters. In the hierarchy of research, the prestige rests with foundational research; it does not rest with repurposing drugs that already exist. Countless existing drugs that are already licensed, and which are already curing or controlling other cancers, could be tested for rare cancers, including brain tumours.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful speech, and I pay tribute to her for all her efforts in this area. I have a dear friend who was diagnosed with glioblastoma last summer, who has been through surgery and radiotherapy, and who is now in a clinical trial at the Royal Marsden hospital—I am not sure if it is the trial to which the hon. Lady refers. May I ask her about a different drug, vorasidenib, which is licensed in the UK for low-grade gliomas? Two residents in my constituency, who are in their 20s, desperately need this drug. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is still considering whether it should be available on the NHS. Will the hon. Lady join me in urging the Minister to engage with NHS England and NICE to make sure that Servier makes the drug available, so that these young patients can continue to live their lives?
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Together with a number of Members here, I met representatives of Servier, and people are now in receipt of vorasidenib. I would be happy to talk to the hon. Lady about how we went about that.
On its own, foundational research is not enough for the people who will be diagnosed with glioblastoma this year, next year or in the next decade. There are existing drugs that we can use, but the system provides little incentive to repurpose them for small patient populations, and there is little prestige in doing so. This is, at heart, a market failure. There are only two routes to more trials. One is the public and charitable route, which requires a real change in priorities and funding, and a pivot towards trying repurposed drugs. The other is the private sector, which will not deliver for rare cancers without intervention. If we want commercial trials for rare cancers, we must be honest about the tools available to us. Either we require pharmaceutical companies to test major cancer drugs on rare cancers, or we incentivise them to do so. There is no third way—and that is painful for a Blairite like me to say.
I hope that the national cancer plan will signal real change. Without our Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and without the cancer Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), there would be no rare cancer chapter in the national plan. However, if the current system carries on, we will be having this debate forever, without progress, and our loved ones will continue to die in shocking circumstances. That is why this debate matters, and why a shake-up is not radical, but long overdue.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this really important debate. She has been excellent in driving forward this issue, and is so determined. She demonstrates how to go after an issue and pursue it relentlessly. That is great, but ultimately, as she points out, words are pointless. We have a real problem here, and our loved ones are being taken down far too effectively.
My sister Georgie is alive, and I am very grateful for that. She was diagnosed with GBM two and three quarter years ago, and has had surgery, chemo and radio. The survival rates are not good. I resent the fact that we always have to churn out our own stories in this Chamber; that, it seems, is what counts. Yes, I am going to churn out my own story, but it is irritating that I have to. She has been brave as hell and utterly determined, and is up there with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. Like her, Georgie takes no prisoners. She has gathered people to her cause and has never taken no for an answer. That is obviously to her credit, but more importantly, it has made a difference to this debate. Well done, Georgie.
I also give a shout-out to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), whose Rare Cancers Bill has made a real difference, and to Labour Front Benchers. I know that I am on the Opposition Benches, but I do not really care, because this issue is too important for us to mess around. I do not know about the Secretary of State, but I think he is interested. I do know about the Minister for cancer, who has her own story, and who stood up in front of a room of angry people. Those of us affected by brain cancer do anger quite effectively, and she has withheld it, despite having her own cross to bear. She has worked extremely hard in this area, and I am very grateful to her for that.
I am not going to rehash all the points that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden made so well, but we obviously have some very bad issues. Pinned in front of me in my office is a chart, with arrows going from left to right, which basically shows how survival rates for different cancers have changed over the last 40 years. Up at the top, there are testicular cancer and thyroid cancer, and down at the bottom left, with virtually no arrows, are pancreatic, brain, oesophagus and a number of other cancers. People do not believe that they will be able to change that situation; they are not spending any money on them, because they are really difficult. There is no point pretending that these cancers are not really difficult, and brain cancer is particularly difficult because of the blood-brain barrier. The body does everything it can to stop things getting into the brain, which is mostly good for us, but when it comes to treating a brain tumour, it is bad for us.
I am grateful for the national cancer plan, but we need more, and we should be taking steps to deal with that issue. The plan says:
“Some rare cancers, such as brain and pancreatic cancer, have stubbornly low survival rates—and few treatment or diagnostic breakthroughs. We need new diagnostic tools, research into biomarkers, and targeted therapies to achieve any major changes to survival.”
What we need on the back of the plan is a comprehensive, actionable strategy, with specific, measurable goals and targets, each with clear deadlines, so that we can ensure accountability in critical areas such as workforce recruitment and retention, infrastructure development, and incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for cancers on which so little progress has been made. I get that the Minister has just published a plan, but I look to him to take this further and set out as concrete a set of goals as possible, with a clear timeline.
I will go through a few headings. On participation and research, the regulatory landscape is too restrictive. It often pushes families to seek treatment abroad, where clinicians have greater freedom to investigate novel therapies. A lack of accessible, up-to-date information is contributing to missed opportunities to partake in research. Although some registries exist, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s “Be Part of Research”, they are often difficult to navigate—there are over 120 types of brain tumour to search for—and they quickly become outdated. The cancer plan states:
“We will make increasing research into rare cancers a priority for DHSC”—
the Department of Health and Social Care—
“and NIHR (with the support and oversight of our new national lead for rare cancers research).”
I would welcome the Minister providing further details on how he and his team plan to effect that.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
My hon. Friend is talking about the importance of research and the low survival rates. This is, of course, a global problem and a global battle, but Britain has a unique opportunity to lead on this. Just last week, a £1 billion project was approved at the London Cancer Hub, centring around the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden, two world-leading operators that want to expand this. Can he talk a little bit about how Britain has the opportunity to lead the world in discovering solutions to rare blood cancers?
Charlie Maynard
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. I am going to talk out of two sides of my face here, because on the one side, the UK has a lot going for it, but on the other, it does not. Since Brexit, clinical trials in the UK are down 60%, which is really bad news. That is just business logic talking. Businesses say, “Why would I do my trial in the UK, when the market there is six times smaller than the EU’s? I’ll do it in the EU.” We are living this, and some of us are dying as a result. However, we just plough on, saying, “Never mind. That’s a bit of a mistake, but there we go.” It would be a delight to find a way through that, and to get our clinical trials up and running, exactly as my hon. Friend says. I do not have the answer to that one, apart from the obvious; I am really looking for that.
I come to whole genomic sequencing. The Minister understands the issue better than me; I remember him mentioning it when I was having a coffee with him just after I joined the House. I really like what the team are doing, so well done to them. However, brain cancer patients lack the legal right to request whole genomic sequencing of their tumours. Instead, healthcare decisions on genomic testing are made solely by clinicians. As a result, many patients are systematically excluded from genomic testing, which significantly limits opportunities for tailored treatment options, and potentially affects their prognosis. The Government really need to rectify this injustice. We are after whole genomic sequencing for everybody who has brain cancer.
Vaccine programmes do exist, and it is now time—I do not often do this—for me to be polite about the Conservative Government. They launched an ambitious initiative aimed at improving outcomes for all cancer patients: the NHS cancer vaccine launch pad, which is a great achievement. As the Minister has said, it is
“speeding up access to clinical trials for cancer vaccines and immunotherapies”.
However, brain cancer is not included on that platform, despite ongoing efforts to expand its scope to cover this disease. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the pharmaceutical industry is fully aware of the platform. My question is: why are brain cancer patients still left out of this programme?
On workforce and infrastructure, the key to achieving the Government’s cancer plan is encouraging multidisciplinary teamwork among oncologists, neurosurgeons, artificial intelligence professionals, imaging experts and immunologists. The Government need to clarify how many—I am looking for numbers—new research, fellowship and training positions will be introduced across neuro-oncology, neurosurgery, neuropathology and radiography. What are the plans for setting up laboratories and trial facilities at major centres, and when are they expected to be up and running?
On tumour tissue, we have a real mess, and I am looking to the Minister for help in sorting this out, because it is a real thicket of legal and medical complexity. Tumour tissue excised from the brain really matters, but how is it stored, what consents are used, and what control does the patient have over it, not only when they are alive, but after their death? What are the rules around tumour tissue, because we have a whole load of tumour tissue around the UK that is locked down and not accessible for research? I think many of the families would be absolutely delighted if that tumour tissue was used for research. I ask the Minister to have a look at that. What I am really asking is for the Secretary of State or the Minister to convene a series of meetings with all the key parties—the Human Tissue Authority, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the NHS and anybody else he thinks needs to be in the room—to work through that issue.
We have made great progress on organ donation; the law changed a few years ago, and consent is now given by default. We have good laws on what happens to egg and sperm tissue, so can we try to get our laws for cancer tumour tissue up to date? I am wrapping up. Will the Minister give a commitment to improving public and patient awareness of consent, including for tissue use in research and treatments; ensure that clear, consistent national messaging is developed with experts, patients and carers about how consent works in cancer care; and ensure that there is support for the public giving advance, informed digital consent, rather than doing so at moments of crisis?
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Each year, around 13,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with a primary brain tumour, including 900 children and young people. Despite that scale, progress in survival rates has lagged behind other cancers. Just 13% of adults survive five years after a high grade diagnosis, and brain tumours remain the leading cancer killer for children and adults under 40.
I recently spoke with one of my constituents in Colne Valley whose husband was diagnosed with two brain tumours earlier this year. He now faces a long period of recovery to relearn many of the day-to-day functions that most of us take for granted. His courage and their campaign highlight the urgent need for renewed investment in brain tumour research, treatment and care, so that everyone affected has the best chance at life.
Brain tumour research currently receives just 1% of the total UK cancer research funding. I therefore welcome the Government’s national cancer plan as a vital step forward, particularly the £13.7 million investment in the NIHR Brain Tumour Research Consortium, which will accelerate much-needed innovation. I am also encouraged by the commitment to implement the provisions of the Rare Cancers Bill, which will expand the access to clinical trials.
Brain tumour patients must fully benefit from these measures. They face the lowest clinical trial recruitment rates of any cancer type, with the Brain Tumour Charity reporting that just 12% of patients have taken part. Too often, it is the distance from specialist cancer centres that stands in the way. Investment in research must therefore stand hand in hand with improved access, because postcode should never determine the support patients receive.
Palliative care, too, must be integral to our strategy. I have seen first-hand, through the remarkable work of the hospices serving my constituents, the difference it can make. By helping patients manage physical and emotional side-effects, supporting physical activity where possible, and caring for families and loved ones who are also affected, palliative care can offer life-extending support for those with brain tumours.
I echo the calls for a renewed effort to tackle the devastatingly low survival rates for brain tumours. Through greater investment in research, better access to innovative treatments and stronger support for those living with the disease, we can give every person facing a brain tumour the best possible chance—the same chance I had when I was diagnosed with colon cancer, which was curable through the appropriate treatment I received by some amazing clinicians.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this important debate. I am here speaking tonight on behalf of my friend George, who is now in his eighties and still fundraising for research into brain tumours in the name of his son, David, who he lost far too soon.
Brain tumours remain one of the clearest examples of a condition where outcomes have not improved quickly enough. They are the biggest cancer killer of people under 40 in the UK. Each year, more than 12,000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour and only a quarter of adults with a primary brain cancer survive for five years after diagnosis.
That reality is compounded by late diagnosis. Studies have shown that around 45% of brain tumours are diagnosed in an emergency setting—far higher than for other cancers—meaning too many people start their treatment far later than they should. That is why I support calls for a national cancer plan to increase survival rates of those diagnosed with brain tumours.
We have national campaigns to spread information on bowel cancer and other types of cancer to raise awareness, and a campaign would allow people to spot the early signs of brain tumours, but awareness on its own is not enough, as we have been hearing. Earlier recognition has to be matched by specialist services that can respond quickly and consistently.
Health and social care are devolved, but brain tumour patients should not find that their chance of being offered a trial or the speed of a referral depends on the nation in which they live. I would therefore like to urge the Government to work with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations on a joint approach, with research supported properly across the UK and funding used as effectively as possible.
This is about improving outcomes and ensuring fair access. It requires co-operation between the UK Government, the devolved Administrations and research institutions. Research is essential to saving lives and it relies on the co-operation, shared strategy and consistent support for trials. A disjointed approach without co-ordination slows the innovation that is possible. That is a failure not just for researchers, but for patients and the families of those affected. A national strategy is needed to push for awareness to facilitate co-ordination and, most importantly, to save lives.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
What an honour it is to follow my fellow Scot, the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), on this topic. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for the way she introduced this debate. I think she said she was guided by experience, but I know she is also guided by the love she has for her sister. I thank her for securing the debate. She highlighted a real inequality at the heart of this matter—if she does not mind me saying so—as her sister was able to access the best treatment in Germany. Some people are able to pay a bit more or to run a Crowdfunder when they are faced with a brain tumour or another type of rare cancer; really, though, we should all have access to the same excellent treatment here in the UK.
I will speak a little about my private Member’s Bill and a little about the treatment for people with brain tumours in Scotland. Every year, more than a thousand people in Scotland will be diagnosed with a brain tumour. That may not sound like a large number, but, as we have heard already, while survival rates for many other cancers have improved, the needle for brain tumours has barely moved at all. Only 15% of adults in Scotland diagnosed with a high-grade brain tumour will survive beyond five years.
I know the weight of those numbers personally. My father-in-law was fit, active and full of life at the time of his diagnosis. It turned out that he had glioblastoma—the most aggressive form of brain tumour. He went from being a healthy man who enjoyed spending time with his grandchildren to having less than six months to live. As we have heard, that sudden, brutal trajectory is a story shared by far too many families. I always say that my father-in-law was a very dignified man, but the condition did not respect that at all in the impact it had on him and my wife’s family.
My father-in-law inspired my private Member’s Bill, the Rare Cancers Bill, which we have heard about today. It starts Committee stage in the Lords on Wednesday—let us hope there are no amendments. I thank everyone who has helped me to get the Bill this far, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and her colleague Baroness Elliott, who is supporting us in the Lords very ably. I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for his support—my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden arranged a meeting for us very early on. I also thank the Under-Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) and for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is in the Chamber today and who has been a fantastic advocate from day one. Even the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), has been a fantastic supporter.
I have to add my thanks to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones)—I was going to call him Mr Cancer, but that does not sound like a great title. He is passionate about this and is widely respected across the sector. Of course, I also thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard). I have met his sister many times; she is—if I could put it this way—a very forthright person. When I first met her, at a reception for a cancer charity, she said that she was driven not through self-interest, but because as a mother, she wanted to spend longer with her children and to see them grown up. Who can argue with that?
Lastly, I thank the many charities—more than 40—that have been supporting us. Of particular relevance to this debate is Brain Tumour Research and the Brain Tumour Charity. I also thank H/Advisors for the work it is doing in helping us to keep the campaign pointing in the right direction, which is not always easy, I have to say.
Over the past year, I have been moved by the courage of so many people I have met, including Georgie. Through meeting both patients and families and through broader engagement with charities, clinicians and survivors, I have learned that there is no single easy solution to the problem that we face.
I have been guilty of saying that nothing has been happening in the sector, but the reality is that a lot is happening—it just needs a push in the right direction, or, as some would say, a kick up the backside. I do not know if that is acceptable language, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are promising breakthroughs in development, particularly in genome testing and targeted therapies, and crucially there is now national momentum behind this. The newly announced national cancer plan allocates £13.7 million to the NIHR brain tumour research consortium; through this and other significant partnerships, we will accelerate the volume of high-quality, innovative brain tumour research taking place right across the UK. This is a promise that we all—including the Minister—have a duty to ensure is delivered. I hope that we debate this subject regularly and that we can be impressed at the progress our Government are making.
Importantly, the plan recognises a long-standing problem in cancer research: too much early-stage discovery science never makes it through to translational research that delivers real diagnostics and treatments for patients. The commitment to link discovery scientists with translational researchers, to connect research infrastructure and to co-fund the Cancer Research UK brain tumour centres of excellence is exactly the kind of approach that this field has needed for many years.
For Scotland to truly benefit from this progress, we must ensure that our systems are ready to plug in to this UK-wide effort. One of my constituents, Dr Faye Robertson, is a consultant clinical oncologist and honorary clinical senior lecturer at the University of Edinburgh. She is at the forefront of this fight as part of a team on a mission to deliver breakthrough treatments and pursue cures for thousands of patients and families facing devastating diagnoses each year.
Faye’s team’s spin-out company Trogenix has secured £70 million of new finance to expand, upscale and develop. That sounds like a lot of money, but I understand that £70 million is just a drop in the ocean if real progress is to be made. They are doing fantastic work. Pre-clinical studies have shown that the biotech company’s breakthrough Odysseus platform could kill cancerous brain cells and stimulate the immune system against the tumours, while leaving the surrounding healthy cells and tissues untouched. This massive investment will accelerate Trogenix’s lead programme in glioblastoma multiforme, including a move to clinical trials.
By chance, I was at a mosque just outside my constituency on Saturday evening welcoming children from Gaza into the UK and meeting some of the health workers who have been supporting them. Among them was a neurologist who knew about the Trogenix work, which, he said, has made breathtaking progress although there is still a long way to go. It is work like that which gives me hope.
I met Faye in my office. She is hugely impressive, a fantastic communicator and a real intellect—if she is listening I have probably embarrassed her. I trust her when she says:
“Whole-genome sequencing is changing the outlook for treatment of many cancers, unlocking the promises of precision treatment. Yet in Scotland, out patients are still waiting.”
This is not a political point; it is just a matter of fact.
I also spoke to Dr Sarah Kingdon, who is the Tessa Jowell neuro-oncology clinical fellow at the Beatson cancer centre in Glasgow and also at the Edinburgh cancer centre—these people always seem to have long titles—and she absolutely agreed that there is a real gap when it comes to Scotland being able to access treatment because of the lack of testing. The neurologist I met on Saturday said that he was sending samples way down to the south of England and would have to wait for those samples to return. It is completely unacceptable that we do not have ready access to this technology in Scotland.
While other parts of the UK are moving toward routine whole-genome sequencing, Scottish patients face what has been described as a “genomic gap”. We have the scientific expertise—that is beyond doubt—and we have world-class infrastructure in Edinburgh. What we lack is a consistent policy commitment to make genomic testing a standard part of care. Without genomic testing, clinicians are fighting in the dark.
We owe it to the families who have watched loved ones fade in a matter of months to ensure that Scotland is not just a place where research happens but one where research reaches the patient. The national cancer plan shows that momentum is building right across the UK, and I hope breakthroughs in brain tumour research will be with us soon. Let us ensure that Scotland is ready to be part of that future.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden again for opening this debate and for the leadership she is showing. Very briefly, I want to highlight three fantastic campaigns, and then I have one ask of the Minister. The first campaign is Brain Cancer Justice, which Georgie is a part of. It advocates increased funding, research and support for brain cancer patients and families who are impacted by this deadly disease. I am sure that all Members here give those involved in the campaign our full support—otherwise I think they might be in the wrong debating Chamber.
The second campaign is for Owain’s law, which aims to standardise the process for storing and using brain tumour tissues, as we heard from the hon. Member for Witney. Ellie, who runs the campaign, is a fantastic communicator—it is impossible to disagree with her, because she is so passionate. She held a reception last week with someone called Samantha—I cannot quite remember where in the north of England she was from. Like Ellie, she has lost her husband to a brain tumour. She is devastated because she still loves her husband and is bringing up their children. She was explaining her predicament to us, all the while clutching pictures of her husband. It is awful that women are coming into this place so desperate but still hanging on to the love that they have for their loved ones. We have to listen to these people and demand action.
The last campaign I want to mention is for Hugh’s law. This is a campaign for paid leave and financial support for parents of critically ill children. Brain tumours are one of the biggest cancer types for children, so it really applies to this debate. I pay tribute to Brentford football club, which has already accepted the actions of this campaign. It has not waited for the Government to encourage companies or make it mandatory; it has just got on and done it because it is the right thing to do. I hope that others follow.
I have one ask of the Minister. I met Cancer Research UK on Monday last week—a fantastic charity, despite the challenges it faces, which we heard about earlier. One of those challenges, its representatives explained to me, is that each year it spends £870,000 on visa costs to bring the best researchers into the UK to help in the fight against this awful condition and others. If life sciences are a key part of our economy, and if we want to tackle these cancers, perhaps colleagues elsewhere in Government might be encouraged to waive the visa costs for these fantastic researchers, and hopefully more will then follow them.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this evening’s important debate. Brain cancer is a particularly nasty and lethal form of cancer, and one of the least improved cancers in terms of survival rates. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of adults and children under 40 and are largely unpreventable. After years of Conservative neglect of cancer care, the Government’s recent national cancer plan takes steps to address the crisis in cancer care. That is definitely to be welcomed, but it is clear that brain cancer care still needs urgent attention.
A big cause of low brain cancer survival rates is slow diagnosis. In England, 45% of patients are diagnosed in an emergency setting—over two times the rate of all other cancers. Emergency diagnosis means that patients often face worse chances of survival and fewer treatment options, especially options that avoid harm. The Government must act to ensure that brain cancer is caught earlier to give patients a better chance of survival. That is why the Government must speed up the diagnostic pathway by improving GP access to diagnostic imaging and improve the patchy access to MRI and CT scans.
Even when a patient gets a diagnosis, many experience delays in starting treatment. In 2024, 75% of brain cancer patients at the Royal Berkshire hospital near my constituency began treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral. That is below the standard expected proportion of 85%. Even more shocking is that, in 2023, 25% of brain cancer patients at the Royal Berks waited longer than 124 days to begin treatment after an urgent referral. That is just not good enough, which is why my colleagues, and many others in the House, are calling on the Government to introduce a guarantee for 100% of patients to start treatment for cancer within 62 days of an urgent referral. The Government must start to listen to the people who are calling for that.
A key step towards this aim is improving access to effective treatment. In the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West integrated care board, which covers Wokingham, just 30% of cancer patients receive radiotherapy treatment within the 62-day treatment standard. This means that many brain cancer patients in Wokingham are missing out on the effective and timely treatment that would drastically improve their survival outcomes. To help address this, the Government need to replace ageing radiotherapy machines as soon as possible and invest in new ones, so that no one is denied access to treatment or has to travel far from home.
There is also a serious issue with equal access to new advanced treatments for brain cancer. Personalised immunotherapy vaccines have proven to be an effective treatment for brain cancer. This treatment, as well as advanced diagnostics and research, requires brain tissue from a patient to be flash-frozen to preserve DNA and RNA. It is then used to develop rounds of an immunotherapy vaccine. Due to a lack of nationwide regulations and practices on brain tissue freezing, however, there is a shameful inequality in brain cancer care. Sadly, the Royal Berkshire hospital and Frimley hospital, both used by my constituents, do not have the capability to flash-freeze or store brain tissue. As a result, many in Wokingham and across Berkshire cannot access advanced technologies such as personalised immunotherapy treatment and the more accurate genome sequencing that are key to attacking the cancer effectively.
This is why the Government must ensure equal access to high-quality tissue storage pathways across the country. It is not right that where someone lives affects the treatment they get, and thus their chances of survival. These steps to speed up diagnosis and improve treatment, along with investment in staff and research, will start to improve survival rates for the 12,700 people diagnosed with a brain tumour every year in the UK. Lastly, much has been mentioned about clinical trials in this debate. They are needed desperately, and it is my hope that Ministers will make this their personal priority in their discussions with drug companies in the next few months, and that we will see some real progress, with many more clinical trials starting in the next few years.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) yet again for leading these debates. Just so that people know, her sister was a friend of mine. She was a Labour party organiser who rose in the ranks and over the years supported me in my various general election campaigns. She was very supportive but, at the same time, quite terrifying for anyone politically stepping out of line. She was an absolutely wonderful woman. The reason I intervene in these debates is because I am inspired by hon. Friend, who I call a dear friend.
In my constituency, I have a Mr and Mrs Atwal, who lost their daughter tragically and who every year undertake —with the Milan Asian ladies group and Councillor Kuldeep Lakhmana, who organise it—a sort of mini-mela to raise funds. I pay tribute to them and I want to thank them sincerely for not putting my Hindi singing or my bhangra dancing on social media.
There are two small points I want to make. The first follows on from the speech by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones). The issue about access to scanning is absolutely critical. One of the issues that we have found is that there is not just a postcode lottery but a lack of awareness among some GPs about the national guidance. I know that GPs are incredibly busy, but we need to do something to raise awareness about that.
I chair a group of unpaid carers—we had a meeting this afternoon—and the second issue for me is the need for an acknowledgment in Government that if someone becomes a carer, perhaps over a long period of time, and usually with children survivors, they are almost certain to come across living in poverty. We need to look at how we support carers overall, including on the additional burden they face. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden explained in the previous debate the transport needs she had and the way she was having to pay for accommodation for her sister when she was being treated. That is the same for so many other people—they cannot bear the costs. The briefing from the Brain Tumour Charity said that the total financial burden for those seeking to care was something like £78 million a year. The ongoing costs are incredibly significant.
For many of the carers in the group I chair—they care for a whole range of conditions—of course the Government have assisted them greatly in raising the income they can arrange through employment themselves, but there are issues with flexible employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) raised that. There is not yet adequate acknowledgment of the need for flexible employment to enable people to earn a level of income that will help them survive. The issue, for those who literally cannot take on employment because of the hours they have to care, is that the level of carer’s allowance is abysmal.
There is a recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, and further reports are coming out from the University of Sheffield, which is doing a lot of work on this. Somehow, we have to come to terms with the fact that we will have to raise the level of carer’s allowance. It needs to be related at least to the minimum wage. Then, on that basis, we may be able to help some of these carers cope with the work they are undertaking for their loved ones, but also ensure that they are not living in poverty, because so many of them are at the moment.
We all supported the cancer strategy, and there is overwhelming support in the House to get on with the job, but looking at some of these fine details could transform people’s lives and how they are dealing with the situation at the moment. Part of it is about advocacy. What came out of my meeting today—this will sound a bit harsh—was that in the carers’ dealings with the various agencies, including the Department for Work and Pensions, they reported almost unanimously a lack of empathy in the way they are dealt with. If we can transform the cancer strategy to ensure that we embed that understanding and empathy, to understand what people are going through, and that they should not have to risk living in poverty and the whole family being impacted because of the financial consequences of the care they will have to undertake, we could transform the whole atmosphere around carers and the role they provide.
We have produced figures for the £180 billion that carers save the country overall through the unpaid care they do, but we never then acknowledge that in the actions we take. In this coming period, it is the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the first carer’s allowance—it was called invalid care allowance back then. This is the opportunity to address that issue because for many of those people who are caring for people with these conditions, particularly children, it desperately needs addressing.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for bringing this important debate to the House.
I want to talk briefly about two things. First, I want to acknowledge and put on the record the bravery of my very close, lifelong friend, Karin Buschenfeld. She, like 45% of those diagnosed with a brain tumour, received that diagnosis in A&E in a very haphazard manner last month—that is double the rate for other cancers. She and her family are now adjusting to a very difficult new reality.
The other reason for my speaking today is to celebrate the amazing work of the Brain Tumour Charity. Founded and still based in my constituency of North East Hampshire, it was originally called the Samantha Dickson Research Trust, founded by Angela and Neil Dickson in memory of their daughter who died aged just 16 in 1996. The charity now supports thousands of people all across the country, including my friend. It also funds research, and the founders raised with me the unspent funding that languishes while survival rates remain stubbornly low. I call on the Minister to ensure that the Government work with researchers so that the best-quality research can help to change outcomes for future generations.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing it. We have heard many fine and very heartfelt speeches this evening, particularly those recounting personal stories about Members’ families.
Our new cancer strategy was announced last week. Sadly, political events of the past few days have somewhat submerged its importance, but we should be talking about it, as it is much the most important political development as far as I am concerned. We have seen little progress in brain tumour care—that is the truth of the matter. Those tumours are devastating; they rob victims of years of life, and wreck families. I have seen such patients over the years, and I can say that diagnosis may be very difficult, even with the help of hindsight.
An average general practitioner will see a new brain tumour once every seven years, but they will see thousands of patients in that time, so it is not surprising that the tumours are difficult to diagnose. I hear that a patient with a brain tumour will often have visited their general practitioner five or six times before a diagnosis is made. We must do what we can to raise awareness. In ear, nose, and throat care—which, as Members may know, is my specialty—we see a condition called acoustic neuroma. It is a brain tumour on the nerves that lie between the ear and the brain—the balance nerves. Such tumours are rare, even in ear, nose and throat clinics. I would see only a handful of them each year. Sometimes they present with a little hearing loss in one ear, or with just a little ringing. Sometimes they present incidentally.
Some of the other brain tumours we see in the ENT world are very rare. One that sits in the roof of the nose —an olfactory neuroblastoma—is so rare that I probably saw fewer than six or seven cases throughout my career, yet it presents with a loss of sense of smell, which is a very common problem for people who come to see ear, nose and throat surgeons or general practitioners. We must not deceive ourselves that we are dealing with an easy condition, for this is a difficult one.
I believe that we must support research into these mysterious diseases. As I have said before in this Chamber, this country is desperately short of medical researchers and clinical academics. Many of our clinical academics are getting towards the end of their careers, and we are not doing enough to recruit new academics in the early part of theirs. I would like us to think about what policies we might develop to encourage that—this is a political problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said that given we have made so little progress, we must be content with the status quo. I beg to differ; we are not content with the status quo, and that is why we are all here this evening to discuss this matter.
We know that this is a promising time for some areas of medical research. Genetic research, for instance, is now becoming very important. I am not sure that whole genome sequencing, if that were available for everybody, would solve the problem, but it is the way we are going. Before I came to this place, I was involved in research into a rare ear disease called cholesteatoma. We did genetic research on that—genome sequencing—and we were able to identify some of the genes that probably cause the condition, but that does not make it any easier for us to prevent it, for we cannot choose our genetic code.
The problem with brain tumours is that they are deep-seated and inaccessible. We cannot see them or feel them, which is why curative approaches are so elusive. We can debate this in the Chamber until the cows come home, but that debate will not bring the cure, so we must decide what politically we can do to help. I welcome the £32 million boost to brain cancer research, and our new approach to clinical trials. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his Rare Cancers Bill, and I congratulate him on getting it to advance so far. Like me, he is a new Member of Parliament, and I am in awe that you have managed—
Peter Prinsley
Yes, I am in awe that my hon. Friend has managed to achieve so much; you see, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a new Member of Parliament!
Let us encourage clinical trials, for as Lord Vallance has said:
“Clinical trials are the route by which promising research can be turned into treatments”,
which will save lives.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), and thank him for his knowledge of the subject matter, and the way that he portrays it with such empathy and understanding? I also thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) who set the scene incredibly well, as she always does. She has that deep personal belief, with her sister—a journey that we have often heard about in this House, and we sympathise with her. I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for his contribution, including for speaking about his sister. Finally, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this topic.
It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I wish him well, and we look forward to his response to the debate. In the short time that we have known him, he has shown an aptitude in responding to those of us who ask questions, which we appreciate. I look forward to how he can encourage us all at the end of the debate.
I would like to give a Northern Ireland perspective. I always try to do that, as it adds to the flavour of the debate, and gives an opinion from Northern Ireland where health is devolved but where the issues are the same; they do not stop at the Irish sea, at Hadrian’s wall or at Cardiff—they are everywhere in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland, 2,043 cases of malignant and non-invasive brain tumours were diagnosed between 2017 and 2021, averaging some 409 cases per year. At the end of 2021 there were 5,465 people living with a brain tumour, with diagnosis occurring between 1997 and 2021. That gives us an idea of the perspective and magnitude of brain cancer. During that period, some 53.2% of brain tumour cases were among women, which has been illustrated by the examples shared by those with personal knowledge of this issue. As we know, cancer is no respecter of colour, creed or class, and the increase in incidence means that so many more families are grieving or worried, and so much more must be done not only to support families who are going through cancer, but to carry out research and find a cure. Last week, I attended an event in the House on cancer, and I was encouraged when the lady I spoke to told me that 60% of people diagnosed now survive cancer. That is a wonderful figure, but unfortunately the numbers are not as good in relation to brain cancer.
Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40. In the UK, some 16,000 people are diagnosed each year with a brain tumour and the incidence of brain tumours is significantly higher in Northern Ireland. Some of the figures in Northern Ireland and Wales are incredibly worrying, compared with England and Scotland. Brain tumour cases in Northern Ireland are projected to increase by some 36% by 2035, with glioblastoma being the most common and malignant adult brain tumour, accounting for some 70% of all new diagnoses. Given that projected increase by 2035, which is not too far away, what discussions will the Minister have with the relevant Minister, Mike Nesbitt, in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can combat this terrible disease together? That is the outcome that I seek from this debate.
GBM has the worst outcome for patients, as those tumours are resistant to therapy. Despite such treatments as surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, unfortunately GBM tumours regrow, leading to patient relapse and death after 15 months, which is incredibly worrying. Although the picture is dark, with sadness there is always hope. Brain tumour survival rates in Northern Ireland show that for malignant cases there was a one-year survival rate of 49.9% between 2017 and 2021—a significant increase from 37.4% between 1997 and 2001, which is really good news. Non-invasive tumour survival is high, with 88.3% of people surviving for five years.
There is much work being done in Northern Ireland to combat the darkness and bring light, such as through rapid diagnosis. This major project, launched in late 2025, uses rapid nanopore sequencing to reduce brain tumour diagnosis times from weeks to just hours. The technology reads tumour DNA almost immediately, helping clinicians to choose treatments faster. It is one of the incredible advances that have been made in cancer diagnosis; we are responding better than we have in the past.
While not a cure in itself, this research is giving people more time and a choice. Researchers have also identified existing FDA-approved drugs that could potentially be repurposed to treat brain tumours, specifically targeting how genes change as cancer progresses. All these steps bring forward something that every cancer sufferer and their loved ones need: hope.
May I plug, as I always do, Queen’s University, Belfast, and its wonderful work at the forefront of cancer diagnosis and cures? It gives me great pleasure to mention Queen’s University, because it shows that Northern Ireland is actively engaged in trying to find the cure. It has developed partnerships with big business, has students from all over the world and is always trying to find the cure. The adverts on television and elsewhere always encourage people to donate to cancer research so that the ultimate cure can be found. It will be a great day when that ultimate cure is found, and Queen’s University is leading the way.
Funding for cancer research based at Queen’s University is bringing a dividend. We can and must allow the university to do more research and development to find the ultimate cure—the cure for cancer. More funding means more work, which means more breakthroughs and more hope, and I think we can all agree that this House and this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will certainly do better with the light of more hope.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this really important debate in the Chamber, and I thank them for campaigning so tirelessly on this issue. I know how closely it affects families, including the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney. I was pleased to work with Georgie and Brain Cancer Justice on a letter to the Minister for public health and prevention, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), regarding brain cancer vaccination trials before Christmas.
For brain cancer patients in the UK, no vaccine trials are running. The national cancer plan, published last week, committed to delivering up to 10,000 cancer vaccines. The ambition is that this kind of treatment will be more widely available by 2035. However, for many, that will be too late. Around 35 families every single day hear the news that a loved one has been diagnosed with a primary brain tumour, and many see that as a life sentence.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
I have met Moderna, a leading company in developing cancer vaccines. I asked if it would give University College London a cancer vaccine for free for a trial on glioblastoma brain tumours, but it refused. Its excuse was that it could not make enough of the drug for 16 people. This is the rub: commercial companies do not get involved because there simply is not enough money in it, unless the Government intervene.
Helen Maguire
The hon. Lady brilliantly describes the real nub of the problem.
One of my constituents got in touch to tell me that in the space of a few months, four people that she knew received a brain tumour diagnosis. With symptoms ranging from seizures to changes in behaviour, the diagnosis process for brain tumours can be dramatic, lengthy and hard fought. That is why we urgently need improvements in diagnosis. The national cancer plan aims to make great strides in speeding up diagnosis, but I was disappointed that the Government did not take up the Liberal Democrats’ calls for 8,000 more GPs, to ensure that everyone can get seen quickly and be referred for treatment.
Once a referral is successful, the brain tumour should be treated. To see delays because of equipment shortages is a disgrace. The Government have pledged funding for 28 new radiotherapy machines, which is a step in the right direction, but the Liberal Democrats have long called for 200 new, fully staffed machines, so that we can end radiotherapy deserts and stop delays to vital treatment. Will the Minister set out when we can expect funding for more machines?
Brain cancer has a more complex element; it does not occur in stages like other cancers, but is defined by grades. The grading system can also differ, depending on the type of brain tumour that the patient has. The national cancer plan has looked to offer some relief to patients by giving a commitment that a clinical nurse specialist or other named lead will support them through diagnosis and treatment to hopefully make the path clearer. I look forward to seeing how the Government intend to support this ambition by providing enough staff through the 10-year workforce plan. While we are waiting for that plan, will the Minister give some clarity on how he plans to implement the commitment to providing 5,000 learning and training opportunities per year for the first three years of the plan for people in cancer-critical roles?
It is important that I mention benign brain tumours. Just because they are not cancerous, it does not mean that people do not experience a life-changing impact from being diagnosed with them. Those living with benign brain tumours must also receive the right treatment, care and lifelong support.
I really hope that we are at a turning point in cancer care, especially for brain tumours, which kill more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer. I am pleased to see many organisations, including Brain Tumour Research, welcome the national cancer plan, especially the proposed access to clinical trials and increased research. There is a lot of ambition in the plan that must be accounted for, so will the Minister confirm that the annual summary of progress for the national cancer plan will be presented in the House every year for proper scrutiny?
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Members for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for bringing forward this debate on a very important subject. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden talked about the people she had met who had experienced brain cancer and brain tumours. For me, this debate is about my grandfather, who sadly died of a brain tumour some years ago.
Some 12,000 people have a brain tumour diagnosed each year, and this debate is supposed to focus on how we improve the survival rates for this condition, which are very poor. It is the leading cause of cancer deaths among children and adults under 40. The five-year survival rate is poor and—unlike the rate for many other cancers over the last few years—has not really moved at all. How can we improve the survival rates for people with brain tumours? There are essentially three areas that we can look at: prevention, early diagnosis and better treatment.
On prevention, if we look on the NHS website to see how we can prevent a brain cancer or brain tumour, it talks about having a good diet and preventing obesity. These things are important, but not specific to brain cancer. It also talks about trying to avoid head injury, for example by wearing helmets. What about early diagnosis? Some people have genetic conditions, such as neurofibromatosis, Li–Fraumeni syndrome, tuberous sclerosis and Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome, that make them genetically predisposed to having tumours in their central nervous system. Those individuals can receive regular screening, which can help identify these tumours at a much earlier stage, but what about people who do not have such conditions?
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for intervening despite not being here for the beginning of the debate. My hon. Friend will know that I chair the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, and I am also president of the Lincolnshire Brain Tumour Support Group—she is right about the connection between the two. Does she think it would be advisable for those who have suffered a brain injury to be screened routinely, given the correlation between an earlier brain injury and the later advent of cancer?
Dr Johnson
My right hon. Friend invites me to speak outside my area of expertise; I am afraid I do not know the answer to that.
Dr Johnson
I will, particularly if the hon. Gentleman has an answer for my right hon. Friend.
Peter Prinsley
I cannot understand how there can be a relationship between head injury and brain tumour. Repeated injury causes some neurological conditions, particularly for footballers, whom we see getting early dementia, but I do not see a connection between head injury and brain tumour. Does the shadow Minister?
Dr Johnson
It is certainly something that I have read about. I am happy to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman if he feels that my resources are incorrect, but that was certainly one of the suggestions for how to prevent these tumours. I do not think that prevention will necessarily be the major way in which we improve the survival rate. I also do not think that it will be early diagnosis, but I would like to finish talking about that. Regular screening for people with genetic disorders can really help to identify tumours early, and the second thing that can help is access to diagnostic tests. The Conservative Government introduced community diagnostic centres across the country, which increased the number of scanners available to those who needed a scan to identify whether they had a brain tumour. This Government have said that they will double the number of scanners available. Can the Minister comment on whether they are on track with that?
We need the workforce plan, so that we have the people to perform and interpret the scans. I do not know whether the Minister has had any tips on whether the workforce plan is imminent, but can he give us a date for when it is likely to be published? It has been delayed, but it is important. We have the cancer plan, but so much of it is dependent on the workforce plan. Thirdly, opticians have a role to play. Since a South Tees project pioneered in 2015, opticians have been able, during regular eye tests, to identify people who have signs of brain tumours, and to refer them, when necessary. Encouraging people to get regular eye tests may contribute to early diagnosis.
The fourth thing that can help with early diagnosis is symptom awareness—among both the general public and healthcare professionals. I want to talk about HeadSmart, a 2011 programme about the types of symptoms that could help identify a brain tumour. It had quite significant cut-through with both healthcare professionals and the public. It halved the time for a scan, and for diagnosis of children with brain tumours. It also improved the cognition of survivors, but it did not significantly improve the survival rate. While early diagnosis helps a bit, it is very difficult—particularly in children, who are quite neuroplastic, so symptoms appear quite late. The location and type of tumour are more important in the treatment and prognosis, and there are many different types. That makes this area of medicine extremely complicated, so I think the answer is that we need better treatments.
Treatments currently include steroids, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery, but there are many others with promise. Convection-enhanced delivery enables chemotherapy to be delivered across the blood-brain barrier more effectively. Many hon. Members have talked about freezing, and last month there was a debate on the topic of freezing brain tumour samples; does the Minister have an update following that debate? His colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), said that she would look at the detail and report back, so I hope that he will have an update for us this evening. Gene therapy has also shown a lot of promise, and there has been talk this evening about the trial in which an adeno-associated virus is used as a vector to seek out the glioblastoma cells and use the patient’s immune system to kill the tumour cells. That trial has promise; if it works, it could lead to real improvements in treatment.
Research will be key. BioNTech’s 2023 partnership promised that there would be 10,000 patients in cancer vaccine trials by 2030, but new innovators face barriers. This is a global fight; work is going on right across the globe, and we need to make the UK’s environment one that stimulates and supports research, so that British people can have the earliest possible access to the newest treatments. At the moment, the wider economic picture for research is not great, and we have seen some researchers pull out of investments in the UK. Taxation, national insurance, employment rules and the speed of adoption by the NHS are all factors that I hope the Minister will try to improve.
The hon. Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the devolved Administrations. Could the Minister comment on how he and his team are working with those Administrations to encourage research right across the United Kingdom? I also wanted to talk about rural areas, because it is all very well encouraging trials in the UK or England, but so many of those trials are in the centre of London, or in the other big cities; it is much more difficult for people living in rural areas, such as my constituents in Sleaford and North Hykeham, to access them. Could the Minister please update the House on how he is making it easier for research to occur in rural spots?
The hon. Member for Witney summed it up perfectly when he said that ambition is important, but actions, not words, are the key. We need specific, measurable targets, not just warm words—this Government have been very good at warm words on health, but much poorer on delivery. For the sake of the one in two people who will get cancer, and all their friends and loved ones, I hope that on this occasion, there is more action, not just words.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), and the hon. Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for supporting this important debate. I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the contributions of all hon. Members across this House—from personal experience, I know how hard it is to talk about these issues when people close to your family are lost to brain tumours. They include my aunt, who was instrumental in my pursuing a career in medicine. She passed away in 1997, only four months after a diagnosis of glioblastoma.
The hon. Member for Witney asked about consent in relation to tumour tissue research, which is a really important and pertinent topic. I am very happy to go away and consult with the Human Tissue Authority regarding the facility we have at the moment, which is quite sizeable, for securing consent to research on tissue from living persons and deceased persons. As a transplant surgeon, I am relatively au fait with some of the consent issues that can arise in using tissue from deceased persons, and I am always very happy to encourage consideration of those issues wherever possible. The hon. Member rightly challenged us to improve our architecture for digital consent. We continue to do so through our “analogue to digital” platform, on which the 10-year health plan is based, not only for care but for research.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for their thought-provoking contributions to this debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who talked so passionately about these issues. I thank him once again for bringing forward his private Member’s Bill, which will do so much to move the dial on research, not only on brain tumours but on rare cancers more generally. He had a specific ask about visa costs for talent coming from elsewhere in the world, and I assure him that we are looking seriously into these issues. Only today, I was chairing a session of the Life Sciences Council, where we talked about the global talent fund. That is pertinent to the discussions that my hon. Friend is having, and I am happy to put the council in touch with him to further those discussions regarding how we attract the brightest and the best to our country to advance the cause of life sciences generally, as well as the cause of researching rare cancers.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked more specifically about referral targets. I can reassure him that we are totally committed as a Government to hitting those national standards on 62-day waits. He challenged us to go to 100%. I caution him that although 85% is possible, 100% is not, usually for clinical reasons. There may be genuine clinical reasons why patients cannot access treatment within 62 days in terms of planning and specialist access.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about diagnostics. That issue is close to my heart, and I reassure him that through the continued opening of community diagnostic centres up and down the country and £2 billion of funding, I am determined to ensure that diagnostics is improved and available closer to home wherever possible.
The hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) talked about her friend being diagnosed with a brain tumour in A&E. As someone who was a young casualty officer many years ago, that resonated strongly with me. The A&E department is the last place where any tumour should be diagnosed, but I remember it happening far too frequently as a young casualty officer. One litmus test of the success of our cancer plan will be that much fewer of those diagnoses will be undertaken in an unplanned fashion in A&Es up and down our country.
I am always grateful for the learned remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). I always feel like I learn so much from him. In fact, I learned so much tonight that I might add his contribution to my portfolio of continuing professional development when I submit myself back to the General Medical Council to extend my licence.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always raises thought-provoking issues about four-nation working. I assure him that I continually and frequently discuss many matters pertaining to the health of our four nations with the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland. I can also reassure him of our UK-wide commitment to the life sciences sector plan and life sciences project. On that note, it was my great pleasure to meet academics from Queen’s University Belfast in this place only a few months ago, where I reaffirmed my commitment as life sciences Minister to the life sciences sector plan being a true four-nation project. That of course includes Northern Ireland, and I know from my own academic interests that much expertise resides in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) talked about benign tumours not being forgotten, and she is absolutely right. Those of us from a medical background know that it is a spectrum between benign and malignant tumours. Many benign tumours can evolve into malignant tumours, and they must be captured by plans such as the national cancer plan. She challenged me about publishing regular outcomes from the national cancer plan, and I can certainly commit to that. Those can be scrutinised in the normal way by the Health and Social Care Committee.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) talked about screening. She will know, as I do, that screening is important when it is evidence-based and where the benefits outweigh the harms. Screening is never harm-free, so it is important to ensure we are calculating these things based on expert evidence. Neither she nor I are experts in screening, so we always defer to the UK National Screening Committee and its deliberations and opinions on these matters.
The shadow Minister asked me about the workforce plan. I can assure her that that is in play and will be published shortly, in the spring or very early summer. She asked how that might interact with diagnostic capacity, and I can assure her that we are working at great speed to ramp up diagnostic capacity through the funding envelope that I mentioned. She will know that it is important, when we plan both for workforce and diagnostic capacity, to take account of AI moving at a rapid pace. We have already been able to eliminate one radiologist from breast cancer diagnoses, and it is entirely possible that we will be able to have a similar impact with technology on the rates of other cancers and, for example, lung cancer diagnostics. It is important that, as we work through the workforce plan, we take account of what the future will look like in that context.
When we came to the topic of the potential association between traumatic brain injury and brain tumours and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket intervened on the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the medical man in me could not help himself. I looked at PubMed quickly to check whether there was indeed an association, and I picked out a paper that may be of interest to the medical people in this place. Following 24 years’ worth of data from Mass General Brigham hospital, with 75,000 patients on each arm looked at retrospectively, there would seem to be a mild association between severe traumatic brain injury and the diagnosis of malignant brain tumours.
Sir John Hayes
As the Minister is now referring to my specialist subject, I thought that I had better intervene. Although I defer, of course, to the immense experience of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) in these matters, I think that this is associated with lesions and scarring, and that is why, as the Minister said, there is a mild association. As the hon. Member said, there is a much more profound association with other neurological conditions, particularly dementia.
While I am on my feet, may I ask the Minister to address the issue of research? The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is right: diagnostics are terribly difficult, but 1% of the expenditure on cancer research currently goes towards brain tumour research. Can we increase that?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his remarks. At the risk of turning this into some sort of medical journal club—I will move on quite swiftly, Madam Deputy Speaker—let me point out that the association is based on retrospective data, and we all know that we have to be a little bit cautious with retrospective data. As for the question of research, I can assure the right hon. Member that we are committed to spending more of the £2 billion NIHR budget on rare cancer research, some of which is ringfenced.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about rural areas. In the workforce plan, we are committed to ensuring—
Sarah Owen
May I take up the point about funding? I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the debate, but I want to pay tribute to my two incredible constituents Khuram and Yasmin. Their daughter Amani was diagnosed with glioblastoma, and tragically passed away in February 2022 at just 23 years old. Amani’s parents devoted themselves to taking care of her 24/7 as the cancer progressed, but they had to fundraise £100,000. Does the Minister not agree that parents and others should be spending their time with their loved ones, not spending their time fundraising for experimental drugs?
Dr Ahmed
I thank my hon. Friend for all her advocacy on behalf of all her constituents, but particularly Amani’s family. This is a story with which I am very familiar, and I can reassure my hon. Friend that I am committed to ensuring that medical research is properly funded so that, indeed, it is not the duty of bereaved parents or parents to raise the money.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
We all know that, while money is important, if the institutions that are given money do not spend it, we are all left frustrated and wondering what will happen. I have met cancer Ministers in both the last Conservative Government and this Government, all of whom have been well-intentioned and meaning to bring progress, but it requires intervention with those organisations to ensure that the money that is made available is spent.
Dr Ahmed
I am hearing my hon. Friend’s call to action loud and clear. I can report to her that—this is in addition to the other ongoing clinical trials in the area of brain tumour and glioma research—in October 2025, RECURRENT-GB opened for recruitment. This is a new UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial, supported by nearly £2 million of NIHR funding, which will explore, for instance, whether surgery can improve the quality of life for patients with glioblastoma when the glioblastoma comes back after treatment. I know that my hon. Friend will hold our feet to the fire when it comes to recruitment and the money being used appropriately, and I am delighted to continue working with her in that regard.
Since this Government took office, over 213,000 more people are getting a cancer diagnosis on time, over 36,000 more people are starting treatment on time, and rates of early diagnosis are hitting record highs. Despite these vital signs of recovery, we know that our NHS is still failing far too many cancer patients and their families, as Members from across the House have highlighted this evening. We know that brain tumours remain one of the hardest cancers to treat, and it remains a challenging and underserved area of research.
Last week, the Government published our national cancer plan. We now have a blueprint to shift the dial on rare and challenging cancers, underpinned by three key targets. First, we aim to save 330,000 more lives by 2035 by ensuring that three in every four people diagnosed in 2035 will be cancer-free or living well with cancer five years after diagnosis. Secondly, we will achieve the three cancer performance targets, which I mentioned earlier, by the end of March 2029. Finally, we will improve the quality of life for people living with cancer.
Rare and less common cancers are a priority for the Government, and this is the first ever cancer plan with a whole chapter dedicated to rare cancers. We aim to be in the top quartile of European countries for 14 rare cancers, including brain tumours, where we currently rank 22nd out of 24. We will pull every lever available to drive improvements for these cancer types. We know that one of the most effective ways to improve survival from cancer, including brain cancer, is to catch it and treat it early, so we have committed to reducing the number of rare cancers diagnosed in emergency settings, including brain tumours, which cannot be staged like other cancers and have therefore not been previously captured by early diagnosis measures.
Dr Arthur
This is about equality. There is a fantastic charity called The Eve Appeal, which is focused on gynaecological cancers. It makes the point that a disproportionate number of people with these cancers end up being diagnosed in A&E, by which time it is too late. Through a meeting I had with Blood Cancer UK, I know that ethnic minorities are much more likely to face a diagnosis in A&E than in a doctor’s surgery. This is something that we should do, not just because it is the right thing to do but because it is a matter of equality.
Dr Ahmed
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and that is why NIHR funding has been specifically allocated. One of the tests for a grant is the diversity of the population it will serve.
We recognise the challenges presented by brain tumours. By publishing regular performance data at a more granular level and adding diagnosis in emergency settings to our basket of early diagnosis metrics, we are committed to moving the dial on these issues. For all patients diagnosed with rare cancers, we will prioritise access to specialist treatment and multidisciplinary teams to ensure that they benefit from the best of evidence-based care. We will work with charities to support rare cancer patients, and to ensure that they have access to the right information to manage their cancer care. We wish to be held accountable on these commitments and to drive forward progress for rare cancer patients, and we will therefore appoint a national clinical lead for rare cancers, who will provide independent arbitration.
The actions I have listed make up just a small part of our plan. It will turn cancer, which is one of the country’s biggest killers, into a treatable chronic condition. We have developed our plans with patients, charities, families and clinicians, and have heard from many Members today. We are grateful for the continued campaigning on rare cancers and brain tumours.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
The chapter on rare cancers says that a named individual at NIHR will be responsible for progress in rare cancers. If there is no progress, will they get the sack?
Dr Ahmed
Sacking people is above my pay grade, so I will revert to the Secretary of State’s opinion on that, but my hon. Friend can certainly be reassured that we will hold them accountable, just as she will hold me accountable. She might give me the sack at this rate, so I had better be careful.
We are grateful for the continued campaigning on rare cancers. We look forward to working further with partners to deliver improvements in outcomes for brain cancer patients, and we know that the improvements promised through this plan rely on good research.
That research has already begun, with over £25 million invested in the NIHR brain tumour research consortium, which aims to transform outcomes for adults and children —and their families—who are living with brain tumours, ultimately reducing the number of lives lost to cancer. Furthermore, we are partnering with Cancer Research UK to provide £3 million to co-fund the CRUK brain tumour centres of excellence. This will ensure that we accelerate the move from foundational research to delivering innovative treatments for patients. These investments have the potential to shift the dial and the UK’s position as a leading location for brain tumour treatment research.
As reaffirmed in the national cancer plan, this Government are proud to support the Rare Cancers Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, which passed its Second Reading in the other place last month. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and other hon. Members for their support and their moving contributions to the debates on the Bill. This important legislation will make it easier for researchers to connect with patients living with rare cancers, including brain tumours; streamline recruitment into clinical trials; and ensure that our regulatory system delivers for patients. As set out in our 10-year health plan, we will ensure that the UK is a global leader in clinical research. This Bill will accelerate the clinical trials needed to deliver the most effective cutting-edge treatments and the highest-quality care for patients facing a rare cancer diagnosis. I look forward to seeing it progress towards Royal Assent.
I once again thank hon. Members for giving me the chance to set out our plans on rare cancers. I hope I have reassured them that we are determined to improve survival rates for patients, and ensuring that everyone has access to the highest-quality care and the highest-quality research. The national cancer plan embodies these ambitions and sets out how we will achieve them. Through our significant research investments and our support of the private Member’s Bill on rare cancers, in 2026 we will begin to shift the dial on outcomes for brain tumour patients.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Dame Siobhain McDonagh to wind up.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I have wound up enough people this evening, but I thank all Members, from all parties, who have spoken in tonight’s debate. It is my view that the contributions of Members of this House have brought about a real and material change in what is going on at the NIHR, Cancer Research UK and other organisations, because we are watching and speaking out. We need to do that, because if we do not, they will simply continue along the same path, and we cannot allow that to happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that survival rates for brain tumours have seen little improvement in decades and that brain tumours remain the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40; expresses concern at the limited availability of clinical trials for brain tumour patients; calls on the Government to set out a clear plan to increase survival rates, including accelerating access to clinical trials and innovative therapies; further calls on the Government to support the expansion of tissue freezing and storage to enable research and the development of new treatments; and also calls on the Government to ensure the timely deployment of the research funding committed in 2018 through the National Institute for Health and Care Research for brain tumour research.
Business without Debate
Leagrave Station: Step-free Access
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I must confess that this is my first Adjournment debate, and I am gutted that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is not here to intervene. Is it an Adjournment debate if he has not done so? Probably not.
I wish I could carry on in that jovial tone, but unfortunately I cannot. We all hate being let down—frankly, I think many of us have been let down quite a lot this week—but especially when we are led to believe that a problem is about to be fixed, only to have the rug pulled from beneath our feet. Thousands of users of Leagrave station in my constituency felt a huge sigh of relief, and thousands more would-be users who currently cannot use the station felt hope, when they were told just before the election that we were successful in gaining Access for All funding for Leagrave station—the funding, which is vital for our needs as a community, was for lifts at the station—only to have this cruelly snatched away from us when we found out that there was no money for the scheme and there never had been. To put it bluntly, we were lied to as a community, but people in Luton North do not give up, and we want to know what the reasoning was for the lack of progression via the Access for All routes funding. When and how can we work with the new Government to make progress on securing lifts at Leagrave station?
Leagrave station is a major transport hub for our town. Nearly 1.5 million journeys are made to and from the station every year. I do not begrudge the stations that were approved for Access for All funding—I am very pleased for them. I would love to live in hope that, before I am entirely grey, we will see all stations in every community entirely accessible for all, but I do wonder why it is that many of those stations that were approved for funding actually have fewer journeys than Leagrave station.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. This is an important debate. If she has been following the proceedings of the Public Bill Committee for the Railways Bill, she will have heard that at the current rate it will take more than 100 years to get step-free access across the full estate. Does she agree with the Opposition in this instance that that is too long?
Sarah Owen
A rare occasion! I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and yes, he is right, that is far too long. Not only will I be grey, but I will be dead, so progress is far too slow—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Apologies, I was merely commenting that the hon. Lady might not be—longevity is increasing.
Sarah Owen
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have good genes, but I would have to have extraordinarily good genes to see that to fruition. The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. Progress is far too slow. For many people, train journeys are just completely out their reach, and that should not be the limit of our aspirations, quite frankly.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way in this very important debate. This issue affects constituencies across the country, including mine—we have problems at Weybridge station. May I draw to her attention my new clause 69 to the Railways Bill, which sets out a requirement for an accessibility strategy that the Government have to report on? I have intervened on her now, but I hope to intervene on the Minister later for his comment on that.
Sarah Owen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would want to look at the detail of any amendment along those lines, but yes, in principle we absolutely need a strategy. I think many people would understand that this is not something where we click our fingers and it happens overnight, but we need to be travelling on this journey together—excuse the pun—because we cannot be saying that public transport is out of bounds if someone is unable to walk up and down stairs, it is out of bounds for a parent with a pushchair, or it is out of bounds if someone has an unruly child, as I do, who does not necessarily do as they are told, and they are absolutely terrified of using the stairs. In many cases, those staircases, as I will come on to talk about, are in utter disrepair and in a shocking state.
In Luton North we can take advantage of our close links to the capital to travel to work, see friends and family, or head to the airport on holiday. Some people do have holidays—not necessarily all of us—and many people use Luton airport to go on holiday, travel to work, and see friends and loved ones. We should be enabling everybody, not just those travelling from London on Thameslink, but those travelling from Bedford and every station in between, to go to Luton airport by train.
For anyone who cannot use stairs—wheelchair users, or people with heavy luggage, prams or pushchairs—two main platforms cannot be accessed at all. I have to say that it is a sick joke that our station is listed as semi-disabled access friendly, when in fact any train heading north from Leagrave stops at a platform that cannot be accessed step-free. So, if you are coming back from London or heading to Bedford, you have no choice but to use those stairs or a different station. I do not believe that any station that is accessible only on some platforms can be called accessible in any description whatsoever.
I have been campaigning to get lifts at Leagrave station since I was first elected in 2019, and then heavily pregnant with my daughter. When she was born, like every other parent who uses Leagrave station, I tackled those steep steps with a pram. There was always a member of the public there willing to help, because that is just how Luton is, but we should not have to rely on the kindness of strangers to ensure that we can get our children up and down those stairs safely. Then, when she was a toddler, as I described, I nervously held her hand up and down those really dangerous stairs. I see parents do that every day, battling with those unsafe stairs, to the extent that I took the former Rail Minister to see Leagrave station for himself. He was shocked to see the state of it. I also took my child with me so that he could see how impossible it is to navigate safely for someone with a pram, a small child or any difficulty with accessibility whatsoever.
There were moments of hope, and I thought we had made progress. However, I have to say that I reflect every single constituent in Luton North in being incredibly frustrated with being so close to seeing lifts at Leagrave station, only to have that cruelly snatched away from us. I understand that there are financial pressures facing the Government, but people in Luton North deserve an accessible railway, so I have some questions for the Minister.
Since 2019, I have pushed successive Governments on this issue. I hosted Huw Merriman, the former Rail Minister, and secured a Network Rail feasibility study into lifts, which was carried out in 2023. The study, which required significant investment from the council, went into huge detail on the exact design needed to deliver lifts at the station. In May 2024, the Conservative Government announced that Leagrave had been approved for Access for All funding, but now we have discovered that the money never existed and the projects were never properly funded. Can the Minister tell me, Luton council and my constituents why the existence of this major feasibility study does not seem to have factored in the final decision not to advance Leagrave station in this stage of AfA funding?
I understand also that the decision on whether to advance stations was made on the basis of the availability of third-party funding. Leagrave serves a large community but, unlike more affluent areas, it does not benefit from a single large business or wealthy potential sponsors in its vicinity. Discussions with third-party supporters are ongoing, but I would welcome further collaboration with the Minister and his Department on how we can facilitate those negotiations.
The Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty both put duties on Network Rail and train companies to ensure that people with disabilities are able to access the railway. The Government are encouraging people with disabilities into work but are making a major way of accessing employment inaccessible for people who want to get to work. How does that square with our Labour Government’s priorities of ensuring that people who want to work can physically get into work in the same way as everyone else?
Currently, anyone coming from the south who needs step-free access to Leagrave station must call ahead to book a taxi from Luton Airport Parkway, meaning that what is seven minutes on the train could become 45 minutes in Luton traffic—I kid you not, Minister: getting in a car to drive from one end of Luton to the other, instead of taking the train, can take up to an hour in heavy traffic. While Luton is famous for many wonderful things, including our football team, our traffic congestion is possibly what I am least happy for it be famous for. Network Rail and Thameslink do their best to facilitate arrangements for disabled passengers, but, as I am sure the Minister will agree, this is not ideal in terms of either the cost for passengers or the length of travel time.
There are lots of positive reasons why Leagrave station should be invested in, given all the opportunities that this Government are presenting to our town. We are part of the Oxford-Cambridge growth arc and will soon have Universal Studios in Bedford, although I will not be going on any of the rollercoasters—I would just be happy to get on an accessible train, to be honest. We also have the Luton airport expansion and Goodman taking over the Vauxhall site. All of these are positive markers for investment in our town, but local people have to feel the investment for themselves, too. The Minister present is the Minister for Aviation, so can he tell me how he hopes to achieve Luton airport’s expansion goals for public transport use if the north of our town cannot access the airport step-free? Can he also say when, if we had match funding tomorrow, would be the earliest date we could get spades in the ground?
To conclude, I am not giving up on campaigning for lifts at Leagrave station—I will continue banging on about this every time I visit the station and it is not as good as the people of Luton North deserve. I know the Minister will understand that I must continue to push for my constituents to get the step-free access they deserve. I am nothing but persistent.
It is welcome that the Government are putting money into communities such as ours in Luton North. Between the Pride in Place funding, a fairer council settlement, big projects such as the airport expansion and Universal Studios, Luton is now getting the love we have not had for a long time. However, that is also why it is so important that we follow through on projects such as lifts for Leagrave—to show residents in areas like mine that towns like Luton deserve investment in our transport and infrastructure. I look forward to continuing to work with the Department for Transport over the next few years to ensure that we get the step-free access that my constituents deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a privilege to respond to this important debate on the potential merits of step-free upgrades at Leagrave railway station. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing it, and I thank her for her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituents on this very important matter. I know well how deeply she cares about her community and how tirelessly she campaigns for improved public transport and safer, more accessible stations.
For many residents, Leagrave station is not simply a station. It is a gateway to work, education, healthcare and family life. As my hon. Friend clearly set out, for too many users, especially those with mobility challenges, parents with buggies, older passengers, or anyone travelling with heavy luggage, this gateway does not offer the accessibility that they expect. She is also right to say that the travelling experience must be safe, comfortable and inclusive for all. That sits at the heart of this Government’s commitment to a more accessible and passenger-focused rail network.
Many stations across Britain were constructed long before modern equality and accessibility standards existed. While around 56% of stations are now step-free and around two thirds of journeys take place between such stations, we recognise that this is just not enough. I may be one of the younger Members of Parliament, but I doubt that even I will see the full realisation if we carry on at the rate that was expressed by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). There is a lot more hard work to do, and that is why we remain committed to improving accessibility through programmes such as Access for All, through our recently published rail accessibility road map, and through long-term reform of the railways as we move towards the establishment of Great British Railways.
In May 2024, the previous Government published a list of 50 stations selected for initial feasibility work as part of the Access for All programme. As my hon. Friend will know, that included a nomination for Leagrave station. However, those feasibility studies were announced without clarity on how projects would ultimately be funded and significantly raised stakeholder expectations in a way that was not fair. This Government have taken a more rigorous and disciplined approach, ensuring that only affordable and deliverable commitments are taken forward. Our approach seeks to ensure that the maximum number of Access for All schemes can be delivered, and the risk of schemes overrunning on cost or encountering unforeseen engineering challenges is greatly reduced.
With that wider national picture in mind, I would like to speak directly about Leagrave station. I regret that it does not currently offer full step-free access to all platforms. For wheelchair users, people with mobility needs, parents with pushchairs and those travelling with luggage, this remains a real challenge and a deeply frustrating reality. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to point to the human experience of dealing with a lack of accessibility. It is something we experienced at Selby station when our lifts were out of order and only had a barrow crossing. If there was no member of staff available to take people across it, they would have to get the train to Leeds to then come back towards Hull. It is not a dignified way to travel, and it does need to change.
We have been clear, though, that the commitments we make must be affordable and represent value for money for passengers and taxpayers. As my hon. Friend knows, we have unfortunately decided that accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station will not progress at this stage. In reaching that decision, we assessed nominations against a clear set of criteria, including the number of passengers who would benefit, the need for a good geographical spread across Wales, Scotland and different parts of England, the extent to which schemes could build on existing technical developments, and the availability of third-party funding. Stations that performed most strongly against those criteria are the ones that are now progressing to delivery or design.
As we know, Leagrave station meets some of the criteria, including being a busy station and contributing to geographical balance. Indeed, my hon. Friend correctly highlights that Leagrave station sees over 1 million users a year, and other stations in better connected areas and with fewer passengers were chosen to progress; however, footfall was only one of the criteria used in assessing Access for All nominations. In the case of Leagrave, there was little prior technical development work in place.
My hon. Friend is also right that no third-party funding contribution was identified. I would like to make it clear to the House that the absence of that third-party funding was a key factor in the decision not to take the scheme forward at this time. Indeed, this was the case in relation to 22 other projects nationally for which no third-party funding contributions were identified, none of which, unfortunately, are progressing at this point. As we look ahead, local third-party funding contributions will remain an important consideration in future Access for All funding rounds. That reflects both the limited public funding available to the Access for All programme and the substantial economic, social and accessibility benefits that these schemes deliver beyond the rail network itself.
Dr Ben Spencer
Specifically on third-party funding, does the Minister agree that when it comes to infrastructure projects such as airport expansion, noting Heathrow’s proximity to my constituency, airports really should be a key target in terms of further funding, in order to improve accessibility on our railways?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member pre-empts me, as I will turn to how this particular issue to do with the rail service intersects with the needs of the aviation sector. He is of course right to point to the fact that surface access must play a really important role in the considerations around how we grow our aviation sector in a way that is sustainable but meets the accessibility requirements of which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North spoke so powerfully.
It is reasonable that organisations and developments that benefit directly from improved step-free access—such as local authorities, major employers, developers and transport hubs, including Luton airport—should play a role in contributing to their delivery. Even partial local funding would significantly strengthen a future case for accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station and demonstrate shared local commitment to the scheme.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for noting how important Luton airport is to our wider community. Would he be open to facilitating greater collaboration between the Department, Luton airport and our railways to ensure that we see greater surface travel through public transport and our railways?
Keir Mather
Absolutely. The Government want to realise the benefits of the aviation sector—its economic potential, but also, as my hon. Friend pointed to so powerfully as it pertains to rail, the human benefit of being able to be connected to loved ones and to access new places. The two things need to work in tandem. I would be glad to engage in those conversations further.
Local partners are also encouraged to develop a local funding package, drawing on opportunities such as section 106 developer contributions and city region sustainable transport settlements. These can be used to match-fund Access for All projects and are another way to bring forward accessibility projects. Further detail on this matter is set out in the written ministerial statement published on 15 January 2026.
I recognise that this decision will be disappointing to my hon. Friend and her constituents; however, funding for future rounds of Access for All may be available as part of the next spending review. That could provide an opportunity to fund accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station. Positive accessibility work is already under way in the neighbouring constituency of Luton South and South Bedfordshire. At Luton station, an Access for All project is currently under construction, which will provide step-free access across the station and make a tangible difference for passengers. Nearby Luton Airport Parkway also provides full step-free access to all platforms, less than a 20-minute drive from Leagrave station.
Keir Mather
However, we have heard powerfully from my hon. Friend about how dealing with Luton traffic is a key barrier to people accessing those accessibility benefits. I will give way to her to add some further context.
Sarah Owen
If anybody can get from the north of Leagrave to Luton Airport Parkway in 20 minutes, they must be travelling in some vehicle that I have never travelled in, because it will take at least half an hour to 45 minutes in bad traffic. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) is really pleased, as are many of us in the town, to finally see work taking place in Luton South, but it has been over 10 years in the making. Please can the Minister tell me that it will not be over 10 years until Leagrave sees the same?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to enlighten me as to the reality of motoring your way through Luton to access certain areas. She sets me a formidable challenge, which I dare not take on, given her advice. Likewise, I congratulate and respect the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) on securing those improvements. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North is right to point to the fact that the people in her constituency who need to benefit from that accessibility at their doorstep need those improvements to come faster and further. That is why, through Great British Railways and the work we are progressing through the Railways Bill, as well as through the next spending review and other ongoing work, we hope to ensure that those accessibility improvements are available to people across the country. I can understand her impatience and I thank her for it, because it keeps our feet held to the fire.
Dr Spencer
The Minister knows this is coming. He has just mentioned the Railways Bill, so would he care to comment on my new clause 69, which would require the setting out of an accessible rail strategy, not only on step-free access but on lift downtime? I feel a bit guilty in a sense, because we have lifts in Weybridge in my constituency, but one of the biggest problems is that they are not functional a lot of the time, so people who are travelling play a sort of Russian roulette as to whether the lifts are going to be available, with all the disruption that follows. Could the Minister please comment on the strategy that I am proposing?
Keir Mather
I appreciate and respect the sentiment that lies behind the new clause that the hon. Member has tabled to the Railways Bill. I would say to him that, through clause 18 of the Bill, we give Great British Railways a specific legal duty to promote the interests of passengers, particularly passengers with disabilities. We also have a tough new passenger watchdog to enforce consumer standards and to put accessibility at the heart of the railways. This intersects with the long-term rail strategy. That should provide him with the assurance he needs that accessibility is at the heart of the future railway under GBR.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North also shared her concerns about the current state of the footbridge at Leagrave station. Let me reassure her that Network Rail carefully monitors the condition of its assets and that whenever the rail industry installs, replaces or renews station infrastructure, the work must comply with current accessibility standards. I would be happy to talk with her further if she feels that those standards are not being met.
My hon. Friend also noted that the plan for Luton airport expansion was likely to increase overall demand on local transport networks, including rail. That point was very well made. At this stage we have limited evidence to confirm the scale or certainty of the impact, but, as I have mentioned, a future round of Access for All might be funded as part of the next spending review, and this could provide an opportunity to fully or partly fund accessibility upgrades at Leagrave station.
Let me close by again congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this debate and thanking her for her tireless representation of her constituents’ needs. I am aware that the Rail Minister will meet her on 16 March to explain the decisions made in relation to accessibility at Leagrave, and I look forward to continuing to work with her, with Govia Thameslink Railway and with Network Rail to ensure that Leagrave station is well placed to serve its community now and into the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026 Draft Employment
Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Employment Rights
Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Kate Dearden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond.
The regulations were laid before the House on 13 January. First, I express my appreciation for my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore) and to Darren Henry, the previous Member for Broxtowe, who were both instrumental in bringing forward this new entitlement. I also pay special tribute to Dr Aaron Horsey, who joins us in the Public Gallery today. He campaigned tirelessly on behalf of bereaved fathers after the tragic loss of his wife Bernadette shortly after the birth of their son Tim.
The Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 established a new statutory entitlement to bereaved partner’s paternity leave of up to 52 weeks for employed fathers and partners if the mother or primary adopter dies in the first year of a child’s life or adoption. The draft Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026 outline the details of the entitlement. The two further sets of regulations ensure that those who have a baby through international adoption or surrogacy arrangements are in scope for leave.
Currently, fathers and partners in this tragic circumstance who do not qualify for paternity leave or shared parental leave must rely on the compassion of their employers to take adequate time off work to care for their child. Thankfully, the number of people who find themselves in this situation is low, but of course every death and story is devastating. We anticipate that the entitlement will help around 90 bereaved partners per year.
Bereaved partner’s paternity leave is a day one right, meaning there is no continuity-of-service requirement. Bereaved fathers and partners will be able to start taking leave from the day after the mother’s or primary adopter’s death. The leave must end on their child’s first birthday or the first anniversary of the adoption, unless it is necessary to go beyond this date to ensure that an employee is entitled to at least two weeks of leave.
To be eligible, the bereaved partner must be an employee; they must be the child’s father, or the mother or adopter’s spouse, civil partner or partner at the time of the mother or adopter’s death; and they must have the main responsibility for the child’s upbringing and be taking leave for the purpose of caring for the child. Together, the regulations ensure that employees who lose their partner in the time surrounding childbirth or adoption will have access to a guaranteed period of leave to care for a new child.
To start the leave in the first eight weeks after the partner’s death, a bereaved partner can give notice informally at any time before they are due to start work on their first day of absence. This could be by text message or phone call to their employer. To take more than eight weeks after their partner dies, an employee must give one week’s notice in writing.
The Government have assessed the impact of bereaved partner’s paternity leave on businesses and found it to be minimal. We estimate an annual cost of approximately £0.9 million to businesses, mainly from re-organising work during employee absence.
I am very proud to commend the regulations to the Committee. I thank everyone who has been involved in campaigning on this issue for a number of years and worked closely with us and the Department to shape this legislation.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be in this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. The regulations before us continue vital work that occurred under both Conservative and Labour Governments, as the Minister rightly said. I am pleased but not surprised that that work attracts genuine cross-party support. For a baby to lose their mother or primary caregiver is a tragedy for that child, and for the father and wider family. In this place, whenever possible and where it is practical to do so, we should support those families with their grief and as they continue to care for their child. It is with those families in mind that I can of course confirm that the official Opposition support the regulations.
Just one questioned has emerged as I have engaged with businesses, so I would appreciate a simple clarification on their behalf. I understand and welcome the fact that guidance will be provided for businesses, and the Minister acknowledged the £0.9 million impact on them. The Government have made it clear that they will publish details for businesses on the relevant website. The regulations are to come into force in April this year—just 40 working days away—so will the Minister provide a specific date as to when, between now and 40 days’ time, the guidance will be published? Businesses have raised that specific question with me.
I repeat the Opposition’s position that we fully support the regulations. I join the Minister in praising the great work of the former MP for Broxtowe, Darren Henry, the great work of the hon. Member for Bridgend through a private Member’s Bill, and the tremendous campaigning efforts of Mr Horsey, who is in the Public Gallery to witness proceedings. I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations, and we are pleased to support them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.—(Kate Dearden.)
Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has consider the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.—(Kate Dearden.)
Elections to West Sussex County Council
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
Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 744215 relating to Russian influence on UK politics and democracy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. In preparation for leading this debate, I met experts and researchers; I also spoke to Alex, the organiser of today’s petition. I thank everyone who took the time to speak with me, I thank the diligent staff of the Petitions Committee for their support in organising those meetings, and I thank the 114,704 signatories to the petition, who have brought this critical issue to the attention of the House.
I know that the Government have already commissioned an urgent review of foreign financial interference in UK politics, led by Philip Rycroft. That is extremely welcome, and I applaud the Government for doing it, but I want to make a clear distinction. Financial interference is just one way in which the Kremlin meddles in our democracy; there are other ways as well. The petition calls for a public inquiry into all Russian interference in our politics. Such an inquiry should be broad, covering all aspects of Russian interference. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to address that in his response.
From my discussion with Alex, I also know that the petition was inspired by events including the conviction of Reform’s former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, and concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum and Boris Johnson’s close personal relationship with Evgeny Lebedev, a man whom Boris Johnson elevated to the other place and the son of a “former” KGB officer.
I strongly believe in looking for solutions and looking forward, not back, but it is clear to me that the petitioners are deeply concerned about past events. With that in mind, I will start by talking about some of those events and outline how we have reached this point, to explain why the petitioners are so deeply concerned. We then need to talk about the state of play today. Where are our weaknesses? Where are our vulnerabilities to Russian interference? How is the Russian state already meddling in our democracy? Finally, we need to talk about solutions. What can the Government do to mend and protect trust in British politics?
I will start with Nathan Gill. The fact that the petition received so many signatures in Welsh constituencies should tell us that the crimes of Reform’s former leader in Wales were a major cause for concern for all petitioners. Nathan Gill is currently serving a 10-and-a-half-year sentence for taking, at the very least, £40,000 in Russian bribes. Now, £40,000 is a huge amount of money, but I ask hon. Members: is it enough to betray your country? I suggest not. Perhaps Mr Gill’s political leanings were already closer to the Kremlin’s than those of the rest of us.
For the sum of £40,000, Nathan Gill gave TV interviews in favour of an ally of Vladimir Putin and made speeches in the European Parliament. Spouting pro-Russian talking points is not new for Reform politicians: Nathan Gill’s boss, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), blamed the EU and NATO for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, said that the west had “provoked” the invasion and described Putin as the world leader he most admired. It seems that Reform politicians are comfortable doing the Kremlin’s dirty work for it, regardless of whether they get paid for the privilege. Maybe Russia should have asked Mr Gill to betray his country for free. It may as well have saved £40,000.
The problem spreads further and higher than Reform, however. The former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has serious questions to answer about his relationship with Lord Lebedev, whose father was a KGB officer. There is, as they say, no such thing as a former KGB officer. In April 2018, when Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary, he visited Alexander Lebedev’s Italian villa, a location allegedly being investigated for use in spying. He did so without his officials and travelled to Lebedev’s villa directly from a NATO summit. We were told by the former Prime Minister that
“no Government business was discussed.”
We have only his word for that. I will let hon. Members make up their own mind about how much trust should be placed in the former Prime Minister’s words.
In 2021, Italy’s foreign intelligence agency wrote to the Italian Prime Minister to report that Lord Lebedev’s father
“enjoyed the favour and friendship of Vladimir Putin”
and continued to attend KGB meetings in Moscow. The House of Lords Appointments Commission raised concerns about “significant potential risks” from Lord Lebedev’s “familial links”, but thanks to the former Conservative Prime Minister, this man now sits in the other place, with all the access and credibility that that place imparts, not to mention the ability to make decisions about the direction of our country.
Where do we stand now? I found my conversations with various experts extremely helpful in answering that question, and the points that I am about to make owe a huge amount to them.
First, our defences against money as a vector for political persuasion and control are insufficient. The case of Nathan Gill proves that. Although we should be pleased and relieved that Mr Gill was caught and punished, the damage was already done. Appropriate systems must be put in place to prevent any recurrence of his treachery. Some experts mentioned concerns that Russian money is used to fund think-tank reports in Britain. I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider mandating that all UK-based think-tanks declare their funding.
Critically, cryptocurrencies pose a new threat to our democracy. If we do not have the tools to tackle and prevent old-fashioned cash-in-hand corruption, what can we do to tackle bribery and corruption founded on cryptocurrencies? I ask the Minister whether the Home Office is taking steps to develop digital tools to tackle cryptocurrency bribery and corruption. I appreciate that the Rycroft review will assess financial interference specifically, but I would be grateful if the Minister told the House what efforts the Home Office is already making to clamp down on the malign influence of Russian money in our democracy.
Secondly, we must discuss an issue outside the remit of the ongoing Rycroft review. The experts I spoke to were explicit: Britain is on the frontline of an information war. Thanks to the security, crime, and intelligence innovation institute at the University of Cardiff, we know that Russia employs at least 500 political technologists. These are people who plan Russia’s informational, political, economic, cultural and legal subversion of its enemies.
One such political technologist was in London on the day of the 2016 Brexit referendum. On the day we made one of our biggest ever decisions as a nation, this Russian political technologist was in our capital city, taking photos of polling stations and sharing them on social media with his followers in Russia. This man has personally met senior UK political figures, and he wrote a report that personally thanked someone who worked on Conservative campaign headquarters election campaigns and alongside two former Prime Ministers. This man is now using the skills he acquired in Britain to deliver a master’s degree in Moscow, designed to train specialists in information warfare.
Russia clearly sees that this is a war, even if we do not. Its strategy is one of division, to create distrust and to convince Brits that we are all the same.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
During last year’s election in Moldova, undercover reporters exposed a network of people who were being paid by Russia to produce disinformation content on social media platforms, including TikTok and Facebook. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are naive to assume that such things are not happening in this country, too?
Ben Goldsborough
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. One of the experts I spoke to worked on that campaign, to make sure that loopholes were being closed to protect Moldovan democracy. We are no different from anybody else; he is completely right.
Disinformation relies on and deepens political polarisation in our country, creating uncertainty, distrust of truth and a rush to political extremes. “The Integrity Initiative Guide to Countering Russian Disinformation” says:
“When people start to say, ‘You don’t know what to believe’ or ‘They’re all as bad as each other’, the disinformers are winning.”
Information warfare with the Russian state is not new. So much of what we are discussing today could be straight out of the cold war, but thanks to social media it is now easier than ever for Russia to disseminate disinformation. As one expert put it to me, the UK currently has an analogue response in a digital age. To put it another way, the Russian state has brought an ICBM to a knife fight.
The experts also pointed out that media literacy in our country is poor. We are not equipped to spot disinformation, so people fall prey to lies. This affects everyone: no one is immune to disinformation, and people who think they are immune are most at risk.
Thirdly, our own authorities are unarmed. The Electoral Commission is toothless and not fit for purpose. It is unable to tackle this existential threat and has been stripped of all the powers needed to tackle political interference. The Home Office, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and intelligence agencies are siloed. Our civil servants change jobs too frequently and do not have the experience or expertise necessary to deal with the threat.
What can we do to protect our democracy? First, we need to get real. We might not feel as if we are on the frontline, but we are. Russia knows it, and we need to recognise it now.
Secondly, we need a single agency responsible for identifying, tracking and defending against disinformation. The Swedish have their Psychological Defence Agency, which co-ordinates defence and provides agencies, local government, companies and organisations with support and education in countering disinformation. The French have VIGINUM, which detects information from hostile foreign actors and works to identify bot farms.
Thirdly, we need substantial investment in critical thinking education and a focus on training future generations to critically analyse sources. The threat will be with us for many years to come, and we must ensure that future generations have the tools they need. Much of the framework is already in place in the current curriculum, but we need to go further. Scrutiny of the provenance and validity of sources should be an absolute priority in the curriculum. Maths already does it, so will the Minister’s Department work with colleagues in the Department for Education to improve media literacy?
I cannot impress strongly enough on hon. Members how urgent the situation is. We must act swiftly and decisively to secure our nation from Russian interference.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on so eloquently detailing the importance and urgency of this matter. I also congratulate the petitioners on organising such an important petition. I speak as the Member of Parliament for Ceredigion Preseli, the constituency that—half an hour ago, at least—had secured the highest number of signatories.
As the hon. Member outlined, Wales is one of the areas that has secured the highest concentration of signatories across the entirety of the UK. It will come as no surprise to anybody who listened to his excellent speech that the reason for that interest and level of concern in Wales is the antics and treachery of the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, Mr Nathan Gill. As has been mentioned, he has been jailed for 10 and a half years for accepting Russian bribes to the tune of some £40,000 for making pro-Russian statements in the European Parliament and to the media. As I think everybody will agree, the man has committed treachery for £40,000, so we must ask serious questions about his integrity and that of his party, whose members I notice are absent from today’s debate.
I want to make two broad points. The first is to explain why it is so important that we waste no time in implementing measures in response to the findings of the review that the Government have rightly called for and initiated. I understand the review will report its findings in March. I plead with the Government Minister to ensure that the findings are acted on as soon as possible, so as to preserve the integrity of our democracy. Sadly, it might not be possible to bring about any legislative changes in time for the elections in Wales and other parts of the UK in May this year. Nevertheless, it is important that we do not waste any time so that further elections are not influenced in any way by the scourge of Russian interference.
I also ask the Minister that, as part of the review’s considerations, we look at the egregious loopholes in our current laws that the Russian state was able to exploit by funnelling money through to political actors and traitors in the UK for their own ends. I would like his reassurance that one particular device and mechanism being examined is the creation of Welsh limited partnerships. It is a subject that a whole host of investigative journalists have written about in some detail, and which I would very much like to hear the Government state that they are looking at. Such devices are created in Moscow in Russia and are then used to funnel money into our political discourse and political actors who try to interfere and influence our debates in malign ways that are very difficult for us to spot, or at least not very easy for the Electoral Commission and other authorities to act on effectively.
I will end by reflecting on why that is so important. The hon. Member for South Norfolk outlined the host of ways in which the Russian state is trying to target society and democracy in western countries and specifically in the UK. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) said in his intervention, we should not be so naive as to think that it is not happening here in the UK.
The strategic defence review of June last year concluded that we are under daily attack. When we talk about political interference, whether it is Russian, Iranian or Chinese for that matter, we should place that in the broader context of other hybrid warfare tactics, some of which the hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to. We need to consider that while those countries are perhaps flooding our social media feeds with disinformation generated by armies of bots, or trying directly to bribe some willing fools in our political environment, they are paving the way to undermining and corroding trust in political institutions and authorities such that we are even more vulnerable to the direct attacks they may launch, such as the terrible poisonings in Salisbury back in 2018, the arson attack back in 2024 or indeed the almost constant daily threat that these mysterious Russian research ships pose to our critical subsea infrastructure.
By allowing political interference to continue, we risk undermining the public’s trust in all our institutions and, indeed, in the very integrity of our politics.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a good speech. The Russian ship he mentioned was off the coast of my constituency among others, which caused grave local concern. It strikes me that to defend our democracy, be it Welsh, Scottish or national, protections should be extended to local authorities, because a council such as the Highland council, which is responsible for this vast coastline, would have something to say and do on that front.
Ben Lake
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member’s important intervention. Perhaps we in this country need to wake up to the nature of the threat: it is all-encompassing and comprehensive, so every single tier of government and of society needs to be engaged. Perhaps a national conversation about the seriousness of the threat should be initiated. The findings of the Government’s review may give us a good opportunity to trigger that national conversation. Once the review has issued its findings, we cannot waste any time in bringing forward the measures, whether legislative or budgetary, that need to be undertaken to protect the integrity of our democracy and tackle the scourge of Russian interference in our politics.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) alluded to, there are many directions in which we can take the debate, be that money in politics or disinformation. Even in my community, a Russian school has been accused of teaching paramilitary techniques to children. However, I want to focus on a case that I believe can inform the rest of the debate and the Government’s response: that of my former constituent Roman Abramovich, who still owns frozen property in Kensington and Bayswater.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to raise a case in Hastings, where £150,000 of levelling-up money was given to Lubov Chernukhin, the Conservatives’ biggest female donor, who is married to a former Finance Minister in Putin’s Russia. She took the levelling-up money, and the building—Owens in the town centre—closed after a matter of weeks. It was boarded up and the staff were not paid. Last April, I asked for that money back. I am still waiting to hear from her. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson should address that in her response to the debate?
Joe Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for providing another rich example of the level of infiltration and influence that malign actors have had, including capturing Government contracts and not delivering on their intention. I am sure that Front-Bench Members will have heard her plea for clarity.
Roman Abramovich was sanctioned in March 2022 and had his assets frozen. I am pleased that the Government have extended those sanctions, with 900 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships under the Russian sanctions regime. In May 2022, Abramovich sold Chelsea football club under an explicit agreement that the sale proceeds would be used for humanitarian need for Ukraine. It is shameful that, after four years, that money has still not been released.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in issuing a licence in December to release the money within 90 days and a commitment to legal action if necessary. This is not only a case of profound national and international importance, but a test of whether our sanctions have the bite that they should. The Minister has worked closely on that issue and I am keen to hear what plans are in place for 17 March. What legal action can be taken if the money has not been released? Obviously, I hope that all options are kept on the table.
Abramovich’s influence in public life in Britain extends beyond the Chelsea FC money. He is accused by the BBC of avoiding up to £1 billion of tax after a botched attempt to avoid tax on hedge fund investments via shell companies in a British overseas territory, the British Virgin Islands. He deployed some of the best lawyers in the land to attack the journalist Catherine Belton’s book, “Putin’s People”. Specifically, he did so to try to distance his relationship with Vladimir Putin, an egregious example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation —a practice that I hope will be outlawed in this Parliament.
Abramovich is, of course, fighting a legal case in Jersey—a British Crown dependency—where his legal team includes the Conservative shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson. Having raised that issue many times in the House in recent weeks, I find the inconsistencies and double standards in the defence of Lord Wolfson astonishing. On the one hand, Conservative shadow Ministers have attacked the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for their former clients, including at Prime Minister’s questions last week. Yet when people have raised the Lord Wolfson case, including at the Solicitor General’s questions last week, Conservative shadow Ministers claimed disgrace. There is a critical difference: those clients represented by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General were not taken on when they were serving in this Parliament.
I agree that everyone, even a sanctioned Russian oligarch, is entitled to legal representation, but it is surely a massive conflict of interest for a sitting peer—the top legal adviser to the Conservative party—to think that it is compatible to do both of those jobs at the same time. Sir Bill Browder himself, the man who spearheaded the global campaign for Magnitsky sanctions, which are named after his lawyer who was killed by Putin’s henchmen, asked how the shadow Attorney General can
“moonlight as the attorney for a Russian oligarch who is trying to wiggle out of a £2.5 billion deal to aid victims of the war in Ukraine that he made with the UK government? Back in the day that was called a ‘conflict of interest’.”
Sir Bill is absolutely correct.
The Conservative position is that Lord Wolfson has recused himself from advising the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), and shadow Ministers on Russia and Ukraine, but on the day that the Conservative spokesperson made those comments to the lobby—not in the House, but to the lobby—Lord Wolfson published a letter that made no mention of such recusal. Is that not strange? Could we hypothesise that on that day, things were just being made up as they went along? A man of Lord Wolfson’s experience surely knows that a formal recusal must be more detailed than a Conservative spokesperson’s lobby briefing. I ask again, as I have done in the House: does the recusal include efforts to tackle the Russian shadow fleet, including the action taken with allies recently? Does it include sanctions policy? Does it include sanctions enforcement? Does it include tax policy? Does it include NATO policy? Does it include policies on money in politics?
The point is that the shadow Attorney General is representing someone with extremely close ties to Vladimir Putin at a time when Russia is attacking our country through hybrid warfare. I do not think that an unspecified recusal of which we have no detail is anywhere near sufficient to satisfy this House. I urge Lord Wolfson to reflect and make a choice, given that it appears that the Leader of the Opposition has proven too weak to do so. He can either continue to be shadow Attorney General or continue his representation of Abramovich. Doing both is simply indefensible.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I am sure everybody is aware, but I remind colleagues that if they are to mention another Member of Parliament, that Member has to be notified in advance. With respect to the House of Lords and peers, Members should refrain from direct criticism. I do not think I have heard that yet, and I have taken advice, but I remind colleagues to be aware of that.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I have notified another Member of the House, whom I intend to name in my speech.
I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the debate so comprehensively and effectively on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the more than 115,000 petitioners. I share their concern about the influence of Russia over British politics. We urgently need to defend UK democracy from a sustained pattern of attempted foreign interference.
In June last year, the Government’s strategic defence review called Russia
“an immediate and pressing threat”.
It absolutely is. We see that in the conviction of Nathan Gill, Reform’s former leader in Wales. He was sentenced to jail for 10 and a half years for accepting Russian bribes for influence in politics. We also see it highlighted by the light of disinfectant that has been provided by the partial release of the Epstein files. They show a sinister web of crypto and far-right politics in Putin’s orbit, and the way in which that extends into UK politics. It is clear that Reform UK is peddling the same agenda in the UK and is seeking to form the next Government. This is a clear and present danger to UK politics. We cannot overstate the threat to our values, democracy and way of life.
The Gill conviction came more than five years after the 2020 Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, which called Russian influence in the UK “the new normal”. The US had the in-depth Mueller inquiry into interference in their 2016 elections straight after. It is an unforgivable gap in the British state’s response to the Russian threat that a similar inquiry still has not been undertaken into the Brexit referendum. The Tories stopped that happening here. Why have the Labour Government not made it happen?
Mueller found that Russia had sophisticated techniques in setting up legitimate-looking English language accounts, which distributed thousands of pro-Brexit messages in 2016, raising serious questions about Russian internet troll farms. The ISC found credible evidence of interference in UK elections. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson used to dance on the head of a pin over successful and unsuccessful Russian interference, but this needs to be investigated properly and urgently before we have another general election in the UK. The Rycroft review is welcome and important, but we also need a proper, in-depth, Mueller-style probe into what happened in 2016 and since. Time is short, the clock is ticking and our democracy is under constant threat.
I turn to the Epstein files. The girls and women affected by the heinous crimes committed by Epstein and his cronies are at the forefront of all our minds. Justice for them must be paramount in any action that the UK Government take. The Epstein files make it clear that Gill was not one bad apple, but part of something much bigger and darker: a web of pro-crypto, far-right, Russia-linked anti-democratic forces. It is an oblique and shady movement, in which the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) appears to be embroiled deeply. A message from Steve Bannon, former head of the Trump campaign and former White House chief of staff, was explicit in telling Epstein:
“I am now adviser to Front; salvini/the league; afd; Swiss peoples; orban; land; farage”.
He crowed:
“next may is European Parliament election—we can go from 92 seats to 200—shut down any crypto legislation or anything else we want”.
He was explicit about his project and about the part of the hon. Member for Clacton within that project. We need to recognise this threat.
We see far-right parties across Europe all using the same playbook: attack migrants, distract, create fear, benefit from crypto and grab power. It is dangerous, disgusting and part of a plan. The files reveal Epstein messaging Palantir chief Peter Thiel to say of the chaos caused by the referendum that Brexit is “just the beginning”. That is why the Mueller-style probe is so important. Palantir itself is now enmeshed in hundreds of millions of pounds of public contracts in the UK, including in the NHS and the Ministry of Defence, facilitated in part by Peter Mandelson and Global Counsel. This is absolutely unacceptable.
It is vital that we stand up for democracy. It is vital that we stand up against the dangerous idea, “Oh, they’re all the same,” the idea that the word “politician “is inherently bad, and the unfair idea that all MPs are on the make. Some clearly are, but I absolutely believe that the majority are not. That sort of narrative exactly serves the anti-democratic Bannon-Putin-Farage agenda. But to stand against that, we must act.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
War may not be declared as before and warfare may not be defined by the weapons of old—we may not, for instance, have Russian bombers over the skies of London—but does the hon. Member agree that this country is being forced to fight back against Russian disinformation, spying and sabotage every day? If she does, does she not see Russian financial interference in our democracy as a weapon of war? And if it is, is our country therefore in a form of warfare with Russia?
Dr Chowns
I absolutely agree that Russian money is used in all sorts of manners to undermine our democracy. Rather than splitting hairs over the meaning of war, I will say that it is clear that we are in a fight for the life of our democracy, and that is why I am so passionate about the need for us to work collectively, cross-party, to face the challenge and resist the use of misinformation and disinformation, and the misuse of money, to poison our politics.
Let me turn to the actions that we need to take. We have a crucial opportunity coming up, because we are expecting the publication of the elections Bill. This House will have an opportunity to make law that could strengthen our powers to counter the forces of dirty money, misinformation and disinformation that undermine trust in our politics. Will the Government use the forthcoming Bill as an opportunity to introduce the measures that are urgently needed to prevent Russian influence?
Will the Minister ensure that we ban all crypto donations to political individuals and parties? Will he urgently introduce a cap on political donations? It is, frankly, mind-blowing that we still do not have one. Will he introduce annual spending limits, to stop massive spending around the edges of election times?
Will the Minister stop MPs having any second jobs? We have the grotesque spectacle of Reform MPs, for example, raking in hundreds of thousands fronting things like GB News, clearly peddling the kinds of messages and propaganda that serve the interests of the crypto/far-right/Kremlin axis. Will he act on the recommendations of Gordon Brown by establishing a new anti-corruption commission with power to seize assets and introducing confirmation hearings for top jobs? Why have we had to wait so long for this?
Will the Minister ensure that there is meaningful enforcement when the rules are broken? Frankly, £20,000 fines are a joke. We need much stronger financial and criminal penalties. We have structural weaknesses in election law, which the hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to, including the vulnerability of the Electoral Commission to political attack. Will the Minister re-establish the complete independence of the Electoral Commission and ensure that it has stronger powers?
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member also agree that there is a gap in the information that politicians and those who fund us need to supply? It cannot be acceptable for any Member, or any political leader in the UK, to forget that they met the Russian ambassador, to forget that they met someone who later turned out to be a Russian spy—as did the Reform leader in Wales—or to seem to have forgotten who paid for their house in Clacton.
Dr Chowns
The hon. Member makes an excellent point with which I agree entirely.
Finally, in respect of the elections Bill, we need to face the fact that the threats to public trust in our democracy not only derive from the influence of Russia and dark money, misinformation and disinformation, but relate to structural weaknesses in the way we do politics in this country. There is an urgent need for electoral reform. We need a system in which every person’s vote counts equally. Will the Minister commit to setting up a national commission on electoral reform so that we can ensure a genuinely fair voting system in which every voice is heard, and so that we do not have the spectacle of foreign money, from Russia or other influences, drowning out the voices of real individual citizens in this country?
If we want future elections to be free and fair, and if we want proper democratic mechanisms for control of our own destiny as a country, we need to know what attacks were made in 2016. We need to understand the mechanisms that have been used to undermine our democracy so far, so that we can protect ourselves from the continuing disinformation campaign that endangers our democracy now. We urgently need to put in place steps through the elections Bill to rebuild trust in UK democracy and protect ourselves from foreign interference.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on Russia and democracy, and as chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax.
Let me say at the outset that the most important step at this juncture is to provide input into the ongoing Rycroft review of foreign interference in our democracy. I look forward to meeting Philip Rycroft later this week. If colleagues have yet to do so, I encourage them to submit their views to his team as soon as possible.
I would like to make the case for a wide range of reforms that we desperately need, including measures to address glaring weaknesses in our lobbying framework, improvements to controls in this House and the other place, and further measures to work closely with the private sector. However, as a considerable number of colleagues are keen to contribute to the debate, I will restrict my remarks to the changes that I would like to see in the Government’s forthcoming elections Bill. I will begin with the repeated red flags linking Reform UK, or individuals closely associated with it, to Russian money, Kremlin-aligned networks and their vehicle of choice for influence: cryptocurrency.
Vulnerability to foreign influence is a cross-party issue, but when it comes to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I notified him, Mr Pritchard, that I would mention him—and the people he chooses to surround himself with, the pattern is hard to ignore. Reform UK presents itself as the party of ordinary people, the party of patriotism and the party that claims to stand up for Britain, but the public deserve to know where its money comes from. Again and again, the individuals bankrolling, advising or orbiting Reform appear to sit far too close for comfort to networks that raise serious national security concerns.
Let me start with one of the most serious cases of all and, I suspect, the reason why six out of the top 10 constituencies by signatories to the petition are in Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) mentioned, Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison for accepting money in exchange for making pro-Russia statements in the European Parliament. Having dedicated my working life to tackling bribery and corruption in all its forms, I found the Gill conviction of profound concern. Yes, justice was done, but that case should have prompted a moment of deep reflection for Reform UK. Instead, we saw Reform attempt to brush it off and to distance itself from “one bad apple”. But the public are not fools. If Gill was one bad apple, let us take a look at the rest of the bushel.
Arron Banks’s links with Russia are well-documented, despite his attempts to silence journalists trying to report on his activities. Banks was allegedly offered financial incentives by Russian interests, including a stake in a gold mine, an offer he claims he refused. The New York Times reported that after Banks met President-elect Trump in Trump Tower in 2016, he returned to London and went straight to the Russian ambassador to discuss the visit. The point is not whether every allegation is proven beyond doubt; it is that the same names, the same networks and the same proximity to the Kremlin keep reappearing around the same political project. We cannot pretend that that is normal.
Let me also mention Chakrit Sakunkrit—sound familiar? I can see blank faces around the Chamber. I will use his old name: Christopher Harborne. Harborne donated £9 million to Reform UK—the largest single donation ever made to a British political party. He has lived in Thailand for more than 20 years, and he made his money from the cryptocurrency stablecoin tether. The National Crime Agency has explicitly warned that tether has been used for sanctions evasion and money laundering, including in relation to organised crime and Russia-linked networks.
That is not to say that Harborne himself is complicit in any wrongdoing, but the fact is that we now have a large political party bankrolled by an overseas billionaire whose wealth is tied to a cryptoasset that our own law enforcement agencies have flagged as a tool used in Russia-linked illicit finance. I used to work in anti-bribery and anti-corruption at two major UK banks. Let me summarise what I have just said in six short words: red flag, red flag, red flag.
That brings me to Reform UK and cryptocurrency, which is currently a permissible vehicle for donations into UK politics. The hon. Member for Clacton announced that his party would be taking crypto donations at the Bitcoin 2025 conference—a conference held not in Clacton, London or even Manchester, but in Las Vegas. We should ask ourselves: how many permissible donors were in the room at the time?
I find it profoundly disturbing that the leader of a British political party is being funded, promoted and platformed by the same international ecosystem of crypto money and political influence operations that have been repeatedly linked to Kremlin-aligned interests. This is how foreign interference works in the modern era. It is not George Smiley and Karla battling it out in trenchcoats, and newspapers with eyeholes, but money flows, opaque financing, crypto networks, conferences, and so-called influencers paid to shift political narratives.
Now let me speak about George Cottrell, a key Reform fixer. He has acted as a fundraiser for UKIP and the Brexit party and served as chief of staff to the hon. Member for Clacton, who described him as “like a son”. Cottrell served time in prison in the US after being accused of offering money laundering services on the dark web; he ultimately pleaded guilty to wire fraud. His mother, Fiona Watson, donated £750,000 to Reform, making her one of its biggest donors at the time. Cottrell has been linked to offshore crypto and gambling networks. He appears to be based primarily in Montenegro, where he has funded political campaigns and been accused by local police of running illegal crypto ATMs. Offshore finance, crypto, money laundering risk and Russian proximity—to my mind, there is only one reason why anyone would court crypto-linked individuals’ donations so aggressively: if they have something to hide.
I have sought to paint a picture of the current funding landscape and the egregious means by which certain individuals have sought to circumvent electoral law in order to pump money into our democracy. Let me turn to the principal legislative vehicle that can address these risks: the Government’s forthcoming elections Bill. First, I have to say that I was disappointed that the Government’s election strategy contained no concrete proposals to ban crypto donations to political parties. The Electoral Commission has recently issued some belated guidance, but its hands remain tied without Government action.
Cryptocurrency donations into our politics should be banned completely. I am no luddite. I recognise that there may be some value to cryptoassets in certain circumstances, but they are inherently high risk. In my opinion, neither the Electoral Commission nor political parties themselves will ever be able to keep up with that risk. Crypto is designed for anonymity, speed, cross-border movement and weak oversight, and Reform has chosen to host its cryptocurrency payment provider not in the UK, but in Poland, away from the prying eyes of the Financial Conduct Authority. Dare I ask why? Against that backdrop, we know that crypto is widely used for sanctions evasion, organised crime and illicit finance. As I have said, our NCA is concerned about tether’s role in Russia-linked laundering, so we cannot pretend that this is some sort of theoretical debate.
Secondly, no one person should be able to bankroll a political movement overnight. Chris Harborne’s £9 million donation is not democratic participation; it is political domination. The terrifying reality is that, under current rules, someone with that scale of wealth could make such donations again and again until a general election is called and the regulated period begins. That is not a level playing field. It is a plutocratic arms race—one set against an outdated concept of long and short campaign periods that has long been left behind in the modern world of 24/7 campaigning.
Finally, we must restore the independence of the Electoral Commission. If we want proper enforcement, proper scrutiny of permissibility and real deterrence, the Electoral Commission must be truly independent.
Reform may claim to be the party of patriotism, but patriotism is not surrounding yourself with people repeatedly accused of Russian proximity. Patriotism is not building a political machine that thrives in the shadows of opaque money. Patriotism is defending British democracy from foreign interference, whoever it comes from and whichever party benefits. I urge the Government, in the forthcoming elections Bill, to deliver three reforms that Britain urgently needs to protect our democracy from foreign interference: a cap on political donations, a ban on cryptocurrency and full independence for the Electoral Commission.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his well-informed opening speech, and congratulate the petitioners on bringing this important issue to the House.
Russian interference is happening today. It is a deliberate strategy to weaken our society, undermine trust and turn democratic politics into a marketplace. Russia does not need to win an election to damage a country. It needs only to convince people that nothing is true, that everyone is bought and that participation is pointless. We know the tools and tactics: disinformation, cyber-attacks, intimidation and crucially—as we have been hearing—money.
We have seen the use of money, in the clearest possible terms, used to buy the influence of British politicians. As we have heard, Reform’s former leader in Wales has been jailed for taking bribes to make statements that advanced pro-Russian narratives while he was an MEP—a violation not only of his position, but of the trust of those who elected him. In that context, and with the victims in mind, the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein must be taken seriously. Poland has opened an inquiry into possible links between Epstein and Russian intelligence, and newly released files set out the extent of his ties to Kremlin-linked figures. Those links being proven would underline a brutal reality: hostile states do not just target institutions; they exploit compromised individuals and networks that reach right to the top.
I am therefore calling for three clear steps. First, the public deserve a public inquiry into the Mandelson affair—the vetting failures, the access and any national security implications—so that they can have confidence that the full facts are established and accountability is delivered. The Prime Minister has himself said he was misled. If the lies of Mandelson lead back to the Kremlin through Epstein, the public deserve to know.
Secondly, we must rebuild tighter co-operation with our European allies on intelligence, sanctions enforcement and counter-disinformation.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Just last week, the Government said that Russia remains the biggest single threat to UK national security, but they also said that they were not going to join the security action for Europe project. The main reason given was the increase in costs since Brexit. If Russia interfered in Brexit, is that perhaps not exactly the result it was looking for?
Susan Murray
I agree with the hon. Member. We need to investigate the circumstances fully and, if it proves necessary, reconsider any decisions that have been taken.
Russian interference is a shared threat, and we are weaker when we act alone. We must shut the loopholes in election law that let Russian money buy access in British politics. Nathan Gill took bribes to push pro-Russian lines—proof that cash for influence is real. On top of that, the Conservatives have taken millions from donors with ties to Russia. Lubov Chernukhin alone donated more than £2 million.
We need transparent donations in British politics. If the money cannot be traced or appears to be buying influence, it has no place in our political system. Given the seriousness of the situation, I strongly urge the Government to consider these proposals and to make every effort to cut out the cancer that is Russian interference in our politics.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his excellent opening speech. I agree with the statement in the petition, which 168 of my constituents signed:
“We are concerned about reported efforts from Russia to influence democracy in the US, UK, Europe and elsewhere. We believe we must establish the depth and breadth of possible Russian influence campaigns in the UK”.
However, I emphasise that that influence is being exercised throughout the world, not just in the west.
I agree with the e-petition, not only from my constituents’ point of view but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, the largest APPG in Parliament, and as chair of the APPG on Ukraine. Russian influence and interference is the converging issue at play between those groups. We must listen to and learn from Ukraine, as the Ukrainians are on the frontline defending Europe. We are in a hybrid war with Russia—that is not a new phenomenon. It is trying to erode our democracy on home soil. I will guide Members through the historical influences on our politics and democracy; address what we already have on the table with the Rycroft review; and conclude with what we must also place on the table, especially via our upcoming elections Bill, in order to ensure that we protect the freedom and fairness of our democracy for evermore.
Russian influence—or should we say interference?—in UK politics is here. Reform’s Nathan Gill was guilty of eight charges of accepting bribes from the Kremlin. The Kremlin exploited legal loopholes to influence the Brexit vote, as ex-MI6 spy Chris Steele revealed just last week here in Parliament. For at least 15 years, the Kremlin has exploited loopholes in political finance rules, with anonymous donations through Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh limited partnerships, unincorporated associations, cryptoassets and parapolitical ecosystems such as think-tanks, opaque media organisations and political movements not formally classified as parties. Evidence of Russian election interference was described as “overwhelmingly clear” as early as 2017 to 2019, with its
“utterly disruptive and malign presence”
in British national life.
If we do not resist, act and legislate now, how can we ever expect to be rid of Putin’s influence and to live in a legitimate democracy? Foreign influence is not a new challenge to democracy, especially during wartime. We are, I emphasise, in an ongoing hybrid war with Russia. During the second world war, the British Ministry of Information, in co-operation with the War Office and the Ministry of Home Security, issued a guidance pamphlet on disinformation. It detailed how foreign powers may seek to:
“make use of the civilian population in order to create confusion and panic. They spread false rumours and issue false instructions. In order to prevent this…do not believe rumours and do not spread them…make quite sure that it is a true order and not a faked order”—
that is disinformation.
Disinformation is fake news. It is created and spread deliberately by someone who knows full well that it is false. Disinformation is vast. It is a technique, like dark money and manipulation, as old as nefarious actors themselves. The distinct difference between that guidance published in the 1940s and today is that the digital realm we are operating in is evolving minute by minute. Our regulation must evolve alongside it.
The Rycroft review, the independent review launched in response to the shocking case of Reform’s Welsh leader, Nathan Gill, is a good first step. I wish to give the review the opportunity to uncover events and make substantial recommendations going forward. Former permanent secretary Philip Rycroft will assess finance and bribery rules and how to reduce the risk of foreign interference, and will build on new rules set out in the election strategy to guard against foreign political interference.
I will welcome Mr Rycroft’s report, which is to be sent to the Home Secretary and Security Minister at the end of March. It will focus on the effectiveness of UK political finance laws, as well as the safeguards in place to protect our democracy from illicit money from abroad, including cryptocurrencies. I look forward to hearing about how it will examine the rules governing the constitution and regulation of political parties, and the Electoral Commission’s enforcement powers, as well as exploring the role of the checks-and-balances system. That being said, to keep up with the technological developments that enable Russian influence in UK politics, we need a multitude of regulation and recommendations to ensure that the Kremlin keeps out of Westminster.
The elections Bill will be a vehicle for that. As chair of the fair elections APPG and Ukraine APPG, I look forward to seeing such firm regulatory action being taken. First, on dark money, we must stop corrupt, foreign state-sponsored money entering our political system. One way to better restrict that would be to outlaw both crypto donations and those from unincorporated entities. Furthermore, there should be a ban on all overseas donations. All known loopholes and political funding architecture must be closed, including Northern Ireland anonymous donations, Scottish and Welsh limited partnerships and so on. That must be tackled through new laws or legislative instruments.
Secondly, on disinformation, we need to rapidly improve our transparency in the UK to make a free and fair digital environment for elections. Without transparency, we get populist information dynamics. That means elections with information disorder, trust erosion as political terrain and narrative amplification over institutional debate. Simplified, reductionist and emotionally resonant narratives are how the predator of big tech preys on the electorate. We must learn from international leaders such as Estonia, which has whole-of-Government electoral threat monitoring, real-time co-ordination between security agencies and electoral authorities and public transparency during interference incidents. We can also learn from France with its election period intervention, which includes legal powers to act rapidly against co-ordinated foreign disinformation during elections combined with rapid attribution and public exposure.
Overall, foreign disinformation thrives where public trust is weakest. A voting system that leaves millions without meaningful representation actively undermines that trust. There is more to do to ensure that our elections are free and fair. These three pillars—eradicating dark money, disinformation and misinformation, and overall electoral reform—are the pillars of the APPG for fair elections. If we work together, we can have a free, fair and democratic future.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I hope that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) enjoyed the email that I sent him this afternoon.
Carl von Clausewitz described war as a continuation of politics by other means. In the Kremlin, the reverse is true and every lever of statehood is a machine of war. Vladimir Putin has been prosecuting that war against the United Kingdom and our allies for 26 years—whether or not we understand that. NATO and the European Union are two major barriers to Putin’s ambition for expansion and the UK is a crucial partner to both.
In November 2025, Nathan Gill, Reform UK’s erstwhile leader in Wales, was convicted of taking Russian bribes in return for favourable statements in the European Parliament. The hon. Member for Clacton, and leader of Reform UK, described his once close associate as a “bad apple”, but I suspect that the real rot is at the heart of the orchard.
The hon. Member for Clacton also made pro-Kremlin statements as a Member of the European Parliament, most notably in 2014, the year that Russia first invaded Ukraine, when he spoke of Europe poking
“the Russian bear with a stick”.
The previous year, he had met the Russian ambassador, Alexander Yakovenko, at the Russian embassy in London. He later denied that that meeting took place, but a photograph of the pair betrays the falsehood.
Arron Banks also met Yakovenko on at least four occasions between 2015 and 2016, a period within which he donated at least £8 million to a campaign to leave the European Union. He has subsequently given conflicting accounts as to the origin of that donation. Banks is known to have explored the possibility of raising foreign donations through an email copied to Steve Bannon in 2015, and in 2025, Reform UK received a donation of £9 million from the co-owner of cryptocurrency Tether, Christopher Harborne. Tether is understood by the National Crime Agency to be used by the Kremlin to launder its money, evading international sanctions and keeping its war machine running.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
My hon. and gallant Friend is right to highlight the threat from hostile states such as Russia and most importantly from individuals with Russian links. That is exactly why I introduced a private Member’s Bill last year to cap political donations and close the loopholes that allow foreign-linked dark and dirty money to flow into our politics. Does my hon. Friend agree that wealthy individuals with opaque international links can exert damaging influence on our democracy, particularly when our political finance rules still allow very large donations—including crypto donations—with limited scrutiny?
Cameron Thomas
I absolutely agree, and I look forward to the Rycroft review hopefully making some recommendations along those very lines.
The case of Bradshaw and others v. the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights judged in 2025 that the UK’s decision to leave the European Union was subject to Russian interference, but neither MI5 nor MI6 has ever properly explained its dereliction of duty in failing to inform Parliament of that activity. Last year, I asked the Security Minister to release the full, unredacted Russia report, which Prime Minister Boris Johnson suppressed in 2019 against the advice of those security services. The Minister declined, but did not elaborate on his reasoning.
I recalled that interaction last week, after Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein were linked to Putin’s friend, oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Mandelson was also a non-executive director at the Russian company Sistema. Last week, the leader of the Liberal Democrats called for a full inquiry into Mandelson’s links to Russia. That is the same inquiry that the petitioners are asking for.
Ours is an era in which war rages in Europe, the great partnerships of NATO and the European Union have been ruptured, and Russian hybrid warfare has targeted every aspect of UK statehood, from the Ministry of Defence to the NHS and the BBC. Disinformation has for years been interwoven with news to undermine public trust in UK politics—disinformation that now feeds artificial intelligence algorithms distorting the truth that will inform tomorrow.
I have scratched the surface, but there is simply too little time, in any number of Back-Bench debates, to lay out the case for this inquiry. This issue transcends political allegiance. The breadth and depth of Russian influence is so vast and so dangerous to our democracy that no single political party has either the credibility or capacity to fully investigate it. Only a judge-led statutory public inquiry will suffice. The Government have the responsibility to deliver; the future of our democracy requires that they do so.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for so ably setting out the petitioners’ cause. I am above all grateful to the petitioners themselves for bringing to this House such a critical issue—in fact, potentially the most important issue: how we can protect our precious but disturbingly quite fragile democracy. I agree with all the comments that have been made in this debate so far about the Rycroft review and the elections Bill.
We have to recognise that the circumstances we are in today are different from those of 10 years ago. I genuinely believe that, back then, for most political parties the fear or shame of being found to have broken the rules was incredibly important, and it was just as much a motivator for compliance as the letter of those rules themselves. Sadly, with some parts of politics—particularly those associated with Kremlin-based interests—shame is no longer a motivator. We are in a post-shame set of circumstances, and that means that we need stronger rules. I agree with my hon. Friend that the time has come for a cap on donations, as well as the many other proposals that he and others set out.
It is essential that the Government fulfil the promises they have made in their welcome strategy related to the elections Bill on the integrity of digital communications. I agree with the Security Minister, who has done so much on these issues, that there is little evidence that Russian bots influenced the outcome of the last general election. However, he will be well aware that there is evidence that the prevalence, reach and AI-enabled effectiveness of bots is growing pretty much every day. As Global Witness showed, even back in 2024, posts from bot-like accounts spreading disinformation and hatred were viewed more than 150 million times in the run-up to the election.
We cannot have a system for election regulation that is still based on leaflet and newspaper campaigning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) described. Campaigning and attempts at influence now take place online, and our electoral legislation needs to catch up. I hope that the election Bill will ensure that that happens.
The case of Moldova was mentioned earlier. I had the privilege of visiting that country last year with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I spoke with many election officials and politicians, including President Maia Sandu, and I agree that we see the same playbook being used time and again; of course, it has been used to greater intensity in a country that is right on the frontline of the war in Ukraine. We need to shift out of what is often called the normalcy bias of thinking that the exercise of influence is something unusual, into a far more vigilant state. That must include a national conversation, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) said. The public need to understand the extent of the threat from Russian-influenced campaigns far more.
There is an analogy here, which was discussed in relation to the elections Bill, with the threat from Russian-enabled cyber-attacks. I still hear individuals speaking about cyber-attacks as if they are somehow a one-off, but we know now—this was discussed in relation to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill—that cyber-attacks are costing our economy about 0.5% of GDP. What happened at Jaguar Land Rover, in just one single cyber-attack, lead to a reduction in our projected GDP. To put that in context, my understanding is that in 2024, all of agriculture contributed 0.56% of our GDP. Cyber-attacks are a huge threat, and we need to improve public awareness of them and of the exercise of influence, too.
That needs to take place in key institutions, as well as more broadly. I was pleased that the Security Minister met with universities, as well as MI5 and others, to help them to identify the threat of foreign interference. That was really positive. I realise that much of that work was connected to Chinese interference, given what happened with Sheffield Hallam University, but it is clear that a variety of authoritarian states and individuals are increasingly seeking to intimidate academics and researchers. The centralised route for reporting attempts of academic interference is welcome, but I strongly urge the Government to look at other measures, such as ensuring that universities are prepared for vexatious, multiple freedom of information requests. They have been weaponised against those researching the spread of online disinformation and hate, in some cases with links to authoritarian regimes, including Russia.
We also need to be far more vocal about the extent of Russian-linked sabotage in our country. I am sure many Members here will be aware of the horrific burning of the warehouse in Leyton in east London. Fewer people, perhaps, will be aware of the credible links to Russia when a package caught fire in a DHL warehouse near Birmingham. The methods we see being used by Russian-based operatives in our country are very similar to those operating across other nations.
Jamie Stone
The right hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Only yesterday, Sven Sakkov, the Estonian ambassador, spoke in Aberdeen. Similar to what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) said about Moldova, he said, “Look, we’re a border country with Russia. You may think you’re far away, but it’s happening right on your doorstep. You have important undersea cables going from Banff to Orkney and Shetland to the Faroe Islands.” Can I suggest to the Minister, via the right hon. Lady, that we have to up our Royal Navy presence in those areas, perhaps using warships or undersea drones? If we sit on our hands and do nothing, we could be putting off the evil day.
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Member makes an important point. My understanding is that the Government are alive to the threat to undersea cables and have been seeking to work with industry and, more broadly, with other countries that have experienced interference to try to ensure that we are properly protected, although I am sure the Minister can elaborate on that.
I strongly agree with the point about seeing similar patterns in other forms of sabotage. It was concerning, but fascinating, that in the run-up to Germany’s last election, there was a campaign of sabotage directed at internal combustion engine cars. Dozens of them were sabotaged, and attempts were made to link that to the German Green party and to claim that it was somehow responsible. There was also widespread disinformation, with fake videos of ballot problems being disseminated. Officials in Germany have pointed out that there was credible evidence that it was part of a Russian campaign to undermine trust in the elections. It was obviously to undermine trust in one particular political party, but the impact is much broader, as many Members have said.
We need to ensure that individuals who are vulnerable to being exploited into carrying out this kind of sabotage understand what they are getting into. GLOBSEC, the security think-tank, has set out the pattern of involvement. There are often many links in the chain. Individuals may have been involved in petty crime, for example, and they get pulled in, often with the offer of cryptocurrency or simply money. They need to understand that what they are engaging in is treason. It carries a heavy sentence —rightly so—and can also be extremely dangerous. We saw that in east London, when those individuals were so concerned for their lives, given the fire right next to their apartment block. We need to ensure that the public are much more aware of these so-called cognitive operations, which are focused on undermining citizens’ trust in democracy and in key institutions.
Finally, I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Education has said that social media literacy, which is critical, will be a part of the new curriculum following the review. However, it is incredibly important that teachers will be properly empowered and protected when they are ensuring that our young people are ready to be social media literate. In her reviews of extremism, Dame Sara Khan has detailed that teachers have often not been supported when they have tried to engage in conversations about extremism, and we cannot fall into the same trap with disinformation.
Once again, it is a great pleasure to be part of this debate, and I thank the petitioners for bringing forward this important discussion.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for the elegant way in which he presented his speech, and I thank Members from across the Chamber for their thoughtful and excellent contributions.
Confidence in our democracies and our elected officials stands somewhat at a juncture. The ever-increasing deficit in confidence in politics and our politicians runs as far back as the financial crisis, and accelerated after some of the events that colleagues have mentioned. We know that democracy depends on participation, engagement and trust. When that is undermined and attacked, democracy itself is weakened.
The people of Ukraine know the brutality of the Russian regime and Russian warfare, but so do the people of this country, what with the Salisbury poisonings and Alexander Litvinenko being assassinated on British soil. As the Intelligence and Security Committee has made clear, Russian interference does not just involve tanks and poisonous chemicals. It also operates seditiously through money, misinformation, cyber-activity and influence. We know that Russia has developed a long-term strategy to interfere in western democracies, including our own. While the goal is not necessarily to support one political party over the rest, it is most definitely to create division, sow distrust and cause harm to our economy, society and national security.
Of course, I say that the goal is not necessarily to support one political party over another. However, as others have expanded on, when it comes to Nathan Gill, the former Welsh leader of Reform UK, one might be mistaken for thinking that that is actually the case. The number of Welsh constituents who have signed the petition, including in my constituency of Cardiff West—which, when I last checked, was fourth highest on the league table—shows that the disgust felt by the people of Wales at Nathan Gill’s treachery has struck a chord.
Let us quickly remind ourselves of Nathan Gill’s crimes. He committed eight counts of bribery, taking bribes from pro-Russian actors, and is now serving 10 and a half years in prison for his treachery. Specifically, while serving as an MEP for the people of Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, he accepted at least £40,000 in payments. He made speeches in the European Parliament that were scripted by the Kremlin, doing its bidding. Shockingly, he was also trying to recruit his mates—his friends, his colleagues—in the European Parliament to do the same, to keep the roubles flowing.
At first, some of Reform UK’s leaders claimed they did not know who this person was. Then the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who I have notified, said he was just a “bad apple”. Although their attempts to whitewash Gill from their history have clearly failed—and must fail—it is clear that the only way a political party such as Reform UK can be straight with the British public about the extent of Russia’s links is for it to do two things. No. 1 is that it must launch a full, independent investigation into all its links to Russia, and No. 2 is that it must commit to fully co-operating with Philip Rycroft’s review and to accepting every recommendation Rycroft makes. Of course, Reform is not here to answer that point, and to date it has failed to do so. That is not surprising, but it is shocking.
[Dawn Butler in the Chair]
Today, Politico published an article by the excellent Esther Webber entitled “Nigel Farage tries to fix his Russia problem”—and, boy, does he know he has one. A More in Common poll last year showed that despite the fact that every voter group overwhelmingly backs Ukraine over Russia, just 26% of Brits think the hon. Member for Clacton does, and 21% think he sympathises more with Russia. That is astonishing—and incredibly dangerous for our democracy. My constituents in Cardiff West and the Welsh public will not be fooled by any attempt at a makeover, given the overwhelming stench. The only way Reform can seriously fix the stench of Russian interference and conspiracies that surrounds it is to do what I have outlined.
For those reasons, and the other excellent reasons that colleagues have expanded on today, the elections Bill is a critical moment in our attempt to curb the extent of Russian and other interference in our elections.
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent point about how Reform’s Nathan Gill, who has been jailed for 10 years, was pushing out Putin propaganda in return for funding, and Reform has the most worrying of relationships with Russia. Is it also the case that Reform will ultimately do whatever its paymasters want? For instance, 50% of its income last year came from fossil fuel firms or climate change deniers—no wonder it is not in favour of net zero. Similarly, it is a fan of crypto chiefs and is embracing crypto donations, and as a consequence its policy would be to support cryptocurrency. Reform says it is on the side of ordinary people, but its Members voted against the Renters Rights’ Act 2025 and the Employment Rights Act 2025—historic Acts that shift power back to people. Is it not the case that Reform is just siding with vested interests?
Mr Barros-Curtis
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I fully agree. Of course, his point is about the donations that we know about, but when it comes to cryptocurrency, we do not know who the paymasters behind those payments are.
Some of what the Government have announced in relation to the elections Bill—and the strategy beforehand —on toughening up the rules on political finance is welcome. However, for the reasons that have been mentioned, we must go further, and I urge the Government to ensure that this opportunity to safeguard our democracy is not missed. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk mentioned, the Kremlin has exploited loopholes in political financing rules for at least 15 years. That must be stopped.
The Electoral Commission’s independence, enforcement powers and resources must be strengthened as a matter of urgency. We should ban all crypto donations to political parties and individuals. There is no legitimate rationale for donating via such means unless the donor ultimately wishes to disguise their true identity. The ban should be brought into effect urgently and capture donations made by any means, whether by principal donors or through intermediaries.
Improved co-operation between our Electoral Commission, intelligence services, law enforcement and electoral authorities must be a priority. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the new national police service, part of the recently announced reforms to policing, might be a suitable vehicle through which to consider establishing dedicated police capability for electoral crime.
We must urgently deal with disinformation and online operations, treating them as the core national security threat they are. The Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the police all need more resources and are underpowered for dealing with the threat of personalised algorithmic feeds and AI-enabled manipulation that feeds misinformation about our elections.
This is not specifically about Russia, but when Iran was attacked by Israel and America in targeted strikes last year, it was reported that 20,000 bots advocating for Scottish independence were taken out in Scotland as a result. If that is what Iran could do, imagine what North Korea, Russia and China are doing. That is why we have to take these threats seriously. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) mentioned, the important May elections will be a real test of what we need to do to respond to such foreign narrative-shaping operations.
I ask the Minister to urgently consider these measures and take this issue back to the various Departments to ensure we get a robust elections Bill that is ready for 2026 and for everything that is coming, given the way that technology is quickly changing. As part of this strategy, I ask him to join me in recommitting ourselves to the NATO alliance as a bulwark against Russian aggression—something that unserious politicians, such as the leader of the Green party, seem to doubt, thereby doing the Russians’ work for them. Alliances, resources and an elections Bill that seeks to support our democracy, not undermine it, are the critical tools we need to curb Russian interference.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Ms Butler. I thank all those who signed the petition, which speaks to a growing awareness and concern about the extent of Russian interference in our democracy. I note the particularly high number of signatories from Wales, doubtless because of disgust at the treachery of Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform in Wales, who was recently sentenced for accepting Russian bribes to speak up on behalf of Russia.
Our friends in eastern Europe have long been aware of the way the Russians use a whole range of tactics to achieve their aims. Before the 2014 invasion of Crimea, we saw the use of hybrid tactics by the Russian Federation in Ukraine to influence not only the different sections of the Ukrainian population and the Russian population back home, but western opinion. We should be under no illusion about the Russian interest in influencing opinion in western democracies and interfering with our very democracy.
I will not repeat the excellent points that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and other colleagues made on finance and named individuals. I will focus specifically on internet warfare. There is nothing new about propaganda or information warfare, but technological advances and our increasing reliance on technology make it much easier, quicker and cheaper to customise messages ever more precisely, with ever more powerful algorithms to target audiences thousands of miles away.
We have become familiar with marketing databases and the eerily accurate profiles they generate of us, but the recent acceleration in the shift from cash to card or phone for all manner of transactions, constantly increasing exposure to social media, and ever greater connectivity to the internet mean ever more information about us can be harvested and used to target messages. No longer are we merely subject to a billboard slogan seen four times a day or to the same TV advert viewed a dozen times; every spare moment, as we idly thumb our phones, we are ready targets for bombardment with internet messages.
Moreover, that bombardment masquerades as our free choice, as we scroll and click, often oblivious to the subliminal messages that target us. Worryingly, security experts estimate that more than 10% of content across social media websites and 62% of all web traffic is generated by bots. As our former colleague Ian Lucas, the former Member for Wrexham, said in his book “Digital Gangsters”, which details some of the work carried out by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, far from protecting people’s data, big companies such as Facebook have long been sharing users’ and users’ friends’ data. Who knows where that ends up?
Even when there is a clear international public consensus in condemning openly abhorrent material posted on the internet by extremists, we have seen how difficult and resource-intensive it is to remove it even from the big-name social media platforms, with little hope of preventing those who are determined to access it from finding it. We have been shocked to see what a powerful tool it has been in recruiting even well-educated, seemingly well-integrated young people in western countries to go to fight with Daesh abroad. Our counter-messaging skills clearly remain inadequate, so the potential for such computational propaganda to be used by state and non-state actors, both overtly and covertly, is enormous, and Russia has no qualms about using it. It can be used to stir up social unrest and racial hatred and to erode the will of a population to defend itself.
Our vulnerability is all the greater because we seem reluctant to recognise or to discuss the potential for manipulating our own populations. That is a challenge to our security, stability and prosperity. We in mature democracies are vulnerable because of the very values we hold. We value freedom of speech and freedom of belief. To us, censorship is unthinkable. We would not wish to challenge people’s right to access information from their sources of choice. We actually pride ourselves on giving all sides a fair hearing. Even in dealing with extremist views that all mainstream political parties abhor, we agonise about whether a no-platform stance plays into the martyr narrative—that the establishment will not give them a fair hearing. Even if we can achieve balance in a good TV discussion, there is no such balance on social media, where powerful algorithms are at work.
The nature of this form of hybrid warfare means it is difficult to attribute responsibility with certainty. State and non-state actors may choose to claim responsibility, to create deliberate ambiguity or to use technology to conceal their involvement completely, creating the impression of spontaneous indigenous action. Furthermore, targeting and manipulating public opinion, even if systematic and attributable, cannot be prosecuted under international humanitarian law, which focuses on physical harm. In some countries, such as Estonia, there are initiatives to build resilience—for example, by educating school students to recognise and deal with internet brainwashing techniques—but all too often, including in the UK, consideration of cyber-security focuses very much on infrastructure attack and personal exposure to fraud or sexual grooming, with limited discussion of mass psychological attack.
Before I finish, I would like to make specific mention of the way in which Russian interference weaponises LGBT+ issues. That is not by accident; it is a way of dividing societies and weakening our democracy. Research by the Kaleidoscope Trust and its international partners, alongside the UK Government, has shown that Russia systematically promotes anti-gender and anti-LGBT+ narratives, which are used to polarise electorates and mobilise nationalist and populist movements. Furthermore, it may discredit liberally aligned politicians or undermine trust in institutions such as NATO, the EU and the UN.
Protecting LGBT+ rights is not just a human rights issue; it is now becoming a national security priority. Attacks on LGBT+ communities and other minorities can often signal the beginning of the growth of authoritarianism and further erosion of democratic rights. We must remember that Russia does not just interfere directly in the UK, but can indirectly affect UK interests by interfering in countries currently friendly to us, such as Commonwealth countries. Of course, we have also seen the election battles in countries close to the EU or NATO, as other Members have mentioned. In terms of tactics, the Kaleidoscope Trust’s recent report “Legal Battlegrounds” has detailed disinformation and manipulation of the narrative, networks that amplify messages—such as influencers, proxy organisations and religious organisations—and political and electoral disruption.
Recognising the problem of Russian interference is only the first step. Far more challenging is what our strategy is for managing and combating the impact of internet warfare and how we build up our defences against it. We absolutely must take Russian interference in our politics and democracy as seriously as any physical threat and develop strategies to deal with it, so I very much welcome the Government’s activities to date. I appreciate that, for security reasons, the Minister may not be able to give a full account of everything that is being done, but I ask him to make tackling Russian interference an absolute priority, through both the upcoming elections Bill and much further action across the whole of Government.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for setting out the issues so clearly.
Protecting democracy must be a national security priority for all of us in this place. Many of us across the country recognised that by signing the petition, including 208 from my Thornbury and Yate constituency. Over recent years, these concerned citizens have watched Russian interference in democracies across the world—in the United States, across Europe, and here in the United Kingdom—and now they are demanding answers.
The petition calls for an inquiry into the depth and breadth of possible Russian influence in our country. Although in December last year the Government launched an independent review of foreign interference, led by Philip Rycroft, that is not enough. I welcome any scrutiny of foreign interference, but the review falls short on the transparency and information that the public deserve. We need a thorough and independent inquiry to understand fully the extent of foreign interference in the UK’s political system.
Parliament’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy previously warned that the UK has faced a sustained pattern of attempted interference from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. That assessment was reinforced by the Government’s 2025 strategic defence review, which concluded that the UK is subject to daily hostile activity, ranging from espionage and cyber-attacks to manipulation of information. The review called Russia an immediate and pressing threat.
Despite that recognition of Russian influence in the UK, successive Governments have failed to act decisively to protect our democratic process. The threats are real and documented: Russian money has flowed into UK politics; foreign oligarchs have bought property and influence; Chinese surveillance operations target our institutions; and, as has been mentioned repeatedly, Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, was jailed for accepting bribes from a pro-Kremlin operative to make pro-Russian speeches and statements. That is utterly shocking.
That is why, following Gill’s conviction, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are calling on the Intelligence and Security Committee to launch a new probe to investigate Russian interference in British politics. The investigation should look into potential ties between other members of Reform UK and Russia, which has been a recurring concern in the debate. The Reform UK leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), was paid to appear on “Russia Today” until it was banned in the UK, and he once declared that Putin was the world leader he admired the most.
We must move with urgency. The inquiry should be completed and laid before Parliament before the next general election, avoiding a repeat of the last Russia report, which the Conservative party shamefully suppressed until after the country went to the polls. Voters deserve to know about threats to our democracy before they cast their ballots, not after. This is not about one bad apple; it is about systematic failures and how we protect our democracy, given how successive Administrations have failed to address fundamental weaknesses.
We hope that we will soon have the opportunity to tackle these weaknesses through an elections Bill. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill must include a comprehensive ban on cryptocurrency donations to political parties, building on the policy paper that the Government published last year, which proposed tighter rules on political donations. Crypto creates the perfect vehicle for hostile states and foreign oligarchs to funnel money into British politics while evading scrutiny.
Transparency International UK has warned that the anonymity that can come with these donations provides a “backdoor for foreign interference”. Analysis from Spotlight on Corruption shows that only three parties have indicated that they will accept cryptocurrency donations: Reform UK, the Homeland party and the Other party. Reform UK even has a dedicated page for cryptocurrency donations.
The elections Bill must cap political donations to stop foreign oligarchs from interfering. It must also ensure transparency in political advertising and prevent foreign and dark money from influencing UK elections. Past loopholes have allowed opaque and corrupt funding of political parties, enabling foreign money to distort British politics. Transparency International has said that a foreign interference review is “welcome”, but that donation caps are
“the only way to break the stranglehold of big money over British politics”.
Cameron Thomas
The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has described a gentleman, George Cottrell, as “like a son” to him, despite that individual being a convicted money launderer. Does my hon. Friend share my suspicion? What does she make of the potential connection between money laundering and cryptocurrency?
Claire Young
It is extremely concerning, and that is why we would ban cryptocurrency donations. Alongside the new elections Bill, we must address the issues that the previous Conservative Government created and restore the independence of the Electoral Commission, as it had pre-2022. We must also ensure that the commission has real enforcement powers and the resources it needs to deploy them. As others have mentioned, we must also reform our electoral system. We must take a robust stance towards hostile states, such as China and Russia, and recommit to international partnerships that promote democracy and stability, including working with European and other democratic allies to co-ordinate our response to Russian interference.
The Government hold a substantial majority in the House, so they can push through legislation rapidly when they choose to. Few things can be more urgent than protecting our democracy. We call for a wide-ranging and properly funded public inquiry into potential Russian interference, including in the 2016 EU referendum, with the report to be published as soon as possible. A public inquiry with the power to compel witnesses to appear and documents to be released is the only way to get to the bottom of these serious allegations. Transparency must be prioritised.
Phil Brickell
The hon. Lady is making a good point about foreign interference and money in politics. Could she confirm today whether she has submitted her thoughts to the Rycroft review, which is under way at this time?
Claire Young
I have not, but there is still time.
This issue is about more than the failures and corruption revealed in the Nathan Gill case; it is about a system that has long been unfit for purpose and establishments that want to keep things the way they are because that suits their interests. Foreign states are now looking to exploit the situation, with potentially catastrophic outcomes. There is a danger that citizens will stop believing that their vote matters at all. We should use the situation to drive the changes that our country needs, that trust in politics demands, and that all our constituents deserve. I urge the Minister to announce an inquiry today. The threat to British democracy from foreign interference is clear and present, and must be addressed urgently.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, has brought us to Westminster Hall today. I particularly thank the 114,000 petitioners, who would like a public inquiry into Russian involvement in British democracy. I think that the Nathan Gill case and the petition do us a great good because they have flushed out, and given us a chance to shine a light on, something way bigger than Nathan Gill: the extent to which the Russians are attempting to infiltrate. I also thank a number of hon. Members who have spoken today.
Jim Shannon
I could not let this opportunity pass by. My point is about Russia’s influence; I want to mention in particular Russia’s abuse and disregard of lives. I am thinking of human rights and the persecution of religious minorities, and I could give some examples right away. Those of us who have stood up to condemn Russia for what it has done have found ourselves banned from travelling there. I am not particularly worried about that; I will never go to Russia anyway, but that is by the way.
Four Baptist pastors in Ukraine, in the Donbas region, went missing; they were kidnapped and are now believed to be dead. That is just one example of Russia’s disregard of human rights, religious minorities, Christians and all those who have values in life. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should condemn Russia not just for the issues he has outlined but for its abuse of human rights, its persecution of religious minorities and its disregard of human life?
Lincoln Jopp
It is difficult to know where to draw the line in our condemnation of Russian activity, but the hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. He could also have mentioned the theft and indoctrination of thousands of children. I am sure that the whole House speaks as one in condemning such activities.
The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) never misses an opportunity to raise the Abramovich billions, and he did not do so today. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) cleverly weaved into this debate on Russian influence the issues of second jobs and electoral reform, which she refers to in most of her speeches. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about Nathan Gill and attempted to disavow us of the notion that he was just “one bad apple”—a point I will come back to. Although quite a lot of party politics has played out today, it is important that we do not turn a Nelsonian eye to that case, which is potentially one of the most obvious and worrying.
I also thank the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for their contributions. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury quoted von Clausewitz, and shortly I will do the same.
The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) talked about the post-shame world. She made the interesting point that the normal constraints on normal activity seem to have been cast off. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) said that we need to treat disinformation as the core security threat that it is. I completely agree. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith)—apologies to her constituents for my pronunciation—said that we do not focus enough on the manipulation of our own people and called for balance.
I approach this debate by looking at three questions. Is the threat real? Is the perception of the threat high enough in the country and in this House, or should the Government do more to amplify it? Is the Government’s response sufficient? This is all crucial. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury will be delighted to hear the second bit of von Clausewitz of the day; as the Minister knows only too well, given his distinguished military career, we never tire of quoting von Clausewitz to each other in the Army.
“The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish”
the nature of the war that they are embarking on. So let us see the evidence on whether the threat is real and whether the perception of the threat is sufficiently real.
In the strategic defence review of June 2025, the Government said:
“The UK is already under daily attack, with aggressive acts—from espionage to cyber-attack and information manipulation—causing harm to society and the economy.”
In the same month, in the national security strategy, the Government said:
“The openness of our democracy and economy are national strengths. Therefore, it is vital to keep ahead of those who seek to exploit them with robust defences.”
Is the threat perception high enough? I cannot remember which hon. Member mentioned Estonia, but I have the pleasure of serving on the Defence Committee; we visited Estonia and Finland in February last year. I can tell hon. Members that the proximity to the geographical border with Russia focuses the mind considerably. From memory, the Finnish people have a population of 4 million; they can put 3.5 million of them underground at a moment’s notice. They can field an army of 200,000 with two weeks’ notice. They, too, have cyber-resilience and anti-grey zone units that work with the Estonians and other Baltic states to counter the disinformation and grey zone activity. I feel that in this country, because of our geographical distance from Russia, we fail to have that same focus. But we must.
Sir Alex Younger, the former head of MI6—and, as an aside, a former member of one of the finest regiments of foot guards there has ever been—gave evidence to the Defence Committee. He said that the United Kingdom’s digital attack surfaces are far broader and greater than those of a number of our European neighbours. Given that, as someone mentioned, geographical proximity is irrelevant in the world of information and cyber, we should be doing much more.
We heard interesting evidence at the Defence Committee the other day from James Heappey, the former Armed Forces Minister, who needed to get quite a lot off his chest. He was worried about the number of documents coming across his desk that had said, “You cannot share this with Parliament. This is too secret.” It worries me that the desire for secrecy means that we have all involved ourselves in something of a conspiracy for the past 30 years.
Ben Wallace was at the same session. He said that, from the mid-1990s onwards, Governments of all three colours had hollowed out defence, and they had done so because they wanted to spend their money on other things. It is the old choice between guns and butter: they chose guns, we chose butter. We need to amp up the threat perception in the House and, importantly, more widely in the United Kingdom. If not, those real balance-of-investment decisions that we need for our national security will not be made.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need to amplify threat perception, but I do not think that that is required with the conduct of elections. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report in 2020 said that it was informed that
“the mechanics of the UK’s voting are deemed largely sound: the use of a highly dispersed paper-based voting and counting system makes any significant interference difficult”.
Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that interference in the conduct of an election is less of a threat when elections in the UK involve pencils and ballot papers in village and town halls?
Lincoln Jopp
It is important to look at elections to the left of the ballot box, because it is not just about going down with a polling card and ID and putting a tick in a box. The hon. Member for Llanelli said it best: we need to be much more alive to the fact that we are being manipulated and manoeuvred by information and disinformation. We can use pencils and paper, sure, but there is a way more sophisticated game going on here, and it is pretty terrifying.
I come back to my theme of amping up the threat perception. We need to re-arm very quickly, not only with hard power but in the minds of our own people, so that we build national resilience to face threats more effectively across the spectrum. For example, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, we had the Russian spy ship and the threat to subsea cables—I am delighted that someone mentioned them. Importantly, when the Secretary of State took the decision to order the surfacing of the Astute-class submarine next to the Yantar to say, “We know what you’re doing and you need to pack it in,” he also made that information available in the newspapers to ensure that the public had that threat perception.
Jamie Stone
I have twice, in interventions, mentioned the spy ships and the problems around the coast of my constituency. Let us cut to the chase: does the hon. Gentleman agree that we do not have enough Royal Navy surface ships, never mind submarines? I have not seen a single Royal Navy ship anywhere around the coast of my constituency—not since Joint Warrior couple of years ago.
Lincoln Jopp
The clever ones are the ones that the hon. Member cannot see. But yes, I agree that we urgently need to look at defence investment in hard power. It is a source of huge frustration in our defence industry domestically and overseas that the Government have failed to agree the defence investment plan. When I was in the Ministry of Defence, we had an old adage: “Plans without resources are hallucinations.” At the moment, our defence industry is dining on fresh air, because the defence investment plan has not yet been agreed.
We have time, so I will ask your indulgence, Ms Butler, to mention that Nelsonian eye. Hon. Members will remember that in September last year the British ambassador to the United States of America was sacked. My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) secured an emergency debate, in which I made this point:
“Since December last year, our ambassador in Washington has been potentially subject to leverage and blackmail, because someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on Lord Mandelson throughout his whole time in office.
I am amazed that the Foreign Office has not gone into full lockdown and damage limitation mode, having found out that potentially Lord Mandelson could have been blackmailed this entire time. If it had turned out that he had been an agent of a foreign state, the Foreign Office would have done that. All it knows now is that someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on him that whole time.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1380.]
The Foreign Office Minister in that debate did not respond to the suggestion that they turn Peter Mandelson inside out once they had realised that fact. I suspect that after the events of the past week, one or two Government Ministers wish that they had heeded that advice at the time; they might have saved themselves some problems. Last week, Members who were in the Chamber also heard the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington, who said:
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today’s Opposition day debate will focus on Mandelson and his relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. However, it will not cover his relationship with another alleged paedophile, murderer, gangster, specialist in bribery and corruption, and Putin favourite: Oleg Deripaska. That relationship may be just as bad as the one he had with Epstein. As European trade commissioner, Mandelson made decisions favouring Deripaska’s company by $200 million a year. Mandelson avoided proper investigation by lying about the timing of his relationship with Deripaska. How can we find out what investigations were carried out before Gordon Brown and his Government appointed Mandelson as a Minister? Do you agree that this House needs to see that information”?—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 269.]
We all know how Wednesday played out after that.
Lastly, I will speak about the other actions that the Government are taking. In preparation for this debate, I looked at the statement that the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, introduced at the back end of last year, would
“require organisations in critical sectors to further protect their IT systems”.
I must tell the Minister that I am on the Committee for that Bill, and it does no such thing. All it does is to say that various providers from various sectors have to report after the event; it says nothing about making them more secure.
I will leave the Minister with a couple of questions. Is enough being done cross-Government to raise threat perception in the nation? What is the Government’s policy on political donations being made in cryptocurrency? How have the Government changed electoral law to keep pace with a quickly evolving threat? I thank the Minister in advance for his remarks, and the House for its indulgence.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing this debate. He did an excellent job of providing the context we need to have a good discussion, and the House owes him a service for the work he has done. I also extend my gratitude to all the hon. Members who have spoken—I will try to reflect on their comments in a moment—and, as others have done, I extend the Government’s gratitude to all those who signed the e-petition that has brought us here today.
This has been a good, timely and useful debate and it provides an important opportunity to strengthen awareness of the threat, and to signal the resolve that exists across the House to confront the work of Russian threat actors. The Government’s first duty, as I hope any Government’s would be, is to keep the country safe. We are absolutely committed to taking all necessary measures to expose and disrupt any attempt to interfere with our sovereign affairs.
That is why on 18 October last year I set out the Government’s counter-political interference and espionage action plan, to ensure that our democracy is the hardest possible target for foreign threat actors. Just last Thursday, I joined the director general of MI5 and the chief executive of the National Cyber Security Centre in briefing the chief executives of the UK political parties on the developing threat picture. On Wednesday last week, I joined the Skills Minister and the directors general of MI5 and the NCSC in hosting nearly 100 representatives from universities and sector bodies to discuss the risks that they face from foreign interference.
I am pleased to announce today that the Government will invest £3 million over the next three years to support the higher education sector to strengthen its resilience. That will include setting up a new foreign interference reporting route for UK universities and co-designing best practice guidance that will help universities to make proportionate, risk-based decisions on the threats to which they are exposed. As part of this work, we will also be considering the role of think-tanks, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk referred specifically, given that they will share many of the same interference risks.
This e-petition calls for a public inquiry into Russian influence in UK democracy. As the Security Minister, I am proud to have the opportunity to work very closely with our intelligence and security agencies, who are working tirelessly to monitor and disrupt Russian threats to UK politics. Those threats range from cyber-espionage operations targeting sensitive or classified information to divisive information operations and attempts to influence UK policymaking through bribery and coercion, as we have seen with the shocking case of Nathan Gill.
Hon. Members will understand that it will not always be appropriate for the Government and our intelligence agencies to publicly reveal the extent of our understanding of Russian operations, due to the obvious importance of protecting the sources of that information and maintaining a competitive advantage over our adversaries. However, the UK Government continue to work tirelessly alongside our allies to expose Russian cyber-threats and information operations targeting democracy in the UK and worldwide. For example, since October 2024, the Government have exposed and sanctioned 38 organisations and individuals responsible for delivering Russian information warfare to undermine global democracies. The guidance that the National Protective Security Authority published in October also specifically highlighted the full range of vectors and tactics that foreign actors, including Russia, are using to target individuals working in UK politics.
Indeed, in the light of the deeply concerning evidence of Russia targeting our democratic system, the Government commissioned Philip Rycroft to deliver an independent review of foreign financial interference in UK politics. The review will primarily focus on foreign interference via funding because that is an area of particular concern. However, to inform his recommendations, Philip Rycroft has been provided with a threat briefing that covers the full range of vectors used by states to target UK politics.
It is the Government’s position that launching a new inquiry at this time would be premature. It would risk prejudging the conclusions of the ongoing review and duplicating its efforts. However, the final report will be presented to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and to me by the end of March, after which there will be significant opportunity for further parliamentary scrutiny and debate.
Let me address some of the points that have been raised in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk asked about cryptocurrency tools. As he will know, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 makes it clear that foreign money is not permitted in UK politics. However, as tactics behind foreign interference operations develop, the Government recognise that our response also needs to evolve. The UK Government therefore reaffirmed their leadership and resolved to stamp out corruption and dodgy money in UK politics through the Home Office’s refreshed anti-corruption strategy. Corrupt insiders and criminal networks will be brought to justice by a strengthened specialist police unit and tougher safeguards across the public sector.
The forthcoming elections Bill will also further strengthen safeguards against covert political funding. Our proposed Bill includes introducing tougher rules for donor recipients to conduct risk assessments before accepting donations, as well as increasing the powers of the Electoral Commission to ensure that it has the tools necessary to fulfil its duties. The Rycroft review into foreign financial interference will assess opportunities for further improvement. Let me just say a word specifically about cryptocurrency, because the Bill specifically includes safeguarding against the potential use of cryptocurrency by foreign actors to obfuscate the source of their donations.
My hon. Friend also asked about media literacy education. Building media literacy skills for young people to critically engage with and assess information from a range of sources is a priority for the Government. Since 2022, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has provided £3 million of funding for media-literacy projects that empower users to navigate the online world safely.
My hon. Friend also asked about a dedicated disinformation agency. This issue will always require a co-ordinated, cross-Government effort. DSIT leads the Government’s policy on countering disinformation, but works closely with the national security secretariat in the Cabinet Office. The Home Office is the departmental lead for state threats, working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which leads on the Government’s efforts to counter foreign interference. A lot of meaningful activity is taking place across Government.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member has only just entered the Chamber, but in an act of generosity, I will give way.
Mike Martin
The Minister is very generous. I have just come from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, where we were looking at these issues in our inquiry on defending democracy. He has been in front of that inquiry. When will the new elections Bill be coming forward or—perhaps an easier way to ask the question—which will be the first election to take place under the new Bill, protected by the wider measures that he just set out?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention and for his important work on the Joint Committee. I welcome the scrutiny that it provides, and I assure him of the seriousness with which we take such matters. I think he will have heard the comments that I made specifically about the Rycroft review. The scheduling of the review has been designed to ensure that it reports by the end of March, in order to inform further legislation. It is not for me, as the Security Minister, to talk about the scheduling of further legislation; that is very much a matter for the Leader of the House. That piece of legislation is being led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, working closely with colleagues across Government.
However, I owe the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) a response to the important point that he made about when those legislative tools will impact on our evolving democratic process. I give him an absolute assurance that, working through the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, we have already done a lot of work in this Parliament to ensure that for the elections that will take place this May in Wales, Scotland or England, and the elections taking place in Northern Ireland in 2027, the local institutions in those areas are as prepared as they possibly can be. There are very close working relationships between central Government and the devolved institutions to ensure that those elections are as free and as reasonably and fairly contested as they possibly can be.
Let me turn to some of the other contributions. The hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) represents a beautiful part of the world, which I know and remember fondly from my time at Aberystwyth University. He rightly and entirely reasonably urged the Government to act at pace and not to waste any time. I repeat the point that I have just made about the Rycroft review: it will report by the end of March in order to inform the legislative agenda, including the elections Bill. Again, however, I give him the same assurance I did earlier: the elections that will take place in Wales are part of a process being led by the defending democracy taskforce to ensure that all the devolved institutions have the support that they need to make sure that the elections take place in the way that we would all want them to. I am working very closely with colleagues in Wales to ensure that that is the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) speaks with great authority on such matters. I am grateful for all his work, including in the all-party parliamentary group. He spoke rightly about the important use of sanctions. He will understand that it would be unwise of me to signal from the Front Bench further intent with regard to such matters, but he has heard the recent words of the Prime Minister, and let me reiterate them: if Roman Abramovich fails to act quickly, we are fully prepared to go to court to enforce the commitment that has been made, if that is necessary.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) made a number of points, including specific concerns about the conduct of Reform, but also about the EU referendum that took place back in 2016. We completely recognise the enduring and significant threat that Russia poses to our UK democracy. Of course, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that we are well protected against all forms of foreign interference. That is why we are doing work through the defending democracy taskforce; that is why before Christmas I launched the Government’s counter-political interference and espionage action plan; and that is why we have now commissioned an independent review of foreign financial interference in UK politics.
The hon. Member specifically mentioned the ISC, as did a couple of other hon. Members. Reports produced by the Intelligence and Security Committee, including the Russia report, contain highly classified material that could damage the operational capabilities of UK intelligence agencies if published unredacted, so I hope she understands that we have to be very careful with the publication of those reports. She also asked specifically about the elections Bill, which she will understand is an MHCLG lead. The Bill is an important opportunity to strengthen our legislative response to the threats that we face, and we very much welcome her contribution to that process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) knows a lot about these matters. I am pleased that he will take the opportunity to engage directly with Philip Rycroft. My hon. Friend raised important points about the funding of Reform; I have to say that it is disappointing that no Reform Members are here to defend their record. Of course, it is absolutely right that all decisions taken by Government are scrutinised not only by this House but by the media: that is important, and I would not have it any other way. But it is also important that those individuals who aspire to serve in the highest office are similarly subjected to meaningful scrutiny. I am pleased that this House has done so this afternoon, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the critique that he helpfully offered.
The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) made an important point about the importance of acting in concert with our allies. She is absolutely right: that is why we seek to work very closely with our international partners on these matters. She raised a number of other helpful and constructive points. I believe that some of her questions were being addressed in the statement given to the House by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister at precisely the moment that she was asking them. I hope she might find a moment later to check the record, and I hope her questions have been answered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) speaks with great authority on these matters. I know that the whole House appreciates his important work to support Ukraine and ensure that our friends and allies prevail in their struggle against Putin’s illegal invasion. I am particularly proud of the cross-party support for that endeavour, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the leadership role that he has played.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) was the first but not the only Member to quote Clausewitz; I particularly enjoyed his reference. Like other hon. Members, he raised deeply concerning points about Reform. I have to say that it speaks volumes that not one Reform Member—not even one of their keenly recently recruited Members—is here to respond. That is a great shame. The hon. Member will have heard my response to the point that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made about the ICS report, but I firmly believe that addressing the issue should be a cross-party endeavour, so I would be happy to discuss the matters further with him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), made a good point about bots in her excellent contribution, and rightly raised activity in Moldova specifically. She is right to assert the need to ensure that our legislative framework and wider response are geared to the nature of the threat we face now, not the one we faced in the past. I can give her an assurance of how seriously the Government take such matters. She will know that the Government have introduced the cyber-security action plan; I heard the comment from the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) about that a moment ago, and I will take it away. I hope that my right hon. Friend is also aware of the work the Cabinet Office is leading on the production of a national cyber action plan.
I know that my right hon. Friend is proud to represent one of our country’s finest universities. She nodded to the particular challenge that has been experienced recently around lawfare. Her point on that was well made, and I am grateful that she welcomes the new reporting route announced by the Government, which is an initial step. We are working towards developing a more proactive advisory service alongside training to support our higher education sector, using the new money we have identified. I am grateful for her contribution.
I very much agree with the analysis and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis). It is telling that we have heard from a number of Members from Wales. My hon. Friend emphasised the impact of Nathan Gill’s treachery, which cannot be overestimated; I know that my hon. Friend has raised the issue on several occasions, but I assure him again that the work that the Government lead through the defending democracy taskforce is aligned with our devolved institutions, which—as we have seen recently, not least in the case of Nathan Gill—are just as much on the frontline as those of us in this place. My hon. Friend made some important points about the elections Bill, and of course I agree with his important points about NATO.
Lincoln Jopp
Is the Minister aware that, as a result of actions by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, a loophole has been created whereby people living in Wales and Scotland can now make unlimited political donations to any political party or politician? Is that something that is going to be addressed by the Government?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. and gallant Member makes an important point. I hope that Mr Rycroft is listening, because that is something that he will want to consider. I give an assurance that I will take it away and look at it as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) made several important points. She is right that there is nothing new about the use of propaganda. She is also right about the information age that we are now living through. I am pleased that she mentioned Ian Lucas’s book, and I am grateful for the other points that she raised, including an important one about support for members of the LGBT+ community. I assure her of the priority we attach to the issues that she raised.
I am also grateful for the contribution made by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). I say gently to her that the Rycroft review provides a vital opportunity to look at these issues, so I hope that she and her party will engage. I think there was an invitation, which I reiterate, from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West to do so, and I hope that she will take it up. It is important that, where we can, we seek to maintain a cross-party consensus on these issues, which is precisely why, along with the director general of MI5, the other day I briefed the political parties on these matters, including the Lib Dems. I hope we can keep that conversation going.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne made a number of reasonable and fair-minded points. He nodded to the Scots Guards without actually mentioning them, so let me do that on his behalf. He also took the opportunity to mention Clausewitz, which was appreciated. I know that he takes these matters seriously. I was pleased to see him at the recent JCNSS meeting, to which the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells has just referred, and at which I gave evidence on national security the other day. He made an important and fair-minded observation about the threat perception. He is broadly right about that.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne will understand that a difficult balance has to be struck, informing the public while not alarming them. He is right that we need to debate these things in this House and more generally, not least because of the grave nature of the threat that we face and the potential requirement—I will be careful about what I say—of public resource that will have to be dedicated to these matters in the years to come. I welcome the comments he made. I hope he would agree—I think he would—that we should work collaboratively across the House on these most important matters. It is in that spirit that I always endeavour to engage with hon. Members.
The threats that the UK and our allies face are immediate and evolving. Russia views our democratic openness as a vulnerability to be exploited. Through the Government’s counter-political interference and espionage action plan, we are equipping everyone, from local councillors to parliamentary staff, with the tools that they need to help to disrupt and detect foreign espionage activity wherever we find it.
This Government’s clear commitments to upholding and restoring trust in standards and integrity in public life are not merely bureaucratic pledges. They are a vital line of defence, ensuring that the UK is not a permissive environment for foreign interference and safeguarding the sovereignty of our democratic future. From the comprehensive powers of the National Security Act 2023 to the protective work of the defending democracy taskforce, we are deploying a whole-of-Government approach to make the UK a much harder target. On this Government’s watch, we will do whatever is required to disrupt and degrade foreign interference operations and keep the British public safe.
Ben Goldsborough
The upside of this debate is that everyone present knows of the threats that we are facing from the Russian state, as do the over 100,000 people who signed the petition, but, as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), said, not enough people in the United Kingdom know. It is incumbent on every single one of us in this room, be they visitors in the Public Gallery, Members of Parliament or people who signed the petition, to spread the news that we have to be aware, because democracy is so precious. It is not the normal state of things. We are currently living through something that we need to defend.
As an individual MP, I appreciated the Minister’s collaborative and thoughtful reply, as I am sure the petitioner Alex did, but we need to work cross-party on this. This is not one political party’s aim, goal or win; this is about keeping the United Kingdom safe and defending the values that make it the great country that we all love.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 744215 relating to Russian influence on UK politics and democracy.
Written Correction
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Angela Eagle
… As we announced in the Budget, those new tax rates are worth nearly £1 billion a year in forgone tax revenue for the Treasury, and will benefit 75,000 properties.
[Official Report, 3 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 245.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle):
Dame Angela Eagle
… As we announced in the Budget, those new tax rates are worth nearly £1 billion a year and will benefit over 750,000 properties.
Written Statements
Armed Forces Maximum Personnel 2026-27
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I have today laid before the House the Ministry of Defence Votes A Estimate 2026-27 as HC1660. This outlines the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for each service in the armed forces during financial year 2026-27, including increases for reserve naval and marine forces as well as the Army regulars and reserves. Full details can be found in the report.
As outlined in the 2025 strategic defence review, we are making targeted interventions to improve recruitment and retention. The changes to Votes A maximum numbers accommodate planned growth and targeted recruitment and retention efforts to enable strength to grow. We need a dynamic blend of people with varying terms of service and commitment to provide the optimum mix of skills, experience, and strategic depth necessary.
These numbers do not constitute the strength of the armed forces, which is published separately in the UK armed forces quarterly service personnel statistics.
[HCWS1313]
Local Authority Public Health Grant Allocation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
Today the Government have published multi-year public health grant allocations to local authorities in England. This is the first three-year public health settlement in a decade—giving local government far greater certainty over their future funding, and supporting their ability to plan ahead. These allocations comprise one year of confirmed allocations for 2026-27, and two years of indicative allocations until 2028-29.
This Government increased the public health grant by £224 million in 2025-26 to help local authorities deliver public health services. We will continue to invest in local authorities’ vital public health work going forward. The consolidated public health grant will be higher in real terms every year of this Parliament than it was in 2024-25, providing more than £13.4 billion over the next three years through a consolidated ring-fenced public health grant and funding for public health included in business rate retention arrangements for the 10 Greater Manchester authorities.
Funding for local government’s public health responsibilities is an essential element of our commitment to investing in preventing ill health, promoting healthier lives and addressing health disparities as part of the 10-year health plan. This investment will support local authority-commissioned public health services, such as smoking cessation, drug and alcohol prevention, treatment and recovery, health visiting, sexual health clinics and supervised toothbrushing.
We are ending a fragmented and short-term funding situation, created by multiple different public health funding arrangements for local authorities, by consolidating separate funding streams into the public health grant from April 2026. The consolidated public health grant will remain ringfenced for spending exclusively on public health. That is supported by service-specific ringfences for smoking cessation and drug and alcohol services. Overall, there will be a reduction in the number of grant conditions, and in the reporting requirements, relative to the previous grant arrangements.
Full details of the public health grant allocations to local authorities for 2026-27 can be found on www.gov.uk. This information has been communicated to local authorities in a local authority circular.
[HCWS1316]
State Threat Prevention and Investigation Measures: 20 September 2025 to 19 December 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Section 55(1) of the National Security Act 2023 requires the Home Secretary to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their state threat prevention and investigation measures—STPIM—powers under the Act during that period.
STPIMs were introduced through the 2023 Act and came into force on 20 December 2023. There have been no STPIM cases imposed to date.
[HCWS1312]
Written Statement: Correction
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
On 5 February I made a written statement on local government reorganisation. There was a minor error in the statement. In outlining the proposals received from the invitation area of Kent and Medway, it said:
“Dartford Borough Council and Gravesham Borough 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.”
[Official Report, 5 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 25WS.]
It should have said:
“Dover District Council, Swale Borough Council and Thanet District Council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils…
Dartford Borough Council and Gravesham Borough Council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.”
Local Government Finance Settlement 2026-27 to 2028-29
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
This time last year, this Government committed to delivering long-overdue reforms to local government funding, through the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade. Today we have delivered on that promise.
The previous Government’s funding system was not fit for purpose. It meant that cuts hit our most deprived communities hardest—the places that could least afford them. Those councils were left on their knees, with services cut to the bone. Youth clubs and libraries were sold off. Bins went uncollected and streets were left dirty. Wherever you lived, whether you got essential funding depended on 10-year-old data and out-of-date formulas. This settlement delivers transformational changes that the public, our local government partners and Parliament have long called for.
We are reconnecting funding with need. Only around a third of councils were given the funding to broadly match their assessed need before our reforms. By the end of the multi-year settlement, that will be nine in 10 councils. As a result of these changes, the most deprived places will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived in 2028-29.
We have consulted four times on these changes, most recently on the provisional settlement, and we are grateful for the engagement from all corners. At each stage we have listened to views to ensure we are putting funding where it is most needed. We said a year ago that fixing the broken system that we inherited would require tough decisions, and we have made them in close partnership with all who have given their time, energy and expertise. Communities across the country are lucky to have such passionate representatives committed to fighting their corner.
This settlement is about fairness. It delivers our manifesto commitment to give councils multi-year funding settlements; our pledge to realign funding with need and deprivation; our commitment to simplifying funding and ending wasteful competitive bidding; and our promise finally to reset the business rates retention system. We are also delivering a transformation in children’s social care, backed by £2.4 billion.
Today we are going even further by announcing an additional £740 million in grant funding as part of the settlement. As part of this we are confirming a £440 million funding boost to support the areas most impacted by historical funding cuts, as well as additional funding for homelessness and rough sleeping, and for mayors.
I am also pleased to announce a plan to resolve SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—deficits, which have threatened councils’ sustainability and diverted funding from essential day-to-day services. We will resolve 90% of local authorities’ dedicated schools grant high needs deficits accrued to the end of 2025-26, projected to be worth over £5 billion. All local authorities with a SEND deficit will be eligible to receive grant funding, subject to submitting and securing the Department for Education’s approval of a local SEND reform plan.
The local outcomes framework, published alongside the settlement, is an essential component of these reforms. The framework outlines national priority outcomes delivered at a local level and driven by councils as local leaders of place. Rather than micromanaging how councils decide to deliver their services, it will prioritise the outcomes that people care about the most, focusing on progress, not process. It will strengthen the way the Government support and hold councils to account for improving outcomes for their areas. As ever, I am grateful to our colleagues working in local government for their constructive support in its development.
The work does not stop here. We know that the challenges still facing local government are real and complex. Having fixed the foundations, we are ready to take the next steps to transform public services and put local government back on its feet.
The Government’s response to the consultation on the provisional settlement for 2026-27 has been published, as have details of the final settlement.
The final settlement
I have laid before the House the “Local Government Finance Report (England) 2026 to 2027” and the “Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2026 to 2027”. Together, these reports represent the final local government finance settlement for 2026 to 2027.
The Government will provide over £5.6 billion of new grant funding towards local government services over the next three years. This includes announcing today an additional £740 million in grant funding as part of the final settlement for 2026-27. This takes the total new grant funding delivered through the annual settlements for 2026-27 to 2028-29 to over £4 billion.
With this new funding and other available funding in the settlement, we are today setting out:
A £440 million additional uplift to the recovery grant, aimed at the councils most impacted by cuts during austerity, bringing the total to £2.6 billion through the multi-year settlement;
A £272 million in additional allocations within the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, bringing the total through the grant to £2.7 billion;
An additional £39.6 million for mayors to build their capacity, bringing the total to £138.6 million through the multi-year settlement; and
An additional £15 million over the multi-year settlement to support stand-alone fire and rescue authorities.
By the end of the multi-year settlement, we will have provided a 15.5% increase in core spending power, worth over £11.4 billion, compared to 2025-26. Since coming into power, we will have made available a 24.3% increase in 2028-29 compared to 2024-25, worth £16.6 billion.
We have listened to feedback and, as a result, have made technical changes to ensure that we more accurately reflect councils’ current income from local business rates pooling arrangements—a way that councils share risk in the business rates system. The Institute for Fiscal Studies noted that the method we used to do this assumed many districts and the City of London started with significantly more funding from pooling than they do in practice. We are committed to changing this, while providing protection for councils for the first year of this change, giving them time to adapt.
To achieve this, the Government will provide a one-off adjustment support grant in 2026-27 to authorities that would otherwise see their core spending power reduce in 2026-27, compared to indicative allocations set out at the provisional settlement. Allocations for this grant are set out within the final settlement. The pooling assumption for 2027-28 and 2028-29 will be subject to consultation at the next settlement, and we will provide an update to councils in due course.
The recovery grant
We have heard many calls for further support to repair the damage done by the previous Government. We previously confirmed that the Government will maintain 2025-26 recovery grant allocations for all authorities across this multi-year settlement. The recovery grant was targeted at deprived places, which suffered the most from historical funding cuts. We have heard clearly through consultation feedback that more support for these areas is needed. The Government are therefore confirming today a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant, targeted towards upper-tier authorities with a funding increase of less than 17% over the period. This brings the total funding through the recovery grant, including the recovery grant guarantee, to £2.6 billion. This Government make no apologies for their commitment to reversing the effects of austerity, starting with the places that have been left behind and disrespected for too long.
We recognise that the current SEND system is not working for children or families, and nor is it working for local authorities, which continue to face significant financial pressures. The Department for Education has set out the principles for a reformed SEND system that meets needs earlier, before challenges escalate, and will set out details of these plans in the upcoming schools White Paper.
Ahead of this, we are introducing support to address local authorities’ dedicated schools grant deficits. All local authorities with SEND deficits will be eligible in 2026-27 to receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs-related DSG deficit accrued up to the end of 2025-26. This grant will be paid in autumn 2026, subject to each local authority submitting and securing the Department for Education’s approval of a local SEND reform plan.
We know that SEND reform will take time to fully embed and local authorities will need further support. For deficits that arise in 2026-27 and 2027-28, local authorities can expect that we will continue to take an appropriate and proportionate approach, although it will not be unlimited. From 2028-29, SEND spending will be covered within the Government’s DEL budget, so local authorities will not be expected to fund future SEND costs from general funds.
Homelessness and rough sleeping
I am also confirming a total uplift of £272 million for the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, bringing the total value to over £2.7 billion through the settlement, and £3.7 billion including funding outside the settlement. The £159 million of the uplift is funding for supported housing services, announced in the national plan to end homelessness, which we have uplifted by a further £35 million, and with which we are targeting 40 local areas with the greatest single homelessness and rough sleeping need. This additional funding will help local authorities prevent homelessness before it occurs and ensure that vulnerable people are given homes that meet their needs.
Council tax and exceptional financial support
Fairness for taxpayers is at the heart of this Government’s decision making. For the vast majority of councils, the Government will maintain a core referendum threshold of 3%, with a 2% adult social care precept over the multi-year settlement. When taking decisions on council tax levels, the Government expects all authorities to carefully consider the impact on households.
Our local government finance reforms get money to where it is needed, but we recognise that some councils remain in a challenging financial position as they continue to deal with the legacy of the previous system. Some have requested additional flexibility to increase their council tax without holding a referendum next year. We have carefully considered requests from these councils and agreed to small additional flexibilities in only seven councils—less than the councils requested in all but one area. We will provide additional flexibilities so that councils can decide whether to set their council tax above 5% core referendum principles in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (1.75%), Warrington (2.5%), Trafford (2.5%), Worcestershire (4%), Shropshire (4%), North Somerset (4%), and Windsor and Maidenhead (2.5%) next year. These additional flexibilities are a limit, not a target. Decisions on council tax levels are for local authorities. One fire authority will also receive an additional flexibility of £5.
In recognition of financial pressures in some police forces and the importance of public safety, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Secretary have also agreed an additional £3.50 council tax flexibility for six police and crime commissioners in 2026-27, where this flexibility was critical to financial sustainability.
These are difficult decisions that are not taken lightly. In line with the approach taken last year, we have not agreed to any requests that could lead to households in those areas paying above the average council tax level.
As set out at the provisional settlement, in order to increase fairness for taxpayers and provide better value for money, we do not intend to set referendum principles in 2027-28 and 2028-29 for six unique authorities with the lowest council tax levels. Band D taxpayers in these areas are paying between £450 and £1,280 less than the average in England—the council tax bill for a house worth £5 million in parts of central London can be less than the bill for an ordinary family home in places such as Blackpool and Darlington. Removing referendum principles in these areas will enable the Government to allocate over £250 million more funding for public services in places with higher need instead of subsidising very low bills for households in these councils.
We have been clear that all authorities should take steps to protect their most vulnerable residents.
In addition, the Government have been clear that we expect local authorities seeking additional support to have robust plans to deliver the improvements and service transformation required to help them to return to financial stability over the multi-year settlement. Alongside upcoming decisions on exceptional financial support requests, we will therefore confirm arrangements for supporting councils in the most difficult positions, including targeted approaches to support invest to save in services that are more effective and more sustainable.
Social care
We know that the pressures on local government are growing. We are committed to transforming the adult social care sector. This settlement allows for around £4.6 billion additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared to 2025-26, including £500 million for the sector’s first ever fair pay agreement, which will support progress towards a national care service. That means more carers, receiving better pay, with the time to provide the high-quality, compassionate care that they want to give.
This Government are transforming children’s social care through the Families First Partnership programme, backed by £2.4 billion investment in this multi-year settlement. This will enable local services to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive, statutory provision towards early-intervention and preventive support.
We have further to go: the children’s social care residential market is fundamentally broken. Our aim is to move towards a system rooted in family environments through fostering. The Government set out a plan to expand fostering for 10,000 more children by the end of this Parliament. And using the new powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we will explore how we might implement a profit cap in the residential market to ensure that public money delivers care, not profiteering.
Local outcomes framework
In July last year, we announced a draft local government outcomes framework and sought feedback on how we could make outcome-based performance management as effective as possible. Today’s publication is the culmination of extensive engagement with the local government sector since then.
Following feedback, and in recognition of the contribution made by other local partners to the delivery of the outcomes, I am announcing that we have renamed the local government outcomes framework as the “local outcomes framework”. This change acknowledges, and indeed encourages, that partnership working is essential to breaking down silos in delivery and improving outcomes for citizens. But it is right that local authorities, as leaders of place, remain at the heart of driving local delivery and improvement.
The framework will be operational for the spending review period. Alongside funding consolidation and a reduction in individual grant conditions, the framework will shift the focus of central Government away from micromanaging individual activities towards a focus on the outcomes we all care about for local people. By publishing outcomes data in one place, the framework ensures transparency for residents and that central and local government measure progress through the same lens. Where outcomes are poor, we will act, but action will begin by talking to local leaders to support self-improvement and reduce barriers getting in the way of good services.
Mayoral Strategic Authorities
This Government are committed to giving locally elected leaders the powers and funding they need to drive growth and to deliver jobs, new homes and new transport. We are confirming almost £435 million total funding for strategic authorities through the multi-year settlement, through the mayoral capacity fund and the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, to create greater alignment of the funding at a local level, avoiding needless duplication and waste. This includes an additional £39.6 million of capacity funding from the provisional settlement and an additional £98.7 million for selected mayoral strategic authorities to deliver supported housing services.
We have also taken steps into a new era of fiscal devolution in England, giving mayors the power to raise and invest money into projects that improve their local areas, raising living standards and driving growth through a new overnight visitor levy power for mayors of strategic authorities and, subject to consultation, foundation strategic authorities.
As set out in the autumn Budget and the fair funding review 2.0, the Government are improving the business rates retention system to more consistently support mayoral strategic authorities in driving growth. Options being considered include allocating MSAs a direct share of business rates, building on local growth plans, allowing more tax to be spent where it is raised and providing mayors with a share of regional growth. We will begin engagement with MSAs over the coming weeks to co-develop an offer, including considering how this could work in place of existing grant. No changes will be made to grants without local consent.
Conclusion
We promised that we would fix the foundations of local government by reforming funding, ensuring that local powers were at the right level, mending the broken local audit system and focusing on ambitious public service reforms.
This settlement is a landmark in the story of local government. It represents our progress reforming the services that have grown to dominate local budgets—in adult social care, children’s social care, SEND, and homelessness. Today’s announcement on SEND deficits directly responds to the pressures we have heard about from local partners. Funding for social care and homelessness will shift the system towards early intervention and prevention. We are making progress at pace on our commitment to devolve the right powers to the right levels, and to end the two-tier local government system by establishing new single-tier unitary councils. We have published a strategy to overhaul the local audit system, and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill includes a range of audit measures including the establishment of the Local Audit Office in the autumn. When we are finished, councils will no longer be asked to act as caretakers; they will be asked to act as agents of renewal in building a new, better country.
This written ministerial statement covers England only.
[HCWS1315]
Local Supported Housing Strategies
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Today I am pleased to publish statutory guidance under Section 2 of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which sets out the framework for local housing authorities in England to formulate and publish local supported housing strategies. LOCAL AUTHORITY 25/26 26/27 28/29 29/30 Total Adur £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Amber Valley £54,898 £- £28,894 £28,894 £112,686 Arun £65,985 £- £34,729 £34,729 £135,443 Ashfield £54,778 £- £28,830 £28,830 £112,438 Ashford £44,485 £- £23,413 £23,413 £91,311 Babergh £43,941 £- £23,127 £23,127 £90,195 Barking and Dagenham £66,708 £- £35,109 £35,109 £136,926 Barnet £59,098 £- £31,104 £31,104 £121,306 Barnsley £58,433 £- £30,754 £30,754 £119,941 Basildon £51,007 £- £26,846 £26,846 £104,699 Basingstoke and Deane £52,859 £- £27,820 £27,820 £108,499 Bassetlaw £51,516 £- £27,113 £27,113 £105,742 Bath and North East Somerset £57,667 £- £30,351 £30,351 £118,369 Bedford £98,528 £- £51,857 £51,857 £202,242 Bexley £45,867 £- £24,140 £24,140 £94,147 Birmingham £194,872 £- £102,564 £102,564 £400,000 Blaby £45,473 £- £23,933 £23,933 £93,339 Blackburn with Darwen £60,991 £- £32,100 £32,100 £125,191 Blackpool £63,545 £- £33,445 £33,445 £130,435 Bolsover £44,115 £- £23,218 £23,218 £90,551 Bolton £125,508 £- £66,057 £66,057 £257,622 Boston £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole £74,432 £- £39,175 £39,175 £152,782 Bracknell Forest £59,545 £- £31,339 £31,339 £122,223 Bradford £126,571 £- £66,616 £66,616 £259,803 Braintree £47,589 £- £25,047 £25,047 £97,683 Breckland £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Brent £87,531 £- £46,069 £46,069 £179,669 Brentwood £46,807 £- £24,635 £24,635 £96,077 Brighton and Hove £110,323 £- £58,065 £58,065 £226,453 Bristol, City of £164,376 £- £86,514 £86,514 £337,404 Broadland £45,139 £- £23,757 £23,757 £92,653 Bromley £56,759 £- £29,873 £29,873 £116,505 Bromsgrove £66,395 £- £34,944 £34,944 £136,283 Broxbourne £44,716 £- £23,535 £23,535 £91,786 Broxtowe £45,891 £- £24,153 £24,153 £94,197 Buckinghamshire £69,736 £- £36,703 £36,703 £143,142 Burnley £54,551 £- £28,711 £28,711 £111,973 Bury £51,028 £- £26,857 £26,857 £104,742 Calderdale £59,142 £- £31,127 £31,127 £121,396 Cambridge £73,183 £- £38,517 £38,517 £150,217 Camden £113,525 £- £59,750 £59,750 £233,025 Cannock Chase £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Canterbury £49,449 £- £26,026 £26,026 £101,501 Castle Point £46,167 £- £24,298 £24,298 £94,763 Central Bedfordshire £57,018 £- £30,009 £30,009 £117,036 Charnwood £57,955 £- £30,503 £30,503 £118,961 Chelmsford £55,595 £- £29,261 £29,261 £114,117 Cheltenham £68,831 £- £36,227 £36,227 £141,285 Cherwell £48,060 £- £25,295 £25,295 £98,650 Cheshire East £75,918 £- £39,957 £39,957 £155,832 Cheshire West and Chester £89,940 £- £47,337 £47,337 £184,614 Chesterfield £53,316 £- £28,061 £28,061 £109,438 Chichester £49,405 £- £26,003 £26,003 £101,411 Chorley £57,290 £- £30,153 £30,153 £117,596 City of London £57,889 £- £30,468 £30,468 £118,825 Colchester £61,888 £- £32,573 £32,573 £127,034 Cornwall £104,016 £- £54,745 £54,745 £213,506 Cotswold £44,568 £- £23,457 £23,457 £91,482 County Durham £113,830 £- £59,910 £59,910 £233,650 Coventry £149,302 £- £78,580 £78,580 £306,462 Crawley £55,010 £- £28,953 £28,953 £112,916 Croydon £117,131 £- £61,648 £61,648 £240,427 Cumberland £62,821 £- £33,064 £33,064 £128,949 Dacorum £51,097 £- £26,893 £26,893 £104,883 Darlington £65,716 £- £34,587 £34,587 £134,890 Dartford £46,732 £- £24,596 £24,596 £95,924 Derby £76,499 £- £40,263 £40,263 £157,025 Derbyshire Dales £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Doncaster £92,434 £- £48,650 £48,650 £189,734 Dorset £55,409 £- £29,163 £29,163 £113,735 Dover £49,794 £- £26,207 £26,207 £102,208 Dudley £64,602 £- £34,001 £34,001 £132,604 Ealing £96,522 £- £50,801 £50,801 £198,124 East Cambridgeshire £44,040 £- £23,179 £23,179 £90,398 East Devon £46,583 £- £24,517 £24,517 £95,617 East Hampshire £43,985 £- £23,150 £23,150 £90,285 East Hertfordshire £47,330 £- £24,911 £24,911 £97,152 East Lindsey £49,507 £- £26,056 £26,056 £101,619 East Riding of Yorkshire £53,286 £- £28,045 £28,045 £109,376 East Staffordshire £52,713 £- £27,744 £27,744 £108,201 East Suffolk £62,022 £- £32,643 £32,643 £127,308 Eastbourne £54,577 £- £28,725 £28,725 £112,027 Eastleigh £47,255 £- £24,871 £24,871 £96,997 Elmbridge £49,862 £- £26,243 £26,243 £102,348 Enfield £74,018 £- £38,957 £38,957 £151,932 Epping Forest £67,017 £- £35,272 £35,272 £137,561 Epsom and Ewell £48,326 £- £25,435 £25,435 £99,196 Erewash £52,355 £- £27,555 £27,555 £107,465 Exeter £65,542 £- £34,496 £34,496 £134,534 Fareham £45,983 £- £24,201 £24,201 £94,385 Fenland £51,105 £- £26,897 £26,897 £104,899 Folkestone and Hythe £53,090 £- £27,942 £27,942 £108,974 Forest of Dean £47,777 £- £25,146 £25,146 £98,069 Fylde £48,857 £- £25,714 £25,714 £100,285 Gateshead £59,329 £- £31,226 £31,226 £121,781 Gedling £47,273 £- £24,881 £24,881 £97,035 Gloucester £60,061 £- £31,611 £31,611 £123,283 Gosport £45,745 £- £24,077 £24,077 £93,899 Gravesham £49,815 £- £26,218 £26,218 £102,251 Great Yarmouth £47,299 £- £24,894 £24,894 £97,087 Greenwich £85,561 £- £45,032 £45,032 £175,625 Guildford £64,010 £- £33,690 £33,690 £131,390 Hackney £81,042 £- £42,653 £42,653 £166,348 Halton £67,678 £- £35,620 £35,620 £138,918 Hammersmith and Fulham £68,410 £- £36,005 £36,005 £140,420 Harborough £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Haringey £73,072 £- £38,459 £38,459 £149,990 Harlow £51,373 £- £27,038 £27,038 £105,449 Harrow £51,571 £- £27,143 £27,143 £105,857 Hart £46,617 £- £24,535 £24,535 £95,687 Hartlepool £59,169 £- £31,142 £31,142 £121,453 Hastings £46,609 £- £24,531 £24,531 £95,671 Havant £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Havering £57,179 £- £30,094 £30,094 £117,367 Herefordshire, County of £47,010 £- £24,742 £24,742 £96,494 Hertsmere £49,680 £- £26,147 £26,147 £101,974 High Peak £44,978 £- £23,673 £23,673 £92,324 Hillingdon £72,094 £- £37,944 £37,944 £147,982 Hinckley and Bosworth £44,914 £- £23,639 £23,639 £92,192 Horsham £48,977 £- £25,777 £25,777 £100,531 Hounslow £63,939 £- £33,652 £33,652 £131,243 Huntingdonshire £67,547 £- £35,551 £35,551 £138,649 Hyndburn £56,946 £- £29,972 £29,972 £116,890 Ipswich £68,611 £- £36,111 £36,111 £140,833 Isle of Wight £54,011 £- £28,427 £28,427 £110,865 Islington £85,820 £- £45,168 £45,168 £176,156 Kensington and Chelsea £96,021 £- £50,538 £50,538 £197,097 King's Lynn and West Norfolk £48,726 £- £25,645 £25,645 £100,016 Kingston upon Hull, City of £137,138 £- £72,178 £72,178 £281,494 Kingston upon Thames £56,086 £- £29,519 £29,519 £115,124 Kirklees £62,807 £- £33,056 £33,056 £128,919 Knowsley £77,110 £- £40,584 £40,584 £158,278 Lambeth £111,407 £- £58,635 £58,635 £228,677 Lancaster £67,566 £- £35,561 £35,561 £138,688 Leeds £166,479 £- £87,621 £87,621 £341,721 Leicester £86,111 £- £45,322 £45,322 £176,755 Lewes £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Lewisham £118,689 £- £62,468 £62,468 £243,625 Lichfield £44,957 £- £23,662 £23,662 £92,281 Lincoln £58,510 £- £30,795 £30,795 £120,100 Liverpool £194,872 £- £102,564 £102,564 £400,000 Luton £82,649 £- £43,499 £43,499 £169,647 Maidstone £52,249 £- £27,499 £27,499 £107,247 Maldon £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Malvern Hills £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Manchester £194,872 £- £102,564 £102,564 £400,000 Mansfield £55,210 £- £29,058 £29,058 £113,326 Medway £71,254 £- £37,502 £37,502 £146,258 Melton £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Merton £52,449 £- £27,605 £27,605 £107,659 Mid Devon £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Mid Suffolk £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Mid Sussex £49,498 £- £26,052 £26,052 £101,602 Middlesbrough £81,425 £- £42,855 £42,855 £167,135 Milton Keynes £76,541 £- £40,285 £40,285 £157,111 Mole Valley £53,801 £- £28,317 £28,317 £110,435 New Forest £56,306 £- £29,635 £29,635 £115,576 Newark and Sherwood £53,954 £- £28,397 £28,397 £110,748 Newcastle upon Tyne £103,234 £- £54,334 £54,334 £211,902 Newcastle-under-Lyme £49,632 £- £26,122 £26,122 £101,876 Newham £78,757 £- £41,451 £41,451 £161,659 North Devon £64,877 £- £34,146 £34,146 £133,169 North East Derbyshire £46,492 £- £24,470 £24,470 £95,432 North East Lincolnshire £76,141 £- £40,074 £40,074 £156,289 North Hertfordshire £49,631 £- £26,121 £26,121 £101,873 North Kesteven £44,051 £- £23,185 £23,185 £90,421 North Lincolnshire £56,810 £- £29,900 £29,900 £116,610 North Norfolk £44,448 £- £23,394 £23,394 £91,236 North Northamptonshire £66,315 £- £34,902 £34,902 £136,119 North Somerset £72,809 £- £38,320 £38,320 £149,449 North Tyneside £61,417 £- £32,325 £32,325 £126,067 North Warwickshire £45,474 £- £23,934 £23,934 £93,342 North West Leicestershire £44,768 £- £23,562 £23,562 £91,892 North Yorkshire £87,377 £- £45,988 £45,988 £179,353 Northumberland £67,347 £- £35,446 £35,446 £138,239 Norwich £77,031 £- £40,543 £40,543 £158,117 Nottingham £168,867 £- £88,878 £88,878 £346,623 Nuneaton and Bedworth £47,158 £- £24,820 £24,820 £96,798 Oadby and Wigston £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Oldham £71,521 £- £37,642 £37,642 £146,805 Oxford £75,848 £- £39,920 £39,920 £155,688 Pendle £47,585 £- £25,044 £25,044 £97,673 Peterborough £71,840 £- £37,811 £37,811 £147,462 Plymouth £78,184 £- £41,149 £41,149 £160,482 Portsmouth £79,463 £- £41,822 £41,822 £163,107 Preston £81,972 £- £43,143 £43,143 £168,258 Reading £71,994 £- £37,891 £37,891 £147,776 Redbridge £72,186 £- £37,992 £37,992 £148,170 Redcar and Cleveland £44,100 £- £23,211 £23,211 £90,522 Redditch £49,772 £- £26,196 £26,196 £102,164 Reigate and Banstead £59,745 £- £31,445 £31,445 £122,635 Ribble Valley £45,172 £- £23,775 £23,775 £92,722 Richmond upon Thames £49,294 £- £25,944 £25,944 £101,182 Rochdale £116,279 £- £61,200 £61,200 £238,679 Rochford £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Rossendale £49,621 £- £26,116 £26,116 £101,853 Rother £45,178 £- £23,778 £23,778 £92,734 Rotherham £82,763 £- £43,559 £43,559 £169,881 Rugby £46,217 £- £24,325 £24,325 £94,867 Runnymede £52,975 £- £27,882 £27,882 £108,739 Rushcliffe £44,246 £- £23,287 £23,287 £90,820 Rushmoor £48,960 £- £25,768 £25,768 £100,496 Rutland £43,962 £- £23,138 £23,138 £90,238 Salford £100,106 £- £52,688 £52,688 £205,482 Sandwell £59,174 £- £31,144 £31,144 £121,462 Sefton £74,784 £- £39,360 £39,360 £153,504 Sevenoaks £44,779 £- £23,568 £23,568 £91,915 Sheffield £133,547 £- £70,288 £70,288 £274,123 Shropshire £75,560 £- £39,769 £39,769 £155,098 Slough £54,824 £- £28,855 £28,855 £112,534 Solihull £61,813 £- £32,533 £32,533 £126,879 Somerset £93,424 £- £49,171 £49,171 £191,766 South Cambridgeshire £49,780 £- £26,200 £26,200 £102,180 South Derbyshire £45,240 £- £23,810 £23,810 £92,860 South Gloucestershire £67,683 £- £35,623 £35,623 £138,929 South Hams £45,441 £- £23,916 £23,916 £93,273 South Holland £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 South Kesteven £49,496 £- £26,051 £26,051 £101,598 South Norfolk £45,714 £- £24,060 £24,060 £93,834 South Oxfordshire £48,929 £- £25,752 £25,752 £100,433 South Ribble £49,585 £- £26,097 £26,097 £101,779 South Staffordshire £58,349 £- £30,710 £30,710 £119,769 South Tyneside £53,040 £- £27,916 £27,916 £108,872 Southampton £137,756 £- £72,503 £72,503 £282,762 Southend-on-Sea £103,850 £- £54,658 £54,658 £213,166 Southwark £104,202 £- £54,843 £54,843 £213,888 Spelthorne £54,355 £- £28,608 £28,608 £111,571 St Albans £60,891 £- £32,048 £32,048 £124,987 St. Helens £77,092 £- £40,574 £40,574 £158,240 Stafford £48,041 £- £25,285 £25,285 £98,611 Staffordshire Moorlands £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Stevenage £49,062 £- £25,822 £25,822 £100,706 Stockport £66,106 £- £34,792 £34,792 £135,690 Stockton-on-Tees £57,497 £- £30,262 £30,262 £118,021 Stoke-on-Trent £86,271 £- £45,406 £45,406 £177,083 Stratford-on-Avon £49,512 £- £26,059 £26,059 £101,630 Stroud £44,691 £- £23,522 £23,522 £91,735 Sunderland £82,383 £- £43,360 £43,360 £169,103 Surrey Heath £47,292 £- £24,891 £24,891 £97,074 Sutton £54,748 £- £28,815 £28,815 £112,378 Swale £46,772 £- £24,617 £24,617 £96,006 Swindon £61,127 £- £32,172 £32,172 £125,471 Tameside £65,319 £- £34,379 £34,379 £134,077 Tamworth £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Tandridge £50,997 £- £26,840 £26,840 £104,677 Teignbridge £45,539 £- £23,968 £23,968 £93,475 Telford and Wrekin £130,604 £- £68,739 £68,739 £268,082 Tendring £53,548 £- £28,183 £28,183 £109,914 Test Valley £48,463 £- £25,507 £25,507 £99,477 Tewkesbury £45,487 £- £23,940 £23,940 £93,367 Thanet £47,224 £- £24,855 £24,855 £96,934 Three Rivers £50,320 £- £26,484 £26,484 £103,288 Thurrock £50,175 £- £26,408 £26,408 £102,991 Tonbridge and Malling £62,220 £- £32,748 £32,748 £127,716 Torbay £50,094 £- £26,365 £26,365 £102,824 Torridge £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Tower Hamlets £103,356 £- £54,398 £54,398 £212,152 Trafford £57,218 £- £30,115 £30,115 £117,448 Tunbridge Wells £47,932 £- £25,227 £25,227 £98,386 Uttlesford £48,639 £- £25,600 £25,600 £99,839 Vale of White Horse £48,684 £- £25,623 £25,623 £99,930 Wakefield £92,578 £- £48,725 £48,725 £190,028 Walsall £53,166 £- £27,982 £27,982 £109,130 Waltham Forest £66,884 £- £35,202 £35,202 £137,288 Wandsworth £58,987 £- £31,046 £31,046 £121,079 Warrington £85,143 £- £44,812 £44,812 £174,767 Warwick £58,803 £- £30,949 £30,949 £120,701 Watford £60,172 £- £31,670 £31,670 £123,512 Waverley £45,591 £- £23,995 £23,995 £93,581 Wealden £46,444 £- £24,444 £24,444 £95,332 Welwyn Hatfield £57,279 £- £30,147 £30,147 £117,573 West Berkshire £69,194 £- £36,418 £36,418 £142,030 West Devon £44,033 £- £23,175 £23,175 £90,383 West Lancashire £46,352 £- £24,396 £24,396 £95,144 West Lindsey £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 West Northamptonshire £71,619 £- £37,694 £37,694 £147,007 West Oxfordshire £46,095 £- £24,260 £24,260 £94,615 West Suffolk £57,124 £- £30,065 £30,065 £117,254 Westminster £119,336 £- £62,808 £62,808 £244,952 Westmorland and Furness £66,301 £- £34,895 £34,895 £136,091 Wigan £94,494 £- £49,733 £49,733 £193,960 Wiltshire £65,077 £- £34,251 £34,251 £133,579 Winchester £47,856 £- £25,188 £25,188 £98,232 Windsor and Maidenhead £48,888 £- £25,731 £25,731 £100,350 Wirral £98,950 £- £52,079 £52,079 £203,108 Woking £54,525 £- £28,698 £28,698 £111,921 Wokingham £56,345 £- £29,655 £29,655 £115,655 Wolverhampton £75,336 £- £39,650 £39,650 £154,636 Worcester £61,809 £- £32,531 £32,531 £126,871 Worthing £59,949 £- £31,552 £31,552 £123,053 Wychavon £47,849 £- £25,183 £25,183 £98,215 Wyre £48,967 £- £25,772 £25,772 £100,511 Wyre Forest £45,225 £- £23,802 £23,802 £92,829 York £52,487 £- £27,625 £27,625 £107,737
The local supported housing strategies are a crucial step forward in increasing the Government’s and local councils’ understanding of the supply and need for this vital accommodation for people with care and support needs. The Act places a duty on all local housing authorities in England to assess the current provision of supported housing, and to estimate current unmet and future need. Delivery of the strategies will ensure that councils can plan new supply of supported housing effectively, and will enable better commissioning, oversight and safeguarding for vulnerable residents.
The guidance includes:
A framework for local supported housing strategies: including the statutory requirements under the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, covering strategic priorities, partnership arrangements, needs assessment, and delivery plans, with the first strategy due by 31 March 2027 and updates every five years.
Process and components: Providing detailed steps for developing strategies, including designating strategic leads, engaging partners, conducting a needs assessment, and creating a delivery plan covering funding, development pipeline, referrals, void management, and move-on pathways.
Governance, reporting, and monitoring: Requirements for formal governance structures, annual reporting to MHCLG and ongoing review of progress, ensuring alignment with wider housing, health, and social care strategies and compliance with data-sharing and quality standards.
To support implementation the Government are allocating a total of £39 million in new burdens funding to local authorities. This will ensure that councils can develop robust local supported housing strategies and prepare for the introduction of full licensing and oversight functions.
This is an important first step in implementing measures that will enable local areas to properly understand who is delivering supported housing in the area, and will help ensure that in the future there is the right kind of supported housing to meet the needs of those who require it.
[HCWS1317]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. Just to remind noble Lords, the previous Grand Committee on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill adjourned during the middle of the debate on Amendment 158, so we will resume with that. Noble Lords may speak in this group only if they were present at the start of the debate on the group last time.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington (LD)
I was waiting for the Minister to reply before I summed up.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
If I can help the noble Lord, at this point I think that we are expecting the two Opposition Front-Benchers to speak and then the Minister.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on a number of amendments in this group that relate to health. They illustrate just how far this Bill stretches and the breadth of its potential impact on matters of public interest. Health is now firmly brought to the fore. Clause 44 inserts new provisions into existing legislation to place a duty on all combined authorities and combined county authorities to have regard to the need to improve the health of the people in their areas and to reduce health inequalities when they exercise their functions. The same duty is applied to mayors of mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities.
This represents a welcome shift. It means that health and health inequalities are no longer seen as an issue solely for the NHS or public health bodies, but I hope that the Department of Health and Social Care is aware of these proposals. If it is not and is not fully engaged, we will not get too far. Instead they must be taken into account across the full range of decisions made by combined authorities, whether they relate to transport, housing, planning, skills or economic development. That is an important change, because many of the factors that shape health outcomes sit well beyond the health system itself.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her Amendment 159, which seeks to broaden the list of health determinants and health outcomes to be considered as part of this new duty. The concerns that she raises are understandable and I am sympathetic to the desire to reflect the full complexity of what really drives health inequality. However, I ask the Minister whether she believes that combined authorities will have both the capacity and the practical power and resources to deliver against such an expanded list. In the Government’s view, is this expansion feasible? While ambition is welcome, we must ensure that any duty placed on local institutions is deliverable and affordable, rather than well intentioned and unrealistic.
In opening this group, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke about public access to fitness, sport and recreational facilities. These issues are clearly important and, as always, he made a compelling case for the role that access to physical activity plays in improving health outcomes. Many noble Lords will agree with the principles that he set out. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether she believes that placing such matters in the Bill is either necessary or proportionate.
The amendments to Clause 44 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, seek to align the list of health determinants more closely with academic research. The points that she raises are thoughtful and well made. I would be grateful if the Government could explain how the existing list of health determinants was arrived at. Who decided what should be included and by what process? Was there any consultation and were academic experts involved? Understanding how this list was developed is important so that we have confidence that it is robust and evidence based. In particular, I found the reference to “educational opportunities and attainment” in Amendment 161A especially interesting. Education is widely recognised as a key driver of long-term health outcomes and I will listen carefully to what the noble Baroness has to say on this matter.
I also note the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, particularly those that relate to climate and pollution. These amendments raise issues that are often cited as having implications for public health. However, they also serve to underline a broader issue that runs through this group. The difficulty is not simply whether individual factors can be linked to health outcomes but how far such a list should extend. If climate-related risks and pollution are included, should the same apply to noise pollution, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman? What about resilience to heat waves, which was also raised in this group? Each of these can be argued to have relevance but, taken together, they illustrate the challenge of scope. At some point a judgment must be made on where the boundary of general health determinants is drawn. That judgment is important for maintaining clarity and focus within the Bill and ensuring that the resulting duties are workable.
This returns me to the underlying question raised by the group. Who determined which health determinants should be included and on what criteria? What evidence or metrics were used to reach these conclusions? Without greater clarity on this point, it is difficult to assess whether the approach taken is sufficiently defined and proportionate. In that context, will the Government commit today to publishing an explanation as to how these decisions were reached? In particular, will the Minister set out who was consulted in the development of this list, what evidence was relied on and what criteria were used to determine inclusion or exclusion? Providing that clarity would assist the Committee in understanding the rationale behind the approach taken and assessing whether the duty, as framed, is appropriately defined and justified.
Before I sit down, I go back to my plea in the last group. As I have said before, if any of this is going to work, the Department of Health and Social Care will have to be involved. It will also have to work with local government and, by working with it, be willing to devolve power and moneys locally. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have submitted amendments on health improvement, which is an important topic. I am pleased that we will have this duty on local authorities at mayoral combined authority and combined county authority level. As other noble Lords have said, it is an important step forward.
The Government are committed to building a fairer Britain. To do that, we must ensure that people can live well for longer and spend less time in ill health. Our response, our reimagined NHS, will be designed to tackle inequalities in both access and outcomes, as well as to give everyone, no matter who they are or where they come from, the means to engage with the NHS on their terms.
With our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, we remain committed to reducing the gap between the richest and poorest in healthy life expectancy—an ambitious commitment that shows that the Government are serious about tackling health inequalities and addressing the social determinants of health. We support NHS England’s Core20PLUS5 approach, which targets action to reduce health inequalities in the most deprived 20% of the population and improve outcomes for the groups that experience the worst access, experience and outcomes in the NHS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, tackling health inequalities requires a whole-government effort, as does making sure that the best facilities are available across the country. That is why we are working across departments, from housing and education to employment and welfare, to make sure that health is built into all policies and runs as a golden thread through everything taking place.
I now come to the specific amendments, a number of which would make additions to the list of general health determinants. Before I turn to the individual amendments, I note that the scope and definition of “general health determinants” in the Bill has been intentionally and carefully crafted to be broad and flexible. I will write to noble Lords in answer to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about how those determinants have been drawn up and what consultations have been done on them.
The Bill lists some of the broad and interconnected factors that shape health, life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. Combined authorities, combined county authorities and mayors can directly impact these factors, such as standards of housing, employment prospects and environmental factors, through the delivery of their wider functions. Given the importance of these factors as inarguable determinants of health, the Bill strengthens the duty and adds clarity by listing them explicitly. Although some examples are provided, it is not our intention to set out a definitive list—we feel that that would be constraining. We recognise that combined authorities and combined county authorities are experts in their local areas and are therefore best placed to decide how to determine and act on the factors most relevant to improving health and reducing health inequalities in their own areas.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for tabling Amendment 158 and, as ever, for championing the importance of public access to fitness, sport and recreational facilities. This amendment would require combined authorities to consider the level of public access to fitness, sport and recreational facilities when exercising their functions. The general health determinants already include matters affecting lifestyle, access to services and environmental factors, and explicitly allow for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health. I am not being pedantic—nobody loves a clever clogs—but, to be specific and clear, I note that the amendment would apply only to combined authorities and not to combined county authorities, thereby creating inconsistency in how the duty operates. I apologise that I shall have to point that out with a number of these amendments, but it is important to clarify that.
I now turn to Amendments 159 and 167 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I appreciate that her intention is that the health improvement and health inequalities duty, and the definition of general health determinants within the duty, are broad and impactful. A driving purpose behind the health improvement and health inequalities duty is to support combined authorities and combined county authorities in reducing health inequalities and adopting a “health in all policies” approach. The effect the amendments would have is unclear because of the potential interactions with both “health inequalities” and “general health determinants” in Clause 44.
As I mentioned, the Bill has been drafted to provide a broad and flexible definition of “health inequalities” to ensure that differences in aspects such as life expectancy, general health, mental health and disabilities can all be captured in its scope. This allows combined authorities, combined county authorities and mayors to focus on the broad underlying causes of health inequalities and to tailor their responses to key local issues. Similarly, the framing of “life expectancy” or “general state of health” is intentionally broad and does not exclude mental health, disability or healthy life expectancy, all of which are legitimate dimensions of what one might regard as health and are reflected in mainstream methods for describing health states or health impacts.
I turn now to the large group of amendments: Amendments 159B, 160A, 161A, 163A, 163B, 165ZA, 165B, 167A, 167B, 167C, 167D, 167E, 167F and 167G. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, for her diligence in tabling them and recognise her assured intention to ensure that the definition of general health determinants reflects academic research and is impactful.
As drafted, the list of general health determinants already requires combined authorities and combined county authorities to have regard to environmental factors, employment prospects, earning capacity and access to public services, and explicitly allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health. Health inequalities are already defined within the duty as inequalities between people of different descriptions living in an area, and it is therefore not necessary to restate this within the general health determinants.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank the Minister, but half of the amendment is not about allotments. Having run this scheme in London, I know that allotments are almost impossible to get. It is also about the right to grow on meanwhile lease bases within communities and councils. Meanwhile leases are available online. It is extremely easy: it just needs the local authority to agree that wasted spaces can be used for growing and then taken away if a builder, developer or council wants them back.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not disagree with the noble Baroness. I am saying that this is a local authority duty, and it does not need to go up to the strategic level of a mayoral combined authority. That is why we do not need the amendment for combined authorities, but I accept her point about local authorities. A statutory duty is probably not applicable anyway, but I will give that some further thought, if she is happy for me to do so.
We recognise all the benefits of allotments and community gardening, but we do not want to duplicate existing legal responsibilities or place burdens at the wrong tier of government, which would run counter to the Government’s approach to devolution. I am sorry for going on for so long, but there were a lot of amendments in this group. As I have explained the Government’s rationale for resisting these amendments in detail, I request that they are not pressed.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
This is an important group of amendments, particularly if health does decide to devolve down either power or money in the future. But if local areas have specific health needs that the Government identify, and if they are not seen by the Government as dealing with them, do the Government intend to take a power to intervene?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am not sure about powers of intervention. We have a very specific competence that points our combined authorities towards health issues. The Government have made it very clear that we want to see mayors, in particular, sitting on ICBs; I hope that this will start to address some of the issues raised by noble Lords about not having a voice around the table with health colleagues. I know that Manchester has new powers relating to health issues. We will want to monitor those, have a look at them and watch what is working. We will then decide whether we need to take any further action.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
At the end of the clause, in the list of health determinants, there is a particular exclusion for genetically inherited characteristics. Is that supposed to exclude people suffering differences in health due to the colour of their skin?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that that is not what is intended, but I will revert to the noble Baroness with a written reply.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I want to say a few words about the amendment I introduced. I think that this is the longest I have ever done on a group, returning on a Monday after a Wednesday; but I am sure that it is not setting a record.
The tone of what came out in the debate was, “Okay, maybe there’s a difference between the new combined authorities and the mayoral authorities, in terms of what’s going through, but the fact is that most of the things raised here have a degree of relevance to health, so you might argue about how relevant they are”. Most of them should be recorded and looked at. Going back to sporting and recreational activity, they should be, because, if you do not know that you have structural intervention and somebody who can intervene, what are they supposed to do? They cannot do anything without having some overview.
I will take away what the Minister said and have a think about how we can introduce this. I accept that the wording may be wrong, but at least having it done in one set of authorities would be a step forward. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“(c) arrange for the deputy mayor for fire and rescue to exercise one or more of the Mayor’s fire and rescue authority functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Mayor with Fire and Rescue Authority functions to delegate those functions to a Deputy Mayor for Fire and Rescue, ensuring governance arrangements parallel to those for policing.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Goddard of Stockport, who is unfortunately not able to be here today. It seeks to insert a vital safeguard into Clause 45, ensuring that the specialised governance of our fire and rescue services is not diluted as the powers of regional mayors are expanded. As the Bill currently stands, it enables the transfer of fire and rescue authority functions to elected mayors, yet it does not mandate the same dedicated oversight and accountability that is necessary for this important emergency service. Amendment 170 would rectify this by requiring a mayor with these functions to arrange for a deputy mayor for fire and rescue, specifically to exercise those responsibilities.
The prime strength of this amendment is that would ensure governance arrangements for fire and rescue services, which would then run parallel with those already established for the police service. As the Government have rightly sought to abolish police and crime commissioners, they have abjectly failed to ensure that governance and accountability to the public are paramount. A reflection as to how potentially fragile our governance arrangements are can perhaps be informed by events in the United States of America, where the governance arrangements of policing have apparently been overturned with ease.
Can the Minister explain how replacing an elected police and crime commissioner by an unelected appointment, accountable to no one but the mayor, is an improvement in terms of public accountability? By extension, how will governance work if, as proposed, the fire and rescue service loses its direct governance and becomes the responsibility of an unnamed mayoral appointee? Further, there is a real risk that, as this Bill establishes a new tier of “strategic authorities” with broad “areas of competence”, the elected mayors will become “Lord High Everything”, as was the arrogant Pooh Bah in the “Mikado”.
Amendment 170 would ensure that fire and rescue functions receive the dedicated attention they require rather than being treated as a secondary concern within a massive strategic portfolio. This role would provide a clear point of contact for local public service partners and ensure that the strategic direction of emergency services is managed by an individual with a specific, focused mandate—albeit not a specific and focused democratic mandate.
Proper accountability is also lacking within the Government’s plans. The idea that a scrutiny panel, as with the police service, can be effective when only able to consider decisions post hoc is for the birds. I hope the Minister can agree to think about the challenge that Amendment 170 provides in the interests of public accountability. What we need is structural consistency between policing and the fire and rescue services and the dedicated and democratic accountability necessary to protect both our fire services and the communities they serve. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I hope I am not causing any confusion by having moved to these Benches. It was simply because the other Benches are very congested; I continue to support the same party that I supported when I came into this House as a Conservative Peer.
I would like to use Amendment 170—I congratulate the noble Baroness for speaking so eloquently to it—to probe the Government on an issue that is causing great concern, not dissimilar to that expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I think from memory we were the only two Peers in this very Room who spoke against the orders for the combined authority of North Yorkshire.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
It was thee and me, yes—that was the sum total who voted against. I think that we were right and history has proven that to be the case. I am still trying to get my head around where the fire and rescue service sits in the combined authority of North Yorkshire. I am concerned that now it is going to be even more complicated if, having elected a mayor for York and North Yorkshire, as the noble Baroness has highlighted, this will now pass to the mayor.
This is causing me concern because I raised the point elsewhere about the number of BESS projects—basically clean energy projects, particularly battery storage projects and solar farms—across North Yorkshire and the lack of consulting with fire and rescue authorities, because they are not statutory consultees. I believe that that has highlighted a gap in the structure at the moment. I use this opportunity to ask the Minister—I see that we have switched places; sliding doors and switching places is a theme for today—how that will impact on a county such as North Yorkshire, or York and North Yorkshire, if there is going to be no democratic oversight and no accountability, if that is the current understanding in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is on to something here and I would like to listen carefully to how the Government plan to monitor this. I do not believe that rural counties have really been considered in the mix of things. Clearly, it is an oversight if fire and rescue authorities are not being consulted as statutory consultees to such major projects. For all the reasons that she gave, I think that another lacuna has been identified by Amendment 170 in the great scheme of things and I look very much to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am rather confused about this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seeks to require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. In an earlier discussion, the Committee debated the appointment of commissioners to assist mayors with responsibility for matters such as police and crime and fire and rescue.
I strongly agree with the observation of the noble Baroness that it is not very democratic to replace elected police and crime commissioners with appointed commissioners assisting strategic mayors, or indeed to replace them with deputy mayors. But I think that we need more consistency, because the public will become very confused that quite a number of authorities are going to have commissioners assisting mayors, and the Bill seeks—especially in the clause that we are now discussing—to appoint deputy mayors. I want to ask the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, how they see the difference between commissioners and deputy mayors. Are they effectively the same and is that not going to be confusing?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to be here at the previous sittings—I had clashes of different obligations in the Lords last week.
I want to pick up from what my noble friend Lady Pinnock called the structural consistency issue. In preparing for the speech that I am going to make on Amendment 195, in the past few days I have read through a number of recent reports, including Labour Party as well as government and parliamentary reports on the governance of England, and I am struck with the frequency with which everyone from Gordon Brown through to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee say that one thing that we should be aiming for is consistency in the boundaries of different authorities so that, as far as possible, they coincide and the question of accountability is therefore relatively clear.
I was therefore struck when the Ministry of Justice produced a White Paper on policing that suggests that we might change the current structure of police forces in England—in Yorkshire that at least now coincides with the four mayors—by perhaps six to eight police authorities, which would not coincide at all with the 30 to 35 strategic authorities that we are heading towards in Britain.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, some time ago in the teens, from 2015 until about 2022, I was a member of the fire services pension fund, which exposed me to a world that I had had no real previous experience of. I learned that there were 40 fire and rescue authorities in the UK and it astonished me that, of the 40 fire and rescue authorities, there were seven different structural constructs within them. I am speaking in violent agreement with the noble Lord who has just spoken.
For example, there were the single county authorities such as Norfolk or Suffolk, and there were the joint county authorities such as Dorset and Wiltshire, working together under a single canvas. There were joint committees, for example, as you might find in the West Midlands—I am not quite sure whether the Yorkshire ones that the noble Lord just referred to are in the same bucket as the West Midlands or indeed whether they form an eighth different variant. There are the mayoral ones in Manchester, the London Fire Brigade stands alone and, of course, within the police and crime commissioners there is the one in Essex, for example, which is different from the one in Hertfordshire. We are now going to add combined county authorities, so I think that makes eight, and now within the mayoralties there will be a case A or a case B, each of which may have in addition a commissioner or a deputy mayor.
This is crazy. For 40 types of authority there are—I have nearly run out of fingers—10 different constructs, I think. The Bill should be bringing order to that complexity. Instead, it is obfuscating and adding a further cat’s cradle of complication. I know that we are in Committee and that we will come back on Report, and I understand the complexity and the interaction with the police, because the police and fire and rescue work together in so many cases, but we have to bring some order to this chaos.
Although I do not necessarily support the entirety of the text of Amendment 170, it has probed the necessity of bringing some sensibility to what is a nonsense in the way in which our brave fire and rescue firefighters deal with not just fires. During my tenure as a trustee of the fire service’s pension scheme, I learned that the average fireman goes to a fire once every 12 days or so; this is about the other important work they do, in prevention and in attending road accidents and other national emergencies. They deserve better than the structures they have today.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 170 would require a mayor who holds fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue, creating governance arrangements that mirror those already in place for policing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, raises a number of interesting and important points, as we have heard from this short debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on the issue of democratic accountability, as raised by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, and on my noble friend Lord Fuller’s point about making sure that public services all work from the same geographic area. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that; it might take a little longer, but I am sure it is worth doing.
During our consideration of the Bill, it has become clear that fire and rescue services are not listed as statutory consultees in the devolution framework. For me, that raises a number of important questions for the Government. As we have heard, fire and rescue services play a central role in public safety, resilience, planning and emergency responses, yet when decisions affecting land use, building standards, transport corridors or climate adaptions are taken without any requirement for fire service input, there is a risk of the safety and resilience considerations being added only after decisions have been made, rather than being embedded right from the outset.
In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why fire and rescue services are not statutory consultees, whether the Government consider this omission appropriate, and whether steps are being considered to strengthen their formal role in devolution and governance arrangements.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for moving Amendment 170, which would require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue.
Mayors are best placed to determine how to use the people and resources at their disposal to deliver for their communities. This amendment would prevent that by mandating the delegation of these functions specifically to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. It would also, therefore, prevent mayors delegating these functions to a public safety commissioner. The effective delegation of fire and rescue functions to a commissioner can ease capacity constraints, ensuring that there is a dedicated individual with the time and expertise to focus on executing those functions. Fire and rescue functions are already held by deputy mayors for policing and crime in Greater Manchester and York—and in North Yorkshire, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She seemed to say that she was not quite sure where it sat, so I will definitely write to her to explain how it works.
If they wish, mayors will be able to make an existing deputy mayor for policing and crime the public safety commissioner, meaning that that individual could lead on both policing and fire. However, certain functions should be the sole responsibility of the elected mayor as the head of the fire and rescue authority. Functions with the most significant bearing on the strategic direction of the fire service—such as the budget, the risk plan and the appointment or dismissal of the chief fire officer—are, therefore, retained by the mayor. On statutory requirements, fire and rescue services still have the right to respond to any planning application at the moment, for example, so they play a key role in that area. It is important that decisions in these areas are taken right at the top and that the person taking them is accountable at the ballot box.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, every effort is made to make coterminous the public service boundaries when we lay out these plans. The position we have taken provides strong accountability and operational flexibility for the mayors, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Have the implications of the strategic defence review been taken into account in all this? Chapter 6 of the defence review talks about the need to mobilise a “whole-of-society approach” in response to the threats we now face, in which there will be more volunteer firemen and police, and civilian rescue will be expanded. That means that volunteers at the local level have to feel confident. If decisions will be taken a long way away at the top, I suspect we have not yet thought through how we will get the sort of volunteers and local resilience we need.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Lord’s point about whole-society resilience in the security review is quite right in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. There are resilience plans in all local authorities for such an incident, so these things are taken into consideration and reviewed constantly.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have two comments on the noble Lord’s response. First, the fire and rescue service is no longer a statutory consultee. Anybody can respond to a planning application, but that is slightly different from being a statutory consultee. Secondly, commissioners are not accountable at the ballot box. Therefore, why would we allow the role to go down to not deputy mayors—I do not think there are such things—but the commissioners responsible, when they are not accountable at the ballot box?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I am not sure whether there were any questions there.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Can I take this opportunity to put the question I asked in my intervention? For what reason are fire and rescue services not statutory consultees? The noble Lord indicated in his reply that they are, but they are not. It is driving people in North Yorkshire wild that all these highly flammable and highly combustible projects are being planted next to schools and people’s homes without the fire service being consulted.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
As I said, it may not be a statutory body, but being involved in a great deal of things on a statutory basis would be a bit of an onerous burden on the fire brigade. The noble Baroness mentioned the fires that could potentially happen. I have said that I will write to her about how the fire and rescue service in North Yorkshire functions and works but, from what I can see and what I understand, there are requirements for the fire and rescue service to be there when required. It has a resilience role in all this, and it does not necessarily need to be a statutory body to do all these things when it can do them anyway.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The noble Lord said that the budget, the strategy and the planning were passing to the elected mayor, so is the elected mayor undertaking assessments? For example, if, hypothetically, two of these battery storage plants caught fire and at the same time there was a wildfire on the North York Moors, would the mayor assess whether there are sufficient resources—water, manpower and equipment—to deal with those fires? Who will be responsible for planning that?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I repeat that the function of the mayor is for the budget and the risk plan, so he or she will take into consideration the potential problems that the noble Baroness mentioned. He or she is also responsible for the appointment or dismissal of the chief officer, and therefore that accountability stays with the mayor, who is the directly elected representative for the area.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate on the future of the governance of fire and rescue services. It has exposed a fundamental flaw in the pattern of governance that the Government are pursuing with some haste: enabling a single elected person to become the sole democratically accountable authority for strategic planning, skills, strategic highways, policing, fire services and possibly health. This reflects what the Minister has said: a person, as a directly elected mayor, will hold all the accountability for those important public services.
That will not happen; no one person can hold all that accountability successfully. It will be dispersed, as it is now. In West Yorkshire, we have a directly elected mayor who has appointed a deputy mayor—it could be a commissioner, but in West Yorkshire the position is deputy mayor—who is a political appointee, not directly accountable to the residents of West Yorkshire, for policing.
We know from earlier parts of the Bill that the directly elected mayor can appoint up to seven commissioners, as we are now calling them, who will take responsibility for some of these functions but who are not directly accountable to the public whom they serve and for whom they are making decisions. That format of governance will crumble away when the first big incident of significance occurs, because who is responsible and who calls the shots? That fundamental problem is at the heart of this.
Apart from that, the second fundamental problem is the method of accountability through scrutiny. In earlier amendments, we on these Benches called for a scrutiny panel for each political appointee as a commissioner, which would go some way to alleviating the discrepancy in democratic accountability. But at the moment those scrutiny panels will scrutinise decisions post hoc, which is unacceptable. If they are to be effective, they need to look at pre-decision scrutiny as well.
I am sorry that the Minister has recited the mantra that all will be well and that creating a “Lord High Everything” will be fine. I fear that it will not, and I shall continue to point out the fault-lines in this model. I beg leave to withdraw.
“Matters outside the scope of Inspections
4A In section 28 (inspectors), after subsection (A8) insert—“(A8A) When carrying out an inspection under subsection (A3) of a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g), an English inspector must not review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of an excluded mayoral FRA function.(A8B) For the purposes of subsection (A8A), the following are excluded mayoral FRA functions in relation to a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority—(a) the issuing of a community risk management plan;(b) the variation of priorities and objectives set out in a community risk management plan;(c) the allocation of the draft or actual budget for fire and rescue functions in relation to any financial year;(d) the function of appointing, suspending or dismissing the chief fire officer;(e) the function of holding the chief fire officer to account for the exercise of—(i) the functions which are delegated to the chief fire officer; and(ii) the functions of persons under the direction and control of the chief fire officer;(f) the function of approving a pay policy statement prepared for the purposes of section 38 of the Localism Act 2011;(g) the function of approving arrangements to enter into a reinforcement scheme under section 13;(h) the function of approving arrangements with other employers of firefighters under section 15;(i) the function of approving arrangements under section 16;(j) the function of approving plans, modifications to plans and additions to plans for the purpose of ensuring that—(i) so far as is reasonably practicable, the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to continue to perform its fire and rescue functions if an emergency occurs; and(ii) the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to perform its functions so far as necessary or desirable for the purpose of preventing an emergency, or reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or taking other action in connection with it;(k) the function of approving any arrangements for the co-operation of the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA in relation to its fire and rescue functions with other general Category 1 responders and general Category 2 responders in respect of—(i) the performance of the mayoral combined authority’s, or mayoral CCA’s, duty as a fire and rescue authority under section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004; and(ii) any duties under subordinate legislation made in exercise of powers under that Act. (A8C) In subsection (A8B)—“community risk management plan” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1;“emergency” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 for Part 1 of that Act;“general Category 1 responder” means a person who falls within Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“general Category 2 responder” means a person who falls within Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“priorities and objectives” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1.””Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for matters which inspectors of fire and rescue authorities may not review or scrutinise when inspecting mayoral combined authorities or CCAs which are fire and rescue authorities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendments 172 and 173 make essential amendments to Schedule 23, ensuring that the law operates as intended with evolving governance arrangements. Amendment 172 aligns the inspection framework for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral county combined authorities with existing exclusions for other fire and rescue authority governance models, ensuring fairness and consistency across England.
Amendment 173 makes technical alignments with existing legislation. It ensures that, where a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral combined county authority takes on fire and rescue functions, it is treated in the same way as existing fire and rescue authorities. The amendment will also bring mayoral fire and rescue authorities within Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, covering companies in which local authorities have interests. It will also bring it within Section 155 of the same Act for the purpose of emergency financial assistance.
It also clarifies the handling of Section 114 reports in the case of mayoral fire and rescue authorities, and the fire and rescue authority’s response under Section 115 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. When a chief finance officer issues a report, the report must be sent to the relevant scrutiny committee, and the authority’s response must be sent to the chief finance officer, the external auditor and the relevant scrutiny committee. I commend these government amendments to the Committee.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, these two amendments are enabling amendments in response to the previous issue that was raised with Amendment 170 about absorbing fire and rescue services into a mayoral authority.
It has long been the objective of previous Governments to combine police services and fire and rescue services into one model by arguing that they were both emergency services and, therefore, would be better combined. That has always been resisted, with support from these Benches, because police and fire and rescue services have very different objectives. This Bill is seeking to absorb policing and fire and rescue into the ambit of the directly elected mayor, without having this discussion about whether it is appropriate.
I accept that four mayoral authorities have already combined policing and fire and rescue. Whether or not that has been a success is yet to be tested. The argument against these two amendments—I will reprise a bit of what I said on Amendment 170—is that it is an erosion of transparency and public accountability for what is, after all, a critical emergency service.
It is always interesting to me when we have government amendments—it points to pressure somewhere that new powers are needed to make this work. Amendment 172 removes the inspection of the fire service from the inspection regime and puts it into a mayoral regime. This means that, for instance—these are within the amendment—an inspector cannot challenge the budget of fire and rescue, challenge the appointment or dismissal of the chief fire officer, hold the chief fire officer to account or approve an emergency performance and reinforcement scheme.
All those are critical to ensure public accountability of the fire and rescue service, but suddenly they will not be available for its inspection regime. That will not do. The fire and rescue service plays a vital role as first responders to serious road traffic accidents. They are always the first there, not the police, and they are often at terrorist incidents. We need to have accountability for the public and the existing inspection regime, to ensure that it works well.
My argument with this amendment, as with Amendment 170, is that this is happening by stealth, by absorbing fire and rescue into the police service. Combining them ensures that the mayor has responsibility for those functions. The inspection regime does not apply to the mayor, therefore public accountability for the fire and rescue service lies in holding the mayor to account. As I have said, the mayor is now the sole Lord High Everything of a huge number of strategic functions, so holding them to account on any one of them will be a challenge. I hope that the Minister will think again on this proposal to change the way that fire and rescue services are democratically accountable and inspected, because I fear that failing to do so could have serious consequences.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as I understand it from the Minister, the inspectors in question inspect only operational matters and not governance matters. Therefore, to not inspect the governance of mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities is in keeping with the approach that the inspectors already take to existing fire services. Will the Minister please confirm that I have that right? If I do not, will she please explain why the Government’s arrangements for these new authorities will be subject to less scrutiny than already exists in the fire services? If my understanding is correct, I still have concerns about the need for effective scrutiny of new authorities taking new powers, in this instance over fire and rescue, so will the Minister please tell the Committee how the governance of fire and rescue services will be inspected and scrutinised, if not by this inspectorate? We have to ensure that there is an appropriate approach to scrutiny for all new mayoral combined authorities, which is exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott, for their comments. We have seen a lot of changes in governance in both policing and the fire service. I worked in policing for a long time and during my time policing went from police committees, which were local authority committees, to police authorities, which were more widely representative of communities, and then to police commissioners. Fire and rescue services have been with local authorities; in some areas they moved to police commissioners and responsibility for fire sat with police commissioners. But the mayor will be the only person elected by the whole of that combined authority area, so there is a democratic mandate there.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting the high street economy, a key part of which is the hospitality sector and the night-time economy. Amendments introduced on Report in the other place established a new strategic licensing role for the Mayor of London. This included a duty on the mayor to publish and set out his licensing priorities in a new London-wide statement of licensing policies.
There was also an amendment that served as a placeholder for a new call-in power, which provided the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to confer on the Mayor of London the function of determining relevant licence applications in certain circumstances. Government Amendments 174 to 181 replace this placeholder and provide more detail around the types of circumstances in which the mayor may call in or determine relevant licence applications.
The amendments also add the Greater London Authority as a responsible authority in certain circumstances under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003. They place a requirement on the GLA to notify interested parties, including the applicant and the relevant licensing authority, of applications that the GLA considers to meet the definition of potential strategic importance to Greater London. This will be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. If a London licensing authority decides not to grant an application of potential strategic importance as applied for, including, for example, by rejecting the application or applying additional conditions to it, the mayor is required to decide whether or not to call in the decision.
If a decision is called in, the mayor must issue a direction to the relevant licensing authority, having given regard to his licensing policy and the importance of promoting the licensing objectives. New rights of appeal in relation to directions issued by the mayor will also be introduced to help ensure the call-in power is used judiciously. The new call-in power will initially be given effect in London to help unleash the full potential of our capital’s world-renowned cultural venues but could be deployed in mayoralties across the country in the future to help prevent decisions from being blocked by unnecessary red tape or short-term thinking.
Separately, at a national level, the Government launched a joint government and industry licensing taskforce last year and are considering more than 2,000 responses to a call for evidence that sought the public’s views on its proposals. We expect to consider those views before making any future reforms to the national licensing regime, including on aspects such as pavement licensing. For the avoidance of doubt, the amendments being discussed today concern the licensing regime in Greater London, not national licensing reforms. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I have a real concern about this group of amendments, which appears to look to tinker around the edges to bring the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority into line with other strategic authorities. We already established in an earlier session that governance in London was the first established; it has never been repeated and, indeed, this Bill does not seek to repeat it either. Surely the sensible route is the one that we suggested in Amendment 75: to have a full review, consider the future governance of London and deal with issues such as this at that time.
I do not want to revisit the earlier argument, but I remind noble Lords that in London there is not the same relationship between the mayor and the boroughs as is suggested there might be in the new governance relationships, or indeed that exists elsewhere. In practice, that means that the mayor might not appreciate local circumstances—as I have said before, not all of London is the same. The mayor might not appreciate the local policing capacity, or lack of it, and the implications of that on licensing decisions. He might not understand the local economy and what licensing could mean for that. He might not appreciate the impact of the local demographics when decisions are being made to overturn local licensing decisions.
What is more, as we have heard before, the current scrutiny of the mayor is not considered to be effective. Devolution should mean respect for decision-making at its lowest common denominator—in this case, the borough level. If a more strategic decision is needed for a wider area, the decision should include the local decision-making processes or partners. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to consider the proposals put forward previously for a thorough review, at which time the implications of these amendments could be considered.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I heard what the Minister said in her introduction to this group of amendments about it following a proposed change to the Bill in the Commons. Like the previous speaker, I understand the need, in a global city such as London, to reverse—for justifiable reasons—the direction of devolution and enable a power grab from the local boroughs in some circumstances. However, the circumstances are not defined, apart from saying that they have to be of “strategic importance” across Greater London. Yet the definition of “strategic importance” is left to regulations.
It is not at all clear how the mayor will make such decisions when they have been defined as being of strategic importance. Will they be based on the licensing priorities, which is a requirement for local borough licensing committees? How will local concerns be heard and considered? This appears to be a profound and unnecessary centralisation of power that threatens to strip local democratically elected committees of their voice in matters that affect their communities’ daily lives.
Under this proposal, which is set out in Amendment 179A—it contains a proposed new section headed “Licence applications of potential strategic importance”—local London licensing authorities, such as borough councils, would legally be required to notify the GLA of applications for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment or late-night refreshment. A further proposal grants the Mayor of London the power, in effect, to veto or override the decisions of these local authorities. So if a borough council decides to grant or reject a licence, that decision is suspended and has no effect until the mayor decides whether to intervene. This is allegedly the devolution Bill, but I am yet to be convinced that it has any relationship to devolution; this is the imposition of top-down command structure over local democracy.
The additional problem is that, if there is a veto and it is called in by the mayor, how quickly will the mayor decide? What is the democratic way in which that will be decided? Is it just the mayor in his or her office making a decision, or will it go to a scrutiny committee for discussion first? Will there be an open and transparent hearing where the local borough council—or several local borough councils, if it is something that affects several of them—can come and explain its decision? Will the mayor have to explain why it has been called in? A lot here is unsatisfactory, to say the least. I ask myself: who is best placed to make a judgment about licence applications, which can have significant effects on people’s daily lives? Is it those who live there and their elected representatives, or is it the mayor of 7 million or 8 million people who says, “Actually, I know best. This is important for business, so hard luck if it affects your daily life”? That is the risk in this.
In the end, this group of amendments is unsatisfactory until we know the definition of “strategic importance” and the methods that will be used for decision-making. For those reasons, I hope the Minister will think again and reconsider. I understand why, if it is a significant application that will affect large parts of London, you would want a mayoral authority to take that decision. But I would want to know how that is defined and how that decision will be taken in a public setting, with the ability for people to have their voices heard and an appeal process.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I am a directly elected mayor of a London borough with a licensing authority and responsibility. I want to speak in favour of and welcome this amendment. The key word is “strategic”. It is important that we recognise that London’s nightlife and hospitality industries are essential to Britain’s economy. We need to support them; they bring more than 1.4 million jobs to the capital and generate £46 billion in economic activity.
Giving the mayor new powers over strategic licences, including the power to call in and decide strategically on those applications, could be important for the future. Different authorities will vary in how they approach their licensing. Of course, there needs to be that relationship between the local authorities and the Mayor of London—whoever that may be, now or in the future—to be able to listen and recognise, and to have that overarching strategic view of what the licensing is being applied for. We do not live within administrative boundaries, so if something is across different authorities and one side believes that a licence should be granted and another does not, there needs to be some sort of arbitrator to see the overall benefit of bringing that position forward and to say either, “Yes, it is strategically important for London” or, “No, it is not”.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments in the Minister’s name would insert a new provision into the Licensing Act 2003 for additional powers for the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London. We are not opposed to a greater strategic role for the GLA and the mayor, particularly where that role helps to identify key applications and promote consistency across London.
However, we harbour significant concerns about Amendment 179A, which would establish a London-wide strategic licensing oversight system. We are not persuaded that the mayor should be granted such extensive powers to intervene in and potentially overrule decisions taken by local licensing authorities. Although applicants will have the right of appeal, these provisions introduce a new layer of bureaucracy and uncertainty into what is already a complex licensing regime. We struggle to see why the mayor should be given such a decisive and potentially determinative role in local licensing decisions, particularly where those decisions are currently taken by local authorities with detailed knowledge of their communities, as my noble friend Lady O’Neill made clear. The mayor will not have that, and we are overriding local accountability. I am concerned by the provision that allows certain applications to be deemed “of potential strategic importance” when the definition of that term is to be set out not by the GLA or the mayor but through regulations by the Secretary of State.
I have similar scepticism to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about whether this actually is a devolution Bill. It is supposed to be about local democracy and trusting local people to make the right decisions for their local area. It should not be about transferring powers upward to mayors and Whitehall. Why is London again being put on a pedestal and treated differently to the rest of the UK? I appreciate that the Minister said that this could be extended to the rest of the UK. Again, I very much defer to what my noble friend Lady O’Neill said: it would make a lot of sense for this to be part of a broader review of the governance of London.
Moreover, it is not clear why the Government have chosen to introduce these provisions at such a late stage, or how they interact with existing licensing frameworks. At the very least, the Committee needs more time to consider the implications of these amendments, alongside fuller guidance from the Minister about how these powers would operate in practice.
At present, I do not believe that the justification for these amendments has been made, so I look forward to the Minister’s response and to further explanation of the rationale behind the operation of these amendments. However, we cannot support any of these amendments being made at this stage.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on these amendments. I will be very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss the proposals further and in more detail. I will give a little more information now and, I hope, answer some of the questions that noble Lords have asked.
On why we feel that the new call-in power is needed, there is evidence of unmet potential for London’s night-time economy. A YouGov survey found that 45% of Londoners stated that they had ended a night out before midnight in 2023-24, despite wanting to stay out later—I never do but, obviously, there are people who do. Night-time spending in the capital fell by 3% from 2022-25. London also has a lower premises licence approval rate than the rest of England and Wales. Of course, the reasons for that are multifaceted but, through the establishment of a new mayoral call-in power, intended to be used only in specific circumstances, as a measure of last resort, we would hope to encourage a more enabling and joined-up approach to premises licensing that unleashes the full potential of London’s cultural hospitality and night-time economy sectors. I know we have talked many times in your Lordships’ House about the restaurant and pubs business, and so on. We particularly want to encourage that sector in London—and everywhere else, but it is important to do that for the capital’s tourism and other trades.
In answer to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the Government support the principle of localism in licensing decisions, but we are committed to putting the right powers at the right levels to drive economic growth that we want to see. Local licensing authorities are often, or in fact nearly always, best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge and in consultation with other responsible authorities, including the police and enforcement authorities. But where the licensing system affects sectors with a strategic economic role—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, mentioned that aspect—it is important that city-wide considerations can be taken into account. The new strategic licensing role of the Mayor of London would enable this and provide an opportunity to adopt a similar approach to those that have worked effectively in New York, Amsterdam and Sydney.
To pick up on some specific points about how this is going to work—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked a couple of questions about this—the mayor will draw his strategic licensing policy by consultation on it before it is published. The mayor will be required to consult each London licensing authority, which will be able to make representations about its local circumstances. The Government intend to consider this and may seek to engage with key licensing stakeholders before setting out thresholds of what that
“potential strategic importance to Greater London”
actually means in regulations. That will provide further detail on the types of licence applications that will potentially fall within the scope of the mayor’s call-in power.
In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about why this issue has not come forward before, that is a fair point. Further time is required to develop the new mayoral call-in process, including how it would interact with existing licensing legislation. In thinking about bringing this forward, the Government have considered that sometimes the best way in which to deliver devolution across the country is to test out new powers or approaches in one or two places first. As a globally renowned centre for culture and nightlife, London represents an ideal location to test new strategic licensing powers and duties. Nevertheless, it is very much our intention to ensure that it will be possible to roll these out to other mayors across the country, subject to the provision of appropriate evidence via provisions in the Bill. Piloting things is a very good way in which to see how effective they are, and whether they get the balance right between the local decision-making to which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referred and what we might think of as a strategic call-in power—so it is very important to do that.
I thank my noble friend Lady Dacres for her comments about licensing. She and I had an informal meeting with some London leaders on Saturday. They were not all London leaders, so I will not use that as evidence because that would not be fair, but, broadly, their view was similar to that of my noble friend Lady Dacres: although you would not want this to be used all the time, it is an important power to have in a key city such as London. However, a call for evidence is out and is currently being reviewed.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
Were all those whom the Minister consulted inner London authorities, or did they include outer London boroughs as well? My frustration is with the fact that everyone assumes that London is all the same, yet Westminster is certainly not like Bexley; and Lewisham, where the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, comes from, is not like Bexley. Bexley has a night-time economy, yet the Mayor of London is considering closing our police front counter but will not close Lewisham’s because it is that much closer. The police in Bexley are closing down and not working past 10 pm, yet obviously the nightclubs are open till 2 am. Those sorts of things have to be considered for the benefit of all local people, but the mayor will not be aware of them. I apologise, but I felt I needed to say that.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
Just to correct some of what the noble Baroness alluded to, I see Lewisham as a mix of inner and outer London because we have the south circular and diverse aspects to our borough. She mentioned the police station. All our police station fronts, bar one, have been closed. Lewisham has the largest police station in London—in fact, in Europe—and I am sure that is the sole reason why it has not been closed. It includes horses, as well as other back-office support for the police. I wanted to correct that for the record, because the noble Baroness made it seem as though we are open because of our distance from central London, and that is not the case.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness and my noble friend for those helpful comments. I want to be absolutely clear that it was not a formal consultation I had on Saturday; it was an informal meeting, but a number of London leaders were there. It was not representative, so I will not pretend it was, but it is clear to me that there is more work to do before moving forward with this. Between now and Report I am happy to meet all those who have spoken in this debate but, for now, I will withdraw Amendment 174.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
It is perfectly reasonable that the Minister has suggested that there should be a more joined-up set of regulations, but I tabled an amendment that would have achieved this through the agent of change. Will she reconsider her views on how we can balance the late-opening nightclubs with the new residences next door to them?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have had extensive discussions of the agent of change; it is a slightly different proposal. I know it could potentially be linked to this, so if the noble Baroness wants to get involved in the discussions on this, I am happy to include her.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s very positive response to our comments. She said that this is a pilot. You would normally have a review at the end of a pilot to work out whether it has worked and the consequences thereof. I appreciate that she intends to withdraw her amendment, but it would be helpful, if these amendments were to come back on Report, to be clear about what the pilot means and what the review process is.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is a very fair point. I was indicating that we will have some further discussions about it. If I bring further amendments back on Report, we will need to be clear about putting some flexible powers into the Bill so that we can extend it if we need to. If we look at the London project and it has not worked, clearly that does not mean that it will be extended. But we need the powers because, as all noble Lords will be aware, getting primary legislation on to the statute book is quite a process. We would rather have a permissive power that enables it, if it is needed, and then we are able to do that if necessary.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the Secretary of State's power to amend future Acts of Parliament using secondary legislation, in line with the DPRRC's recommendation. The 'Henry VIII power' could only be used prospectively for Acts passed in this session, rather than any future Act of Parliament. It is connected to three other amendments in the name of Lord Lansley.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, we turn now to a group of amendments that all relate to the exercise of delegated powers to amend future legislation—Henry VIII powers. They are powers by way of statutory instrument to amend primary legislation in the future. The relevant document—if noble Lords are interested to read it in detail—is the 45th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which reported on this Bill and drew the attention of the House to the Henry VIII powers.
Before I turn to precisely what it said, it did not note, but I have, that in Clause 88 there is a general power for making consequential and incidental provision relating to future legislation. Clause 88 says:
“Regulations … may amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”.
My amendments do not affect that.
My Amendments 180A, 184A, 196F and 235DA in this group relate to Henry VIII powers to amend future legislation, which was the subject of the Delegated Powers Committee’s report. It said:
“It is reasonably common for Henry VIII powers to allow for consequential amendments to amend future Acts of Parliament passed in the same session as the Bill in which they appear … the Government and Parliament are capable of passing Bills in future sessions consistent with preceding legislation”.
It says in the next paragraph that in November last year the parliamentary counsel noted to the Constitution Committee that
“the power to amend consequentially Acts in future sessions is rare and normally specifically justified in the delegated powers [memorandum] … The Bill includes numerous instances of this type of power and the Memorandum”—
that is, the Government’s delegated powers memorandum—
“does not provide justification for any of them”.
It says, in the recommendations in paragraph 23 of the report:
“In the light of the Government’s failure to justify the ability of these Henry VIII powers to change the effect of Acts of Parliament to be passed in future sessions, we recommend to the House that the delegated powers in clauses 54 and 71 … Schedule 24 and … Schedule 26 are amended to remove that ability”.
I have tabled four amendments to do precisely that. In each case, they would take out the words “whenever passed”, meaning whenever passed in the future, and insert precisely the same words as those the Government themselves used in the drafting of Clause 88—that is, that they would amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament
“passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”.
I think there is a small, technical problem with my amendment in relation to Schedule 26. Since it relates to an insertion to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the reference to “this Act” might be inaccurate. However, we will not worry about that, because we can deal with it on Report as necessary.
The purpose of these four amendments relates to a number of places. It relates to Clause 54, which we are dealing with presently, which modifies the functions of mayors and strategic authorities; Clause 71, which concerns the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles; Schedule 24, which we have just been discussing, which concerns licensing powers for the Mayor of London; and Schedule 26, which relates to local government reorganisation powers. The subject matter of those powers is almost unimportant; the point is that, in each case, the Government have used the same language to give themselves the power, by statutory instrument, to amend future Acts of Parliament beyond this Session. In the same way as Clause 88, each of my amendments would limit that power to amend Acts passed or made up to the end of this parliamentary Session.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has tabled Amendment 184. As I say, I have tabled Amendment 184A, because it does the same thing as the others, whereas Amendment 184 would remove the regulation-making power entirely. I submit that that would go too far, since there is often a need to make consequential or incidental provision.
The essential point that I come back to is that there is no basis for justifying taking a power to amend future Acts of Parliament in future Sessions, because those Bills, when they are introduced to this place, can take account of, and make their own provision for, what the future shape of legislation should look like. It is not a question of saving parliamentary time; they can be dealt with in those Acts when the time comes. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken in the previous debates on this Bill due to the pressure of work. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has spoken eloquently to his amendments, and I agree with nearly everything he has said. I will speak to Amendment 184 in my name, as I am extremely concerned about the long-term implications of Clause 54(3).
Clause 54 begins with subsection (1):
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or supplementary provision for the purposes of”—
it then it goes into the detail. My concern is with subsection (3), which, for the benefit of the doubt, I will read:
“Regulations under this section may (in particular) amend any Act of Parliament (whenever passed), including by amending this Act”.
This is an amazing power to hand to the Secretary of State in the future, whoever he or she might be. The ability to amend any Act of Parliament, which may not even be a twinkle in the eye of any future government at this stage, is breathtaking.
Until the end of January, I had the privilege to sit on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The council that advises the DPRRC was extremely concerned about the number of delegated powers in the Bill that we are currently debating. There are 92 delegated powers, and a further 42 not covered in the memorandum, due to the fact that the Bill is likely to interact with existing enactments.
Similar powers were brought forward in 2015, at which point the committee felt that the powers were too broad. However, we now have a new Government and a new philosophy. I can understand that the Government want to be able to change past and current legislation in future, but they are asking for the power to change legislation that is yet to be drafted—a power that bypasses the role of Parliament completely.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke at length on his amendments, which relate to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s concerns about the Bill. He set out his arguments extremely clearly and referred to the committee’s 45th report, which was published on 16 January. That report details the committee’s concerns; it is extensive and raises significant issues around the way in which the Henry VIII powers will be executed. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has already ready out the committee’s recommendation concerning this particular power, which is as follows:
“In the light of the Government’s failure to justify the ability of these Henry VIII powers to change the effect of Acts of Parliament to be passed in future sessions, we recommend to the House that the delegated powers in clauses 54 and 71, and those in paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 24 and paragraph 1(8) of Schedule 26 are amended to remove that ability”.
I apologise for repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said word for word, but it is really important to stress this point.
Considering this strong recommendation from the Delegated Powers Committee, as well as the concerns raised by me and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that the Government are prepared to accept this amendment and amend the Bill accordingly. This is an unjustifiable abuse of power, bypassing Parliament to seek to amend future Acts of Parliament and legislation that is not even in the initial stages of being drafted.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will not seek to repeat what has been said so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
The issue is quite simple. This is supposed to be a devolution Bill about local empowerment; it is not supposed to be about giving the Secretary of State huge powers, in particular to amend things that have not even been thought of yet. On restricting things in the way that has been suggested, there are some flexibilities in this Bill, historical Bills and Bills for the current Session, but having the power to amend something that is not even a twinkle in the eye of a new Minister— whoever they may be—is just going too far. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has also said this.
This matter needs very deep thought on the part of the Government. We will come back to it if the Government do not seek to address this issue of a Secretary of State having the ability to amend something that has not been thought of yet. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand why you would want to amend a law you have not written yet, because you could always bring in powers that are relevant to that law as part of any legislation you then bring forward.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their proposed amendments to the delegated powers in the Bill. I also thank the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report and its recommendations regarding the delegated powers in the Bill, to which these amendments relate. I will consider its report ahead of Report and will make sure that all noble Lords who have joined this debate on delegated powers have sight of that response.
I turn to Amendment 180A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which seeks to limit the ability to make consequential, supplementary or incidental provisions that would follow a decision to repeal the strategic licensing regime. This amendment would prevent such provisions being made to future legislation. Our intention behind introducing the new strategic licensing pilot in London is clear: to trial a more strategic approach to licensing in London.
However, we recognise that any significant change to long-established arrangements may, in practice, give rise to operational or policy difficulties that could not have been fully foreseen at the point of legislating—I referred to that on an earlier group. It is for that reason that we have provided a power for the Secretary of State to amend the new strategic licensing measures within the first five years of them coming into effect. This will ensure that the Government can act swiftly and proportionately to protect the effectiveness of the wider licensing framework if necessary. The Secretary of State must be able to make consequential, supplementary or incidental provision that repeals or revokes legislation made at a later date, if necessary, in the event that the strategic licensing measures are repealed.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, not only for her supportive comments on all these amendments but for her participation in the Committee’s scrutiny. We are grateful to the Delegated Powers Committee for the time and trouble that it takes in drawing these things carefully to our attention.
I will not dwell on this. I entirely understand many of the things that the Minister was saying. No part of these amendments is seeking to frustrate the Government’s intentions through these four separate parts of the Bill. The point is technical but simple. At any future stage, future primary legislation can take account in that primary legislation of whether it may be necessary for the powers in this Act to, for example, change the functions of mayors and strategic authorities or to revise the local government reorganisation arrangements in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act. It can take account of those and extend those powers to make statutory instruments to amend them in that primary legislation itself. However, we should not, before that legislation has even come here, give a power to amend it. That would significantly restrict our ability in future legislation to anticipate how that legislation can be used and to scrutinise it in the proper way at the time.
I will of course withdraw my amendment but I hope that the Government will come back, not only having responded to the Committee but in order to change this language on each of these occasions to the same as that in Clause 88. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 180A.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, by opposing Schedule 25, we seek to probe and clarify what functions may be delegated to mayors under future regulations. Prior to the changes proposed by this Bill, the principal mechanisms for conferring local authority and public authority functions on combined authorities were set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. More recently, equivalent provisions for combined county authorities were established through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
Under both frameworks, functions have generally been conferred on individual combined authorities or combined county authorities through bespoke statutory instruments, subject to the affirmative procedure. In other words, Parliament has been asked to scrutinise each discrete transfer of power on a case-by-case basis, authority by authority. However, in our reading, paragraph 2 of Schedule 25 marks a significant shift. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations conferring functions not on individual authorities but on categories of mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities, or to modify such functions once conferred. Clause 17 provides that those functions will then be exercisable by the mayor on behalf of the combined authority or combined county authority.
I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain in practical terms how this new approach differs from the position under the 2023 Act. In particular, how does conferring functions on a category of mayors differ, both operationally and constitutionally, from the authority-specific approach taken under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act? What are the implications of this shift for democratic accountability, parliamentary scrutiny and local consent? Simply, will Parliament have more or less say and will decisions of this kind be subject to clearer democratic oversight than under the previous framework? My fear is that they will not. Additionally, is the Minister willing to illustrate this with a concrete example, perhaps in relation to transport, skills or planning, so that the Committee can better understand how Parliament’s role in scrutinising these transfers of power will change in practice?
The provision in paragraph 12 of Schedule 25 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying differing voting arrangements from those set out as the default in Clause 6 in relation to particular functions for one or more categories of combined authorities or combined county authorities. I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, in what circumstances do the Government envisage departing from the default voting arrangements and what criteria will guide those decisions? Secondly, how will local consent be secured where voting arrangements are altered by regulation, particularly if those changes materially affect the balance of power between constituent authorities and the mayor? Finally, what safeguards exist to ensure that such variations do not undermine transparency or local democratic accountability?
Part 6 of the schedule introduces yet another significant power: the ability of the Secretary of State to confer additional public authority or local authority functions on specific strategic authorities as part of a time-limited pilot programme. It also allows for the governance arrangements of existing functions to be modified on a similarly time-limited basis. Again, I seek assurances from the Minister. How will pilot authorities be selected and on what objective basis? What evaluation criteria will be applied before, during and after a pilot programme? Crucially, what guarantees are there that the time-limited pilots will not default and become permanent through inertia rather than explicit parliamentary approval?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I express my support for what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said. I suggest to the Minister that it might help, particularly as we approach the tabling of amendments on Report, if the Government were to produce a grid that shows what powers will reside where. There are mayoral powers, government powers, local authority powers and town and parish council powers, for all Whitehall departments. We could have a piece of paper that would tell us what the Government’s intention is for where they are headed. I assume that the Government have this already but, if they do not, I suggest that they consider creating one.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I, too, support what my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook was saying. I recall that she was responsible for Sections 18, 19 and 20 of LURA, on the conferral of functions on county combined authorities—as they were at that time—so she has been down this track.
I have three quick points. First, and I think my noble friend touched on this, the existing legislation, by which the Secretary of State can confer functions on combined authorities or combined county authorities, operates on the basis of a proposal from those authorities to the Secretary of State for the functions to be conferred. After consultation, the Secretary of State requires the consent of those authorities for the functions to be conferred. I cannot find that in Schedule 25, so the conclusion that one reaches is that, in this devolution Bill, the authorities do not even have the power to decide whether the functions are theirs or not. They will just be given to them or modified without anything beyond consultation; it does not require a proposal or consent. That is a very odd way of proceeding.
Secondly, we had a discussion in an earlier group about the structure of the voting arrangements in Clause 6, but we suddenly find in Schedule 25 that the Government want a power to change them on potentially quite important issues. I cannot for the life of me understand why that is necessary here, because the individual strategic authorities can change their constitutional arrangements anyway, if they really wanted to. I think that we established that in the earlier group. So why do the Government want to be able to change the voting arrangements?
Thirdly, on the pilots, there is a requirement in paragraph 21 for the pilot schemes to produce an impact report but, as far as I can see, it has to be given to the Secretary of State. It does not appear to have to be given to anybody else and it certainly does not have to be published. The Government should come back and make it clear that, when produced and given to the Secretary of State, the impact report should then be published.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for probing whether Schedule 25 should stand part of the Bill. Schedule 25 is central to the objectives of the Bill and the Government’s ambitions for devolution in England. We have been clear that the devolution framework delivered by this Bill is the floor not the ceiling of our ambitions for devolving powers to our communities. Schedule 25 provides the Secretary of State with the power to confer new functions on strategic authorities and to modify these functions. This will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors have the powers that they need to deliver for local people.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, wanted to question which functions could be conferred using these powers. As outlined in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25, a function can be conferred if it
“is a function of a public authority, and … relates to any aspect of any area of competence”.
It might help if I go into a little more detail on that. The current list reflects the areas under which the Government believe strategic authorities should hold powers and functions. Functions and powers held under these areas will best empower mayors to act strategically, to drive growth and to help shape public services for their local communities. The current list of thematic policy areas is deliberately broad and allows for a wide range of activities to fall within the areas of competence. The Government remain open to considering whether the list could be expanded in future.
Questions were asked about the conferring of functions on to a strategic authority and how that will work.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt but I have a question. When the Minister talks about extending the list in future, is that the list of functions within areas of competence, or is she talking about the ability to extend the list of areas of competence?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am talking about the functions within the competence.
The Secretary of State will be required to consult relevant parties, including the strategic authority, the constituent councils and any body that currently holds the function. The Secretary of State will then need to determine whether to confer the function, paying regard to the need for the effective exercise of the function concerned. Regulations made under Schedule 25 will be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny takes place.
In some instances, it will make sense to pilot functions with a smaller number of strategic authorities for a time-limited period. I will try to answer the questions about piloting, but I will look at Hansard later and come back in writing if I have not answered them all. Where we are piloting, strategic authorities will be required to provide an impact report on the pilot, which the Secretary of State will take into consideration before deciding whether to confer the functions permanently; I will consider whether those reports should be public.
As an example—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked for an example of this—development corporation functions are held by mayors. If we wanted to move those functions to foundation authorities, for example, we could use these powers. What will happen with a pilot is that an area will make a request for a function. Pilots will need to be consented to by both the Secretary of State and the relevant local authorities. When a pilot has been completed, there will be an impact assessment of that pilot.
I will come back to the noble Baroness in writing on her questions about default voting arrangements, balance of power and the safeguards.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about a grid setting out the different powers between different layers of local authorities. We have already produced one; it is on GOV.UK. Perhaps the noble Lord might like to have a look at it and, if he has any further questions, to come back to me.
Lord Shipley (LD)
In view of the points made in the debate on this group of amendments, is it going to change?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The competencies are there, so the powers will stay the same as in the grid that we have set out. I ask the noble Lord to have a look at it and, by all means, to come back to me if he has any questions on it.
The Government will be able to confer functions across all areas on which we expect strategic authorities to act. Also, if the Government wish to create a completely new function and confer it on a strategic authority, primary legislation would be required. This strikes the balance between delivering further devolution and ensuring that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of more novel measures takes place.
I hope this answer is helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and ask her not to oppose the schedule.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response; however, I think we will need to go back to Hansard. My example, for instance, was not on the pilots. It was an example on the changes that have been made in this Bill to, in particular, the levelling-up Act. I will of course go through Hansard carefully and, if necessary, we will return to these matters.
The issue of oversight goes to the heart of how this House discharges its responsibilities, particularly in view of reorganisation and changes to how we are all governed. Processes in this place matter and, when we confer powers, particularly those that will shape local systems and local decision-making, we must do so with proper regard to localism and accountability, not just what the Secretary of State at the time would like.
Much of our consideration of this Bill has necessarily focused on the schedules. Schedules are rarely debated line by line in the same way as clauses. When powers are dispersed across multiple schedules, as they are in this Bill, it becomes more difficult for your Lordships to track precisely what authority is being granted, to whom and subject to what limits. That is not a criticism of this House, nor of the Government, but it does mean that we must consciously take the time to examine these provisions with care. Schedules also frequently rely on delegated powers, allowing Ministers to add, remove or modify functions through regulations with limited parliamentary oversight. Over time, this risks creating a ratchet effect, whereby more and more policy is shaped by executive action rather than by primary legislation. That is precisely why the questions raised in this debate deserve clear and substantive answers. When the Minister reads Hansard, maybe a letter would be sensible.
For those reasons, while I am grateful for the short debate that we have had today, I remain concerned that important issues of scrutiny and accountability have yet to be fully addressed. I hope the Government will reflect on these points as the Bill progresses. At this point, I will not press my opposition to the schedule standing part.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in proposing that Clause 53 should not stand part of the Bill, I should emphasise that I am not opposed to the clause—far from it. We have now had three debates about the role of local government in the health service, and I want to probe how far the Government are really prepared to devolve and delegate responsibilities for both health improvement and the NHS to strategic local authorities.
I will not repeat what has been said in our earlier debates, but this clause is very important. It makes consequential amendments to Section 18 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 to reflect changes introduced into this Bill. The importance of Section 16 is that it provides Ministers with the ability to confer public authority functions on local authorities, including health and social care.
The debate about the role for local authorities in relation to healthcare and health improvement is as old as the NHS itself. But since the 1974 reorganisation, it seems to me that the NHS and healthcare delivery has often stood remote and disconnected from the rest of public services such as social care, housing and education, which are under some kind of integration within local government and democratic control. I see devolution in health as a way to reconnect services, at least at a strategic level. I do not think this will happen without a stronger drive through powers devolved locally.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to my Amendment 185. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with his rallying cry, and I hope that at least he supports what I am seeking to do with this amendment.
To me, a simple yet essential principle that I want to introduce is that devolution means real devolution—something that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, called for just then. I do not believe that you can say that you are meaningfully devolving a function while keeping the real authority and, crucially, the purse strings firmly in Whitehall. If you want to hand down power, you should not simultaneously hold on to it; you need to have a clean break and hand it over. With this amendment, I want to try to find a way to make real devolution happen.
As noble Lords know and as the Government were talking about only the other day, there has been a lot of coverage of and praise from the Government for their one-in, one-out approach to illegal migration. But I would like to propose a different one, one that perhaps works; it should be not just one in, one out, but one down, one out. When a function is devolved, it should be removed from central government entirely, except when the narrowest oversight is essential from central government or where there are international obligations. Without such a safeguard put into the Bill, we risk creating a system that is not devolved but duplicated with two bodies—or in some circumstances more than two—allegedly doing exactly the same thing, at the same time.
I say this because I come at it from the point of view that the public just want things to work. They want to know who is responsible and for them to just get on with it. I fear that, under the Bill as drafted, we risk a situation where powers are described as devolved, yet Ministers in departments in Whitehall still retain the same functions.
I was reading a brilliant book the other day, which I highly recommend, called the Unaccountability Machine by a chap called Dan Davies. He uses many examples from around the world when he talks about accountability sinks. I fear that the Bill is doing exactly the same, and the result is confusion, overlap and a lack of clarity about who is actually in charge. In some circumstances, it can be even worse: where accountability is not clear, decision-making becomes risk-averse or, at times, paralysed altogether. When no one is clearly responsible, no one feels empowered to act. Everyone waits for someone else to take the lead or people just assume, as perhaps is human nature, that it is someone else’s job.
It is easy for the Bill to lead people to think that the local authority will deliver a service now, only for the local authority then to say that they cannot deliver it, because the powers still lie in Whitehall. My real concern is that the result will be delay, drift and, ultimately, failure to deliver for the very people that the Bill is supposed to help.
I reassure noble Lords that I am not being melodramatic and I am certainly not game playing as, from looking at the Bill, there are three areas that could be used as examples of where this would happen. The Bill requires strategic authorities to produce local growth plans, to take responsibility for regeneration and to address health inequalities. We have talked about these objectives many times, including at Second Reading, and we support them all, but the broad powers and money to deliver them are not being handed down at the same time. They will remain in Whitehall.
Housing is something that we all talk about, which is covered a lot in the Bill. I know that the Minister is doing a huge amount on this in the department, not just on this Bill but in many other areas. But, if we want to build more homes, devolution means it should not be done just through the prism of national targets and central grants; we should be looking to empower and incentivise local authorities more by automatically giving them a fairer share of the revenue generated locally and the flexibility to deliver what they want. Let them feel the benefits of growth, and let them have ownership and buy-in. That will encourage them to do more.
On a related point, I know that the Committee has already talked about precepts and levies. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is not here, but I agree with his Amendment 135. It is entirely possible that there is a doubling up, where powers are held simultaneously both locally and nationally and people will be taxed twice for the same service. To me, that seems a little mad. If you want local leaders to sort these things out, give them the tools to let them get on and do it, because, as I say, the public just want clarity. They want to know who is responsible for what, and they want these things to happen and be fixed. They want a system where the body tasked with delivering an outcome actually has the authority and resources to deliver it. They want it to get on and deliver the outcome unhindered: “If it does not work, we can chuck it out at an election”.
So my amendment seeks to protect the taxpayer and the integrity of devolution. It would ensure that Whitehall thinks carefully before announcing that a function has been devolved. In this scenario, we would not need an army of folks in Whitehall second-guessing what local leaders are doing. Whitehall seems to be growing in number, yet local authorities are having to reduce their numbers because they are feeling the pinch. If we are serious about empowering these local areas, we should be serious about letting go of our powers at the same time. I know that the Minister cares about this, and I hope that we can find a way forward together.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The noble Lord did not mention the questions of where the taxes are raised and who is responsible. For those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the differences between decentralisation and devolution are tax and money. So long as the Treasury retains control of the spending, we will have only decentralisation. We will discuss some of the fiscal things in our next session, but, unless we address the question of fiscal devolution, we are not going anywhere much.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I agree with my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I totally share his view, and we will come on to that matter in the next group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for what he said, which was important. I am sure that the Minister, through this grid that the Government are now producing, might clarify what is happening in terms of delivery as opposed to simply the powers.
On a previous day in Committee, I spoke about there being powers, responsibilities and resources in devolution. They are not the same thing. So I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, that many more powers could well be devolved, alongside the responsibilities for delivering the powers, without the resources to do the job. The point was well made by the noble Lord; I thank him for that. A little more will be said on this in our debate on the next group.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, drew our attention to Greater Manchester and the improvements in the health system. Since the decision was made to devolve some responsibilities in health to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and its mayor, I have always regarded it as a pilot of what we should all be doing. It is now for the Government to double-check all of the figures produced on improvements in public health and to assess whether, having had devolution, the resources have been provided to match the responsibilities and powers devolved—and, at the same time, to assess whether the achievements and outcomes in Greater Manchester are better than what has been secured elsewhere where there is no devolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said something that was terribly important to me: the NHS cannot be run by a central command and control system. We learned that during the Covid epidemic, but it is more than that. You cannot run 56 million people in England out of Whitehall and Westminster. The noble Lord helped us a lot by saying that what is to be devolved is a national decision and how it is to be delivered is a local decision.
I therefore come back to the grid that the Government are producing. It should now have a “what?” and a “how?”. Some greater meaning to the word “devolution” can then be achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, in the end, without greater fiscal responsibilities and powers, you do not have devolution—you have decentralisation. I think I recall making that point at Second Reading and on the first day in Committee, because it is so very true.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, before we complete this group, I just want to say that what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said by way of moving his probing amendment asks not only important questions but questions to which we will have to come back, if not in this Bill then on the NHS reform Bill. As I know the noble Lord will completely understand, in so far as that forthcoming legislation will transfer responsibilities back into the Department of Health and Social Care and, potentially, give specific statutory responsibilities to integrated care boards, neither of those will allow this legislation and the 2016 legislation to operate in the way he intends. We will, therefore, have to come back to that and how it will happen at the time.
As things stand, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care does not devolve any of his functions to local government. In effect, he devolves the functions that would otherwise be exercised by NHS England in Manchester to the mayoral strategic authority. If we are going to do that in other mayoral strategic authorities when NHS England has disappeared, there will need to be a new structure to see how this works.
In some ways, it is entirely dependent on how the Government intend, in the NHS reform procedures, to re-establish the relationship between the NHS and local government. Nobody—I heard the noble Lord say this quite recently—has satisfactorily created that relationship. In the coalition Government, it was a very complicated process, and it did not work. There have been positive outcomes in relation to public health, but, for local government, there have not been satisfactory outcomes in relation to the management of health services—particularly in so far as they can be combined satisfactorily with social care services. This is something that we will have to return to in the NHS reform Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, turning first to Clause 53, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his probing stand part notice. As we have said more than once, the devolution of health is a complex matter that raises many important questions—particularly, as we have heard, around the relationship between local authorities and the NHS. I listened to the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on this issue. I assure him that I felt as passionate as him 15 years ago; I hope that, at the end of all this, he is not as disappointed as I was.
When I was going through this in Wiltshire, the interesting thing was that the staff on the front line—those in the NHS and in local authorities—really understood this issue. They understood the importance of devolution and how they could deliver much more efficient, better services for the people whom they wanted to serve. That pushed me to do this more and more. However, as I have noted previously, many of the determinants of public health sit outside the health system. We must be clear on who is responsible for what. As we have said many times, where additional duties and responsibilities are placed on local authorities, they must be matched with sufficient resources to deliver them properly. In addition, the Government’s approach must be evidence-based and must demonstrate value for money for taxpayers.
On previous groups, the Minister mentioned the mayor’s involvement in integrated care boards, and we all welcome that. But it has to go further than that. In my opinion, being a member of an integrated care board will not deliver what we need to be delivered on the ground with health and local authorities.
This brings me to Amendment 185 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. I thank him for making the case so compellingly. This amendment would prevent the duplication of powers between local authorities and central government. In the realm of health, for instance, we cannot risk the lines of accountability being blurred, whereby functions and responsibilities are devolved down to local authorities, yet Whitehall does not equip them to deliver effectively or continues to do the same jobs itself, leading to duplication.
This is precisely the difference between the Government’s current approach to devolution and what genuine community empowerment ought to look like. This amendment aims to correct that by ensuring that, when a function is devolved, it is also relinquished by central government, while still permitting the appropriate oversight where needed.
If the Government truly believe in local community empowerment, there can be no greater vote of confidence than supporting the principles set out here, trusting local authorities to do the jobs devolved to them fully, and giving local people clear, transparent lines of accountability. This is a matter not of meaningful devolution but of efficiencies and effective government. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on both these important amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for their amendments. I turn first to my noble friend Lord Hunt probing whether Clause 53 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 places limits on the devolution of health functions to strategic authorities to ensure that the health service remains truly national. I know the noble Lord understands that. For instance, it prevents the transfer of the Secretary of State for Health’s core functions in relation to health. Where health functions are devolved to a strategic authority, it requires that provision is made to ensure that they adhere to national service standards.
Protections against devolving these functions are not new; as the noble Lord indicated, they have probably been going since the health service was first set up. They have certainly been in place since central government first began the process of devolving functions to combined authorities. The Bill merely retains those protections. I know my noble friend wishes to probe the Government’s intentions on devolving health functions in the future, and he is right to do so.
Health, well-being and public service reform is an area of competence for strategic authorities, as set out in Clause 2. The Bill also confers a new health improvement and inequalities duty on combined authorities and combined county authorities. As health is covered within the areas of competence, the Government could use the powers in this Bill to devolve health functions to strategic authorities in the future, if they believed it appropriate to do so. Mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities would also be able to request the devolution of health functions and get a response from government.
This demonstrates that the Government see a clear role for strategic authorities and mayors in health, both now and going forward. The example of Manchester is a very good one, and we will continue to look at what is happening there to make sure that lessons can be learned and that, if we get requests from other mayors to devolve health functions to them, we pick up on any lessons from Manchester. At the moment, the process is looking positive. But it will always be right, I fear, that limitations remain to make sure that the health service remains truly national. Whether that is in targeting or some of the processes, we will see.
I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which seeks to prevent the doubling up of powers and responsibilities in strategic authorities and Whitehall. I heard the Secretary of State speak over the weekend and his view is definitely that devolution by default is the way he wants to move this forward. He was very clear on that, and on the advocation of subsidiarity that sees powers and funding always held at the most appropriate level for delivering any service. The funding settlement will be announced this week; it may be out today. It is out—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I had not kept up on that, although I have talked of nothing else all weekend.
Through the integrated settlement, we have instituted the principle that, where central government funding falls within the scope of an established mayoral strategic authorities’ functional responsibilities, that funding will be devolved. The Government are also committed to providing new strategic authorities with capacity funding to kick-start their organisations, so all areas on the devolution priority programme will receive mayoral capacity funding to help establish their new institutions once the legislation has been laid before Parliament. They will receive capacity funding in future years as well, so they are ready and prepared to deliver the benefits of devolution.
I agree with the noble Lord that, unless you have the funding to deliver these new functions, there is not much point in devolving them. We very much agree with the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment. When responsibilities are devolved, they have to be devolved as thoroughly as possible to enable the true innovation and place-based approaches that we all want to see and that are the whole purpose of devolution in the first place. That is the position the Government have taken in the devolution framework in this Bill. The majority of powers will be exercised solely by the strategic authority or concurrently with the constituent authorities.
However, there are rare circumstances where the relevant Secretary of State and the strategic authority need to share powers. To give an example, the Secretary of State will retain the ability to provide funding in relation to adult education in addition to funding provided by the strategic authority. This will ensure that those areas in strategic authorities do not miss out on nationwide schemes. For example, I think there have been some announced today.
The amendment in itself is too restrictive and would prevent instances where it makes sense for powers to be held concurrently with government. I understand the noble Lord’s concern that, while functions may be devolved, funding may remain in Whitehall. However, the Government are committed to providing strategic authorities with the funding to deliver their functions.
We have committed to providing new strategic authorities with capacity funding, as I have said, and the integrated settlement institutes the principle that government funding will be devolved where the responsibilities fall within established mayoral authorities’ functional responsibilities. I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords are able to support the clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. It has been a really interesting and encouraging debate. I share the view, concern and thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and I thought my noble friend was pretty positive in response.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made a very pertinent point about the difference between delegation and devolvement. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out, although we talk about devo Manchester in relation to health, it was actually delegation, with the Secretary of State retaining responsibility.
I do not think that in the short term we will be able to move off the Secretary of State’s responsibility. That goes back to 1948. However, I think a lot more could be delegated, and there are issues where we could start to look at real devolvement. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, reminded me that we have the joys of another NHS reform Bill coming to us in the next few months, and we will have an opportunity to discuss and debate this further. I will be looking particularly to see whether the Bill tries to nibble away at what is already contained in Clause 53.
One has to say that, at the time of the agreement over Greater Manchester, it is well known that NHS England was not in the loop in the original decision-making. I am afraid that, because of that, it has not been keen to see progress such as has occurred in Manchester. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that Manchester was essentially a pilot and we should have a proper assessment; I agree with that.
My noble friend was very encouraging. I understand this whole question about the Secretary of State’s accountability to Parliament for the running of the National Health Service and how that squares with giving more authority to local authorities to have a role in it. We can find a way through. For instance, this always struck me: if we are going to have pilots, why on earth can we not have one mayoral authority taking on responsibility for an ICB—not having one place on it but actually doing it? Albeit it might be under delegated powers from the Secretary of State, at least let us dip in the water of freeing up the system. Looking at how the NHS is run at the moment, how many restructurings do we need to show that central command control simply does not work? Having said that, I withdraw my opposition to Clause 53.
Lord Gascoigne
“Powers of strategic authoritiesBefore new powers are conferred on a strategic authority, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the strategic authority has a plan which will improve local services, drive efficiency and improve cost effectiveness.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that before changes are made, each strategic authority has a plan to ensure improved services and value for money for the tax payer.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is a delight to kick off this group. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, leaving at this crucial moment. I know that there are lots of other people with amendments here, so I will not dwell too long on what I want to say. On my amendment, I believe it is reasonable and genuinely important that, before new powers are conferred on a strategic authority, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the authority has a credible plan to improve local services, drive efficiency and deliver better value for money.
I was going to welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but she seems to have dashed off as well. I confess that I was a little saddened on the first day of Committee, when I thought I could perhaps work with the Lib Dems, but they were not able to support one of my amendments that follows this vein. Given the breakout of love on that last group, I hope I can get their support. That was on Amendment 12, which sought to ensure that people receive the best possible service on the ground as part of that intended reorganisation. As I say, this is my second attempt to win them over.
I genuinely believe that, if we do not build in something along the lines of what I suggest in this amendment, we are effectively just rubber-stamping the creation of swathes of new authorities without requiring them first to demonstrate that they will spend the public’s money well, and without any obligation to show that things will improve. To be clear, my amendment here simply states that, when we create these new authorities—which we are in this Bill—we should do so with the taxpayer front and centre. After all, surely one of the main tenets of devolution is that not only do people have a greater say but they have a better service in their local area based upon local desire and need.
As part of the process of reorganisation, I am saying here that new authorities must develop a plan as part of that reorganisation, because I genuinely do not believe that there is any point in going through all this reorganisation, with all the costs, energy, rebadging, delays of elections, hirings and firings—you name it—if there is no guarantee or even a requirement or plan for services to improve as a result. I say to my Lib Dem amigos that, although their argument against my past amendment was that it was not in the vein of the Bill, if they feel this is not the right Bill, let us try to work together to make it better. Let us try to put devolution in and put local people front and centre.
If we are choosing to impose this system on the people, which we are, we have a responsibility to make sure that it works for them. It is worth stressing that point: we are forcing devolution on to the people—rightly or wrongly, whatever noble Lords’ views—so we have a duty of care, in my view. There is no choice in this matter. In this Bill, we are ultimately giving a blank cheque, with respect, to the Government, so I do not think there can be a credible objection to saying that we owe it to the people that services should improve before we do so. If the power to create these entities lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, surely he or she has a duty of care to ensure that what will now appear across the land will deliver and look after the people in those communities.
As I said on day one, we cannot trust that this will all be fine. Some local authorities are already working well and, for those people in those authorities, perhaps things will continue to work well or even improve. However, when we are forcing authorities to combine with perhaps less well-performing authorities, we again have a duty to the people on the ground before these changes happen. It forces everyone involved to deliver and to work up a plan in advance.
Finally, and briefly, I will not name names but it was suggested in Committee that, because I have worked in Downing Street, I perhaps have very skewed views when it comes to devolution. I do not. I assure the Whip that I am not going to err into a Second Reading speech, but my real concern with this entire Bill is that it completely misjudges what I think people want. For context, I grew up in a working-class family in a terraced house in East Lancs. It was a long time ago, but there were some issues and those issues remain. In many northern towns, there are some deep and real issues. Twenty years ago, there was some scepticism of politics and how London dominated everything—this was in Lancashire by the way, the right side of the border—and things needed to be fixed, yet nothing changed.
That feeling has grown. However, that desire for change does not, in my view, equate to local government reorganisation, nor wanting mayors for mayors’ sake. Respectfully, the reason I say that is, if we look at the polls and at what focus groups say—I will not be the first to say this—if we go outside Westminster, there is a world between what we think people think and what they actually think. People are not clamouring right now for tinkering, nor are the masses out there with their pitchforks demanding local government reorganisation, but there is a building, growing unease. It has not happened overnight or certainly not solely under this Government, but people are struggling. They are feeling ignored and let down, and they want things fixed.
I give one quick example. The other day, I stumbled across the Electoral Commission’s 2025 public attitude report—I highly recommend it—which states that:
“More people now believe Britain needs a strong leader willing to break the rules”.
A little later, it goes on:
“Support among Labour supporters rose from 27% to 38% following Labour’s victory”.
It has other breakdowns for other parties as well, but I will not go into that. To me, what that shows is exasperation. People want things fixed; they want things to happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who is sadly not in her place, talked about my views on levelling up. I worked for the guy who coined that phrase. We can have a debate about whether he did any good or not on that specific issue, but levelling up does not always mean devolution—certainly not this version. One of the many things that used to drive me into an absolute rage when I worked in Downing Street was that, whenever many in Westminster talked of devolution, it always felt that it was more Westminster, not devolution. The answer to everything seemed to be more structure, more governance and more politicians. We seem always to overlook the crucial thing, which is the people themselves. It is they who want things fixed and to work and, in my view, that is what levelling up is. That is also why I think we need to put something into this Bill that helps to deliver it and puts the people front and centre. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 187. There is a fair amount of agreement between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne—on both sides of the Pennines—about the nature of the problems. This is not a devolution Bill; it is a decentralisation Bill. The Government believe that delivery is what matters but have not yet understood that, unless the people on the ground are helped to understand why delivery is difficult and that they have some part in seeing what is delivered and in helping with delivery, they will not feel that it is them.
My amendment therefore starts from the need to re-establish public trust in the delivery of government on the ground, at the local level and, therefore, to provide a degree of financial transparency. Unless we have a more transparent process of fiscal negotiation about the distribution of funds between central and local government, we cannot succeed in improving the governance of England or in gaining the acceptance of people outside London and the south-east that the governance of England is fair.
There is a deep sense of disillusionment across the north of England that people have been neglected, that London does not understand them and that the Civil Service in London, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, said, has grown in the last 15 years while local government has languished and, in many cases, faced bankruptcy. The city of Bradford is not yet bankrupt but is struggling on the brink of it. We have to explain to local people why the services they used to have are no longer being provided. I challenge the Minister to explain how devolution, which helps to resolve the enormous crisis we have with public trust in our democratic politics, can take place without a more visible process of fiscal devolution, without beginning to reform local taxation and without Ministers as well as local council leaders explaining to their public what is and is not possible in strict financial terms.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 190 in my name would place an obligation on the Government to introduce devolved fiscal and revenue-raising powers within 12 months of the introduction of the Act. Fiscal devolution is the transfer of financial powers and responsibilities from central government to local authorities, enabling them to raise and manage their own revenue and tailor tax policies and spending to meet local needs and ambitions.
The UK is widely recognised as having the most centralised system in the world. The dead hand of the Treasury is firmly on the purse strings, holding back local potential, opportunities and energies. Overcentralisation has held back regional economic growth and increased regional inequalities. Vast numbers of reports have been written on this subject, urging central government to empower local government by devolving powers close to the people they affect. Charities and think tanks such as the Resolution Foundation, the LGA, the Centre for Cities, Core Cities and many more have produced well-evidenced reports as to how financial devolution could empower the UK’s communities to boost economic growth and greater public participation in governance, but progress has so far been extremely slow.
There are many ways in which fiscal devolution could be achieved in England. Evidence from other countries demonstrates effective and achievable systems in such countries as the Netherlands, Germany, France and Switzerland. Measures include raising direct tax revenues, expanding the tax base, taking a proportion of locally levied income tax, placing different conditions on business rates and making council tax a buoyant and progressive local tax, which it certainly is not at the moment. There is ample evidence available for the successful introduction of fiscal devolution in England. There are many advantages, such as democratic accountability and voter turnout at elections. Anybody who has ever campaigned in local elections will have experienced the challenge of persuading people to go out and vote when they understand that virtually all the funding comes directly from central government. “What is the point of it?”, they ask, when their hopes and aspirations are slapped down because of no funding coming from central government, only more cuts.
Economic dynamism benefits enormously from fiscal devolution in that the regions and cities of the UK are able to take actions that add to economic strength, such as attracting inward investment, job creation, skills training and development of specific infrastructure such as transport that enable more locally focused dynamic economic activities. There is also greater transparency and clarity. My colleague talked about the loss of trust among the public, part of which is because of the perception by many voters that money just goes into a great big hole: it comes from central government and they have no influence over how it is spent or raised. If they had more involvement there would be much greater trust and participation in local governance, which is a vital factor in the delivery of key projects.
The Government claim that the Bill will provide devolution and empowerment, but clearly it will keep firm central control over the finances. Funds are allocated from Whitehall, and mayors continue to be local outposts of central government who are responsible, in essence, for ensuring that central government policy is delivered at a local level. As my colleagues here have said, unless revenue-raising powers and financial powers are devolved, this is not devolution but decentralisation, and opportunities are likely to be lost: the opportunity to underpin local powers with real financial powers and responsibilities, and the opportunity to give people hope and optimism that they can achieve their local ambitions, with a realistic chance of them being financed, and improve their local area.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 196C. For me, this is a really interesting group because it is quite wide: part of it is to do with wanting to enable local revenue raising and part of it says, “Hang on. Hold on a minute, we need a bit more accountability here. Should we not put up some guardrails?” I am somewhere in the middle of that argument, I guess.
My amendment would allow mayors to levy a business rates supplement to fund local priorities. The first question is: why do that? These mayoral authorities are going to be quite large—perhaps not on the scale of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, the West Midlands and so on, but they will be large geographic entities. One would think that they will want primarily to drive projects that relate to bits of infrastructure kit and transport, such as buses, trains and trams, and to ensure that they have adequate local funding to do so. It is welcome that the Government are consulting on a tourism levy but, even following the Bill, established mayoral authorities will still require considerable central funding and approval for major projects.
I do not quite buy the argument that the Bill is about decentralisation, not devolution; I think it is a mixture of the two. It is good that we are looking to decentralise more because that will eventually underpin a greater level of devolution. My amendment would change who can levy the supplement and under what circumstances. It would allow established mayoral areas to levy a business rates supplement without a referendum, as was the case for Crossrail. I am sure that most colleagues will remember that the Crossrail funding was a mix of central funding and local funding. The Crossrail business levy was an important element of that; it also meant that businesses across the capital had to think about what they were going to get out of Crossrail and make their voices well known.
Currently, the relevant legislation says that only the Greater London Authority, county and district councils can do this in England, subject to a referendum of businesses in those areas. My amendment would change this so that only established mayoral areas would be able to do so, but without the requirement for a referendum. This would align the economic growth policies of the mayoral tier with the fiscal incentives from a business rates supplement, as is the case in London. It would mean that the referendum requirement, which was put into the Localism Act 2011, would be withdrawn or would not apply. Crossrail has been a major success—everybody can see that. It has major benefits. I am sure that mayoral authorities, combined mayoral authorities and so on will want to see the sorts of improvement that have been gained from Crossrail spread more widely across the country.
I argue that we should lift those restrictions so that mayors can get on with delivering for their areas. This cuts to the point on central funding that the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, talked about. Most local government services are, in the majority, centrally funded, but that was not always the case. I think back to my time as a borough councillor in the early 1980s, when much more of the revenue was raised locally through business rates and rates on properties. That gave us more autonomy and more freedom, and it meant that local people could see that their local authority was spending their money. That increased the level of interest in local elections, which I believe is a very positive thing. I therefore hope that this will get some favour from the Minister, and that colleagues will find this an interesting solution to local financial support for combined mayoral authorities.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that I am following the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, because I could not disagree more with his Amendment 196C. When I was the leader of a district authority, we had control over the business rates, and we were able to get full reliefs to the last pub, shop or community sporting club in a village with a population of less than 3,000. That was the source of a huge community empowerment. The effect of the noble Lord’s amendment would be another nail in the coffin for rural pubs and small businesses, and I reject it on that basis. I will also speak to my own Amendment 256A, which is a rag bag. We are talking about Clause 56 at the moment, but this would go right at the end, beyond Clause 85; perhaps I should have asked for it to be de-grouped, but here we are.
My amendment is consistent with the Government’s Clause 11, which relates to constraining the council tax-raising ability of the larger, newly created mayoral combined authorities. But I am looking at the other end of the spectrum, because I am concerned that, following local government reorganisation, the former district councils, which are currently defined as “billing authorities” under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, will disappear. In Section 39(2), they will become local precepting authorities. In other words, the district council, once abolished, will be converted to a third-tier parish or town council. This will affect places like King’s Lynn, a historic county borough; cathedral cities like Norwich or Oxford; county towns like Ipswich and Chelmsford; and coastal communities like Hastings, Eastbourne and Great Yarmouth.
Some of these places have large populations—for example, Norwich City Council, when it is abolished, will have a population of more than 150,000—and there will be lots of new large locals formed. The problem is that the majors are constrained in their ability to put up council tax—5%—but the locals are not. This amendment would change the definition of “local precepting authority” to include authorities with a population below 49,999. Where a local precepting authority exceeds 50,000, it would become a major precepting authority for the purposes of raising council tax and be subject to the same rules as other larger councils.
Of course, it is not just the former billing authorities that will flip into parishes; the former boundaries that flowed from the hundreds, the poor law unions, the urban and rural district councils, and the predecessors of the county boroughs in the Reform Act 1832 will disappear. This is why my amendment proposes a size scale, rather than being limited solely to the former district councils. These places will be joining that benighted club: Salisbury, Shrewsbury and Scarborough, which have all fallen out of previous rounds of LGR and must now stand on their own two feet in the sense that, unlike their predecessor billing authority constructions, they will get no formula grant in the future; they will need to earn what they spend.
We already know already that over 100 councils, existing principal authorities, want exceptional financial support this year as the Government shamelessly tilt the formula away from being population based. That is a denial of the simple truth that people consume services that need to be paid for and that it is more expensive to deliver them in the countryside, but that is a debate for another time.
But, under LGR, there will be a powerful incentive for authorities to cost-shunt the most expensive things to these newly created third-level authorities to get the liabilities off their books and on to the small fry. I am thinking of leisure centres, municipal theatres, parks and open spaces, youth groups, civic activity, and community pride events such as carnivals and festivals.
My wife was a parish clerk for over 10 years in a small parish with 500 souls, spending about £3,000 a year, so I know the value of what these unsung volunteers—real community champions—in parish councils can achieve. But I am focusing on the new large class of parish, town or even small city authority, with plenty of staff, plant and equipment, miles away from that “Vicar of Dibley” stereotype.
These residents need protecting from unconstrained tax rises, cost shunts from principal authorities and the smaller populations being made to afford the costs of facilities that have been previously amortised over a much larger canvas—that hinterland of surrounding parishes where people are able to chip in. This is not an idle concern. The noble Baroness has certainly mentioned Salisbury before, which has let rip. Its precept is up 44% in just four years. Its own website tells long-suffering residents that their council tax is the highest in Wiltshire. At £383 for band D, it is over twice the level of my own district council. I have looked at Shrewsbury. Following LGR, its parishioners’ band D is up 218% in 10 years—although I will concede that, at £87, it appears to be offering slightly better value for money. To those against my amendment, I say: look to Shrewsbury, because limiting council tax in these third-tier authorities can be done.
I have also looked at Stevenage, which is likely to be consumed and subsumed into the larger construct—taking power further away from residents and damaging the distinct identity that came from it being the first post-war new town, alongside all the other accoutrements. It is funny how all my examples begin with an S. In Stevenage, the band D was raised by just 3% to £246.41. If it carries on like Salisbury, a band D in Stevenage would pay £354 by 2030—a raise of nearly 50% or over £100.
We must be clear that these are burdens in addition to the new mayoralties that will be created—the huge new bureaucracies with the ability to raise precepts for things they are not even responsible for. There will be new mayoral CIL on top of existing CIL and new authorities where the effects of council tax equalisation within the canvas have not even been ventilated yet, and the costs of LGR have not been determined. We know it is going be subject to at least a £1 billion black hole from the accelerated pension strain costs.
Do not let the Government tell you there will be fewer layers; there will be more and at more cost. The public will be rinsed by LGR. People will pay more for less—that much is certain—but my amendment would at least seek to constrain those billing authorities that are already principal authorities and are constrained in their ability to raise council tax. That will still apply to them when they are transmogrified into third-tier councils, to make sure they cannot do a Salisbury too. That is right not only by residents but by the authorities, because as they approach this forced reorganisation, which will see a transfer of assets, they will know by this amendment that there is not a blank cheque. It will sharpen the minds.
This is not a dig at parish councils or the third tier. They do a lot of valuable work at a level that is closest to the people, but I have got their back, because it will stop those councils with the broadest shoulders from imposing liabilities and cast-offs on to those with the most limited means. That is an essential safeguard if the community empowerment part of this Bill is not to be undermined. I would be creating equity between the cathedral cities, the market towns, the new towns and so forth, so that council tax after LGR does not become an intolerable burden for those who live within the cities and provide perverse incentives for those just outside to become free riders.
I know the Minister is concerned about this and we have spoken for some time about it. I have suggested a £50,000 threshold in Committee, but as we move to Report I would be open to saying that perhaps there should be a £1 million precept or some other measure. But we have to have a measure between the small and the major authorities to protect parishes from having their leg lifted and, in turn, protect their residents from being rinsed.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, I would like to clarify something. You cannot compare Salisbury as it is now to Salisbury as it was before as a district council. It was a far larger area; it was Sailsbury and south Wiltshire, not just Salisbury city.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I am staggered at the thought of a parish council with a population over 50,000; it does not make sense to me. I am also staggered at the thought that, if we are talking about getting back to place-based communities, we are denying to places the size of Scarborough or Harrogate, both of which I know well and which have or used to have important assets, in conference centres and major hotels, the sense of local community or parish, thus increasing the sense for most of our public of total alienation from the politics that we are providing them with.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can I just explain to the noble Lord that a parish council is a name given to parishes, towns and cities? It all comes under the same legislation as parishes.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this is a most interesting group of amendments, and there is deep food for thought in what should come back to the House when we get to Report.
I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I must say that I had not understood the figure of 50,000, but at the very end he clarified that that could be a matter of discussion. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has covered that issue as well. A difference between my party and that of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Gascoigne, is that they are both trying to give excess power to the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked at the very beginning of this group why we had not supported his previous amendment a few weeks ago on the power of the Secretary of State to make a decision on whether an authority was fit to undertake additional powers. Our concern was that these matters should not lie with the Secretary of State, who would have power to make these decisions without necessarily having the right degree of accountability for it. It is better to give the power to local electorates.
In the end, I am not sure that local communities need to be protected by the Secretary of State from the level of tax to be paid. I think that the local ballot box is the protection at that stage—so I hope that, when the noble Lord thinks about bringing this amendment back on Report, he bears in mind that the major power lies with the local electorate.
My noble friends Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lady Janke both raised issues around fiscal power and the understandability and accessibility of financial matters for local people. This is of fundamental importance; it is about devolution. We need to have a transparent negotiation of fiscal powers of government. I accept totally that this is a process—it does not happen overnight—but I hope that the Government’s consultation on powers over tourism tax will be positive. Local areas are going to have to be more responsible for the level and nature of the taxes that they raise to pay for local services. We look forward to an outcome of the negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised a very interesting question about the business rate supplement. I want to think further about that, because it is a very interesting suggestion. We have to have the detail right. One thing I have noticed about raising taxes locally is that, if people know what it is that the extra money that they are paying is going to be spent on, there is a direct relationship, which you tend to get with parish and town councils and with some kinds of business rate supplements. I think there is potential here for further thought.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that we will take this away and think further about the possibilities for driving ahead on a system of business rate supplements supported or underpinned by clear consultation with local areas and a clear attachment to a specific project. Then, the general public will be more amenable to what councils are trying to do and how the funding is going to be provided.
My name, alongside that of my noble friend Lady Janke is on Amendment 190. I hope that the Minister will be positive about thinking through bringing forward proposals for fiscal devolution because, for devolution to work, you have to give greater powers over fiscal policy to the constituent parts of England. I hope that the Minister will give us a positive response to this group of amendments.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken on this group of amendments. We keep coming back to the same sorts of issues as in the previous group. We were talking about devolution in relation to health, and fiscal devolution and trying to extract money out of the NHS.
Now we come to a different level of fiscal devolution, and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne raised the point that a lot of people outside the London bubble are frustrated. I emphasise that it is not just in the north; I was on the south coast in Southampton this weekend, where there are lots of frustrated people. I can assure you that if you drove along the pothole-encrusted roads of Bedfordshire, there are lots of frustrated people there as well.
This is important because people care about their communities and they want their communities to be better. They care about place, and you cannot create great places by diktat from Whitehall. I recall saying that two or three times earlier in this Committee. That means you need real devolution and real powers. It also means real fiscal devolution; we have a number of suggestions on fiscal devolution here.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lady Scott made the point that parish councils, particularly small parish councils, are very close to their communities. People can easily see what that extra £10 or £20 or £50 is being spent on—such as extra grass cutting or improvements to the village hall—and they are quite amenable to it. As you start moving away from that and you start breaking that relationship, it becomes much more difficult.
One of the great dangers with fiscal devolution, much as I believe in it, is that central government—I am not making a political point here, but I am blaming Whitehall and the Treasury—see that as an opportunity to raise tax by the back door. We have seen government regularly passing additional responsibilities to local government with a short-term grant and then expecting the council tax payer to fund that burden.
One of the big issues that we have in local government at the moment is that a lot of responsibilities have been passed down; responsibilities are then growing quicker than the tax base, which means many of these issues of place are facing a fiscal squeeze. We have this dichotomy or dilemma: we may want fiscal devolution, but how do we avoid central government cost shunting?
My noble friend Lord Fuller was implying the same thing. It is great to have fiscal freedoms for parish and town councils, but we do not want cost shunting from overpressed district, unitary and county authorities. How do we protect against that cost shunting, where people see higher tax bills but no benefits? Place is important. I am desperately keen for genuine fiscal devolution, but how do we protect our residents from, in effect, cost shunting from Whitehall down the line?
I will talk briefly about some of these amendments. My noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment is really important, because it is not just about the Secretary of State making a judgment—that is what the Secretary of State would do anyway, if he were to devolve powers—but placing a burden on him to say that he genuinely believes that a council has the financial resources, financial capacity and management resources to do what is being entrusted upon it. It is not just a case of going, “Get on with it. Bye. It is not my fault; it is your fault”, then, a year later, not giving it the money that it needs to deliver those things.
Forgive me, because I cannot remember whether it was from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, or the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but I accept his point. However, the contra argument is that it places a burden on the Secretary of State to make sure that it is feasible. We need to think about that very important distinction.
The other point to make is that we are going through reorganisation here and we need to ensure that this is not shuffling the deckchairs on the “Titanic”. It has to be about meaningfully improving services for our residents and about better value for money. We should not have reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake, which is why I think this amendment is the right approach.
We have had a number of amendments on fiscal devolution, but I will not go through them all. I have a concern about cost shunting and we have to protect against that. We need to give people real fiscal powers in order to deliver better services for their residents. What we do not need—some of the announcements that have been made today are like this and our Government were the same—is to have to appeal to the Government to get funding to do something. That means the Secretary of State is still in charge and that you are not determining your local priorities but, by the way, all the councils will do it because they want as much money as they can for their residents to deliver as best they can.
This must be underpinned by a real understanding that there are both costs and benefits from devolution, and that the funding arrangements are fair and transparent to local government. One of the biggest fears I have in local government is that the resident and local taxpayer does not see what their funding goes on, because far too much of it is dictated by the Government. These are responsibilities and duties with no funding and no powers, which is something that I might come back to on the next group of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne, Lord Wallace and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for their amendments in this group.
I will comment briefly on the general points that the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, made. It does not happen as rarely as one might expect, but I do agree with some of what he said. Nobody much cares about the architecture of local government; when I knock on people’s doors, they do not say, “Can you change the structure of local government, Sharon?” That does not happen. They do care, however, about their public services being delivered effectively. They want to see new homes built, their streets cleaned, their potholes fixed—as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, pointed out—fly-tipping sorted and work being done to tackle the decline of our high streets. The current system was just not sustainable. It was not working in terms of either finance or efficiency, so we have to make some changes to tackle that issue. Both making the structures work better and devolving power to local authorities are needed to make sure that they can tackle the things that are important at the local level.
Amendment 186, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, seeks to place barriers on conferring new functions on strategic authorities. As per paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 25, the Secretary of State cannot confer a new function on a strategic authority unless they are
“satisfied that it is appropriate to do so having regard to the need to secure the effective exercise of the function concerned”.
That provides an adequate test to ensure that, when functions are conferred, it is with the effective delivery of that function in mind. It also enables the Government to pilot new functions with strategic authorities. We talked about some of that earlier. In these instances, strategic authorities will be required to provide an impact report on the pilot, which the Secretary of State will use to help decide whether to confer the function on a permanent basis.
The pilot process provides an adequate opportunity to test devolution before rolling it out more widely. We believe that requiring each strategic authority to have a specific plan for each function effectively signed off by the Secretary of State runs counter to the principles of devolution that underpin the Bill. It risks micromanagement of strategic authorities from Whitehall and slowing down the progress of devolution. I do not say “micromanagement” with any political side because, the last time that my party was in power, we ended up with about 160 performance indicators for local authorities. I am not in favour of that either.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that this has been an interesting group—I think that was the phrase he used—covering not just finance in itself but money-raising powers, transparency and fiscal devolution.
I agree entirely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on the virtue of transparency, not just for holding people’s feet to the fire but for people to be able to see what on earth is going on; I totally support him in what he is doing there. As everyone probably knows, we are approaching Valentine’s Day. There were moments when I thought that there would be a breakout of a mass cross-party love-in but, sadly, it was dashed somewhere along the line.
With respect, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, says. I apologise for coming back to this point—it is very boring on my part—but I wish to repeat it. We are imposing this on people. In my amendment, I am not seeking to block or stop strategic authorities, wherever they may be, being able to have these powers conferred on them; I am merely saying that, in the process, they should have some work put in to make sure that the service improves.
This has been a good discussion on a good group. Some good points have been made. I am conscious that the next group is also a very good one, so I will not bore on, but perhaps we could do something to bring this matter back on Report because, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson said, people do care about it. I know that the Minister shares that view; I am sorry if I damage her street cred in saying this but, as she knows, I am a deep fan of hers and am very grateful for all the personal support she has given to both me and the committee that I chair. I may want to come back to this on Report, despite the words from the Minister, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Duty to contribute to delivery of nature, clean air and climate targets(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority must contribute to—(a) meeting the targets and carbon budgets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;(b) meeting the targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;(c) meeting the limit values set under Schedule 2 of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010;(d) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008. (2) A strategic authority, mayor or local authority must not make any decision that is incompatible with the duty described in subsection (1).(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the targets listed in subsection (1).(4) Guidance under subsection (3) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to act in accordance with the statutory Climate Change Act and Environmental Act targets, carbon budgets, Air Quality Standards Regulations, and climate adaptation programme across their functions. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments 193 and 194 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
On potholes, in the past four days, I have been campaigning in Barnet, in Gorton and Denton—we are doing pretty well there—in Cardiff and in Cambridgeshire. Potholes came up quite a lot, which is interesting. They are dangerous and should be fixed but, at the same time, we often have potholes because of excess rainfall and a rise in water levels; of course, this is a result of climate change.
That segues neatly into Amendment 192, which would put a duty on strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to contribute to the delivery of existing climate nature and clean air targets when exercising their functions. Air pollution, contaminated land, water pollution and climate-related risks do not fall evenly across society. They disproportionately affect those with the least power to avoid them—the poorest in our society. Strategic authorities making decisions on transport, housing, planning and economic development, therefore, have a direct influence on public health outcomes, whether or not that is explicitly acknowledged.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that decisions taken under the Bill are aligned with obligations that Parliament has already set in law. Climate targets, environmental targets and air quality limits are legal commitments. Strategic authorities will play a central role in determining whether those commitments are met. There is also a wider reason why this is important. Exposure to environmental harm is one of the most significant determinants of health and health inequality. The conditions in which people live—the air they breathe, the green space they can access and the pollution they are exposed to—shape health outcomes over a lifetime, yet environmental factors are often treated as secondary rather than being at the forefront.
The evidence here is overwhelming. The Chief Medical Officer’s annual report in 2022 highlighted the clear link between poor air quality and health inequalities, showing higher risks of hospital admission and mortality among those living in more deprived areas and, obviously, a reduction in the quality of life. Organisations such as Asthma + Lung UK have shown that people with lung conditions in the poorest neighbourhoods are far more likely to die prematurely than those in wealthier areas.
This amendment would bring clarity. It would require authorities to contribute to meeting carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act, environmental targets under the Environment Act, legally binding air quality limits and the national programme for climate adaptation. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause would ensure that decisions incompatible with those duties could not be taken. That would provide legal certainty and embed prevention at the point decisions are made.
There is also a strong moral dimension. Recent legislative efforts such as Ella’s law and the work towards Zane’s law have helped shift how we understand environmental harm—not as an unfortunate by-product of development but as a threat to life, dignity and equality. Those cases remind us that environmental pollution can and does kill and that public bodies have a responsibility to act before harm occurs, not after. Many local authorities recognise this and are trying to align their policies accordingly. This amendment would support them by ensuring consistency across England, particularly as new devolved structures are created with significant powers.
If devolution is to succeed, it must strengthen our ability to meet national climate, nature and clean air commitments. I hope the Minister will engage constructively with the intent of the amendment and will be able to explain how the Government intend to ensure that strategic authorities actively contribute to the delivery of these vital environmental and public health concerns.
The purpose of Amendment 193 is to ensure that, in exercising their new powers, strategic authorities have a clear and transparent understanding of poverty within their areas. If these bodies are to promote economic development and growth, they must also be equipped to understand how that growth is experienced and who is being left behind. At present, the Bill places significant responsibilities on strategic authorities without requiring them to measure one of the most fundamental issues affecting their communities. Without published data on poverty it becomes difficult to assess whether policies are effective or whether they are unintentionally deepening existing inequalities.
The amendment would require strategic authorities to collect and publish annual data on poverty, broken down by factors such as age, gender, housing status, education and ethnicity. Poverty is not experienced evenly, and aggregate figures can obscure patterns of disadvantage that require targeted responses. This approach aligns closely with the intent of the socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act 2010, which requires public authorities to consider how their decisions affect inequalities of outcome resulting from socioeconomic disadvantage. That duty has yet to be commenced in England, but many public bodies are already preparing for it. This amendment would help to ensure that new strategic authorities are established with those principles embedded from the outset.
There is a strong case for this sort of systematic approach. Rising child poverty, increased reliance on food banks and the clear links between deprivation and poor health outcomes all point to the need for better data and stronger accountability. Publishing this information annually would allow progress to be tracked over time and enable communities and elected representatives to hold authorities to account.
The amendment would not impose targets or dictate policy choices; it would establish a baseline of information and transparency, while leaving strategic authorities with full discretion over how they respond. Many local authorities already collect similar data. This would simply ensure consistency and visibility across England. As new devolved structures are created, this Bill has an opportunity to set expectations of what good strategic leadership looks like; ensuring that poverty is measured, understood and addressed should be central to that. I hope that the Minister will engage with the purpose of the amendment and will be able to say how the Government intend to ensure that strategic authorities are prepared to tackle poverty and inequality from day one.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 241B is in my name, and I strongly support Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
The devolution Bill creates these large, powerful strategic authorities whose decisions on planning, housing, transport and infrastructure will shape England’s carbon emissions, climate resilience and natural environment for decades to come. Once they are in place, these six new mayoral districts and combined authorities will be responsible for the strategic oversight of 75% of England’s landscape, so huge swathes of the landscape will be under these authorities. Despite this, as it currently stands, the Bill contains no clear mechanism to ensure that these authorities will contribute to the UK’s legally binding climate and nature targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. Both have clear, unambiguous delivery targets to which we have agreed—they are in our law.
These targets are spatially constrained and require both strategic oversight and the consideration of competing land uses. Currently, however, they sit under the Secretary of State only. Without even a mention of a duty to deliver on these targets in the devolution Bill, I believe that there is a high degree of risk that they will be undeployed, or at least deployed unevenly. This is a real risk; it is particularly important given the shifting political priorities and how they can deprioritise action. As the system stands, the Secretary of State-level duty for our Climate Change Act and Environment Act targets does not automatically filter down, be it to a local government, a regulator or a non-departmental public body.
I am sure that the Minister will say that local authorities have a “duty to conserve biodiversity”, under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which was strengthened by the Environment Act 2021 and requires an authority to consider what it can do to conserve and enhance biodiversity. This is of course correct, but it is rooted in guidance—that lovely word to which I keep coming back—that can, and I am sure will, be changed. That then leaves it up to the individual authority as to whether it will or will not further the objective. What happens if we have an elected mayor who does not agree with net-zero policies or is someone who sees nature as a luxury that we can no longer afford? What will be their guidance on these strategic decisions to their commissioners, if we even have commissioners appointed for climate and nature, since this is far from guaranteed under the Bill as it is currently constructed?
My Amendment 241B would require strategic, mayoral or local authorities to take all reasonable steps to contribute to our net-zero target and the targets under Sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act, and to adapt to the risks set out in the climate change risk assessment report. It is hardly as if we are starting from a good place. We have only to look at the papers or the reports coming through from the Office for Environmental Protection and the Climate Change Committee, which are loudly ringing the alarm bells to say that we are nowhere near delivering on our targets in the Climate Change Act or the Environment Act. Without any firm duty on mayoral authorities to deliver, I fear that we will move further and further away from these targets.
I put it to the Committee and the Minister that we cannot rely on whatever provisions we currently have or the fact that we have national targets. We need to embed the targets in everyday decision-making—in local decision-making on the ground by council officials and elected members, as much as anyone. We can say that councils already do this. That may be the case, but it is too little and not quickly enough. If we look at the climate scorecards produced by Climate Emergency UK, which has assessed councils’ progress on a variety of climate and nature issues, they demonstrate this clearly: we are not moving quickly enough and we are seeing the consequences of this day in, day out. Species numbers are going down, landscapes are being lost and we are seeing flooding as a result of a lack of joined-up thinking on nature-based solutions.
At worst, without a duty such as this one, we could have authorities pulling in a completely direction from what Ministers or the Secretary of State expect or desire. I would hope that, from a legal standpoint, Ministers would want to be seen to be doing everything within their power to meet those targets by empowering the new strategic authorities with a responsibility to contribute. Just because an individual council decides that it does not want to progress further towards these targets—or, worse, that it actively wants to make them harder, if particular mayors come in with that role—it does not mean that we should just roll over and accept it. These issues absolutely transcend borders and affect us all. They are not within these mayoral authorities; they are much broader than that.
We have been happy to give local authorities other statutory duties; social care is the obvious big one but there are many others. It is welcome to see the new health improvement and health inequalities duties coming through. My amendment asks that the same statutory duties be given on the environment and climate change. On this critical matter, we must align local government with national government. This point was made succinctly in Dan Corry’s review for the Government last year, which covered Defra’s regulatory landscape for driving both economic growth and nature recovery. In it he said:
“A stronger and clearer link is needed between targets and plans set nationally and the activity being carried out to protect the environment and support development locally”.
That is exactly what this amendment tries to do.
With the biggest shake-up of local government in generations, if we fail to give a duty to do what we can to address two of our most critical threats—nature loss and climate change—what are we doing, really? I see this as very important.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 241B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which was moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. In fact, I think she probably has the slightly better amendment, if truth be told; I may go into that later.
I am sure that the Minister is detecting a pattern here. A number of public authorities have already had similar duties for the achievement of various legally binding environmental targets laid on them either in legislation or by agreement with Ministers in subsequent guidance. Recent examples include Great British Energy, Skills England, the Crown Estate, Ofwat and the GLA. This is particularly important for these strategic authorities because they have key functions in housing, strategic spatial planning, economic development, regeneration and health improvement. If you think about it, the achievement of these environmental targets is part of the fundamental underpinning of the delivery of growth, economic development, regeneration and health improvement. Conversely, the achievement of the national environmental targets will be possible only if there is effective local and regional action. Without explicit provisions in the Bill, there will be a structural gap between national environmental commitments and these important, new, local decision-making bodies.
Having this duty would ensure clarity, consistency and legal certainty, which would certainly benefit not only authorities themselves but business and investors. So it is not surprising that the proposed duty is supported by businesses across relevant sectors, the LGA, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils, ADEPT, the majority of UK100’s members and a number of council leaders and Cabinet members. There is widespread support for this duty being applied.
Another point is that, as has been said already, the national environment and climate change targets are pretty stretching; the Office for Environmental Protection and the Climate Change Committee are already expressing concern that the Government are not on track to meet them. If the Government are to have any chance at all of achieving the statutory targets, all relevant public bodies need to do their bit—especially strategic authorities. Simply listing the areas of competence for the strategic authorities is not enough. These bodies need a duty; it has to be something that they must do, not a competence that they may carry out in a variety of ways.
Amendment 192, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is particularly elegant. It would apply a sort of triple lock, if I can use that expression. Apart from the duty, it would introduce a requirement that the authority must not only exercise the duty in carrying out its functions but think about how all the decisions it makes fit in with the duty; that is the genuine spirit of the integration of environment and climate change requirements into all decision-making, which has long been talked about as a principle but, alas, is not really happening as yet.
The most cunning thing about Amendment 192 is that it goes on to say that each authority will have guidance from the Secretary of State, and that the guidance will be “clear” and “measurable”. That is a pretty neat combination; it is better than our amendment, I think, and therefore I would endorse it beyond ours.
In both amendments, the duties would apply not only to strategic authorities but to mayors and local authorities. It is important that all these local decision-making bodies are singing from the same hymn sheet. Since the GLA was set up with climate and biodiversity duties from the very beginning, I ask the Minister whether the Government will agree to do the same for strategic authorities, mayors and the reformed local authorities.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that my noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lord Shipley have had to leave for another engagement, leaving me, a non-expert on climate change, to comment from this side. It is particularly important to put this in the Bill when we stop to think that, after next May, there will be rather more local councils that are run by members of a party that does not really believe in climate change. Indeed, within the next year or two we may have a number of mayors who also hold to climate-sceptic views.
We recognise—particularly after last month, when Aberdeen, for example, had 31 days in which it rained for part or all of the day; and when flood warnings are now out across substantial parts of England, Scotland and Wales—that we have some real problems and that they have to be faced at the local as well as the national level. I come back to the point I made earlier about the strategic defence review’s reference to a whole-society approach, galvanising local volunteers and people who need training as part-timers and volunteers in dealing with civilian rescues. We see that already and we need more. If we are to have that, it has to be local councils and not just combined authorities that help to respond.
My noble friend Lady Bakewell left me with a note that says how valuable it is to collect the sort of biodiversity record that is required, but that the climate emergency UK scorecard, with its 93 questions across seven sections, threatens to overwhelm the ability of local councils to record what is required. So yet again, one needs volunteers. One needs to engage people.
My deep scepticism about the Bill is that it seems to me to be taking government further away from local people, which would make it more difficult to engage volunteers and others in local democracy, and thus make the whole problem of the governance of England much more difficult. Having said that, I very much support these amendments and hope that the Minister will take them into account before we come to Report.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord for their comments on this group. It places me in a bit of a dilemma, because I have a lot of sympathy for the objects of these amendments: we agree that the environment is important, and we like community wealth building and so forth.
I refer back to my comments on the previous group. I have a big issue with placing duties on a local or strategic authority without the means and resources for them. This is very much a half-amendment, because it would place the duty without the means to deliver it. I think the noble Baroness commented that the LGA backs this, but the LGA actually said
“local authorities need statutory duties and powers, sufficient funding, and robust support to lead on climate action”,
which is a lot more than just having the duty. So, to progress on these, we need to recognise that you cannot just place a duty. I say that quite seriously because, when I was running my council, around 85% of our expenditure was on statutory duties and we had very little room for manoeuvre on any choice-based things. Given the pressures on adult social care, SEND and so forth, I am sure that if I redid the numbers now, that figure would be way over 90%, and we end up compromising on statutory duties. So I am very wary of placing lots of statutory duties without providing the means to deliver them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about support. I am 100% behind providing support to do something, but that is not quite the same as saying, “You must have a duty as well as support”.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Quite a lot of local authorities are doing well on this. Many of the things that they are delivering do not require additional funding but are about making the right decisions on their day-to-day routine responsibilities for planning, regeneration, growth, urban development and all sorts of things. They are making these decisions in a way that is good for the environment, climate change, biodiversity, air quality, people and sustainability, rather than making them without thinking about these things. So a duty is not a huge imposition; it is about a mindset, not a set of expenses.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I beg to disagree. Once you place a duty on an authority, all its decision-making needs to have that in mind. The authority can be challenged for not doing X, and X could involve significant expenditure, or it could be something that it has very little power over. To take a local example, my local council has a statutory duty on pollution in certain areas, such as Ampthill, which is just down the road from me, but it does not have the ability to stop cars going into Ampthill, and they are the cause of the pollution. So you end up with these dilemmas, and that needs thinking through. That is why I am wary. I do not disagree with the thrust of what the noble Baroness is trying to do, but we need to do it in a practical and deliverable way. All good councils will try to seek to do the right thing wherever they can.
As certain Peers have alluded to, in the future there may be somebody who might not be as keen as some of us are on the environment, well-being or anything else. That brings me to my second point: I am a huge believer in democracy. We have a very serious question to ask ourselves: do we believe in democracy? That means local decision-making and devolution, and, at times, it may mean that people do not do what we would choose to be our priority. That is a dilemma that we face and have to accept. If you believe in democracy and devolution, you cannot always seek to bind the hand of people to do what you want, because that is not devolution and democracy but centralisation and state control, which may be the right thing—
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
Can I ask a question of clarification? I agree on democracy and the point that the noble Lord is making, but these are legally binding targets that we have agreed in the law through these Acts, so do we ignore the law through devolution?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
As the noble Baroness rightly says, they are legally binding targets that people need to take into account. We do not necessarily need to do it again. But I come back to my central point: do not place a duty on somebody if you do not provide the capacity for them to deliver it.
My second point is on devolution. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made some interesting points about local wealth building and it probably is a very good model, but it may not be the only model. There may be other models and there may be other models that work locally, so why are we doing a one size fits all? We should trust people to deliver for their residents; that is why they get elected and re-elected. Sometimes we will make mistakes, and we do it differently the next time because we made a mistake the first time.
Those are my two key concerns that we need to focus on. First, if you provide a duty to somebody, you need to provide the means and capacity to do it. Secondly, on the issue of democracy, if we are genuine about devolution, we should be very careful about providing a centralised diktat about what we should do. That has nothing to do with the proposed areas of concern, which I have a huge amount of sympathy with.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, for Amendments 192, 193, 194 and 241B. I will respond to Amendments 192 and 241B together, as their aims are somewhat shared.
During the Bill’s passage, the Government have consistently made the point that many local authorities have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, including air quality. It is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring.
The Government offer net-zero support for local government. That includes through Great British Energy, which will work with local government to help to increase the rollout of renewable energy projects. Furthermore, the Government will also partner with strategic authorities and local authorities to roll out the ambitious warm homes plan, which will upgrade 5 million homes over this Parliament to help them to save money on their bills and benefit from cleaner, cheaper heating. To strengthen our engagement with local government on net-zero strategy, policy and delivery, and to support local government to drive forward net-zero action at the local level, the Government also run the Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which last met on 9 December last year.
Local authorities already have statutory duties to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local and central government, air quality in the UK has improved. The Government will continue to work with local authorities to reduce air pollution and its harmful effects. It is worth noting that in London, as the noble Baroness will know, the air quality target, which it was estimated would take 193 years to achieve, was accomplished in nine years. Concerted effort and clear decision-making can make a real difference.
Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, strengthened under the Environment Act 2021. The latter requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy and to any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.
On climate adaptation, the Government already work closely with local authorities, strategic authorities and mayors, a number of whom are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October last year, the Government launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. The Government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services.
I will respond to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, about the mayor not abiding the climate change duty. There is a specific competency on environmental climate change in the Bill. A mayor of a strategic authority, as well as having the overview and scrutiny powers that the body has, could be subject to a challenge by way of a judicial review for failure to meet an existing duty. There is significant power there already. The issues around local democracy and the prioritisation given to an issue is and must be subject to democratic accountability. It is difficult; we have to get that balance right. But as there is an existing legal duty, there is enough power for local citizens to be able to push their locally elected representatives. Given such existing support, and the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling environmental decline and climate change, we do not think that this particular duty is needed.
Amendment 193 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to require strategic authorities to collect and publish annual poverty data for their authority. We recognise that the policies and interventions that strategic authorities deliver have an impact on reducing poverty and alleviating its impacts. As set out in the Government’s strategy, Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty, a broad and dedicated range of partners play a role in reducing poverty, and we will continue to do this work in partnership with local, regional, national, private and third sector partners.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I am sorry that I did not mention Amendment 241B but, yes, I would support it if my amendment were not accepted.
On the duty to think about climate change and so on, the Minister asked what extra the duty would add to current systems. However, there will of course be councils that will not want to do it, as somebody else said—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Willis—so putting a duty on them is absolutely crucial for taking forward this whole agenda.
I did not really hear a good answer about collecting data on poverty. Surely, that would be fundamental to any Labour Government—that they should know exactly how large the problem is. We get all sorts of data, reports and figures, but on a local level this would be a fantastic resource to direct, support and help.
On community wealth, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said that there were other systems. The point about this proposal is that it is tested and it works. I live in a local village where we do not have this—but we have a chalk figure on a hill overlooking the village that is so astonishing that we get hordes of tourists, which keeps open three pubs in a village of 800 people, and a shop that opens every day of the year apart from Christmas Day. All those people coming in can keep the local economy booming for local people. I go to all three pubs, obviously.
On the issue of air pollution, it is an interesting topic. London’s air pollution is not very bad anymore; it is one of the cleanest cities, if not the cleanest, in Britain. The reason for that is down to two very bold moves. First, Ken Livingstone introduced the congestion charge, and at the point when it was introduced he said that only two groups supported it—big business and the Greens. Big business understood about keeping things moving in a small area. The City of London made big steps, before even the Mayor of London did, to clean up its air quality. Again, it understood that you had to keep business moving and keep people moving.
Both the Mayor of London and the City of London also understood that air quality impacted very deeply on the people living here. It is obvious, when you look at the statistics in London, that people who live near the M25 live in poorer properties with less access to green space and suffer much worse from air pollution than people living in the inner city. Of course, children who grow up there are damaged for life: their lungs are stunted and they have problems all through their lives, putting pressure on the NHS. These things are all related. It is important not to see those things in isolation; we should see them as a flow that helps life generally.
I am going to withdraw the amendment, although I think it is great. I am sure that something like these amendments will be back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“English Local Government Council(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a national body called the English Local Government Council.(2) The general functions of the Council are to—(a) to represent English local government in matters relating to devolution,(b) to work with central government to create a framework for the further devolution of power to English local government (“the Devolution Framework”),(c) to work with central government to agree the fair funding of local and strategic authorities, and(d) to identify a representative or representatives of the English Local Government Council to participate in the Council of Nations and Regions.(3) The members of the Council are—(a) a person appointed by constituent members of each strategic authority to represent the combined local authority in the proceedings of the Council, and(b) the Mayor of London.(4) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision about the operation of the Council.(5) The Regulations must, in particular, make provision about—(a) staffing of the Council,(b) proceedings of the Council,(c) accounting and other record-keeping by the Council,(d) publication of proceedings of the Council, and(e) publication of guidance and advice by the Council.(6) In making regulations the Secretary of State must, in particular—(a) provide for transitional arrangements to ensure that upper-tier authorities that are not part of a combined local authority are represented in the Council,(b) allow for weighting of the voting power of strategic authorities to account for combined local authorities having different population sizes, and(c) require the Mayor of London to consult with representatives of London authorities in performing functions as a member of the Council.(7) Members of the Council must pay annual fees to the Council, which must be set by the Secretary of State in regulations.(8) The Secretary of State must pay the costs of the establishment and maintenance of the Council, except in so far as those costs are met from annual fees.(9) Regulations made under this section—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution procedure, and(b) may include incidental, consequential or transitional provision.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this is a Bill about local government reform, but it is also a constitutional Bill. It is about the structure of governance within the UK and in particular in England. Perhaps I should say by way of introduction that I have had some very helpful advice in preparing this amendment from John Denham and Sir David Lidington, so in some ways, this is a cross-party amendment, and it is a matter of much concern to those who are thinking about the structure of the UK and how it holds together. I have also looked at the report from the Labour Party’s commission on the UK’s future, from December 2022, three and a half years ago, which strongly recommended a statutory council of England. I have also looked at various reports from the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has reported on the governance of England on a number of occasions in the past five years.
There is now a Mayoral Council for England, which I gather has met five or six times since the last election. It does not have statutory powers. Currently, it has the 14 elected mayors on it, and when we have gone all mayoral it will have some 30 to 35 when complete. I heard Andy Burnham talking 10 days ago about how well it has operated since the last election.
That takes us back to early intergovernmental relations, when, in 1998, the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales were set up and relations between central government and the devolved authorities began to operate in a relatively informal way. The intergovernmental framework worked very well when you had Labour Governments in Scotland and Wales and a Labour Government in London, and began to work very badly when you had different parties in power in those countries. I say that by way of emphasis, because we are facing a situation in which, after May this year, we may well have different Governments in power in Scotland and Wales, and we will certainly have some different parties in power in parts of England. The question of how we manage that and how, if we really believe in devolution, we set up some means of bargaining negotiation between those who represent devolved authorities and central government, matters a great deal. If we want to make it work, we have to talk about the place of the Mayoral Council for England and give it proper authority to operate.
I remind noble Lords that we had these various intergovernmental councils under the previous three Governments. I note that under Conservative authority, we even set up joint executive committees to negotiate on the Barnett formula. The Joint Exchequer Committee for Scotland last met in June 2022; the Joint Exchequer Committee for Wales was created shortly before the Wales Act 2014 received Royal Assent and last met in October 2016. That is what happens if you have only informal and non-statutory arrangements.
The complexities of intergovernmental relations across the UK also include the British-Irish Council, which now has not only a north-south body but an east-west body on relations between Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. From what I have heard from talking to Scots involved with this, it is clear to me that the Scots will not accept 35 mayors from England as representing England alongside the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish on the Council of the Nations and Regions—which, I am afraid, is simply a rebadging of the old intergovernmental conference. Gordon Brown’s image of what the Council of the Nations and Regions should be was a great deal more ambitious than what we now have, and it was absolutely a statutory body. It is a sad reflection of how timid this Government are on all matters of political and constitutional reform that so much that was valuable in Gordon Brown’s report has so far not even been discussed further, let alone put into action.
We want the Mayoral Council for England and the Council of the Nations and Regions to be able to negotiate, bargain and hold the Government to account. We also want government departments in London to have to negotiate with and take into account the views of these sub-regional authorities that we will be creating. I was talking to another noble Peer who is actively engaged in this today who said that they regretted the regional centres of government, because it meant that those in the regions could get together with central civil servants and talk through some of the relations and regional areas of policy with them.
We have many more civil servants in London than we had 15 years ago, and we have fewer local government civil servants. That is the sort of thing that we clearly need to have. The purpose of my amendment is to say that we need some degree of clarity within the Government on the role of the Mayoral Council for England and how that governance arrangement for England fits in with the governance arrangements for the UK as a whole. This will become a much more difficult matter once we no longer have Labour Governments and Labour mayors as the majority, and we will therefore need statutory functions and statutory status to make sure that they continue to meet, argue and, one hopes, co-operate.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his amendment. I was initially a little confused, having read the amendment and then listened to his speech, but after his final comment I understand that this is a probing amendment to get the Minister and the Government to be clear about how they see the structure of the Mayoral Council, the regional devolved Governments and, potentially, councils. It is about how to create some kind of structure or how it will be structured. In that sense, I am a lot clearer and happier.
I had more concerns about an English local government council, because that would be largely duplicating the role of the LGA. As an ex-chairman of the LGA, I would be deeply unhappy and my colleague the noble Baroness would also be deeply unhappy as a fellow ex-chair. We would both agree that enhancing the LGA would be a good idea, but I am not sure that we would want an English local government council. As a probing amendment, I understand the purpose of it. The noble Lord raises some valid points about what the role of the Mayoral Council is, how it will all fit in and where the pieces of the jigsaw are. That is a good question, and I look forward to the Minister’s answer.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for Amendment 195, and hope that he will take my regards back to John Denham, for whom I have the greatest respect. I have often worked with John on English devolution, so I respect what he says.
This amendment seeks to create an obligation to establish a national body called the English local government council. Membership of the council would comprise a person appointed by constituent members of each strategic authority and the Mayor of London. Members of the council would also be required to pay a membership fee, placing a new financial burden on authorities. Functions of the council would include working with the Government to agree a framework for the further devolution of powers; to agree funding for local and strategic authorities; and to identify a representative to participate in the Council of the Nations and Regions.
I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I believe that proper representation of local government into central government is incredibly important. We have worked very hard on that as a Government since we came into power in July 2024. When local leaders work together with the Government, it benefits our whole country. That is why the English devolution White Paper sets out three forums for engagement: the Council of the Nations and Regions, the Mayoral Council and the Leaders Council. Across these councils, all levels of devolved government are represented, from First Ministers to mayors to the leaders of local authorities. These forums have all met a number of times—I have been to the Leaders Council three times, I think. I can assure noble Lords that funding and furthering devolution is rarely not on the agenda for discussion, but they also discuss thematic issues as well.
It is therefore not necessary for a new council to create a framework for further devolution. The Bill is already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way and to deepen devolution through the mayoral right to request process. While funding is discussed at all these councils, it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the finance settlement process, which carefully allocates needs-based funding across the country. The current council structures we have in place are working well, and the flexibility afforded to them as non-statutory bodies allows us to work with the sector to adapt the forums as the needs of local leaders change. The current structures place no new burdens on authorities, with no membership fees required, as this amendment would create. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I am of course entirely willing to withdraw my amendment, but I wish to stress that this is a very important point. We are about to enter another difficult period in which we have no idea how this year’s elections will come out and which parties will be in control in different parts of the United Kingdom, and in which the relationship between the devolved authorities and what is intended to be the stronger combined authorities within England will come under some strain.
What happened between 2015 and 2024 is that these things did not work well and, in many cases, they ceased to meet. We do not want that to happen again. If this proposal for stronger mayoral authorities is to work, we need to make sure that it fits into the governance of the United Kingdom. If it is to work, the institutions, not just the Council of the Nations and Regions but also the Mayoral Council for England, need to have a good deal more power than the LGA has in standing up to central government—and, as in most other democracies, they need to have some sense of how one bargains over fiscal redistribution. One of the central aspects of the German federal system is the bargaining over how money is distributed between the centre and the richer and poorer regions. That is something that we need to do in England as well—it is done a certain amount between the devolved authorities and the United Kingdom. I speak as someone from northern England, and we are always deeply conscious of the fact that we do not manage to bargain with central government about that.
I would be very grateful if the Minister would have further conversations off the floor before Report, because otherwise we will want to push the issue that the Mayoral Council in some shape or other must be given statutory authority. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach
Introduction: Baroness Antrobus
Life Sciences: Beagles
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McCabe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of beagles currently used for testing in life sciences laboratories.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government collect data on procedures involving beagles rather than on individual animals. In 2024, beagles were used in 2,488 procedures, representing 0.2% of all experimental procedures, and a 30% decrease from 2023. The Government have a manifesto commitment to phase out animal use, and we published a strategy in November 2025 to meet our manifesto goals.
Lord McCabe (Lab)
My Lords, concern for the welfare of beagles prompted at least some of the opposition to the recent Public Order Act amendment proposals on life sciences establishments. I am not against all animal testing, but I support other methods, particularly in relation to medical research. A human-specific technologies Bill—sometimes dubbed Herbie’s law, after a rescued beagle—would go a long way to advancing the Government’s manifesto commitment on animal testing. Are there any plans for such legislation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I know how strongly my noble friend feels on this issue. I cannot promise him a Bill on this matter, but I can promise him a replacement strategy, which includes specific targets for reducing the use of dogs and, particularly, reducing their use in cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030. The Government are also funding the national centre dealing with this issue to develop new, non-animal methods aimed at replacing dogs in regulatory testing. I hope that my noble friend will support the manifesto commitment to phase out use as soon as possible.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I support a reduction in the use of dogs in medical research. However, we have to understand that sometimes dogs are used because they have the same diseases as humans have; for instance, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which is caused by a gene mutation called dystrophin which occurs in both dogs and humans, and kills children and dogs. Through a study of two retrievers who had the genes but were not affected, we learned the technique of silencing the gene—to the benefit of dogs and humans. Similarly, in other areas of cancer immunology, doing experiments to learn about both dogs and humans has enhanced their immunity. Lastly, insulin was discovered doing research on dogs, because dogs also get diabetes.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes the point, which the Government accept, that animal testing is currently required where alternative, non-animal methods do not exist. We are also working with regulators to see how advances in technology can and will reduce the use, and phase out in some areas. We have a long-term ambition to phase out the use; it is in the manifesto. We have produced the document, but we recognise that, at the moment, medicine occasionally requires that use.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, The Minister has described the aims of the Government, both in the manifesto and in the publication last November, but it would be really useful to know when tangible milestones will be published to demonstrate real progress that will include specific targets, timelines and investment commitments to accelerate the adoption of modern, ethical and scientifically advanced alternatives, especially given that we understand that more than 2.7 million procedures involving live animals were still carried out in 2022.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Baroness looks at the strategy, she will see that we have put £75 million of new money into that strategy to accelerate the phasing out of the use of animals. As I said in answer to my noble friend Lord McCabe, we have a target of a 30% reduction by the end of this Parliament in the areas that my noble friend has raised. We want to see alternative use as a matter of course, but it has to be done in a way that, as the noble Lord mentioned, protects medical science at the same time as reducing dramatically the use of animals.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his report, concluded that the most humane way to protect the fox population was through regulated and legal hunting. The Government went on to ban hunting and are now poised to ban trail hunting. Have the Government made an estimate of what will happen to the foxhounds that are currently engaged in trail hunting, which goes to the heart of the countryside, bringing countryfolk together in the depths of winter? What is the future for these foxhounds if trail hunting is banned?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a long way from animal testing but I will give the noble Baroness a straight answer on it anyway. I personally voted to ban fox hunting on every occasion in the House of Commons when I was a Member of Parliament. I personally support the Government’s intention to stop trail hunting. Those are matters of management and political decision. That is what the Government will do, and I hope the noble Baroness will continue to raise those issues. We will look at the consequences, but ultimately it is the right thing to do.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, having recently debated the life sciences sector and being aware of how crucial it is, not only for our economy but for our national security, we know that much of the research conducted in Britain is increasingly at risk from espionage, cyber attack and theft, most notably from China. What steps, in addition to the legislation, have the Government taken to robustly disrupt such efforts by our adversaries and protect the British life sciences sector?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an important point. We have to ensure that the sector operates properly and effectively and is not damaged by foreign state actors or any other criminal elements. That is why we put in place the measures in relation to protests, which we debated in this House last week. The Government will continue to ensure that robust measures, about which it would not be appropriate to talk in this Chamber, are put in place to protect all sectors of our industrial society.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, while I agree with the Government’s strategy to phase this out, are any other countries doing something similar? Can lessons be learned from experiences in other countries?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is interesting. My noble friend should know that the UK has the highest standards possible in this area. One of the reasons that we do not wish immediately to close down some aspects of this work is because the businesses which produce that research—which the noble Lord mentioned earlier—would find themselves going abroad and operating under far poorer standards than those in the United Kingdom. We are a high-standard country because of the 1986 Act, and any dilution of that would result in more animals being harmed. Our strategy should be supported.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about foxhounds. Beagles are hounds and are often used in experiments, but foxhounds are not. If trail hunting is banned, what will happen to these foxhounds? They will not be able to be domesticated because they have lived in packs.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, the noble Lord goes a long way wide of the Question, but he is entitled to do so. When the Government make a decision on the issue of trail hunting—which they will—they will factor the consequences into their consideration and will work with colleagues to do so. That is what the Government did when they banned hunting at large in the early 2000s. Even though I had a fox hunt in my own constituency at the time, I supported that and found that the vast majority of people did too.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, do the Government recognise the great contribution that pigs make to research and development? Pigs’ valves have been so useful in many aspects of researching human disease, because pigs are very much akin to man—in more senses than one.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that astute observation. The principle behind the Government’s commitment in this area is straightforward: where animals have to be used, they will be used, but we seek to find alternatives. We are seeking to phase out the use of animals as a whole, and we continue to put not just money but a government strategy behind that. It is a manifesto commitment to phase out the use of animals at the earliest opportunity, and we are working towards that. I refer the noble Lord to the document we produced just prior to Christmas.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister has talked about animal welfare and how proud he is of having voted to ban fox hunting. Would he be equally proud to be able to say that, as a country, we had banned the way animals are slaughtered for halal meat and other religious reasons?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are going very wide of the Question today. Those are matters that the Government continue to keep under review. It is not within the Home Office’s gift to discuss the point the noble Baroness has brought forward. On the issue before the House in the original Question, we are going to phase it out, and we have an opportunity through our strategy to show the direction of travel.
Royal Navy: Caribbean
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the Royal Navy ship stationed in the Caribbean is fully a part of Joint Interagency Task Force South.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, the Royal Navy’s persistent presence in the Caribbean is not part of the Joint Interagency Task Force South. The ship primarily provides support to the British Overseas Territories, including during Caribbean hurricane season, including in response to Hurricane Beryl and Hurricane Melissa that caused so much damage. The ship also conducts regional engagement and supports counter-illicit trafficking operations, which are co-ordinated through the US-led JITFS.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, but the ship based out there does an awful lot of anti-drug work, and that is important for the stability of our overseas territories. It is also an indicator of how much we do for the Americans. The ship is fully linked in to the intelligence picture that is provided by our people and the Americans of what is going on. Can I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the US has stopped taking kinetic action against suspected drug-smuggling boats—historically, most used to come from Colombia and not Venezuela? If he cannot answer that, maybe he could write. Also, what instructions have we given to our ships there when they have been made aware that kinetic action was about to be taken against a suspected drug smuggler?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that our persistent presence in the Caribbean in the Atlantic patrol task force is very important and does a lot of work in supporting the overseas territories and combating the illicit drugs trade. HMS “Trent” has seized £223.4 million-worth of cocaine since 2024, making this country much safer. On American plans, the American Government will speak for themselves. As for UK involvement in those operations, as I have said, we partner in JIATF activities. We have one officer based with it for liaison purposes, but we take responsibility for our own actions.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West, I am not fully familiar with the full remit of the Joint Interagency Task Force South, but is it working the Commonwealth maritime co-operation agencies in the Caribbean, whose arrangements are proving increasingly interesting and useful in tracking ghost ships, illegal Russian oil ships, illegal Chinese movements and other unflagged maritime traffic? This is something we want to develop and encourage, and I hope that we are.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct. The UK has a strong and historical defence relationship with the Caribbean Commonwealth, and this is underpinned by an annual UK-Caribbean chiefs of defence conference led by the UK chief of defence. Continued UK support was demonstrated last year in Jamaica in response to Hurricane Melissa. We entirely support the need for Commonwealth co-operation. I can certainly say more about the shadow fleets and unflagged vessels, if other noble Lords want to ask me.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has historically played a significant part in intelligence gathering in the Caribbean. Some difficulties were reported towards the end of last year. Is the Minister able to give some reassurance to the House that these problems have been overcome?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the question. I am not familiar with the particular problems she referred to, but I am happy to find out more and come back to her.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can we get some assurance from the Government that any naval ship based out there is doing a worthwhile job and will not get pulled into activities that we might question at home? That is the key thing here. If we are doing things such as supporting people in times of natural disaster, there are limitations on that, and we will not find ourselves enforcing another nation’s whim actions.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am very happy to reassure the noble Lord and the entire House on that point. There has been no UK involvement in operations outside our own policy remit, and specific operational activities undertaken by the US military—which I assume is what the noble Lord was referring to—in the Caribbean and the Pacific are a matter for the US. The legality of US actions is a matter for the US. The UK upholds international law, and I reassure the noble Lord that UK exchange officers are segregated from US personnel during specific US operations.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it has been announced that there will no longer be any Royal Navy ship permanently stationed in the Middle East. This is as troubling as it is incomprehensible. To reassure our allies and preserve the reputation of the Royal Navy, can the Minister undertake to ask this noble friend the Minister of State for Defence to get that decision reversed with immediate effect?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The Royal Navy has supported partners in the Middle East with operations that have included a significant seizure of more than £30 million-worth of drugs in 2025 alone. I understand the question that the noble Viscount is asking and am happy to take that message back to the Ministry of Defence. However, I should make it absolutely clear for the record that the Ministry of Defence keeps its forces posture in the Middle East under constant review to safeguard UK interests, as I am sure the noble Viscount would expect, and the Royal Navy remains committed to regional stability through its enduring presence.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, does the naval ship that is out there still carry a contingent of US Coastguard forces, as it did when I was on a similar ship many years ago as a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme when it did work in tandem in intercepting drugs?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not know the exact answer regarding presence, and I am very happy to find out more and come back to the noble Baroness, but what I do know is that we work closely with the JIATF. We maintain close co-operation through a UK liaison officer embedded with the US Joint Interagency Task Force in Florida, ensuring effective co-ordination with allies in counternarcotics activity. I cannot overstress the importance of this activity and the joint work that we do. It has direct relevance and benefits for the streets of all our towns and cities.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
On a slightly wider point, the Joint Interagency Task Force South is acknowledged in America as the gold standard of interagency co-operation—something that is not necessarily all that common there. Have the Government conducted any analysis of whether there are any lessons to be drawn for the United Kingdom in cross-government working in the context of international security? If they have not done so, will they undertake to do so?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that question. As he knows, we have published the national security strategy, which goes much wider than national security strategies have in the past. On his specific question, I am very happy to find out whether that analysis has been undertaken and come back to him, but he knows of our wider commitment to national security and increasing defence capacity.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lord Trenchard, there is concern about the overall health of the Royal Navy, as frequently alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord West. There are reports that BAE may give away our UK building slots for the Type 26 frigate to Norway, which will leave us dependent on seven elderly Type 23 frigates. Can the Minister confirm that the UK Type 26 build will continue as originally scheduled to avoid unacceptable weakening of our naval capability?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I will come to the point about Type 26, but let me first answer the wider question that the noble Baroness asks me about the capacity of the Royal Navy. The most recently published data shows that the Royal Navy’s readiness performance in 2025 reflects strong operational output in key categories and predictable reductions linked to planned maintenance cycles and unplanned defects. A great deal of work has been done to ensure that the efficient management of the defence forces in the Royal Navy ensures that coverage. As the noble Baroness knows, the Government are doing a lot to address the capacity of the Royal Navy overall, including the Type 26 frigates—I have answered a question on this before in your Lordships’ House. It is crucial that we work closely with Norway on the procurement of those Type 26 frigates. The sequencing of that will be part of how we go about ensuring security in the High North.
Public Transport: Remote Communities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the service, quality and affordability of public transport to remote communities.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My noble friend asked this Question in relation to the Isles of Scilly. At present, there are no plans to introduce a new subsidy, regulatory framework or funding model for the islands’ transport services. Support is therefore a matter for local discretionary schemes, which the Isles of Scilly council already has. However, the Government have provided targeted support where appropriate, including £750,000 in July 2025 through the clean maritime demonstration competition to explore a potential clean technology passenger sea route between the mainland and the islands.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Coincidentally, I received a letter last Friday from his colleague, Keir Mather, the Minister for shipping, who gave me much the same answer, but he prayed in aid the £3 bus fare cap which goes around the whole country. He regretted that there was no similar scheme for the Isles of Scilly, because it was not a local transport authority. The result is that, rather than £3, if a bus could get to Scilly, it would cost £100 single—plus somewhere between £10 and £70 within the islands. So I am grateful to my noble friend, but it needs a closer discussion. I hope that my noble friend will agree to have a meeting with myself and the chairman of the council, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, to see whether we can come up with a solution that is economically viable for the council and something better for the population.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend will recognise the 28 miles of sea between the mainland and the Isles of Scilly and that the road network on the Isles of Scilly is all of 14 miles. So it is hard to see that comparable bus fares and bus practices are applicable. But, recognising the particular challenges with transport both to and from the islands and between them, my noble friend Lady Taylor and I will be happy to meet my noble friend on the Benches behind me and the leader of the council to discuss these issues further.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, there are higher per-passenger costs and of course structural challenges to serve low-density remote areas. Will the Government therefore revise their bus service funding formula to introduce a rural weighting to help authorities provide the public transport that is essential for these communities?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am surprised that the noble Baroness is not aware that the local transport funding formula does recognise rural areas. We had extensive discussions, as the noble Baroness will recognise, in the then Bus Services Bill, and, indeed, the Government, compared with previous Governments, have chosen, rightly, to fund every English transport authority in a way that was not done previously.
It is hard to see quite how bus services permeate some very remote places, but the noble Baroness will also know that there are some demand-responsive schemes—transport and others—which are eligible for subsidy. In the English devolution Bill, we are a couple of days from discussing taxi and private hire vehicles, which also form part of the transport solution in those areas.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
Will the Minister look at the role that the Community Transport Association can play? I believe that it can play a vital and important role, particularly in remote country areas, usually with small charities. In the past, the Department for Transport—I cannot remember exactly when—set up a special grant so that those charities could apply directly to get new community buses, which makes a direct impact and does a great deal of good work, particularly in remote rural areas.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Community transport is a very elegant way of solving some of these issues. I am glad he cannot remember when that funding was established, because I cannot either. It might even have been when the noble Lord was the Transport Secretary himself. But his point is well taken: community transport is a good answer in those circumstances, and I echo his point that it should be well regarded and we should look at it in those circumstances.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, can I ask my noble friend the Minister to join me in thanking the many hundreds of volunteers who run our community transport services? Furthermore, when we see the extension of combined authorities with transport responsibilities covering more rural areas, will the Minister give consideration to the role that community transport services can play in the provision of public transport to ensure that they are not overlooked and continue to add value and good-quality services in the areas that need them most?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend. People who serve voluntarily in community transport should be absolutely praised for coming out in all weathers for everybody. As I said, and as he is right to say, it is a good solution to mobility in those areas and we will reiterate the use of these things as the mayoral combined authorities are established.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the great transport scandals in this country is that it costs something like £20 per mile to take the smallest car from Portsmouth to Fishbourne on the Isle of Wight? There is a monopoly there that operates completely against the economic interests of those trying to make a living on the Isle of Wight and, as we call it, the north island.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is certainly correct to identify that people on the Isle of Wight think that this is a problem. When I wrote the Union Connectivity Review report, although it was not specifically about the Isle of Wight, I had more correspondence from the Isle of Wight than I did from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales.
This Government are tackling this issue. We set up the Cross-Solent Transport Group and Minister Mather, to whom my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred, has recently appointed Brian Johnson CBE, the ex-MCA chief executive, as the group’s independent chair to, first of all, sort out its terms of reference and then focus on locally led solutions to what the noble Lord correctly describes as a perceived and real problem of connectivity between the Isle of Wight and the English mainland.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, if the Government are so worried about connectivity to the Isle of Wight, why are they introducing a carbon tax on the domestic maritime sector from June this year? According to the operators, this will have a devastating effect on fares not only to the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly but to the many other islands that are dependent on affordable ferry connections to the mainland. Do the Government have any idea of the mayhem this is causing at a time when they are meant to be concentrating on reducing the cost of living?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord ought to know that, in respect of ferry transport to the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly, new ships and methods of transport are being procured and built in order both to provide up-to-date transport and to reduce carbon emissions on those services. We reject absolutely the concept that somehow these ferry routes have to survive under conditions of excess carbon emissions when modern ships, and indeed the technology I referred to in respect of the potential new service to the Isles of Scilly, are there for the very purpose of reducing carbon emissions but increasing connectivity.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps my noble friend the Minister could point to the noble Lord opposite that the mayhem that will be caused by prices will be far outstripped by the mayhem caused by climate change. I refer him to the latest projections, which show that climate change is increasing rapidly and that, unless we take decisive action on carbon emissions, we face a very frightening future indeed.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend absolutely. More to the point, the ferry operators recognise that, too, as befits the ordering of new ships with reduced carbon emissions and the experimentation to the Isles of Scilly to which I previously referred.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will recognise that many remote rural areas are particularly reliant on their rail services. Coming from Thurso, which is the most northerly station on the main line of the United Kingdom, I recognise both the fragility and importance of the Far North Line. While I recognise that much of the responsibility for that lies with the Scottish Government, does he agree with me that the creation of Great British Railways offers the potential for a reset between the various companies that are responsible: ScotRail, Network Rail and Great British Railways? To that end, what discussions is he having with the Scottish Government?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Viscount is certainly right to say that the railway to Wick and Thurso is a lifeline. In answer to his question, we have had a lot of cordial discussion with the Scottish Government, which is resulting in a methodology of operation proposed as a consequence of establishing Great British Railways, which will continue the integration of operations and infrastructure in Scotland and therefore continue the operation of that line into what one would hope to be the very, very distant future.
Hospitals: Delayed Discharges
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they will respond to the finding in the Health Foundation report Delayed discharges from hospital: comparing performance this year and last, published on 14 December 2025, that the number of beds occupied by people who are medically fit to leave hospital but have nowhere to go is increasing.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, we know that too many people are delayed leaving hospital. We are determined to tackle this. This winter, we are ensuring that NHS trusts focus on improving in-hospital processes and work with local authorities to tackle the longest delays. We are providing targeted support to the most challenged systems. These efforts are backed by £9 billion through the better care fund, enabling the NHS and local authorities to work together to reduce discharge delays.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that response. Every time we hear about the problem of delayed discharges—and some of us have been working on this for decades—the causes are the same: lack of co-operation and co-ordination between the agencies involved, not just the NHS and social care but the families of patients and the community services provided by the private and voluntary sectors. There are places where discharge procedures work well because all those agencies plan together, not worrying about who is footing the bill or who has the greater responsibility. Does my noble friend agree that, except in cases of emergency admissions, discharge planning should start when the patient is admitted and not wait until they are ready for discharge?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. I emphasise her words that we must have an integrated, co-ordinated approach. She is quite right to highlight that some areas are doing this. It has not been straightforward, but dedication and bringing together all the elements that she raises, including health, social care, housing, voluntary and community partners and the families themselves, make the difference. We are focused on making sure that where good practice exists it can develop and that the statutory guidance around planning for discharge before admission is adhered to locally.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is limited capacity in social care in terms of beds and that there are real problems of staff shortages across the NHS and in social care. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned functionality and co-ordination between different agencies, including the NHS, local authorities and social care. As she rightly mentioned, there are blockages—such as receiving medicines et cetera—to patients being discharged from hospital. What key performance indicators are the Government going to put in place to ensure that we remove these blockages rather than just pursuing a generalised way forward?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises how we assess performance. That is a valid question. This work has been tackled through all the plans for improvement. It is complicated, as she suggests, and covers a range of different areas. I do not think there is one prescriptive model that we need to adhere to. We need to make sure that it is very clear how benefits come to patients, in particular, when we get the systems right. I am happy to discuss this further with her.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, bed-blocking—as we refer to it, as opposed to delayed discharges—is a very sensitive issue, for the hospital and the patient. It leads to people waiting in corridors to be treated. Many different ways have been attempted to deal with this: expanding home-based care, utilising spare capacity in care homes, and through adult social care. Talking about adult social care, can the Minister tell us where we are up to on phase 1 of the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which is meant to be implemented in mid-2026, because that will be a first step towards solving the problem?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord raises the important point about the Casey review, which is fundamental. As he knows, it is an independent process, so I cannot give him the exact details that he is looking for, but I can assure him that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has been meeting with all the relevant people. We assume she is on track to bring forward the medium-term suggestions for improvement that she has promised us this year.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for raising this issue a number of times over many years to Governments of all colours. The latest acute discharge situation report suggests several reasons for delayed discharges, some of which the noble Baroness mentioned: awaiting medicines to take home, awaiting a discharge letter or other discharge documentation, or awaiting transport. Setting aside some of the more complex cases—people who are homeless or who require specialist treatment—organising transport and medicines in alignment with someone’s discharge date should, in theory, be quite simple once the systems are digitised and share data between them, but for now we hear stories of hours spent on the phone to care homes to find out which ones have space for discharged patients. Given these challenges, how is Minister’s department supporting ICBs to align their systems to reduce these delays caused by both small procedural blockages and digital disconnects, which slow down the whole system and sometimes lead to it being seized up?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord that the Department of Health recognises the issues that he raises. That is why £2 billion is being put into NHS digital transformation to modernise systems, expand the use of electronic patient records and improve productivity across the service. It simply is not good enough that the reasons he outlines are causing delays. We are determined to improve these areas to speed up the process and ensure that people do not fall through the gaps, as we have seen too often.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the report in the Question is most welcome, but I am sad to say that it is the latest in a long line of similar reports, all recognising that the NHS will continue to be at risk until social care is sorted out, not least because the NHS is free at the point of delivery whereas social care is means-tested. When will the Government—of any kind—agree to tackle this issue of social care? It is serious and will get worse.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord raises the importance of the Casey review, but we are not standing still waiting for the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to report. We are making progress towards building a national care service, with around £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care by 2028-29 compared with 2025-26. All of us in this Chamber know how important improving social care is. We are not going to improve the system until we move forward on this and make sure that we get the best services for our frail and elderly in particular.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, it is true that this is a very long-standing problem. When I was Health Minister, I spent quite a lot of time looking at how we could improve the services. The multi-disciplinary team was key, but the other key element, which this report highlights, is getting assessments done early, particularly of the home, to ascertain what specialist equipment is needed and get it installed. Can my noble friend the Minister take up the issue of good practice in that respect, and look at where those early assessments have been particularly effective and how we can spread that best practice?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I am particularly grateful as I was very active in Leeds, which has a practice going far back that is recognised as one of the foremost in the country in terms of the Home First model. I am delighted to say that it has been picked up by others. Bringing together all the agencies that we have discussed before helps in that process. The early indications are good: a 28% reduction in length of stay and a 7.1-day reduction in rehab. All those elements are critical. It is possible to do this, and we need to replicate good practice wherever we find it.
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me in at the end. She has mentioned the independent commission of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock. I may be the only Member of your Lordships’ House who is somewhat surprised to know that the noble Baroness is the only commissioner on this independent commission; there are no others. Given that her name is once again being linked with some vacancies arising at the centre of government, could the Government perhaps appoint some more commissioners to make sure that the independent commission is a bit more resilient?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I always look forward to the noble Lord’s questions. I do not think I have an answer to his question at this moment in time, other than to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is absolutely determined and committed to this work, and we will do everything we can to support her in it.
Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they plan to make to the government of China to seek the release of British citizen Jimmy Lai, following his sentence this morning to 20 years in prison.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK condemns the prosecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. As the Foreign Secretary said, 20 years is tantamount to a life sentence for a 78 year-old man. The Prime Minister raised this case with President Xi on his recent visit to Beijing. Following the sentencing, we will rapidly engage further. We are focusing on the action that will help Jimmy Lai the most: sustained engagement with China, making our case consistently and directly.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. As she says, Jimmy Lai is 78 years of age, which means either he is going to die in prison or he will be virtually 100 by the time he comes out—not for terrorism, violence or killing people but for defending freedom of speech and indeed the democratic undertakings that we thought were given in 1997. Will my noble friend ensure that the Government of China know that there will be consequences for this imprisonment?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes. I thank my noble friend for putting it in that way, and I agree with her. The UK will continue to stand up for the people of Hong Kong. That is why the Home Secretary today announced an expansion of eligibility for the Hong Kong BNO route. Jimmy Lai should never have been imprisoned in the first place and he should be released immediately.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Chinese courts are totally under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, so I do not believe this timing to be accidental. It comes after the Government have gifted them their shiny new embassy, which then allowed the PM’s visit last week. He quite rightly raised Jimmy’s case during that trip, and this is now the response of the Chinese Government: a 20-year sentence, which I think represents a massive slap in the face. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on whether there will be consequences, the Minister replied yes. Can she tell us what those consequences will be?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I explained just now about the BNO passport holders—if the noble Lord knew anything about this at all, he would understand that that will be absolutely opposed by China—so we have already done that. We will continue to make the case, and we now have a better ability to do that than we had previously. I reiterate that the issue around the embassy was completely unconnected from this issue, and I remind him that formal diplomatic consent for the embassy was given in 2018 by the former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, Sebastien Lai, Jimmy Lai’s son, whom many in the House know, said this morning that he had not spoken to his father for five years and that he regarded this sentence—20 years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has said—on a 78 year-old British citizen as a death sentence. As we think about Jimmy Lai and the other pro-democracy advocates who are also incarcerated in CCP prisons inside Hong Kong, our thoughts and prayers will be with them and with his family. His only crime is journalism; his only crime is a belief in democracy; his only crime is free speech. Can the Minister tell us how we intend to co-ordinate international pressure among like-minded democracies to ensure that this travesty, which has been committed in the name of justice, is exposed for what it is and put right?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is outrageous that Jimmy Lai has not had contact from his family—that is inhumane. We continue to argue that he should have that contact and consular assistance. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio about this, and noble Lords will know that President Trump intends to visit China later this year, so we will continue to raise this with all our allies and partners.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Government are focusing on the action that will help Jimmy Lai the most; I have to say it is not easy to feel optimistic, given the progress made so far. Can the Minister bear in mind that we are a huge market for the Chinese? There is a trade deficit of over £40 billion for its goods, which are being sold virtually frictionless into our country. That is an area we should be much closer to leveraging, because all else seems to have failed.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
How we use our trade relationship to exert this kind of pressure needs really careful consideration. It would be very easy to take measures that harm us but have no impact at all. We need to deploy those levers that we think will be most effective. This is a devastating day, with Jimmy Lai having been sentenced in the way that he has, but I can assure the noble Lord that we will consider every means that we need to.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, while I share the outrage expressed across the House about the prosecution and now the sentence, will my noble friend the Minister consider the possibility of a prisoner transfer? I understand we have some prison transfer arrangements with Hong Kong. Obviously, that is a transfer of a sentenced prisoner, but the priority must surely be to bring Mr Lai to the UK.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our position is that Jimmy Lai should be released, and I would not want to make any comments on an issue as sensitive as that without knowing his family’s position. I understand why the noble Baroness makes that suggestion, but it really is up to his family to determine whether they think that is something they would like the Government to pursue. He should be released.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I want to pick up on the strand of questioning from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about concerted and collaborative international action. The noble Baroness will know that the previous Government set up the Media Freedom Coalition with 51 members, including the likes of Canada as a co-chair. Surely, now is the time not just to inject new energy into that coalition to issue a statement from those 51 countries collectively but also to recognise that representations individually from each of the 51 countries would be a very powerful diplomatic tool to exercise at this time.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is an excellent suggestion. We are committed to the coalition, and I will take that back to the department. I thank the noble Lord for his continued constructive engagement with this.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Can the Minister assure us that the Government will send a message to the Chinese authorities that no senior Chinese officeholder will be welcome in this country until conditions for Jimmy Lai are improved or, preferably, until he is released?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
He should be released and we should not have to take the steps that the noble Baroness suggests. On those sorts of issues we need to take a judgment based on our best understanding at the time of what would be in Jimmy Lai’s best interest. I do not think stopping all engagement would be conducive to release. My sense is that we have only just started engaging with the Chinese. We need perhaps to use the relationship we have already started to build and exert that. I understand why the noble Baroness makes that suggestion; we all want to see him released and are all considering every lever that we have in order to secure that.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said that the decision on the Chinese embassy was an unrelated issue. Does this not reveal a gulf in understanding, about which we should be very worried? Nothing, in the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party, is unrelated and if we are to negotiate successfully on the world stage, it is crucial that we understand the world as seen through the eyes of our adversaries. It does not sound at the moment as if we do.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I understand the way the CCP might see planning decisions in this country, but we operate under a legal framework and have to stick to the law. We cannot make exceptions just because it happens to be an application by a foreign Government.
Lord Swire (Con)
The Minister is quite right to be sensitive in the way she is talking this afternoon. These things are listened into carefully by China. When I was the Minister with responsibility for that part of the world, we supported the continuation of British judges on the Hong Kong circuit while there was a vestige of democracy in that place. Is it the case, though, that there are still two remaining non-permanent judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Neuberger and Lord Hoffman? Are they still serving there, and what pressure can the Government bring to bear on them to let them know that, on a black day such as this, it sends a very mixed message to Beijing that we still have two British judges operating over there, if we do?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As far as I understand it, they are still serving and there is a clear view taken by this House and others about that decision to continue to serve. The Government have not put pressure on them, because that is not the way we treat judges, but given the view that comes from this House and has been expressed and explained here, I think they could do worse than to listen to what the noble Lord just said.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, given that Jimmy Lai is a British citizen and that the Chinese have refused any consular visits for well over two years, was this raised in China last week when the Prime Minister was there, and will the Government redouble their efforts to get consular visits following the announcement of the result?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes, Jimmy Lai should have consular visits. He should have access to the ability to practise his religious beliefs; he should also have medical access and access to his family. Yes, we did raise this and will continue to.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her measured response to the real concern shown by this House, which should be conveyed to the Chinese authorities. Does that not make all the more regrettable the intervention from the Opposition Front Bench seeking once again to breathe life into this ridiculous campaign about the size of the Chinese embassy? Diplomatic relations do not ever imply approval. Countries have embassies; big countries have big embassies. That is just a fact and we ought to get on with it, and therefore not get diverted from the important issues being raised here today.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think that is right. My noble friend has a great deal of experience. I think he was a Minister at the department previously and at the MoD as well. He knows what he is talking about, and I take his contribution in the manner that he gives it.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. In light of this outrageous sentence, will the Government get on with activating Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act? I remind the Minister that that section requires English universities to declare their dependency on foreign funding, and was included in the Act to enable the Office for Students to monitor foreign funding in light of free speech concerns. This section, which was not activated by the Education Secretary when she entered office—she revoked the commencement order—seems particularly urgent in light of not only this outrageous sentence but the recent remarks by the head of MI6 about the extent of Chinese influence in British universities.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have recently introduced many measures around higher education that would be relevant to that which the noble Lord outlined to us. I do not know whether we need to activate that particular section in the Act, but we are alive to the concerns that he raises and the Department for Education is working with the higher education sector to address them.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, two weeks ago the Minister’s colleagues in the Foreign Office summoned the Chinese ambassador for a discussion. She was not able to tell us what happened, because she was not in the room; will she ensure that the Chinese ambassador is summoned first thing tomorrow morning to a meeting that she will be able to attend? Can she then report back on what was said, how the Chinese ambassador reacted and what this Government are going to do if that reaction is unsatisfactory?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have good news for the noble and learned Lord. Since he asked that question—and he is right that I did not answer him at the time, because I was not at that meeting—a read-out has since been published, and he can read it at his leisure.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before the Prime Minister went, many of us felt that this had been discussed in the back channels somehow, and that he would succeed in obtaining the release of Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister is now apologising for many things, but has he apologised to the family? He went to China and we spent all this money and we had all those resources out there, but we did not bring back the one British citizen who is being held in solitary confinement.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is not how it works: I wish that we could secure everything that we want, and give nothing that anybody else wants, ahead of any diplomatic engagement. For many years there has been no engagement and we are playing catch up: we must start building a relationship now in order to get the things that we need for this country, one of them being the release of Jimmy Lai. We will not give up. The fact that there has been one visit does not set us back. We continue to make the case and we continue to argue for his release. That, I believe, is the right way to go about this.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, before dealing formally with the amendments at Third Reading of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, I will make a brief statement regarding legislative consent on this Bill.
During its development and parliamentary passage, the Secretary of State for Education has regularly corresponded and engaged with her devolved government counterparts, and this has been supported by continued engagement between officials. As a result, I can confirm that a legislative consent Motion has been successfully agreed in the Scottish Parliament and that the Senedd is in the process of agreeing a suitable date for the debate. This is to ensure that there is time to consider and discuss amendments that have been tabled and accepted by Your Lordships’ House on Report that also engage the consent process. Owing to the date that these amendments were tabled, it has not been possible for a further supplementary legislative consent Motion to be secured by the time of this statement. However, the Welsh Government have recommended that the Senedd gives consent to the Report amendments, and are committed to progressing the supplementary LCM as swiftly as possible.
More broadly, I am grateful to Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for their positive and collaborative approach towards this legislation. We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved Governments for the remainder of the Bill’s passage as we look forward to its implementation. I beg to move that this Bill now be read a third time.
Clause 38: School uniforms: limits on branded items
Amendment 1
Lord Storey
Lord Storey (LD)
I beg to move Amendment 1, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mohammed.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise that Amendment 1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is a tidying-up amendment, consequential to his previous amendment on school uniform. While I am sure that the debate on the wider issue of school uniform will continue in the other place, we recognise that this amendment simply corrects a now redundant reference created by his prior amendment. For this reason, we are prepared to accept it at this stage, so that his proposed amendments can be considered together at the next stage.
I turn to the government amendments. Amendment 2 provides that regulations made by Welsh Ministers in relation to the mandatory meeting scheme for parents wishing to withdraw their child from school for home education will be subject to the Senedd’s approval procedure. This is an important and necessary correction which brings Wales into alignment with the position in England, where regulations made by the Secretary of State are subject to the affirmative procedure. As the Bill currently stands, no parliamentary procedure is attached to the Welsh regulations, and it is essential that this gap is addressed to ensure proper scrutiny and accountability.
Amendment 3 introduces legal definitions of “child” and “carer” for Wales. This is a small but important correction to ensure clarity in the provision and enable Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State to require local authorities to record whether a child is a young carer on children not in school registers. As we discussed, young carers can shoulder responsibilities that impact their education. Understanding when a child is in that position could enable authorities to provide the right support. This amendment does not alter the policy intent of the Bill; it simply ensures that the Welsh legislative framework is complete and coherent. I trust that the House will agree that correcting this oversight strengthens the Bill and supports young carers.
Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 concern academy trust inspections. They make a small drafting adjustment to move the parliamentary procedure for regulations made under new Chapter 2A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to Section 182 of that Act, which already governs regulations made under the Act. The previous drafting inserted a bespoke section dealing with procedure for regulations into Chapter 2A, which conflicted with the existing Section 182. These amendments resolve a minor technical issue in the legislation, make no policy change and do not alter the level of parliamentary scrutiny that regulations will be subject to.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
(a) in subsection (2A), after “section” insert “434B,”;(b) in subsection (2BB), after “section” insert “434B or”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under new section 434B of the Education Act 1996 (inserted by clause 39) to be subject to the Senedd approval procedure.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
(i) in the case of a child in England, the child is a young carer within the meaning of section 17ZA(3) of the Children Act 1989, as qualified by section 17ZB(3) of that Act, or(ii) in the case of a child in Wales, the child is a carer (within the meaning of “child” and “carer” given by section 3 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow information about whether the child is a carer (within the meanings given by section 3 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014) to be prescribed as information that may be included in the register of children not in school.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(A1) The Education and Inspections Act 2006 is amended in accordance with subsections (1) and (1A).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendments to clause 59, page 131, line 2, page 137, lines 24 to 34, and page 139, line 20, would move provisions about parliamentary procedure for regulations under Chapter 2A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (clause 59) to section 182 of that Act (regulations).
Member's explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 59, page 131, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 59, page 131, line 1.
“(1A) In section 182 (parliamentary control of orders and regulations), in subsection (3), after paragraph (aza) insert—“(azb) regulations under section 122A(2) (power to exempt Academy proprietors from regular inspection),(azc) regulations under section 122B(2)(f) (power to make provision about content of inspection report),(azd) regulations under section 122F(4) (power to make provision about content of inspection framework),”.”Member's explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 59, page 131, line 1.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude to your Lordships’ House for the careful and constructive scrutiny of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. This Bill brings forward once-in-a-generation and much-needed reforms to our children’s social care and education systems, and will deliver tangible changes for young people. It delivers on manifesto commitments, including free breakfast clubs in primary schools and limits on branded uniform items, as well as raising standards in every classroom, ensuring fair access to good local schools and strengthening support for the most vulnerable children.
The opportunity to bring about meaningful, lasting change in the lives of children and families through legislation of this kind is rare and it has been a privilege to take this Bill through. I am grateful to all Members who brought their significant expertise to debates, with contributions drawing on backgrounds in education, children’s social care, health, data and local government, which have enriched our discussions and strengthened the legislation. Over Second Reading, 12 days in Committee and 5 days on Report, many noble Lords have spoken powerfully on behalf of children, as well as parents, carers, teachers and professionals working on the front lines, and that perspective has played a key role in refining the legislation.
I thank all noble Lords with whom I have engaged inside and outside the Chamber. Over the course of the Bill’s passage through this House, the Government had over 60 engagements with Peers and many more with external bodies. Noble Lords, including the Opposition Front Benches, have been exceptionally generous with their time, expertise and scrutiny, and those contributions have been valuable. I express my thanks in particular to my noble friend Lady Blake for taking the Bill through this House alongside me. Her support, expertise and unwavering dedication to children’s social care and education have been evident at every stage. I am thankful also to my noble friends Lady Anderson and Lady Twycross for their support in Committee. I am also grateful to the officials who have supported me throughout its passage, including my private office, the Bill team and the policy, strategy and legal teams. I extend my gratitude to the Whips’ team, parliamentary business and legislation team, and Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. This Bill has been vast in scope and, with 875 amendments debated, logistically complex.
Finally, I thank the clerks, doorkeepers and staff of the House. This Bill has frequently been debated late at night or until the early hours of the morning, and I appreciate their work greatly. I am confident that this legislation will greatly improve the lives of children and young people, and I look forward to further consideration as it moves to the other place. I beg to move.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I echo the Minister’s words in thanking all Members of the House who have been involved—some more than others—in the passage of this Bill and for the quality of scrutiny it received. I also thank the Ministers, their private offices and the Bill team for their time and engagement over the course of the Bill and the very detailed correspondence they sent us. I thank Beatrice Hughes and Dan Cohen in our research team for their support throughout the course of the Bill, which feels like quite a long time, and of course my noble friend the Earl of Effingham for his invaluable support.
However, if this Bill had been a weather forecast, I think it might have been for the west coast of Scotland in November. It has felt at times quite depressing, with a lot of rain and clouds, and only rare glimpses of sunshine. I say that because I fear that, in Part 1 of the Bill, the Government never really went to the root of the very real problem they were seeking to address. Conversely, in Part 2, we heard again and again the question of what problem the Government were actually trying to solve. The Minister talks about meaningful and lasting change. All of us in your Lordships’ House hope that she right, but I gently suggest that that is much more likely to be the case if the Government accept our amendments when it reaches the other place.
When we think about our debates on this Bill, Part 1, rather than trying fundamentally to address the shortage of foster and kinship carers in this country, focuses on reorganisation and regulation. Also, in Part 2, rather than learning from the successes of our free schools and academies and embedding those in the school system, the Government have sought to centralise and micromanage.
We had some glimpses of sunshine in the Bill. Certainly, working together across all Benches in this House has been an absolute privilege and a pleasure, and has unquestionably improved the Bill. For me, bright spots in Part 1 included tightening the involvement of health as a partner in the commissioning for children in receipt of a deprivation of liberty order, and in the role of the regional commissioning co-operatives. Another bright spot was requiring the Government to have clear evidence of impact before rolling out the multiagency child protection teams nationally.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will make a few comments and express my thanks to everybody involved in the Bill, particularly the Minister, who was always fully on her brief, who was prepared to listen—always— and to meet quite regularly, and who was a model as to how Ministers should take the House with them. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, who would look at you as though she agreed with everything you said, making you feel important. She often did not, but she actually looked at you and her eyes bore down on you.
I also thank all Members who got involved. It is a joy to be involved in a Bill on which we might have differences of opinion, but through which we all want to make a difference, from wherever we come. If I may say so, it is good to work on a school Bill which actually finishes and is not cut short mid-amendment.
Our team was one person, mainly: Ulysse Abbate. Ulysse was recently appointed to our team. He rushed around and was just an absolute joy to work with. In fact, he could have taken my job quite easily: he knew more about it than I did at the end of it.
I thank the Bill team and all those Members who spoke. I particularly thank Minister MacAlister for meeting me on two occasions. I also thank Minister Smith’s staff, who made a wonderful, fantastic team. The Bill will make a difference to the lives of children and parents; there are no two ways about that. I found Part 1 to be an amazing change from where we are.
As for Part 2, some people might argue that we did not go far enough, particularly on academisation. Some might argue that we went too far. Perhaps, therefore, the Government got it absolutely right. Personally, for me, that moment of sunshine—this is like “The Sound of Music”—was actually after 10 years. When this issue was first raised, I was jeered; I was told I was completely mad. It has taken us 10 years to get the issue of home education addressed; to reach an absolute understanding of how important it is to get home educators in the right frame. Their value is enormous.
As an example of the commitment of this House, on the fifth day, I think, we got to 11.30 at night, and normally at 11.30 at night, people’s energy levels sink—but did they? No, everybody suddenly sprang to life and there was renewed energy, and we finished at 1.30 in the morning. So that, again, shows the commitment.
Finally, I thank my colleagues on these Benches who worked with me: the new Lib Dem education spokesperson—my noble friend Lord Mohammed—and my noble friends Lord Addington and Lady Tyler, who made a lot of sacrifices to be here. My noble friend had paid for a very expensive fine arts course, and she gave up a number of sessions so that she could speak, with real vigour and determination, on those issues. Again, I thank everybody who made a real difference to the lives of children and families.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I always like to bring both the energy and the sunshine, and on that basis, I thank all noble Lords, and I beg to move.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the rationale behind restricting the power to order offenders to attend a sentencing hearing to only the Crown Courts.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments in my name relates to Clauses 1 and 2. I start by observing that we on these Benches are broadly supportive of most of the provisions in the Bill. Many of the amendments tabled in my name, save one or two exceptions, have the aim of strengthening the Bill’s existing provisions rather than removing them. The use of reasonable force to compel attendance at sentencing hearings was a measure first proposed by the previous Conservative Government in the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell at the Dissolution of Parliament. It is, therefore, a policy that we on these Benches strongly support.
As the Government have consistently said, victims and their families deserve to see justice done. They deserve to hear directly those remarks which explain the court’s reasons for the sentences that are being imposed, and they deserve the chance to face their offenders and have their own voices heard in open court. In that spirit, many of the amendments in my name probe details of Clauses 1 and 2, and question how they would operate in practice. These clauses set out the statutory powers for judges to order an offender to attend court for their sentencing hearing, by reasonable force if necessary. As we have heard previously, offenders who refuse to attend their sentencing hearing thereby insult their victims. Offenders should not be able to undermine the final moment of justice in such a way. The amendments in this group ask the important question of why the Government are not taking this opportunity to expand the applicability of Clauses 1 and 2, given their upcoming and substantial court reforms.
I understand that the application only to the Crown Court in these clauses is the same as the approach taken in our Criminal Justice Bill, but I point out a crucial difference between the positions of the last Government and this Government. When this clause was originally proposed, there were no plans to alter the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts. However, this Government are now proposing to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to three years, thereby shifting a large number of cases away from the Crown Court towards magistrates. As such, magistrates will hear a much greater proportion of increasingly serious cases, which surely throws into question the application and scope of Clauses 1 and 2.
In fact, this is a different contextual background from not only that of the previous Government but that of this Government. The Bill was introduced in the other place before the Government announced their court reforms. So, as published, Clauses 1 and 2 would have permitted the compulsory attendance of an offender for sentences between one year and three years. Now, however, if the Bill is unamended, and the Government’s court reforms go ahead, a person convicted in a magistrates’ court for an offence that would have previously been heard only before a Crown Court will not be required to attend their sentencing hearing.
If it was previously the Government’s view that offenders facing between one and three years’ imprisonment should be subject to compulsory attendance at their sentencing hearing, why have they not made the necessary amendments to the Bill? Perhaps that is because they have changed their mind, in which case the Minister should be clear about that. If it is the Government’s position that the scope of offenders who should be compelled to attend their sentencing hearing should remain the same as when the Bill was introduced, they must surely accept these amendments. The question that then arises is: why stop at the Crown Court, when extending these powers to other courts could make a meaningful and positive difference to the victims of other crimes?
We should not dismiss the experience of victims of, for example, burglary. Requiring an offender to attend their sentencing hearing may give those victims just as much closure. Conversely, an offender refusing to attend could cause just as much insult, if this series of amendments is not accepted. If anything, by reserving these powers for the Crown Court only, we risk playing down the significance of other crimes by signalling that offenders do not have to face their victims. Extending these powers to other courts would not only provide greater consistency but show that no crime is more permissible than another, or that one victim’s experience is not more or less important than another’s. If the rationale is one of practicality or resource, the Government should make that case. If, however, there is no compelling reason, whether it be legal, procedural or financial, the Bill presents an ideal opportunity to address a gap, rather than requiring further primary legislation later on down the line after court reform has been implemented.
If the Government’s intention is to strengthen victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system, surely consistency must be at the heart of that ambition. Victims do not experience crime through the lens of jurisdictional boundaries. They experience the indignity of being wronged and they rightly expect the justice system to deal with offenders in a manner that recognises that harm each time, regardless of which court is sentencing. It is for these reasons that I believe the Government should revisit the decision to confine these powers solely to the Crown Court; otherwise, the Bill risks creating a two-tier system, where the victims of some crimes are afforded the closure of seeing justice done in person, while others are denied it for reasons that are administrative rather than principled.
I would be grateful if the Minister could also clarify what consideration has been given to victims’ expectations and their confidence in the justice process when limiting these powers to the Crown Court. I hope that the Minister will reflect on these points and consider whether there is scope for a more ambitious and comprehensive approach. I look forward to her response and to working to strengthen this legislation for the benefit of all victims. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will make a brief observation about the amendment. The exercise of this power by a judge is never going to be easy, and we should be very cautious about the way this is introduced. Let us first see how it works with people who have the experience of handling what, in the circumstances, will be a very difficult position before we move on to doing it in all courts. This power must be confined to those cases where it is really necessary, because I think that a number of us who have had experience of this would be very worried indeed if this power came to be routinely deployed.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord is probing at this stage and I am with him in wanting to see procedures from the point of view of victims, but I simply do not know whether magistrates have the same powers as Crown Court judges. When we debated this issue before, we were told about the powers that judges have now, without the need for an extension.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, came quite close to my question. Magistrates come from a very different background. Do they currently have the same powers as the judges who will be covered by this legislation, quite apart from the powers that are given by the Bill, in dealing with recalcitrant—if that is the right word—defendants?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for the way in which he has explained these amendments. I am also extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for injecting a note of caution and to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for injecting a note of questioning about the proposed amendments.
In their explanatory statement, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, state that the amendments in this group probe
“the rationale behind restricting the power to order offenders to attend a sentencing hearing to only the Crown Courts”.
The noble and learned Lord explained why he suggests that there is no difference, for the purpose of this power, between the Crown Courts and the magistrates’ courts.
I should make it clear that we on these Benches start from the position that defendants should be obliged to attend court for their sentencing hearings. But the fact that they are obliged to attend court does not lead to the conclusion that the courts ought to have the power to get them to court however much they wish to resist.
It is, of course, important from the victims’ point of view—this is a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made—that the defendants who have committed offences against them are in court for the occasion when they are brought to justice. It is appropriate, therefore, that in the right cases, the court should have the power to order them to do so.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out what a serious power this is. It is particularly a serious power, as I will come to say, because the use of force is sanctioned to get defendants to court. We have heard tell, in the press and in the House of Commons, from some of the wilder speeches—if I may put it that way—of, in effect, the court having the power to order that offenders be brought to court by considerable force and in chains. I am quite clear that that is not the way the Bill puts it; it puts it in terms of the use of force being reasonable, proportionate and appropriate. Nevertheless, it is a very serious power.
It is also important from the offenders’ point of view that they should come to court, first, to hear what the court says about their offences as well as what their counsel and the prosecution say about their offences. It is also important because their attending court and listening, hopefully with some care, to what goes on at their sentencing hearing may be taken as a sign of their understanding of the import of the hearing. If an order is made, the breach of such an order to attend court for a sentencing hearing is a sign of a lack of remorse on the part of the defendant. A lack of remorse will usually involve a court treating a defendant more severely than it might treat a defendant who does show remorse for the offences that they have committed and an understanding of the impact of those offences on the victims.
The scheme of this Bill is to bring in a very strong regime of compulsion with a specific incorporation of provisions about contempt of court and significantly, as I adumbrated, about the right to use force to bring defendants to court who are unwilling and refuse to attend their sentencing hearings. The conditions for the new regime, as set out in the Bill, are that the defendant has been convicted and is in custody awaiting sentencing by the Crown Court. That brings into play the kind of reservation that the noble and learned Lord spoke about. This new regime is designed to deal with serious offences. A third condition is that the offender has refused or is likely to refuse to attend the sentencing hearing.
It follows that the code for punishment for contempt should be confined to adult offenders. The amendments seek to make this procedure and all its features applicable to a wider group of offenders, and to magistrates’ courts as well as Crown Courts. I ask the Minister and the noble and learned Lord when they close how far a change to include magistrates’ courts will help victims. One can see how it is justified and might help victims in serious cases, but I question how far the use of force will ever be in the public interest. One must question the purpose of the use of force. It could be twofold. It could be to force offenders to face up to their offences and help them to avoid reoffending. It could be to help the victims by letting them see that those who have committed offences against them are being brought to justice. There may be force in that.
However, there is also a risk, which may be important, of forced attendance becoming a means for defendants to get publicity for themselves, their offences and their resistance to justice: to portray themselves as public martyrs and, in some cases, to make political gestures that could be thoroughly undesirable. If these orders became the norm, those dangers would be real. If it is to have a positive effect, this power is likely to be much more effective for serious cases in the Crown Court than it is for cases in the magistrates’ court. Of course we take the point that the scope of hearings in magistrates’ courts has been increased over what it was before the distinction was changed. Nevertheless, I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response on the distinction. Our position at the moment is that the distinction is plainly justified.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, explores the reasons for limiting this power to the Crown Court.
Before I begin, I am sure that the whole Committee will wish to join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Henriett Szucs, Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena, and Olivia Pratt-Korbel—whose mother and aunt sit below the Bar today. Their tireless campaigning has brought about this change. They have persuaded the Government that when a cowardly offender refuses to attend court, it causes anger and upset, which can feel like a final insult to victims and their families, who have sat through the trial waiting for the moment when they can tell the world—and, importantly, the offender—about the impact their crimes have had. Many of them want the opportunity to look the offender in the eye as he or she hears about the effects of what they have done.
Offenders are expected to attend court for sentence, and the overwhelming majority do so. Because magistrates’ courts hear less serious cases, offenders are more likely to be on bail, and where an offender is on bail, the courts have powers to compel attendance by issuing a warrant. When a warrant is issued, the defendant is brought before the court in custody for the warrant to be executed, and the judge can add an additional sentence for the offence of failing to surrender to bail, which will appear on their record in future.
However, in the Crown Court, which deals only with the top level of serious crime, offenders are much more often remanded in custody, and so court powers to get them physically into court are more restricted. That is why the Government have acted by bringing forward this legislation which gives three powers that can be used in relation to recalcitrant—that is the right word, as used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—offenders: first, authorising the use of reasonable force, except in the case of children, because we are a civilised country, and this Government do not believe in using force on children; secondly, for offenders who still refuse to attend, or for those who are disruptive once they are there, the power to add an additional sentence; and, thirdly, the power to impose the same kinds of prison sanctions as a prison governor can impose.
However, getting an unwilling and often disruptive offender to court is by no means straightforward, and it inevitably causes a delay to the sentencing hearing for the following reasons. At the outset, the judge will have to hear submissions from prosecution and defence counsel, as well as possibly from the prison and escort staff, as to whether the offender has a reasonable excuse for non-attendance and, if not, whether to exercise these new statutory powers. Then the judge will need to give a ruling, giving reasons as to why, in the circumstances of that particular case, it would be necessary, reasonable and proportionate to use reasonable force to get the offender to court.
Then the prison and transport staff will have to go and get the prisoner from the place, whether it is a prison or a court cell, which they are refusing to leave. The prison and transport staff will then have to use their judgment as to how best to execute the judge’s ruling, including what degree of force to use. Finally, if the offender is forced into court and is then disruptive, this is likely to cause more delay while the judge decides what to do next.
There is probably one thing we can all agree on: the criminal courts do not need any additional delays. Judges will need to weigh up carefully whether and when to use their new powers. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of the inherent powers that courts already have. Both the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts have inherent powers to deal with a non-attendance as a contempt of court, but these are used sparingly because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out very powerfully, it is far from straightforward.
For these reasons, the Government’s view is that this new legislation is appropriately restricted to Crown Court sentencing. It represents a reasonable and proportionate response to the problem, because it is the Crown Court where these powers are needed. Operational arrangements are already in place for producing the most serious and violent offenders at the Crown Court, managing the risks that that involves and, where necessary, using proportionate force. So, for these reasons, we consider that expanding the power to magistrates’ courts might create legal and operational uncertainty and unnecessary delay to court proceedings. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to the debate, and indeed the observations with regard to the timing of any extension of these powers.
I would observe, with respect to the submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that if these provisions help victims in the Crown Court, it is not clear why they would not help victims in magistrates’ courts.
The Minister talked at length of the difficulty of implementation with regard to these provisions, but that would apply equally in the Crown Court and the magistrates’ courts. Indeed, the appearance of serious offenders in the magistrates’ courts will of course be an immediate development with the changes under the Sentencing Act, which extend the sentencing powers of magistrates to three years.
Lord Sandhurst
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the role of the victim in the exercise the power to order offenders to attend a sentencing hearing under clause 1.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, seek to ensure that the Bill lives up to its purpose in the name of victims.
Clauses 1 and 2 set out how offenders can in future be compelled to attend their sentencing hearing. But, as currently drafted, they contain no mechanism to involve the victims directly in the process. This is contrary to the Bill’s purpose to make provision for an enhanced experience for victims within the criminal justice system. Indeed, it is unclear in what situation a judge would be minded to make such an order without the request of the prosecution and what the criteria for such a decision would be in that instance.
If, in the absence of a request by the prosecution, the court’s power to compel attendance is not automatic, I look to the Minister to say why that is the case. Further, I ask her to clarify whether published guidance will be provided to judges as to what factors should be considered when making an order, beyond the practical considerations of officer safety.
The amendments which we advance, on the other hand, would overcome some of our concerns. They would enable the victims to have a say and to request that the offender be ordered to attend. As the Minister set out at Second Reading, the reasoning behind this Bill’s provisions is to compel attendance in the first place and to provide an opportunity for victims to look the defendant in the eye and explain exactly how a crime has affected them. The sentencing remarks are often their last opportunity for this. Why, then, should victims not be given a say whereby they can expressly request that an offender is ordered to attend? This would both give the victim a greater voice and give the judge greater clarity on how to proceed.
The second two amendments in this group, Amendments 4 and 9, would also require the courts to consult the victims if the judge is minded not to make an order compelling an offender to attend sentencing. If a victim is deceased or incapacitated mentally or physically, our amendments would allow family members or another appropriate representative to be consulted in their place. Justice should not stop when the victim cannot speak for themselves. This would put victims at the centre of the process. It would ensure that such decisions are taken not behind closed doors but in consultation with those victims whom these decisions affect.
We cannot treat these issues as merely procedural. For a victim, a sentencing hearing can be a profoundly significant moment, and it is an opportunity for closure. I am sure that the last thing noble Lords would want is for a victim to feel disconnected, sidelined or unheard by the courts in the run-up to a hearing. This amendment would also give judges a chance to explain and justify their decisions. If the offender will not be in attendance or the judge will not exercise their powers to compel attendance, victims or their representatives deserve an explanation of why that is the case. This should happen both where a victim has made a request for an offender to be ordered to attend and where they have not. We do not consider this to be a heavy burden on the courts. It should instead be considered best practice. These steps would ensure that the judge’s decision-making process is consistently transparent. It would make our system more accessible and demonstrate to victims that they are a priority, not an afterthought, particularly at the point of sentencing.
This Bill was presented to Parliament as an opportunity to address these very concerns. Our amendments would fill real gaps in drafting. I am sure the Minister will want to reflect carefully on them. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords to this debate. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I shall make two observations. The first relates to the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in relation to how judges will exercise these powers and whether guidance will be given. No doubt the Lady Chief Justice will consider whether to give guidance, or such guidance might be given by practice direction or be the subject of discussion at the Judicial College, but the handling of this is entirely for the judiciary. It is difficult enough, and it certainly would not be in any way appropriate for the Ministry of Justice to give guidance. It seems to me that the exercise of this judicial power must be for the judicial branch of the state and it alone—unless, of course, Parliament in its infinite wisdom decides that it wants to set down the criteria. I strongly urge Members not to do that.
The second relates to a more practical point, and that is the ability of the victim to intervene in the decision and to be able to make a request. It is sometimes forgotten that a transformation occurred during the 2000s and the next decade in the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with victims. There was a time when the victim was regarded as peripheral to the way in which the courts operated and to matters that had to be taken into account. That position changed remarkably and for the better. I think it is appreciated that the judicial power to have someone brought into court has to be exercised with the greatest degree of thought. If the Crown Prosecution Service were to request this to happen, I would be astounded if it had not consulted the victim. In my experience, that is what often happens in these difficult circumstances. There is a discussion as to the best way of proceeding and it is very important that this is approached in that sort of way.
If the victim was to be allowed to make the request directly, this raises the question as to how. Is this to be done in open court with the discussion of the various issues? Is it not best left to the wisdom of the Crown prosecutor and the judge’s ability to ask questions as to the victim’s views? It seems to me this is a much more efficacious way of dealing with the matter rather than bringing the victim in personally—because there is no suggestion of a victim’s advocate for this—to what will be, if this power is to be exercised, an occasion of great difficulty. The last thing anyone wants to happen is to provide secondary victimisation by an awful scene in court. I urge the Government to exercise very considerable caution in considering this amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, once again I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his note of caution about Amendment 3—and Amendment 8 in the case of service personnel—which would allow victims to request that an order be made. I completely agree with him that it is a matter for the judiciary to exercise its discretion as to whether orders are made. I am not entirely sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, took into account quite how difficult it is going to be to make these orders. I suggest that the caution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about bringing the victim in as effectively a party to such an application is a point well made. But I accept that it is right that the victim’s voice should be heard. I also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that the victim’s voice in court now is heard in a way that it certainly was not decades and even years ago. But a formal position whereby the victim was entitled to make a request is probably undesirable, though it is quite clear that the victim’s voice should be heard and that guidance to and from the judiciary should reflect that.
Amendments 4 and 9 are effectively seeking a very serious conflict:
“If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim, or, where the victim is deceased or is unable to be consulted … a family member or other appropriate representative”.
That would put the victim in a wholly invidious position of effectively making the victim compulsorily a party to the application for an order. That is likely to stoke up hostility between the victim and the offender, which we are trying to avoid or at least reduce, and even possibly between the victim and the court, which would be a thoroughly undesirable position. Far better, I suggest, to leave it to the judge to decide how the victim’s views should be sought and taken into account, without imposing any duty on the court to consult the victim at any stage. It would be much better for the Bill to remain silent on how the victim’s views should be sought, but the expectation will be that they will be sought, and I have no doubt that that is how the judiciary would approach this exercise.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 3, 4, 8 and 9, once again in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seek to give a victim or a bereaved family a defined role in the process of ordering someone to attend their sentencing hearing.
Victims have been at the forefront of this measure. It is precisely because an offender’s refusal to attend sentencing can compound the trauma for victims that we are giving judges an express power to order attendance, building on the judge’s existing common-law powers. Whether to order attendance must remain a judicial assessment of what is in the interests of justice. It will be made case by case, with the judge retaining the ultimate discretion having considered all the circumstances.
As I said when responding to the previous group, we anticipate that judges who are considering making an attendance order will hear submissions from both prosecution and defence. Prosecuting counsel will inevitably be expected to advance the views of the victim and the family, having sought them beforehand and having asked them; I can tell the Committee from my own experience that if they have not spoken to the victim or the victim’s family, the judge is likely to tell them to go away and do so—so it happens now. If there is no victim personal statement, the judge will, in my experience, inevitably say, “Why isn’t there one? Does the victim want to make one?” I can tell the Committee, again from my own experience, that the views of victims and their families are given great weight by the judge.
That said, we are anxious not to create unrealistic expectations in the minds of victims or their families that they would have the right to require the offender’s attendance at court. That could lead to some difficult experiences for victims and their families. What if, for example, the judge were to find that the offender had a reasonable excuse for non-attendance but the family of the victim disagreed? Plainly, the judge’s decision would have to prevail, but at what cost to the family if they had believed that they had the right to require attendance? We do not want to make sentencing hearings any more stressful or distressing for victims than they already are.
Judges must have the discretion to do what is right based on the facts in front of them and the submissions that they hear. There will be cases where it is not in the best interests of victims or families for the offender to be in court, including the occasions—thankfully rare—when the offender is likely to be disruptive or disrespectful and cause further distress.
To place a statutory duty on the court to consult a victim whenever an order is not made risks creating additional delay at the point of sentence. What, for example, if the victim’s family have chosen not to attend court, yet there is a mandatory statutory duty upon the judge to find out and consult them? As I have already said, the one thing that the Crown Courts do not need is any additional delay. In addition, such a statutory requirement risks placing an additional unnecessary emotional burden on victims and families.
The Bill preserves judicial discretion. We expect judges to take account of all relevant circumstances, including victims’ interests, and we are confident that they will do so because that is what they already do. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to this short but thoughtful debate, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. This debate has underlined how crucial these provisions are to the overall purpose of the Bill, why they warrant close attention and the balance that may have to be struck. We must, of course, get this right.
The Bill was brought forward with the express purpose of strengthening victims’ rights and improving their experience of the criminal justice system. But, as drafted, if we are not careful, victims will remain on the sidelines of a key decision-making process: whether an order should be made to compel an offender to attend their sentencing hearing. If the Bill does not allow victims to make explicit requests for compelled attendance then it will fall short of its own purpose and logic.
Notwithstanding the Minister’s assurance as to what happens in practice so far as the CPS is concerned—or happened when she was sitting in the Crown Court—surely it should be made obligatory for the CPS to ask the victim whether they wish the defendant to be compelled to attend and, if in receipt of a positive answer, to pass that view to the court. It will then be for the judge.
The current position is that judges have discretion to use their powers to compel attendance, even without a request from the prosecution, but we suggest that it is not clear when judges would exercise that power. We look to Ministers to confirm that—whether from them or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has pressed for, from the judiciary—there should be guidance as to the exercise of the powers. We would also be grateful if the Minister would outline the reasoning behind why these orders are not automatic in the event of non-attendance and when reasonable force can be safely administered.
Our amendments offer a simple and straightforward improvement. They would have ensured that victims could make such requests and are consulted where the court is minded not to make a compulsory order, regardless of whether they had made the request. Sentencing hearings are often the final opportunity for victims to be heard and to feel that they are heard, so why would we deprive them of a say in decisions that directly shape that experience? Victims’ voices must be embedded in the process; they should not be treated as merely passive observers.
We have also observed that where a victim has died or is incapacitated, the system must not simply move on without them. Family members or appropriate representatives should be consulted in their place. We hope the Minister will carefully reflect on the points raised today to help fulfil the Bill’s stated purpose and fill what I am sure are unintentional gaps in its drafting. We look forward to hearing how the Government intend to move forward in due course but, for the moment, we will not press these amendments.
Lord Keen of Elie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why the power to order offenders to attend a sentencing hearing applies to offenders aged 18 and above.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst propose that the provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 apply to offenders from the age of 16, rather than only to those aged 18 and over. As drafted, Clauses 1 and 2 are explicitly limited in their application to those aged 18 or over. That is a departure from the original Conservative proposal for this power, which would have required the court to consult the relevant youth offending team if the offender in question was under 18. We therefore believe that the blanket threshold of 18 should be examined.
The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is, of course, 10 years of age. Even if it is believed that the age of criminal responsibility might reasonably be set higher than 10—a subject of recent debate in this Chamber—there is widespread cross-party consensus that it should be significantly lower than 18. Indeed, Scotland, after extensive consultation and careful consideration, chose to set the age of criminal responsibility at 14, reflecting evidence of developmental science and, indeed, public expectations in the field of criminal law.
A 16 year-old who has been convicted of a serious offence will be expected to go before a Crown Court judge to receive their sentence, yet will face no statutory obligation to attend their own sentencing hearing under these provisions. That appears inconsistent with the intent of these provisions.
We have seen both in recent cases and in parliamentary proceedings on this Bill how deeply distressing and unfortunate it can be for victims and families when an offender refuses to face the court at sentencing, an act described by Ministers as a “final insult” to those already traumatised. It is difficult to articulate why someone aged 16 who has been found guilty of a serious offence should be exempt from measures designed to ensure that they confront the consequences of their own criminal actions.
We should also reflect upon the wider tapestry of civic responsibility that has developed, and which this Government would also confer upon 16 year-olds. The Government have proposed to lower the voting age to 16. Someone aged 16 can marry; they can pay tax and join the Armed Forces. They assume a suite of responsibilities in civil society. They are treated as autonomous agents in a host of legal and social contexts, and to exempt them uniquely in this narrow but important sphere from the requirement to attend their own sentencing hearing when convicted of a crime appears inconsistent with those wider developments.
We owe it to victims and to the public to ensure that the measures we put on statute reflect a coherent and principled approach. These amendments ensure that they align with the realities of criminal responsibility and the Government’s wider policy. Someone who commits a serious crime at 16, such as murder or serious violence, should not be placed beyond the reach of these important attendant provisions. That is the inconsistency which appears to us in the present form of Clauses 1 and 2.
Accountability cannot be robust at conviction and sentencing in substance but simply optional at the point of sentencing in practice. We have seen very recent examples of relatively young people aged 15 and 16 committing the most heinous offences, in some instances murder. There can be no doubt, of course, that the existing framework for youth justice should be maintained and remain separate and distinct from these provisions. Nevertheless, when it comes to those of 16 years and older, their personal conduct does take them before the Crown Court. They appear there for sentencing and there is no principled justification for differentiating on the basis of age alone between 16 and 18 when culpability and legal responsibility have already been established. With that in mind, I respectfully commend these amendments.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, briefly, these amendments would treat offenders over the age of 16 in the same way as offenders over the age of 18 in relation to three aspects of the compulsory attendance regime. The first aspect is the requirement that the court consult a youth offending team before making an order; the second is the use of force against young offenders, and the third is the use of prison sanctions in the case of service offenders.
The Member’s Explanatory Statement explains that these amendments probe why these provisions apply only to offenders over the age of 18. The position that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has taken is that they should apply to everyone over the age of 16. I suggest that the answer to the question is that, modest as they are, these provisions make different arrangements for offenders under 18 because they are designed to protect 16 and 17 year-old offenders, who are children and not yet adults. I submit, and we on these Benches believe, that it is right that contemporary criminal justice attempts to treat offenders under 18 in a way that acknowledges the particular vulnerabilities of 16 and 17 year-olds.
In the first group of amendments today, the noble Baroness said that the Government broadly agree with that position. The amendments seek to remove the distinction between 16 and 17 year-olds on the one hand and adults, albeit young adults, on the other. We say that this would be a retrograde step and that it should be opposed. I would add that of the measures that are proposed in the amendments, those sanctioning the use of force against 16 year-olds—to bring them to sentencing hearings against their will—would be particularly egregious and potentially very damaging.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I start by reassuring your Lordships’ House that an attendance order can be made in respect of all offenders, including children. Most children are not tried in the Crown Court; they are tried in the youth court, even for serious offences. It is very rare for children of this age to appear in the Crown Court. If they do, an attendance order for their sentencing hearing can be made. The only difference is that force will not be used to get those children to court. The reason is that current operational policy, informed by the Taylor review of 2020, restricts the use of force on children. Domestic policy is also informed by the UK Government’s signatory status to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have committed to complying with its duties under the convention. During the debate a week ago in your Lordships’ House on the age of criminal responsibility, I said that this Government recognise that children in the youth justice system can be some of our most vulnerable citizens. Many of them are themselves victims of neglect and abuse, at the very least, and there is a disproportionate occurrence of special educational needs and neurodivergence in this cohort.
While we acknowledge that some children have committed very serious crimes for which they must be punished, this Government do not treat them merely as small adults. We have devised a separate but related regime for them. Where a child fails to attend court, or is disruptive once there, that may be treated as a contempt of court, but the maximum penalty is a fine, with the court taking into account limited means and making relevant arrangements for younger children. Lowering the threshold from 18 to 16 would cut across that safeguarding architecture. The Government’s view is that the strongest coercive path should be reserved for adults, where the legal, operational and ethical framework properly supports their use. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their measured observations on these proposed amendments. There is broad agreement across the House that attendance at sentencing is about accountability, about dignity for victims and about respect for the court. Refusal to attend sentencing has rightly been described by Ministers as a final insult to victims and families. The question before the House, then, is not whether the principle is right but to whom it should be applied.
These provisions are about ensuring that offenders confront the consequences of their actions, allowing victims to see justice done and hear sentencing remarks. They also uphold the authority and integrity of the court.
We are dealing with a situation in which 16 and 17 year-olds find themselves prosecuted in the Crown Court for serious offences, including murder, in respect of which they receive long custodial sentences. A 16 year-old can be convicted of murder or serious violence; that same 16 year-old would face no statutory obligation to attend their own sentencing hearing. Accountability cannot logically begin at conviction, however, and then disappear at sentencing. From a victim’s perspective, the same harm emerges regardless of whether an offender is 16, 17 or 18 years of age. The distress caused when an offender refuses to attend sentencing does not diminish by virtue of their age.
There is also the wider policy context that I mentioned before, which is that we now treat 16 year-olds, in essence, as adults in respect both of the proposal that they should be able to vote and of the fact that they can marry and can join the Armed Forces, and in respect of their wider social and political autonomy.
These amendments do not impact on the youth justice system. They do not remove judicial discretion. The courts will always retain discretion and take account of the welfare, capacity and safeguarding of 16 year-olds. In these circumstances, it respectfully appears to us that this proposal does not undermine Clauses 1 and 2, but rather seeks to strengthen them for the benefit of victims: someone whose conduct is serious enough to warrant Crown Court sentencing should not be shielded from accountability at the point of sentencing. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe whether the threshold of four years to trigger the restrictions in clause 3 should be lowered
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 13 and the other amendments in this group look at the arrangements set out in Clause 3 on how courts should manage the difficult issue of the rights of a person with parental responsibility who is a convicted child sex offender. The range of proposals, and indeed my Amendment 13, are probing at what point being a convicted child sex offender must take priority over the rights that a child sex offender may have as a parent himself or herself—although it is usually a man. A range of proposals in Amendments 14 and 22 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, argue for any sexual offence, which is broadly what we are arguing too, and Amendments 15, 19 and 27 from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, argue for a conviction of more than six months. The Government, of course, start at the point of four years and above. There are real tensions here, and I am particularly looking forward to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who with his practical experience can help us non-lawyers bridge the differing priorities of having parental responsibility and the role of the family court versus the criminal court. This is where I want to start.
I am pleased that the Government recognise, in Clause 3, that we should have a clearer position on when convicted child sex abusers lose their parental rights. It has been iniquitous that parental rights have trumped the safeguarding of children, even when the person with parental rights has been convicted of CSA, child sexual abuse, including, astonishingly, of their own child or stepchild. The charity We Stand and the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, have long campaigned to protect children from an abuser with parental responsibility and I thank them for their briefings. It is extraordinary that a parent convicted of raping their child has been able to retain access to and decision-making for that child even when they are in prison. There is absolutely no doubt that this has caused other parents and family members much distress, and often considerable expense when they have been to the family court to ask for access to be stopped, so we on these Benches welcome Clause 3 as a starting point. However, we are not convinced that it is quite strong enough.
One example is that the serious sexual offences listed in proposed new Schedule ZA1 to the Children Act 1989 include both indecent imagery offences and contact offences. Imagery offences have a minimum sentence of a community order, and this means that it could be argued that a Section 3 serious offence can be triggered at any sentencing threshold. However, the majority of sentences for indecent imagery tend to fall between three months and one year. Sentencing guidelines for contact offences start at a minimum of one year, so that would exclude these offenders under the Government’s proposals.
That is why Amendment 13 includes all convicted child sexual abusers. This is not about punishment of the offender; it is about protecting all children. We know from research that most child sex abuse takes place in the family environment and therefore that those children are at the highest risk from the offender. We Stand told us that research from the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse shows that natural parents are the highest-offending group in intra-familial child sex abuse, which accounts for over two-thirds of offences. As a result, the children of convicted child sex offenders are already at the most risk.
A non-abusing or protective parent has a legal duty to protect their child from any child sex offender and any level of offending. I personally saw, in a case some years ago, how hard it can be for a non-abusing parent to protect their child when they also have to fight the family court’s assumption about the rights of the other parent, even one who is a convicted child sex abuse offender, because that trumps the offence. We know that the protective parent will often have little or no legal aid to fight to protect their children, including having no right to know where the offender is. This means that papers cannot be served. They also have no right to any information about the offender’s rehabilitational risk assessments, and that is also extraordinary. How can they comment on them or ask for assessments to be made? They are the ones looking after the children. Another problem is the limited timeframe on protective orders, such as prohibited steps orders, and, worse, no powers of arrest if these orders are breached by the offender. One consequence of this is that it makes no sense at all.
Extraordinarily, the offender has the right to make multiple applications to vary or overturn protective orders and to make repeated requests for contact with the children. In households where there has also been coercive control and domestic abuse, these repeated requests continue that abuse. Too often, the family courts see it only through the eyes of the offending parent trying to assert their rights. Section 91(14) of the Children Act is the basis for that.
We Stand notes that the basis of the Children Act 1989, and more recent primary legislation that has not yet been repealed, states that the involvement of a parent in a child’s life is linked to the furthering of the welfare of a child. This means that judges and other authorities, such as social services and Cafcass, are forced into a legal anomaly. They must balance the potential harm to a child from a convicted sex offender and parent with legislation stating that both parents’ involvement in the child’s life furthers the welfare of that child. This leads to inconsistent outcomes. Even if the presumption is repealed, this fundamental belief is still enshrined in the introduction and guidance to the Children Act. Children of the CSA parent are often at greater risk than other children who are automatically protected by existing criminal restrictions, such as sexual harm prevention orders and registration requirements.
Other protective parental concerns include non-molestation orders granted by courts, often for very short durations—six months or a year—so they are not an alternative to prohibited steps orders. They have to defend themselves in a family court to counter allegations made by the offender, often including parental alienation, even after a CSA conviction. What is worse, the nature of the courts means that they often end up in a revolving door and are in and out of the family court for years, which has emotional and financial consequences for them, and the fact of the CSA conviction never changes. That leads to how the family court might think that parental responsibility being exercised by the offender parent is realistic; surely it is not.
Research shows that those guilty of online and non-penetrative offences are at just as high risk of reoffending against their own children. This is important, and the reason why Amendment 13 has reduced the bar from a four-year sentence to any CSA conviction. Surely, for safeguarding reasons, now is the time to change the legal responsibility to the offending parent having to prove why they are safe to exercise that parental responsibility, through rehabilitation courses and often assessment by professionals.
The position of the court must start with the assumption of the protection of the child, not with the rights of the offender parent. That is why all convicted child sex offenders with parental responsibilities should have a prohibited steps order for each child at the time of their conviction. The PSO should have a penal notice attached to it to prevent breaches, and a PSO is useless if it does not have the power of arrest if there is a safeguarding issue. Because many protective parents and their families are in a living hell, it would be good if the legislation can be retrospective, or there should be specific guidance to the family court that the protective parents are to be assumed to have overriding parental responsibility.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, three of which, like that just proposed powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seek to explore the thinking behind the four-year minimum prison sentence required by Clause 3 to trigger the duty of the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order to restrict the offender’s parental responsibility. My Amendments 15 and 19 would lower the minimum sentence required to one of more than six months.
Before I develop the argument a little further, I will comment on a couple of points made by the noble Baroness. Much of what she said, I entirely agree with, but please let us not talk about parental rights. The central reform of the Children Act 1989 was to substitute for the concept of parental rights the concept of parental responsibility, which is why it appears in the Bill and has been part of our law for a long time. As I have already said, it replaced the reference to rights as determining who had authority over aspects of the child’s life or upbringing. The other point I am afraid I take issue with is her suggestion that, in too many cases, the court sees matters only through the eyes of the parent who is seeking to assert his rights or responsibilities. That, I suggest, is not correct, and it is certainly not my experience of how the family courts work.
Returning to the substance of these amendments, it is clearly difficult to determine where to draw the line in such cases, bearing in mind that a convicted person whose sentence does not cross that line is still quite liable to have any parental responsibility restricted by the family court if it cannot be done in the Crown Court. During debates in another place, the logic of the four-year minimum sentence was questioned. The Minister there argued that the four-year threshold provided a predetermined marker of seriousness for cases in which the restriction of parental responsibility by the Crown Court is to happen automatically.
The Minister said that the Government wanted to minimise the strain placed on the family court. There is force in those points at a practical level. As I suggested at Second Reading, one reason to draw the line at four years is to make best use of the resources, expertise and powers of both the criminal and the family court respectively, without overburdening either. However, one disadvantage of leaving too many of these cases to the family court is that it would deprive the mother and other family members of the benefit of the automatic suspension of parental responsibility, which the Bill provides. Indeed, it would require those who want to restrict parental responsibility to make their own applications to the family court, possibly without legal assistance, as the noble Baroness has indicated.
It is possible, by use of Ministry of Justice statistics for 2023, to get some approximation of the cases involved, which would give some idea of the number of offenders and the number of children who would be affected. In this respect, I am indebted to Amanda Newby, associate professor at Northumbria University, for her research and expert assistance on this and other amendments. In 2023, in England and Wales, there were 1,924 cases of serious sexual abuse, where an immediate prison sentence of between four and 15 years was imposed, in addition to which there were 44 sentences of life imprisonment. In the same year, there were some 1,093 cases involving serious child sexual abuse, where an immediate prison sentence of more than six months and less than four years was imposed. Only 59 such offenders were sentenced to six months or less.
Those statistics all involve adult offenders. It is clearly not possible to ascertain how many of those held parental responsibility for a child at the time of sentencing, but I suggest that it could have been considerably lower. On that basis, moving the threshold down to more than six months’ imprisonment would or could increase the number of potential cases by approximately 1,000 annually—although I repeat that many of those probably would not hold parental responsibility. That likely increase does show that a significant number of children would not be protected under the Bill if the threshold is not lowered. That is indeed an argument for lowering the threshold, as I hope I have indicated.
Amendment 27, in my name, perhaps illustrates some of the difficulties in drawing lines. The offence of sexual communication with a child under Section 15A of the 2003 Act is not covered by the Bill as presently drafted, because the maximum sentence for that offence is two years. That was an offence added in 2015 to the 2003 Act to cover a specific form of sexually motivated grooming, and it might now be thought that it should be covered by the provisions of this Bill. Essentially, it should be accepted that one real difficulty is that the Crown Court, under the Bill, is going to be required to make orders under the Children Act for which the family court is generally the more appropriate forum. Further, the Bill does not contain any provision for mandatory review by the family court, as was provided under Section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act, known as Jade’s law. In the family court, the other parent would have the status of a party and could be represented, and that court would have access to the relevant family history and to evidence in the form of professional welfare and other reports if required. In other words, quite frankly, there are compelling arguments either way.
Amendment 34 is in my name and has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It does not concern sexual offences but, rather, seeks to extend what is now known as Jade’s law, which was enacted under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. As the noble Baroness reminded us, Section 18 restricts parental responsibility where one parent kills the other and is convicted of murder or a specific category of manslaughter. At the suggestion of the Victims’ Commissioner, we seek to amend that provision to include the attempted murder by one parent of the other.
I do not recall that being suggested when the 2024 Act passed through Parliament—the omission of attempted murder may have been an oversight—but there was some caution when, at various stages, suggestions of extending Jade’s law to other offences of violence were ventilated. Be that as it may, I submit that it is clearly appropriate to include attempted murder involving the most extreme form of non-fatal assault. To do so would relieve the victim from the obligation to seek the perpetrator’s agreement on decisions concerning the child and, if agreement is not forthcoming, from having to apply to the court.
The Victims’ Commissioner has become aware of the concerns of survivors of attempted murder when the offender has retained parental responsibility over their children. Without giving details, I had to deal with a case where the convicted parent used his status to obstruct the other parent, clearly motivated only by a desire for revenge, causing the other parent further distress and expense, as well as an inescapable fear of what he might try to do when released from prison. People in that position should be relieved and shielded from having to go to court unless absolutely necessary to do so.
Finally, I join the noble Baroness in mentioning the commencement of Section 18—Jade’s law. It is not retrospective and has yet to be brought into force, so the reality is that nobody has yet benefited from it. Can the Minister say when it will be put into effect?
I do not want to trespass on arguments to be advanced on other amendments, but I share the curiosity about the provisions in the Bill covering what would happen in the event of an acquittal on appeal or when a sentence is reduced on appeal. To that I add the question of whether prohibited steps could be made where a sentence is increased on appeal or under the unduly lenient sentence scheme to one of more than four years.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on Amendment 34. As they mentioned, the Victims’ Commissioner has been approached by a variety of individuals who survived attempted murder by their other half or partner. In those cases, they face a dilemma. In some cases, the difference between being murdered or not is a matter of an ambulance arriving two minutes earlier and managing to stop a murder attempt, whereas if it arrived two minutes later that person might have died. Alternatively, it might be a matter of a neighbour hearing what was going on and making a telephone call so that the authorities arrive in time. It is a very narrow difference, frankly, as to whether somebody ends up dead or injured but alive.
In some of those instances, the perpetrator, who has gone to prison, retains parental responsibility but may not know that. The surviving partner has a dilemma: if they bring it to the attention of the partner who is in prison and he is unaware of those rights, he may be tempted to try to use them to disrupt the life of the surviving partner. I do not think that anybody would wish that to happen.
In the instance that a survivor feels strongly enough that they want to try to go through the courts to have the parental responsibility of the person who tried to kill them stripped away, the onus is on the survivor to go through the family courts. That can be quite a lengthy and complicated process. It is often made more difficult because the quality and flow of relevant information between the criminal court, which sends the attempted murderer to prison, and the family court is not always as open and as clear as it might be.
For all those reasons, I hope that, when she comes to reply, the Minister can clarify the Government’s view on this and, in particular, why commencement of the original Jade’s law seems to have been delayed. What is holding it up? How quickly can we expect it to be put into operation?
Lord Hacking (Lab)
As my noble friend will recall, I raised this issue at Second Reading. I support Amendment 14, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 15, in the name of my learned friend, if I may refer to him in those terms, the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I add that I have sympathy towards the drafting of Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
As I say quite frequently in this House—the issue of sexual offending arose in the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and I said it then and I repeat it now—sexual offences in the family environment are appalling. The offence of a father—it is often the father, rather than the mother—sexually attacking, which I think is the right word, his own son or daughter, who are as young as 14 years-old, is absolutely appalling. It is beyond most of our comprehension that any father would do that—it is certainly beyond my comprehension.
The important thing here is the value of the prohibited steps order made in the family court, because that can be carefully fashioned to the particular needs of a family. Therefore, it is welcome that the family court has this provision. The use of this prohibited steps order is most valuable for the protection of children and spouses in the family.
I am a little puzzled by the provision in Clause 3, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to reply to this, under which it is obligatory, within the circumstances set out, for a prohibited steps order to be made. I would be grateful for guidance—I am sorry I have not researched this—on whether the power to make a prohibited steps order is a matter of discretion by the Crown Court, or whether it is the situation that a prohibited steps order can be brought into force only under the drafting of Clause 3? I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could answer that.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will make a few observations. No one can doubt the revulsion towards sexual offenders who have attacked their own children or have the potential to do so, but there are two practical points that we must bear in mind.
First, the criminal justice system and the criminal courts, and the family justice system and the family courts, have been starved of resources by both Governments—there is no doubt about that. When sentence lengths are increased by both parties, we end up with a situation in the prisons that is a crisis. In deciding what orders to make in this kind of case, it is of paramount importance to have regard to the resource implications. It is no use saying that there is money for this. There is not. The courts system is starved, and the result of that is victims suffering in a whole host of other cases by the tremendous backlog. Both this Government and the last Government are responsible for the position into which the courts have been placed. When we look at this, please have regard to resources.
The second point, a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Meston, is that it is important that we get correct the balance as to what the Crown Court is to do and what the family court is to do. I am not sure, having listened to this debate, that that is a matter that has been sufficiently addressed. The one thing you cannot have—because it is a waste of resources and does not deploy expertise correctly—is the lines not clearly drawn. I hope very much that, before this comes back, there will be the opportunity for those who have day-to-day responsibility in the judiciary and the Courts Service, together with the ministry, to be sure that we have got the most effective and efficient use of resources and the right kind of drawing the line. It is very difficult, but we cannot ignore the bankrupt state of the courts. It is a regrettable fact, and we must not make the mistake we have made in relation to sentencing.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for organising my notes here—I have been listening hard. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this group, which concerns the operation of Clause 3 and the use of prohibited steps orders for the safeguarding of children where a parent or individual with parental responsibility has been convicted of serious sexual offending. The group rightly raises profound questions about thresholds, discretion, safeguards and consistency, and indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has pointed out, the balance between the two wings of the court system—the family and the criminal courts. I thank noble Lords for their searching and constructive contributions to this debate, all of which are motivated by a shared desire to protect children from harm.
I begin with Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, Amendment 14, in my name, and Amendments 15 and 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. All these amendments concern and probe the four-year custodial threshold that currently triggers the duty on the Crown Court to consider making a prohibited steps order. I thank the Government at the outset for the constructive manner in which they have already engaged with the clause. They accepted, during the Bill’s passage through the other place, that the original scope of Clause 3 was too narrow. As drafted on introduction, it applied only where the offender had committed sexual abuse against their own child. Following sustained concern, the Government rightly expanded that clause, so that it applies where the offender has abused any child. That change was welcome and necessary.
However, while the class of victims has been widened, the custodial threshold remains set at four years. It is here that noble Lords have expressed deep unease. A four-year sentence is an extremely high bar. There are numerous sexual offences involving children that may result in sentences well below four years yet would plainly justify the imposition of a prohibited steps order to safeguard a child, such as sexual communication with a child, causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, certain forms of indecent assault or online grooming behaviours. These may, depending on the facts, attract sentences of significantly less than four years. Yet it would be surprising to suggest that an individual convicted of such conduct should automatically fall outside the scope of a safeguarding measure which has been designed to prevent them from exercising parental responsibility without scrutiny.
I think all noble Lords accept that there is a balancing exercise here. The state should not intervene lightly in family life. We must be careful not to construct a regime which is too blunt and results in unnecessary or disproportionate separation of children from parents. However, equally, Clause 3 as drafted risks being too narrowly drawn and failing to engage precisely in those cases where concern is most acute. The current threshold risks excluding serious and dangerous individuals because the custodial term imposed falls short of an arbitrary figure. We look to the Minister to explain why four years was chosen, what evidence underpins that decision and why a lower threshold or an offence-based approach was not chosen.
Amendments 22 and 27 raise an issue of rather different but also troubling nature—the power of the Secretary of State by regulation to amend the list of offences to which Clause 3 applies. As drafted, that power is not limited to expansion. It allows the list to be amended. That necessarily includes the possibility of reduction. It is difficult to conceive of a principled reason why a future Government would wish to remove sexual offences from the scope of a safeguarding provision of this kind. That prospect should concern the whole House. We accept the need for flexibility. The criminal law evolves. New offences may be created, particularly in the online sphere, as was illustrated by the recent Grok AI scandal and by non-consensual deepfakes of women and children in particular.
I recognise that Parliament cannot foresee every future risk. Recent controversies involving emerging technologies only underline that reality. It is therefore sensible that Ministers should have the power to expand the list where gaps emerge. However, it is not at all clear why the power should run in the opposite direction. Our Amendment 22 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State would be able only to expand the list of relevant offences rather than shrink it. Opposition to what is modest drafting would raise serious questions about the Government’s intentions. We hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on that.
In that context, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for Amendment 27, which would add Section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on sexual communication with a child, to the schedule. This offence criminalises the deliberate sexualised communication with a child for the purpose of sexual gratification. A technology-enabled form of abuse can be profoundly harmful. It often forms part of a wider pattern of grooming. Its inclusion in the schedule would materially strengthen the safeguarding framework, particularly if the threshold under Clause 3 were to be revisited.
Finally, Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, seeks to extend Jade’s law to cover attempted murder. This amendment raises an important principle. While the law recognises that certain conduct is so grave that parental responsibility should be curtailed automatically, it is difficult to see why the distinction between murder and attempted murder should be a point of difference, particularly given the catastrophic harm that attempted murder can cause.
This has been a thoughtful and serious debate. The amendments in this group are aimed at strengthening Clause 3 to protect children from harm while respecting the practical policy constraints which the Government face. We have no doubt that the Minister will engage constructively with the issues raised and provide the House with the assurances and explanations that these amendments request.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the Government understand that the aim of this group of amendments is to ensure that the children, who are at the heart of these cases, are protected. We share that objective, but these amendments may cause more problems than they are intended to solve. The amendments are all intended to be made to legislation, either proposed or already enacted, which deals with slightly different situations—convictions for certain serious sexual offences, children conceived as a result of rape and where one parent has been convicted of the murder of the other. However, all these pieces of proposed or enacted legislation have one thing in common. They are not intended to be additional punishments or to replicate—far less, replace—the experience and expertise of the family court. They are intended to protect children who are caught up in these very serious situations as quickly as possible.
In each of these three situations, the Government have identified issues in which the crime for which the relevant person has been sentenced is so serious, with them usually serving a long prison sentence, that it is relatively straightforward to conclude that a prohibited steps order will be in the best interests of the child. These proposals allow the Crown Court judge automatically to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility at the time of sentence. At the moment, following sentence the remaining parent must apply to the family court to do the same thing, but this inevitably takes time and causes distress.
It is known that some perpetrators use their parental responsibility to continue to exercise control, even though they are behind bars. In relation to a parent serving a life sentence for the murder of the other parent, it is axiomatic that there will be no other parent to make the application. What this legislation does not do is automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in all cases forever. The defendant who has had it restricted can apply to the family court to have it restored. It does put the onus on them to do so. These provisions merely provide a quick and convenient method of protecting children and victims. However, restricting the exercise of parental responsibility is an extremely serious thing to do. For this reason, the Government must give serious consideration to how to balance the competing principles that are involved.
Against this background, I turn to Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. They seek to broaden the offences that are within the scope of this measure and reduce the minimum sentencing threshold from four years. The Government believe that any individual who poses a serious risk to children should not be able to exercise their parental responsibility. For the avoidance of doubt, I make it clear that the Government’s view is that parents do not have rights. The only rights are those of the child.
However, to create a power allowing the automatic restriction at the point of sentence, we must be sure that to do so would be in the best interest of the child. That is why we have set the threshold at sentences of four years’ imprisonment. In our judgment, if the behaviour of the defendant is sufficiently serious to warrant a sentence of four years or more, it is safe to assume that it would be right to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility. We have set it at four years because this is already a threshold for seriousness used for other purposes in criminal sentencing. For certain offences, including sexual offences, an offender who is sentenced to four or more years serves two-thirds rather than a half of their sentence in prison. It already recognises the particular seriousness.
This pre-existing legislative provision is why we have chosen four years as the indicator of seriousness. If we were to lower the four-year threshold, we could risk moving away from where we can be sure that restricting the exercise of parental responsibility will always be in the best interests of a child into territory where it is less clear. Equally, we must ensure that these measures are not in contravention of a person’s human rights. In particular, we need to ensure that any interference with a person’s right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European convention is a justifiable and proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. We have set the threshold at four years for serious child sexual offences as we are of the view that, given the risk of harm to children, this intervention is justified.
That is not to say that the parental responsibility of offenders who have committed sexual offences, whether against their own child or someone else’s, but have received a sentence of less than four years, cannot be restricted. In those cases, an application can still be made to the family court, which is best placed to consider all circumstances, including what is in the best interests of the child.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised a number of issues about shortcomings in the family court. With the greatest of respect to her, this is perhaps not the time and place to expand on those, though they are of course serious points. As I think the noble Baroness knows, I have responsibility for family justice policy within my department, so these are issues that perhaps she and I can discuss on another occasion.
When we met, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, asked about appeals, and it has been raised again today. I promised him a reply. In cases where there is a successful appeal and an offender is acquitted or the sentence is reduced below four years, the Bill provides a clear process for the review of the prohibited steps order. The relevant local authority will be under a duty to make an application within a very short time to the family court, so that the family court can consider, exercising its expertise and experience, whether the prohibited steps order imposed by the Crown Court should be varied or discharged.
I turn now to Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The offence of having sexual communications with a child carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, so this could not be added to the list unless the requirement of a four-year minimum sentence were removed.
I turn now to Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, put her name and has spoken. This would expand Jade’s law, which provides for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where one parent kills the other. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness wish to amend the legislation so that it includes cases of attempted murder. I am grateful for being told that that was at the suggestion of the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, for whom I have the utmost respect.
I entirely recognise that, in order to be convicted of attempted murder, what the defendant has done will have been truly horrific—after all, a defendant can be convicted of this only if they had the intention actually to kill—and nothing I say is intended to minimise that. But I repeat what I said earlier. The automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility is not intended to punish the defendant, far less to act as a mark of societal disapproval. It is about children. I repeat that Parliament must be satisfied that restricting the exercise of parental responsibility will be in a child’s best interests.
The sad but determining factor in these killing cases is that the child is going to have only one parent left, and that parent will usually be serving a life sentence. There is no other comparable situation. Where the defendant did not succeed in murdering the other parent, although they intended to do so, they will usually be serving a long sentence, but there will be a surviving parent. In most cases, the surviving parent will be able to make an application to the family court if one is felt necessary. This lessens the need for an automatic referral to the family court.
It would also be difficult to justify why, if attempted murder were included, other serious criminal offences such as Section 18 wounding, which also carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, were not. Your Lordships should also be aware that adding a further measure into Jade’s law at this point will risk delaying its implementation, which has already taken a lot longer than the Government would have wished.
I have been asked for the reasons for that, and I will give them as quickly as I am able to. It is a complicated situation, but this is a unique piece of legislation. There is no existing process that we can import or learn from. There has been significant engagement with various partners that will be involved in the delivery of Jade’s law: local authorities; the Crown Prosecution Service; the National Police Chiefs’ Council; and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. The Government also have to make changes to criminal and family procedure rules, and we also have to develop broader guidance for practitioners and families. But we are on it. We must bring Jade’s law into force as soon as possible to protect the children who need it most. We must be cautious about doing anything at this stage that could extend this process.
As with the measures we are bringing in through this Bill, officials are developing a robust system to measure how Jade’s law works in practice. We want to understand how it works in practice, and from there we can properly consider whether other changes can be made to it. For all these reasons, I invite your Lordships not to press these amendments.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
If I understood my noble friend correctly, the protected steps order can be made only if Clause 3 is activated, and there is no discretion in the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order in other circumstances, particularly where the offence did not, as drafted, carry a four-year imprisonment. In fact, I think my noble friend then said that parents can apply to the family court for the protected steps order. I find that rather awkward. Surely, when the Crown Court has all the facts in front of it and is in a position, therefore, to make a prohibited steps order, it should do so because it has the necessary knowledge. Of course, the prohibited steps order could be adjusted in a separate application to the family court.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The short answer to my noble friend’s question is that he is right: there is no discretion. The reason that there is no discretion is because, in fact, the Crown Court is the one court that does not have all the experience and all the knowledge—it will not have Cafcass reports or anything like that. It is simply making an automatic order when there is a certain level of seriousness that has been reached. It is for the family court to consider all the important factors in other cases about whether such an order is in the interests of the child. The Crown Court judge does not have the expertise, and it will cause delay. I have said it once before today—I may have already said it twice—the one thing the criminal courts do not need is any further delays.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken during this debate. As I said right at the start, we are looking at the entire spectrum of time as to where the responsibility for imposing these orders should start and stop, and that is anywhere between any child sexual offence and a sentence of four years.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his comments about parental rights and responsibilities. I absolutely understand that. I am sure he also understands that, to the other parent, it often feels as though the convicted parent has more rights than their children. That is where the problems lie, and that is why there is such passion about this among those parents who are trying to make sure that their children are protected. I am also grateful to him for highlighting the data. It is important for us to remember that around 1,000 children might possibly be at risk if this goes wrong.
Just before I respond to the Minister, I want to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Yes, the court system is starved of resources. I want to go further than he does. It is not just about looking at resources; it is about a clear plan to increase resources and ensure that duplication and anything else does not happen. But we know the court system is under real pressure, and I say to the Minister that I recognise, in the amendment that I have table, that the last thing that we would want to do is to impose further burdens on an already difficult area.
I completely understand that the Government have to balance their competing restrictions. The problem is that those of us who have tabled amendments say that four years is not the safety net that the Minister alluded to; it is too high. I wondered whether there might be any way to provide guidance to the family court that asks it to look very clearly at any child sexual offence, even if it is not a four-year sentence, so that the Crown Court is not burdened with the responsibilities of looking at it in the way that the family court would.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Crown Court to take into account the best interests of the relevant child as well as the interests of justice when deciding whether to make an order.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, my Amendments 16, 25 28 and 33 arise from the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. The Joint Committee has written to the Ministry of Justice on a number of occasions regarding these issues and has so far not met with a satisfactory response. I shall listen very carefully to what the Minister says on these points.
As the Bill stands, the Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order after sentencing. It is right that an offender should not be able to exercise parental responsibility, but there should be safeguards in the Bill to ensure that children do not suffer as a result, especially if the effect of the order is that there is no one who can exercise parental responsibility.
On Amendments 16 and 28 in my name, unlike the family court, the Crown Court would have limited discretion about how best to protect the interests of affected children, as we heard identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in the previous group. Under the Bill, the Crown Court’s main discretion is that it must not make an order if
“it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so”—
a well-hallowed phrase in legislation that noble Lords will find in Clause 3(4)(c).
In this context, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase—in particular, whether it would allow the court to consider the interests of the affected children or just of the offender. The Joint Committee wrote to the Minister asking for clarification as to whether the effect of the Human Rights Act would be that the Court would be able to consider the interests of the child when making the order. The Minister replied that the court would have to act compatibly with the ECHR. In fact, she said:
“Under our existing measure, the Crown Court will be able to consider all of the information available to it, as part of the criminal proceedings, when deciding whether to exercise the interests of justice test (and in doing so, will be bound to act compatibly with the Convention Rights given section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998)”.
As noble Lords can see, that is an answer that, I fear, lacks clarity.
Amendments 16 and 28 would provide clarity on this point. They would ensure that the Crown Court was able to get information about the children’s circumstances and itself consider the implications for the children before making an order. They would simply append, after
“in the interests of justice”,
the words
“or that it would not be in the child’s best interests”
to make the prohibited steps order.
On Amendments 25 and 33, there would be particular concerns if the effect of such an order was that no one was able to exercise parental responsibility for a child. In Jade’s law, as we heard in the previous group, there is an attempt to address this by requiring the relevant local authority to apply to the family court immediately after the Crown Court has made its order. We can see that in new Section 10B(2) of the Children Act 1989 in Section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
Amendments 25 and 33 are carefully modelled on that provision in the 2024 Act. They would impose the same requirement on the local authority if an order under the new provisions had the effect that there was no one who could exercise parental responsibility for the child. In correspondence with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Minister said that such a provision was appropriate in the case of Jade’s law, where one parent had killed the other, because in those cases there would almost always be no one with parental responsibility. But in the cases covered by the Bill, in contrast, there might or there might not be. The Minister said that the local authority would be aware if the child might be left in this position and would be able to take appropriate action.
That is a very unsatisfactory answer. There can be no confidence that the local authority will simply be aware of this scenario and there would be no detriment to making it clear in the Bill. Relying entirely on a local authority’s discretion invites the risk that a child is left without someone with parental responsibility and falls between the gaps.
These amendments would mean that the local authority would be under a duty to apply to the family court in such cases in exactly the same form as it would under Jade’s law. The Minister said in correspondence that local authorities would always know the circumstances of a particular case, so the Government should agree, and have already agreed in principle, that it would be workable for the Bill to impose a duty on them. There is no good reason for these amendments not to be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I begin by commenting on two parts of the noble Lord’s amendments. I find it difficult to understand how his Amendment 16 would work in practice. These orders have to be made at the point of sentencing; they cannot come later on as an afterthought or at a later hearing. More importantly, I question how the Crown Court would be in a position to assess what is or is not in the interests of the child, and, certainly, how the Crown Court could do it without a report that typically, in the family court, might be available from Cafcass or a local authority.
Moreover, what would the Crown Court do if the suggestion of not making the order to remove or restrict parental responsibility is strongly opposed by the other parent, as would quite likely be? That other parent, certainly in the Crown Court, would not have party status and would probably not have legal representation.
On the face of it, the Crown Court might face the prospect of a contested hearing on the question of whether to restrict parental responsibility. Clearly, that is much better dealt with by the family court in the appropriate way. Having said that, I of course understand the force of the noble Lord’s Amendment 33, which seems to present a sensible solution to a potentially difficult problem.
I move briefly to my amendments in this group. They are procedural and evidential amendments. Amendment 23 would provide for the Crown Court that is required to make the prohibited steps order to be supplied with all necessary information to make the order, enabling it to make the order in appropriate terms, covering all the children to whom it might apply and enabling it to be provided to the other parent and others holding parental responsibility. As it appears from the very length of Amendment 23, parental responsibility can be acquired by a number of different people in a considerable range of situations. It almost goes without saying that the convicted offender may not be a reliable source of information about the children for whom he has parental responsibility, or the basis on which he might hold it. The Crown Court therefore cannot be expected simply to make a blanket, generic order referring to all or any children for whom the defendant holds or might hold parental responsibility. That would be of little use to anyone. The court therefore has to be in a position at the point of sentencing to make an order that should refer to specified children. For that, accurate and reliable information should be provided. As the amendment suggests, that would be best done by the Probation Service as part of the pre-sentence report.
Once that order has been made, it is also important that those who are affected by the order are notified of it. Hence, Amendment 17 would provide for notification by the Crown Court to the relevant local authority and the provision of a copy of the order, with a duty on the local authority to convey that information by onward notification to all persons who hold parental responsibility for the child or children concerned. Clearly, they need to know what has been ordered and to understand the effect of it. The local authority is best placed to provide that information.
Finally, Amendment 29 would ensure that in rape cases the victim is promptly and properly informed that the order has been made, with an obligation on the court to notify the relevant local authority within seven days of the order being made and an obligation on that local authority within 14 days thereafter to notify the victim of rape. Without this, there is a risk that the other parent or holder of parental responsibility for the child or children concerned, and the victim of the rape, are not made aware of the order or of its implications. They may be aware if they attend a sentencing hearing, but that is not certain. In any event, a local authority, particularly one involved with the family, would be best able to explain the effect of the prohibited steps order, its duration and other implications.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I shall again make one very brief observation. It is obvious that what is to be provided is a short, speedy, summary step to protect whatever range of offence is decided on. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that the Crown Court cannot be the appropriate place to start debating what is in the interests of the child. We need to see whether a form of order can be devised, and an exchange of information put forward, that does not impinge on resources, say for the Probation Service, which is probably going to be in a worse position than the courts, that can give the speedy remedy that is needed simply and transfer, for the making of the final order, to the family court, which is obviously the right place to do it. I am not sure we need all these complicated pieces of legislation to do that: rather, it should be something probably very much simpler, with a power for the Minister to make regulations once a proper, simple procedure has been worked out. I fear we are getting ourselves into a degree of complexity that is not desirable.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, this has been a good and fairly brief debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Our Benches have some concerns with the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, have mentioned. I think perhaps the best way of summing the debate up is to say that these Benches are completely in agreement with the common-sense speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. We are trying to resolve a problem that should not be resolved by legislation. It should not be in the Bill. This is about how two different courts work and about ensuring that the information flow works. The fact that we are laying amendments demonstrates that there are failures in the system. The Minister has the unfortunate role of trying to resolve that problem. We in this House cannot always legislate against the detail. However, I hope the Minister has heard the real concerns around this Committee.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. I shall begin with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in his amendments, which seek to clarify what is meant by, for example, the “relevant local authority” in this Bill, as well as to put extra provisions in place concerning parental responsibility. We support the aim behind Amendment 17 that others with parental responsibility for the child in question are properly and, indeed, promptly informed if a prohibited steps order is made against an offender. These are clearly well-intentioned amendments that highlight that certain aspects of the Bill need to be thought through a little more carefully and clarified. I hope that the Minister will provide assurances about how that can be achieved.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth for bringing forward his amendments, which would allow the Crime Court to take into account not only the interests of justice but the best interests of the child when deciding whether to make a prohibited steps order. On these amendments, we are not at this stage able to adopt a settled position. That is not because the underlying principle is unsound, but because further clarification is required from the Minister. As drafted, one of the exemptions to the making of a prohibited steps order is where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so, but that, as has been observed, is a broad and somewhat opaque formulation. We would be grateful if the Minister could explain what circumstances the Government envisage falling within that exemption. In particular, can the Minister offer examples of cases in which it would genuinely be in the interests of justice for a child to remain under the parental responsibility of an individual convicted of a serious sexual offence and sentenced to more than four years’ imprisonment?
These amendments would add an explicit reference to the best interests of the child. That is a familiar concept in family law, but its interaction with the existing exemption is not at all clear. I invite the Minister to clarify whether the Government consider that the child’s best interests are already subsumed within the interests of justice, or whether this amendment would materially alter the test applied by the court.
Amendments 18, 20, 24, 30, 31 and 32 in my name reflect our concerns about the drafting of Clauses 3 and 4. As drafted, both clauses state that a prohibited steps order against an offender that restricts their parental responsibility will not immediately cease to have effect if an offender is acquitted on appeal. Instead, both clauses include sections that set out a review process whereby the relevant local authority must make an application to the court for the acquitted offender. That is hardly consistent with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to as a short, speedy and summary order in circumstances where there is a successful appeal.
The clauses as drafted unnecessarily complicate and confuse the issue. The law should be clear that an acquittal brings the prohibited steps order to an end. People who are found to be not guilty of an offence should not have their parental responsibility, or indeed any other rights, restricted, even on a temporary basis. That principle is straightforward and our amendments seek only to ensure that the legislation reflects that clarity. I hope that will have the support of the House, and I urge the Minister to reconsider and simplify the drafting of Clauses 3 and 4. There is no compelling reason why these review orders should be left in place for innocent citizens and then be the subject of applications by a local authority on their behalf to another division of the court.
Amendment 18 is tabled to affirm our support for the provision of Clause 3 that, where an offender only has their sentence reduced, a prohibited steps order should continue to apply. We on these Benches already have reservations over why an offender’s length of imprisonment or detention must be four years or more for parental responsibility to be restricted. I note that the amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, refers to a period of six months rather than four years. Clearly, there is scope for consideration as to where the line might be drawn as a matter of policy. If a sentence of four years is reduced on appeal, we do not believe that this should result in a prohibited steps order ceasing to have effect. It is quite unlike the situation where there is an acquittal on appeal. Such an outcome could create significant uncertainty for the child for whom the offender previously had parental responsibility. Crucially, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the offender remains guilty of a serious sexual offence against the child regardless of any adjustment in the sentence. An increased risk to the child’s safety or well-being could well emerge from such a situation.
There is also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about what happens in circumstances where a sentence is increased under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. I invite the Government to address that point because clearly it has not been considered in the context of the present drafting of Clauses 3 and 4. For these reasons, I hope the Government will take all these amendments very seriously and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I start by repeating what I said in the debate about an earlier group. A prohibited steps order is not intended to be an additional punishment; rather, it is a tool devised to protect children. The aim of keeping the child safe and doing what is best for them is the central factor in every case. As I have already said, these powers are not intended to replicate, far less replace, the powers of the family court. Crown Court judges are simply not trained to make decisions about children, and they do not have the time to do so. The point has been made most powerfully by both the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. To ask the Crown Court to replicate the procedures of the family court could lead only to more time being needed to consider every case. As I have now said on at least three occasions today, the one thing the Crown Courts do not need is for cases to take longer.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Jade’s law was brought in specifically to prevent victims having to immediately go to the family courts. Why have things changed since that principle emerged in the Victims and Prisoners Act?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
As far as the Jade’s law situation is concerned, it remains the case that it will be dealt with automatically.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
If the principle stands, why is that not also true when an offender has committed a sexual offence of a certain bar?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
We might be slightly at cross-purposes here. The question is whether the Crown Courts have the ability to consider what is in the best interests of the child rather than automatically making the order when the threshold is reached. That is the difference. As I say, the point has been made most powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. The Crown Court is simply not equipped to go that extra mile of starting to look at things like reports from experts as to what is in the best interests of the child.
I turn to Amendments 18, 20, 24, 30, 31 and 32 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. The aim of these is to ensure that a prohibited steps order made under Clauses 3 or 4 would cease to have an effect if the offender was acquitted on appeal. I repeat what I have said. This is not a punishment; it is designed to protect the child. The measures require that, following an acquittal, the relevant local authority must, in very short order, bring an application before the family court to consider whether the prohibited steps order should be upheld, varied or discharged. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, mentioned an innocent parent. This is not about the rights of parents; it is about the rights of children and protecting them. It is not a punishment and therefore it is not something that should be automatically swept away on acquittal.
We recognise the need for a quick resolution in these situations, which is why both clauses state that the application must be made by the local authority within 30 days of the acquittal. This process brings the consideration of the child’s best interests and their potentially very complex family dynamics to the correct forum, which is the family court. It will mean that in every case a judge will undertake a review of all the circumstances, including whether the original prohibited steps order has already been varied by the family court while the appeal was under consideration, or whether other related orders are in place, before deciding what should happen in the best interests of the child. The family court is the right place for this to happen because that puts the interests of the child front and centre, where they should be.
I turn to Amendments 17, 21, 23, 26 and 29 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Meston. I think we can all agree that it is vital to have clear processes for identifying the offender’s children, notifying other parental responsibility holders of a prohibited steps order, and making the victims of a rape aware when the court has made an automatic order, but the Government’s view is that primary legislation is not the best way of doing this. These matters are better suited to being addressed in guidance, where we can work closely with those responsible for delivering it to ensure that we have a process that works in practice. We do not want a system that ties practitioners to an approach that cannot evolve with their own processes and where every time we want to make a change we have to come back and amend the primary legislation.
By way of example, we are not using primary legislation to prescribe the processes as we are working to implement Jade’s law. Instead, work is taking place across government—I ran through some of the things that we are doing earlier in relation to the previous debate—and with partners to develop a process that is clear and practical and that delivers the spirit of the aims of the amendment. In the case of these provisions, we will ensure that all relevant parties, including all other parental responsibility holders, are kept informed at each stage. We will take lessons from Jade’s law when this is implemented and, where possible, work with our partners to apply the same processes here. This will allow for consistency across all legislation in this space, rather than multiple processes for the same aim, which could lead to confusion and inconsistency in application. I warmly invite your Lordships to work with the Government to make sure that we get this right. I am more than happy to meet any of your Lordships who would like to discuss those matters with me, both in my capacity as Lords Minister and as Minister responsible for family justice policy.
In relation to identifying the children of offenders, this Government have separately committed to developing a mechanism to identify children who are affected by parental imprisonment to make it easier to provide support to them. I can assure your Lordships that the Ministry of Justice is working closely with the Department for Education to determine how we can best identify all children affected and ensure that they get support to enable them to thrive, but to legislate only for children in the scope of this measure risks distracting from the broader work intended to support all children.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am particularly grateful for the comments about Amendments 16 and 28 from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Of course, I hear the criticisms of the amendments that were levelled by the JCHR and indeed the Minister; they are points with great merit, and I cannot say that that is not the case. However, there are two points that go some way to addressing the criticism. The first is that of course the court will have some reports on the offender, and it is conceivable, in the very rare cases where it may be necessary to consider the best interests of the child, that reports may be provided. The second is that, according to the answer provided by Minister’s colleague in the Commons in her letter to the JCHR, it is already rolled into the interests of justice test, which is a slightly different complexion put on the point to that given to us this evening by the Minister at the Dispatch Box—and, frankly, the answer just given by the Minister was rather more credible and coherent.
For those reasons, I have much to think about in relation to my amendments. I am grateful to everyone who contributed. In relation to the other amendments in the group, this has been a useful tour of the technicalities of Clause 3. The Minister kindly indicated that she would meet me to discuss it, perhaps with other noble Lords who are interested. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sandhurst
“Restricting parental responsibility of offenders convicted of child crueltyAfter section 10G of the Children Act 1989 (review of orders made under section 10E or following an application under section 10F) (inserted by section 4), insert—“10H Duty to make prohibited steps order where serious child cruelty is committed(1) This section applies where—(a) the Crown Court sentences a person (“the offender”) for an offence listed in subsection 10 for a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more, and (b) the offender has parental responsibility for at least one child.(2) The Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order with respect to each child for whom the offender has parental responsibility.(3) The order must—(a) specify that no step of any kind which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child may be taken by the offender with respect to the child without the consent of the High Court or the family court, and(b) be made to have effect until the order is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.(4) But the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—(a) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,(b) a prohibited steps order is already in force that meets the requirements in subsection (3), or(c) it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.(5) A prohibited steps order made under this section ceases to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal(6) Sections 1, 7 and 11 do not apply where the Crown Court proceeds under this section.(7) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.(8) The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of a prohibited steps order made under this section.(9) A reference in this Act to an order under this section includes, so far as the context permits, an order varying or discharging it.(10) The relevant offences for subsection (1) are —(a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004);(b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933);(c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938);(d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);(e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16;(f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—(i) female genital mutilation (section 1);(ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2);(iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia (section 3);(g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would apply similar provisions, including prohibited steps orders, from Clause 3 to certain offenders of child cruelty.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 35, standing in both my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, would insert a new clause into the Bill to extend the safeguarding framework in Clause 3 beyond serious sexual offending so that it also applied to those convicted of the most serious child cruelty offences. In effect, it would mirror Clause 3.
Before I address the amendment in detail, I want to place on record my thanks to Helen Grant, Member of Parliament, for her tireless work on this issue. Over a number of years and across several Bills, she has consistently drawn Parliament’s attention to a clear and troubling gap in our safeguarding framework—that is, the absence of a coherent, systematic response to the most serious forms of child cruelty. Her campaigns for a child cruelty register and her persistence in ensuring that these issues remain firmly on the parliamentary agenda are no doubt something that all noble Lords can both respect and support.
Clause 3 introduces an important and welcome provision for the protection of children. The logic is compelling: where conduct is so grave that it demonstrates a fundamental incompatibility with the exercise of parental responsibility, there should be an automatic safeguarding mechanism. Amendment 35 asks a simple but profound question: why should that logic apply only to sexual offences and not to other, most serious forms of child cruelty?
The new clause proposed by the amendment would mirror the architecture of Clause 3 in many ways. It would introduce a duty on the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order where an offender with parental responsibility was convicted and sentenced for a defined list of serious child cruelty offences. The threshold for such offences would be a custodial sentence of two years or more. We suggest that that is an appropriate balance between protection and practicability.
These offences have been carefully selected and reflect those on Helen Grant’s proposed child cruelty register, for which the Government have previously expressed support. They embrace serious crimes such as causing or allowing the death or serious harm of a child, child cruelty and neglect, infanticide, certain offences under the Offences Against the Person Act where the victim is a child, and offences relating to female genital mutilation, FGM. During the Crime and Policing Bill, the noble Baroness said,
“Ministers will continue to pursue this issue with vigour”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 250.].
The offences set out in this amendment strike at the very heart of a child’s safety and well-being. It is only right that a prohibited steps order be imposed.
If the Government truly believe in acting to prevent child cruelty, then to reject this amendment would be to defend an inconsistency in the current framework which we say is difficult to justify. A parent convicted of a serious sexual offence might automatically be prevented from exercising parental responsibility, while a parent convicted of causing severe physical harm or life-threatening neglect may not be. From the child’s perspective, that distinction is artificial. The harm is real, the risk is real and the need for safeguarding is just as acute. This amendment does not undermine family life unnecessarily. It does not sever parental responsibility permanently. It simply ensures that in the most serious cases, no steps may be taken by the offender without the oversight and consent of the family courts. They are best placed to make decisions concerning welfare and long-term outcomes. The amendment would bring coherence to the Bill and align it with the broader safeguarding principles that Parliament has repeatedly endorsed.
This amendment is motivated by a simple proposition. Children who have suffered the most serious forms of cruelty deserve the same automatic safeguarding protections as those who have suffered serious sexual abuse. I commend this amendment to the Committee and urge the Government to engage constructively with it, in the same spirit in which Clause 3 itself was conceived. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the automatic restriction of a person’s parental responsibility is a novel change to the law and must be done in a responsible and proportionate manner. The Government want to understand how these new measures operate in practice before we consider expanding the scope to other offences. We will carefully monitor how the provision operates once it is implemented and, as part of that implementation, officials will develop a system to help us understand the impact the measures are having, how the measures work in practice and how we can make improvements. For cases not in scope of the measure, whether that is because they fall outside the four-year threshold that has previously been debated or because they involve different crimes such as child cruelty, there are existing routes available in the family courts to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility. It is our evaluation that it is right that children are protected in that way while we evaluate the effect of the measures in the Bill. For these reasons I invite the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I find that an interesting reply. No reasons are given other than that this is novel. The provisions in Clause 3 are themselves novel, and all we ask is that where a serious offence of cruelty has been committed in respect of a child, that should be sufficient reason to adopt the same approach as that taken with sexual assault. What is the difference in practice for the child between being sexually assaulted and suffering cruelty? Having said that, we hear what is said and will engage with the Minister between now and Report, but we will wish to consider the position on Report.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(d) the National Crime Agency.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds the National Crime Agency to the list of relevant bodies.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group which concern the operation of Clauses 6 and 7 and the scope and operation of the victim contact scheme. I turn first to Amendment 42 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I recognise the intention behind this amendment and the principle that underpins it: that victims whose close family members have been murdered, killed unlawfully or subjected to infanticide abroad should not find themselves falling between the cracks of the victims’ code simply because the offence occurred outside the United Kingdom. There is a strong case for ensuring that any victim should receive clear information and appropriate support on how to engage with the criminal justice system. The amendment seeks to give effect to that principle by requiring an appendix to the victims’ code setting out how it applies in such circumstances.
That said, it is also right to acknowledge that this amendment raises practical and operational questions that would need careful consideration. These include questions about jurisdiction, the extent to which criminal justice processes are engaged domestically, and how responsibilities would be allocated between domestic agencies and those overseas. I therefore look to the Minister to address how the Government would envisage this operating in practice while recognising and engaging with the important principle that the amendment seeks to advance.
Amendments 47A and 47B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, extend the definition of “victim” to include those who have experienced persistent antisocial behaviour meeting the statutory threshold for an antisocial behaviour case review. They also create a victim identifier linked to compliance with the victims’ code across criminal justice agencies. Both proposals are ideas that I am sure will instigate interesting debate; I look forward to hearing the noble Lord expand on them, and the Government’s response.
Amendments 56 and 57 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—which may or may not be spoken to—concern transparency and accountability in decisions taken by hospital managers not to disclose information requested under Sections 44F or 44K. Clearly, if hospital managers are to be entrusted with the discretion to withhold information in cases that may directly affect victim safety, it is entirely reasonable that there should be clear written reasons for such decisions and a meaningful route to appeal. Transparency in decision-making is essential, not only for victims but for other parties, such as the Probation Service, which are tasked with managing risks.
I turn to Amendments 36 and 37 in my name. Amendment 36 is a technical amendment that adds the National Crime Agency to the list of relevant bodies to which Clause 6 does not apply. Given the National Crime Agency’s distinct operational role and intelligence-handling functions, it may be appropriate that it be expressly included in that provision. I hope the Government will see this amendment as a sensible clarification rather than as a point of contention.
Amendment 37 would require the Secretary of State to extend the victim contact scheme to certain categories of victim who are currently excluded from it—victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences; victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking or harassment; and bereaved families in cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving. It would also require information to be communicated in a timely manner and for annual data to be published on the scheme’s uptake and accessibility.
The importance of this amendment has only been heightened by recent legislative developments. The Sentencing Bill, which has now passed, represented a marked shift in sentencing policy, particularly through the automatic and blanket presumption against short custodial sentences, regardless of offence type. During the passage of that legislation, particularly in debate in this House, a number of noble Lords repeatedly raised the consequences for victims. Although the Government may respond by saying that in exceptional circumstances this presumption may be overturned, the reality is rather clearer. An increasing number of offenders convicted of violent and sexual offences will now serve their sentences in the community, rather than in custody.
From the victim’s perspective, that is not an abstract policy choice. It has immediate and practical consequences for their perception of justice being served, for their sense of safety, for their ability to plan their lives and for their need to receive appropriate information. Under the current framework, many of these victims are excluded from the victim contact scheme because the custodial threshold is not met. That is now, I suggest, a glaring inconsistency in the light of the Government’s Sentencing Act. If anything, victims whose offenders are serving sentences in the community have a greater need for timely, accurate and trauma-informed information, not a lesser one. Further, without timeliness the scheme risks becoming meaningless. Information provided late is often information too late to be of use, and, without transparencies, such as through the publication of annual data on uptake and accessibility, there can be no meaningful accountability for offenders or for the Government.
We now live in a sentencing landscape that places a far greater reliance on community supervision. The Government have said that they expect to more or less double the number of people being tagged rather than incarcerated. The need for transparency and accurate data has never been more pressing. Amendment 37 insists that, where the state chooses to sentence offenders in the community, it must accept the corresponding responsibility to support and protect victims properly. In the absence of custody, robust victim engagement is really not an option; it is essential. I therefore urge the Government to engage seriously with this amendment and, if they are minded to resist it, explain how victims are to be adequately protected in a system that is going to leave an increasing number of offenders in the community. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay; to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 47A and 47B—I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for adding her name to them; and to Amendments 55, 56 and 57, on which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, may speak to us by some supernatural means. I am not quite sure, but the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I will try to cover it.
I point out that what all these amendments have in common is that they have been laid with the active engagement and support of the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman. The Minister mentioned that she knows and has a high regard for her. Rather than going on at great length about each amendment, although I am sure that your Lordships are dying to hear about them, I suspect that it would be better to have follow-up meetings involving Claire Waxman to go into the detail as to why she feels, and we feel, that these amendments are important enough to raise in Committee.
On bereaved victims of murder abroad, as in Amendment 42, we covered this ground in previous legislation when we attempted to get it into a Bill. My noble friend Lady Finlay will be able to go into much more detail about this but, in essence, we are dealing with a slight anomaly in the way that victims are treated. On average per annum, between 80 and 90 individuals who are UK citizens are murdered while they are abroad. At the moment, the experience of their families when those unfortunate incidents happen ranges from quite good to absolutely appalling. That is because there is no consistency in the way they are treated.
The Government have made attempts to get their house in order on what happens within the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction. Where we seem to have an issue is in getting the FCDO to apply a form of guidance, and above all training, across its key consulates in the areas where these incidents take place to ensure that those consulates are properly equipped, if and when such a tragedy appears, to deal with it effectively and consistently. The experience from the victims whose loved ones have been murdered abroad is that, in some cases, the consulates are absolutely brilliant and go out of their way to be helpful, while in other instances the victim truly is left entirely on their own. In particular, if this has happened when the partner of the person who has been murdered is abroad, they may find no help whatever and not be familiar with the language of that country. You can imagine the complexity and agony of trying to deal with all of that, on top of the shock of having had somebody very close to you murdered. However, my noble friend will go into that in more detail.
What Amendments 47A and 47B have in common is that for certain victims of antisocial behaviour, when that behaviour really is persistent—it often conforms to an escalating pattern—and has a deep effect on the victim, there is not consistency at the moment in the way that is dealt with. Amendment 47A tries to ensure that the authorities are more effective in identifying that pattern of behaviour and are able to join the dots, put them together and recognise that the behaviour has triggered a threshold at which proper support and access to victim services should be allowed.
Again, Amendment 47B is about joining up the dots. The way in which antisocial behaviour is dealt with is that it might come to the attention of the police, or it might come to the attention of a local authority or a housing association. There is no consistent way of that information, first, being recorded in a consistent and helpful manner, and, secondly, being communicated across those different boundaries in a way that enables whichever of those three jurisdictions is looking at the pattern of behaviour to pull the evidence together that it needs to understand exactly what has been going on. This is a request for a unique identifier for each victim which would, I hope, be the start of a process to enable that information to be channelled in a more consistent and co-ordinated manner. That would obviously be helpful to the victims, but also extremely helpful to whichever authority is trying to identify just how severe that pattern of antisocial behaviour is, and whether the effect it is having on the subject—the victim—is sufficient for it to trigger comprehensive wraparound support.
Lastly, I will deal with the three amendments that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will deal with in more detail. They concern where somebody in one’s family has been murdered by an individual who is identified as mentally disordered and who is then detained because of their mental disorder. The ability of the victims to get access to the sort of information which they can get from the Prison Service and the courts is completely different from what is able to be accessed from the hospital system. Again, some hospitals and hospital managers go out of their way to be understanding and helpful, and try to give the victims whatever succour and information they can. Others refuse point blank. They say that a variety of laws and processes prevent them doing that and that they are not at liberty to do it. All that we and the Victims’ Commissioner are asking is to look at this closely.
Julian Hendy, the founder of an organisation called Hundred Families, is very involved in this; he can give chapter, book and verse. First, we need to establish just how much of a problem this is, perhaps through meetings. Secondly, what are the different ways in which we might do something about it? Thirdly, how complicated is that: does it need to be in primary legislation, or are there other ways of doing it?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful for the way this has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Russell. When the family discover that their relative has been murdered abroad, the problem, as has been said, is that they have no idea what has happened. Unless a service from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is rapidly responsive, there is a serious danger that evidence will not be maintained, that it will be destroyed or lost, and therefore that any processes to bring someone to justice will be seriously impaired. As written, the victims’ code seems to differentiate between victims murdered on home soil versus murders that could occur anywhere in the world. The added difficulty is that different countries around the world have different police services and processes, and the language or dialect in different areas may create difficulties.
There are two aspects to this: there is the part that occurs in this country, which is where the family may be contacting the FCDO. I was glad to see that the information on the website had been recently updated. It reads as if everything will happen smoothly but, unfortunately, that is a very rose-tinted view of reality. Some parts have not been updated for a few years. I wonder whether one of the problems lies out there with our own staff in all these different countries. They may never have experienced managing a death before, and suddenly they find they are dealing with an incredibly difficult situation with all kinds of blocks because of the politics of wherever they are.
In terms of linking between here and our staff around the world, it would seem important that there is always one designated person who has responsibility for all aspects of deaths or injuries that could occur in that country, and that this is their designation from day one of their placement in that country. They would know the different dialects, the different police systems, the different ways of maintaining evidence. This would require a fair degree of forensic training; it cannot just be written in guidelines or in a handbook. It means that people need to be prepared ahead of time in order to cope with the situation. It may well be that the families—who are completely devastated and find themselves in a terrifying and unknown situation—are at least talking to somebody with some competencies regarding that country and how its judicial systems work. Sadly, the judicial standards that we expect here are not applicable everywhere around the world. Police services are not always as well organised as ours are. It can be extremely difficult to get the right people in the right place at the right time.
It is also important that whoever has that function holds a certain degree of responsibility to make sure that evidence is not inadvertently lost and destroyed. Until you have learned about evidence that should be kept, you may not realise how important some things are: it is not only aspects of clothing and the body. It might be any of the person’s personal effects; it might involve taking photographs before anything is moved in any way. Our own staff need to be equipped with those skills. I hope from this debate that we might see a link between the Ministry of Justice, which is obviously central to the Bill, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the ability for them to ensure that staff have training wherever they are, including forensic understanding. This could include junior members of staff, as long as they are fully trained.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 42 in this group to ensure that certain parts of the victims’ code apply to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for supporting the amendment, and for going into some detail. I will endeavour not to repeat what they have said.
I am grateful for the meeting with the Minister last week, during which she mentioned the new guidance that has been recently updated. It is a good document, but it gives the victims no formal rights at all and relies on two different people—the FCDO case manager and the Homicide Service officer, provided by the charity Victim Support—to help them navigate the system. I am sure that this guidance will help improve the service from its previous iteration, but the experience of families who have a loved one killed abroad is that it can be inconsistent. Some victims also receive fragmented, delayed updates about their case, and they often have to chase information themselves, not just with Victim Support or the FCDO but within the country.
Support from the Homicide Service is currently discretionary. This can leave families without dedicated help after the trauma if there are no resources. Having it in the victims’ code will ensure certainty for victims in receiving a service, despite the many differences and difficulties of dealing with the complex arrangements abroad. It is also clear from the guidance that only a certain level of financial help is available to victims from Homicide Service caseworkers. Finally, despite what is written in the guidance, many families have to find and pay for translation services themselves, and there is a risk of inconsistency in service provision. Having it in the victims’ code would ensure that the onus is no longer placed on the victim to get documents translated. This would also give families parity of support with foreign nationals who are victims in the UK, or with UK nationals whose first language is not English.
Turning to the other amendments, we on these Benches support Amendment 37, on the extension of the victim contact scheme, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. This will probably be no surprise to him, given that it was tabled by Jess Brown-Fuller MP, my honourable friend in the House of Commons. I did write to the noble and learned Lord after it was tabled, asking him to withdraw the amendment, as we on these Benches had decided that we wanted to re-table it here in the House of Lords, as per our convention. The PBO told us recently that they received no such request, but that does not diminish our support for it.
I also signed Amendments 47A and 47B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The first seeks to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour have access to victim support services provided by local police and crime commissioners. These services are only available to victims as defined by the victims’ code of practice. Persistent anti-social behaviour is not just tiresome and irritating: it can have a traumatising psychological effect on victims. I am particularly reminded of the late Baroness Newlove talking about the local youths who made her and her family’s lives an absolute misery before they brutally murdered her husband. If the police cannot stop it, then surely victims should be able to get support locally. Amendment 47B proposes that each victim have a unique identifier, to be used with all the different agencies involved in their experience. Given the debate we have had today on many of the amendments, this identifier might well solve some of the problems alluded to about different parts of the system and different bodies not understanding or even knowing what was going on.
At the moment, the experience of sharing data between relevant agencies can be woeful, and this number would strengthen the system. It would mean risk assessments can work better, as well as monitoring compliance with the victims’ code and improving communication and collaboration across agencies.
I have also signed Amendments 55, 56 and 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which tackle the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to earlier, of how hospitals ensure that they balance the needs of the victim with those of a patient who has murdered a family member of the victim. At the moment, unfortunately, because of the code of ethics that medical practitioners are bound by, the balance is in the patient is their absolute priority, which can mean that victims of the most serious crimes cannot know where the offenders, the patients, are, or if there are any changes in the care that they might need to know about, which might include such things as short-term home release. This is much less than the information that is available when an offender is in prison, and the process for the victim to ask for information involves asking a victim liaison officer at the hospital, who will ask for the information from the clinicians. That is two Chinese walls between the victim and the person providing the information. Because, once behind hospital walls, there is no evidence that the medics balance or give due regard to the safety and well-being of victims, and this is very retraumatising for the victims.
I also wonder sometimes whether medical practitioners do not get to see all the relevant data about the actual act and the consequences for the victim. From these Benches, we support proposals that would ensure that the medical professionals must take a balanced approach when deciding whether to provide information to the victim and must write to the victim to explain when they have decided not to take that balanced view. There should also be an appeal mechanism. These amendments would ensure that right 11 of the victims’ code is delivered for victims, giving them the same right of requesting that information from prisons and from other bodies where a patient might be held.
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)
My Lords, in general I support these amendments, particularly those put forward by my noble friend Lady Finlay. Having been in charge of some of these investigations over a long period of time, take it from me that they are very difficult, indeed nearly impossible, when the victim dies outside the jurisdiction. In a lot of cases, in the old days, talking to the DPP, some of us went out there personally to actually do the investigations. It was difficult in a way that is not necessary, and I think that what has been outlined by my noble friend is absolutely common sense. In the old days, if I might refer to them, things were a bit simpler: we dealt with the police, who were sometimes not quite up to our standards, and we tried to form some relationship. However, things have got more difficult in terms of the technical side of the law, so I make a kind of brief supplication, basically, as a practitioner over a long period of time: I really think that some of these amendments would have a massive effect on securing justice for victims, particularly in those places where we do not have any jurisdiction whatever.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord has just used the phrase “common sense”, and I think that that is what is expected by people who are affected, who know that they could look to consular services for help if they have lost a passport, but not in such a difficult situation as this. I simply say—and this is not addressed to the noble Baroness but possibly to some of her colleagues—that over the period that we have discussed this issue, there has almost been a sense of, “That’s the Foreign Office, it’s not us”. If we could get this into the victims’ code, it might mean a duty on the FCDO to be prepared to be more effective, and actually to be more effective.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 36 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seeks to add agreements entered into by the National Crime Agency, the NCA, to the list of agreements in new subsection (7) that are exempt from the measure. Non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, should not be used to silence victims or cover up crime: I think we can all agree on that. New subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 6 provide that the provision will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements, in the interests of national security.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for everything she said. Early on, she said that the problem is that the victims’ code is not always applicable abroad. Can she comment on proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment, which talks specifically about the Secretary of State by regulation issuing an appendix to the victims’ code, setting out how the code applies to these victims? It is understood, from our side, that it would be different.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this point. Our current position is that we do not believe that that is necessary, but I am happy to meet her and get her to try to persuade me why I am wrong and she is right—there is my challenge to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
The FCDO has a duty of care and a responsibility for UK citizens when they are in whichever country. It does not seem too bizarre or extreme to hope that it would accept a degree of responsibility for the very small number of unfortunate victims who, for whatever reason, are unlawfully killed in the course of a year. For the FCDO to accept that that is part of its responsibility—a very small part, albeit an important one—and to prepare itself thoroughly enough to be able to fulfil that duty in a professional, proper and sensitive way in the unhappy event that it is required does not seem too much to ask.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, puts it very persuasively and it is extremely tempting, particularly given that I do not speak for the FCDO, to say that it sounds utterly reasonable. However, I am sure he will understand why I cannot give that kind of commitment from the Dispatch Box, but I can commit to meeting and discussing this further.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Forgive me for interrupting again on this issue. Can the Minister undertake to discuss with the FCDO the concept that each embassy or consulate has one named lead person for when it experiences managing one of these tragic situations, and that it is handed over to another named person when they leave? They could also come together as a group to provide support for, and learn from, each other, and compare where particular difficulties have occurred so that, over the years, the training can improve for each of these people. The worry at the moment is that these cases are so unusual in some places that it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for some of the staff.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Again, the noble Baroness puts it very persuasively and, listening to her now, it all seems to make total sense. If, as a Government, we are committed to supporting victims of crime and putting them front and centre, that does not stop at our borders. However, I do not think that I can give an answer today and it would not be right to do so. I will commit to meeting the noble Baroness and seeing whether I can find out from the FCDO at least what its approach would be to such a suggestion. If she would put it in writing to me I could then pass it on so that we can try to take matters further.
Amendment 47A, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to add victims of persistent but non-criminal anti-social behaviour to the definition of a victim, as set out in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Government agree that anti-social behaviour is a blight on our communities and its impact should never be underestimated. We have committed to provide better support and information to victims of anti-social behaviour and have taken significant steps to do so. This includes the measures in this Bill that will strengthen the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers to hold the agencies that support anti-social behaviour victims to account.
Where anti-social behaviour amounts to criminal conduct, such as criminal damage, victims will benefit from the rights and entitlements within the victims’ code. However, expanding the definition of a victim to bring those affected by non-criminal anti-social behaviour within the code would, in our view, not be appropriate, as it is not an effective or efficient response to this kind of the behaviour. For example, in our view, it would be neither appropriate nor necessary for a victim of a neighbour who is playing loud music on one occasion to be brought within the scope of the victims’ code. Doing so could create unrealistic expectations and divert attention and resources from those experiencing serious criminal harm, such as victims of child sexual abuse.
In our view, there are better routes available to help these victims, including the anti-social behaviour case review, which gives the victims of persistent behaviour the right to request a multi-agency review to secure a resolution. In the proposals for the new victims’ code, on which we are currently consulting, we have clarified what victims of criminal anti-social behaviour can expect from the code and provided information about the case review process. I would welcome your Lordships’ responses to the consultation to outline in detail what further provision would be required for these victims.
On Amendment 47B, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Bach and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I begin by acknowledging the problems brought by our current inability reliably to identify the same victim or witness across the criminal justice system. We accept that this results in duplication of records, slows the flow of information and leads to inconsistent data across the agencies. In addition, this fragmentation places a significant administrative burden on staff, who must reconcile records manually and then chase the missing information. However, perhaps most importantly, it means that victims and witnesses are sometimes provided with conflicting information, which can cause confusion at best and serious distress at worst.
The Government are already working to address these issues through the cross-criminal justice system data improvement programme, jointly led by the Ministry of Justice and Home Office. This programme aims to strengthen data sharing across the criminal justice system and is actively exploring how individuals, including victims, can be more reliably recognised across agencies. We are clear that improvements to data sharing must be underpinned by robust safeguards to ensure personal data is handled lawfully, securely and proportionately, with a strong focus on minimising unnecessary circulation of sensitive information, which I know is a key concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
The Government are open to considering legislative options to improve data sharing, data quality and the use of unique identifiers where that is shown to be necessary and proportionate. However, introducing a statutory requirement at this stage, ahead of the completion of the work of the programme, could unintentionally constrain future design and implementation choices, before we are confident it would deliver the intended benefits for victims and the wider criminal justice system. For these reasons, the Government do not believe that primary legislation at this stage is the appropriate mechanism.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
For well over a decade, since the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014, we have been discussing as a House a unique identifying number for children who may end up either in the health system or care system as well as schools. It has taken well over a decade—they are just about to use the NHS number as part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I urge the Minister to have a look at this again; otherwise, we will be here for another 10 years, arguing the same point.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
This Government have not been in power over the whole of the last of the decade, and we are doing our best to look at it. I will certainly look at it and discuss it with her. We are simply saying that, at this stage, we do not think primary legislation is the right way of dealing with it.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 55, 56 and 57, in the names of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who is not in his place, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. Before I do, let me say that I recently had the privilege of meeting with Emma Webber and with Julian Hendy of Hundred Families. They explained very clearly to me the issues as they see them, and it was a very moving experience. I pay tribute to their strength and honour the memories of those they have lost. Their experiences, along with the experiences of all victims of crime, must continue to guide us.
Part of the rationale for providing information to victims is to help them to feel safe and so they can plan for an offender’s eventual release or discharge. That is why the legislation requires that hospital managers provide victims with specified information where appropriate, regardless of any assessment by a hospital manager of the victim’s safety and well-being, because we acknowledge that the hospital manager’s assessment could well be different from the victim’s own assessment.
Where hospital managers receive a request for information from an eligible victim outwith the specified list within the Bill, they will consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to provid it, and this assessment can of course include considering the risk to the victim. Where there are specific concerns about a victim’s safety, there are other, more appropriate processes to be followed. It is important to note that this is not the primary purpose of the victim contact scheme.
Where a decision is made that it is not appropriate to provide some information, reasons can and should be provided wherever possible. However, these should reflect the victim’s communication preferences, and considerations about this would, in our view, be most appropriately set out in operational guidance, which would also provide the necessary flexibility to adjust requirements as we monitor practice.
We agree that victims should have a route for some recourse where information is not provided. There are existing complaint routes for all cohorts, and the Government consider that a more effective way of going about this would be to make sure hospital managers understand and fulfil their obligations to victims at the outset, rather than introducing additional bureaucracy. My officials are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to consider routes by which to support hospital managers, including whether a joint departmental protocol, or via planned updates to the Mental Health Act code of practice—statutory guidance under the Mental Health Act 1983—might provide an appropriate vehicle.
In relation to all the amendments in this group and many of the others, we are listening and we want to get it right. We will continue to work with your Lordships and with victims’ groups, but for now I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this wide-ranging and thoughtful debate on the operation of the victim contact scheme and the wider support network for victims. The debate has demonstrated broad consensus on the principle that victims’ rights and access to information must keep pace with changes in sentencing policy and criminal justice practice. The question is not whether victim engagement matters but whether our current structures are fit for purpose in the systems we now operate.
Several amendments in the group had common concerns: gaps in coverage within the victims’ code and the victim contact scheme; lack of transparency, consistency and accountability in how information is provided; the risk that victims fall through the cracks; and the technical thresholds or institutional boundaries that exist. Taken together, these amendments seek to ensure that victim support is timely, trauma-informed, consistent and capable of scrutiny. The amendments also recognise that, among others, where the state chooses to sentence offenders in the community, it assumes a greater, not a lesser, responsibility to support victims. Victim engagement must be strengthened not weakened in a non-custodial sentencing landscape. I therefore urge the Government to consider carefully how victims are to be protected and informed under current policy. In the meantime, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
National Cancer Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming the publication of the national cancer plan and make it clear we fully share the Government’s desire to tackle cancer and to succeed in the fight against a condition that has affected almost every family in the country in one way or another. The Government have set out a clear ambition in this area, and we support them in that endeavour. It is appropriate for me also to pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the development of the plan, particularly those with lived experience with cancer and those close to them. Their willingness to share their experiences with such openness—and in many cases, courage—has, I am sure, been invaluable in shaping the finished result, and they deserve our thanks and recognition.
The national cancer plan sets out a number of significant commitments, including improving early diagnosis, restoring performance against cancer waiting time standards, accelerating the set-up of clinical trials and rolling out targeted lung screening nationally. It also places a strong emphasis on modernising services through technology and innovation.
These are all laudable aims and, indeed, Cancer Research UK has said that there is “much to welcome” in the plan. However, it has also rightly noted that delivery, funding and accountability will ultimately determine whether patients see real change. It is easy to put ambitious plans down on paper, but what matter in the end are clear delivery milestones and accountability. In that respect, this plan echoes many of the ambitions of the 10-year NHS plan, which was strong on aspiration but lighter on detail about how improvements would be delivered on the ground. My first question is, therefore, straightforward. When will the Government publish clear, fully funded milestones setting out how and when patients can expect to see tangible improvements over the next year or two?
It is also clear that the success of the plan will depend on having a sufficient workforce of cancer nurses, radiographers, pathologists and oncologists to deliver its aims. Can the Minister say whether we will shortly see a fully funded long-term workforce plan to support the staffing required to expand diagnostic and treatment capacity, not just in NHS trust settings but within neighbourhood health centres? In particular, can the Government explain clearly who will staff these services and how they will be funded? Blood Cancer UK has highlighted the importance of ensuring that blood cancers are properly recognised in workforce and service planning, and that patients receive consistent support from the point of diagnosis, including access to a named healthcare professional. Staff also need to know that they will be supported in delivering this plan, given current strains on capacity. In that context, we hear anecdotally of the difficulties involved in ensuring that staffing by doctors is adequate in all parts of the country. Some doctors, especially doctors in training, make up their minds that they will not be sent to work in an area that is not to their liking, perhaps because it would locate them far from friends and family. Will the welcome announcement of more training places in rural areas be enough to get sufficient doctors working in those areas?
Alongside the important question of staffing levels sits the Government’s ambition to invest in up-to-date capital equipment and cutting-edge technology. Investment in this often expensive technology is best and most efficiently met through capital budgets managed centrally. That leads me to a question about accountability for delivery, and where such accountability will lie. With the planned absorption of NHS England into the department, can the Minister give a sense of how the national cancer plan as a whole will be steered and monitored, not only centrally but regionally?
One specific aspect of the plan that I would like to welcome is the dedicated chapter for children, teenagers and young adults. This has been described by the Teenage Cancer Trust as a crucial step and an important acknowledgement that teenagers and young people deserve care designed around them and not as an afterthought. The work that the Government have done in recognising this is welcome. One point that the Teenage Cancer Trust has made particularly clearly is the importance of involving young people at the policy development stage. Can the Minister set out how young people with cancer were engaged in the development of this plan and how their voices were reflected in its content? Looking ahead, what steps will the Government take to ensure this becomes an ongoing process: listening to young people with cancer and systematically taking their feedback into account as the plan is implemented and reviewed?
Another point that charities and campaigners have consistently emphasised is the importance of clearly distinguishing between children and young people. The needs and challenges facing a three year-old child are self-evidently different from those of a 17 year-old young person, and it is important that this distinction is properly recognised in both policy and practice. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could set out for the House how these different groups within the broader category of children and young people are engaged with. In particular, it would be helpful to understand how mental health support is tailored to different age groups and how the impact of a cancer diagnosis at different stages of a young person’s educational journey is reflected in their treatment and support pathways. If the noble Baroness could confirm that this distinction is one which the Government actively make and which will be taken into account in future policy development, I should be most grateful.
Let me conclude by reiterating my support for this plan and for the ambitions it sets out. In particular, there are some welcome and promising commitments around improving access to clinical trials and speeding up diagnosis. As the Minister knows, we need to do better in both those areas, and we share the Government’s ambitions to do so. For our part, we will continue to play our role in opposition by scrutinising delivery closely to ensure that ambition is matched by action and that the Government’s very laudable commitments translate into tangible improvement on the ground for patients.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, we very much welcome the national cancer plan and support its ambitions—and it is very ambitious. Many organisations and committees have called for an integrated, long-term plan, so it is very good that the Government have listened and, in particular, have taken note of the views of patients and their families—the people with lived experience of all these problems. However, may I reiterate Cancer Research UK’s response to the plan? It said:
“The key question that patients and their loved ones will ask, however, is how quickly will they see progress in cancer survival and outcomes? The improvements they are waiting for will depend on how this plan translates into delivery. Funding must match the ambition of what has been promised, or the NHS will struggle to expand its diagnostic capacity or introduce innovation at scale. And clear leadership and accountability are also crucial”.
Many of those points have also been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just now.
We know that outcomes in England have lagged behind comparable countries for decades, so it is positive to see improving cancer survival at the centre of the plan. However, it is going to be tough to achieve and will require much faster progress than what we have heard so far indicates. The key, of course, is improved diagnosis at an early stage, so I welcome the renewed commitment to earlier diagnosis and to meeting all cancer waiting time targets by 2029. It is outrageous that 92% of trusts do not reach the target for starting treatment. I welcome the full rollout of lung screening by 2030 and increasing the sensitivity of the tests used in bowel screening by 2028. However, what about breast screening? There have been problems in some parts of the country in getting that done. Can the Minister say whether these plans will be fully resourced? There is no point in doing the screening and tests unless an expert is there to interpret them. There are bold promises, but will they be matched with the resources and training required?
The plan talks about AI tools and liquid biopsy tests, which could certainly hold real potential for increasing productivity. However, before they are introduced, they must be robustly tested so that only safe and effective innovations reach patients and those that do not work can be dropped.
While there is a focus on diagnosis and treatment, I was pleased to see that the plan includes a commitment to increase action on lifestyle factors which we know cause cancer. Smoking tobacco, being overweight or obese, alcohol and UV exposure still cause many cancers that could be prevented. Fortunately, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill should certainly have a positive effect over the coming years in stopping people smoking in the first place. It is also positive to see action to strengthen protections on sunbed use and measures to drive HPV vaccination uptake, particularly in underserved groups. The new ad hoc committee on childhood vaccine rates is, I hope, going to contribute to that.
More action is needed to drive the shift from sickness to prevention, which is one of the Government’s core objectives in their 10-year health plan. There is still more to do to help millions of existing smokers quit smoking and to prevent someone becoming overweight or obese in the first place. Tightening regulation on alcohol through introducing minimum unit pricing, as implemented in Scotland and Wales, was a missed opportunity. Will the Government reconsider?
Rare cancers make up about 24% of cancers diagnosed in the UK and the EU every year. This includes cancers of children and young people, because they are less likely to suffer from the cancers caused by the lifestyle issues I have just mentioned. This is where research comes in, and the ability to implement research findings into the NHS. It is a sad fact that the NHS has been slow in the past to implement new cutting-edge treatments, so it is welcome that the plan has some important commitments in that respect. However, as with other aspects of the plan, the devil is in the detail.
The focus on ending delays in cancer treatment 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 the radiotherapy deserts. Will the Minister extend her ambition to the 200 extra radiotherapy machines that the Liberal Democrats have proposed? Another 28 will probably only replace the old machines that need to be replaced anyway—it will not take us forward. Can the Minister tell us about the plan to train the operatives for these new machines? Resources, training and accountability are at the heart of this. We have not had a lot of detail yet, so I look forward to getting more.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the warm welcome from both Front Benches for the national cancer plan. This is a moment when we transform our cancer care and we make it personalised—we wrap it around the person instead of expecting it to be the other way around. The 62-day treatment standard has not been met since 2015, and outcomes, as we have talked about a lot in this Chamber, continue to lag behind those of comparable countries. That is what has driven us to this point to ensure that, by 2035, three in four people diagnosed with cancer will be alive five years later, whereas at present, the figure is three in five. That represents 320,000 more lives saved, with all the effects on their friends, families and communities, as well as themselves. That will be the fastest improvement in cancer survival this country has ever seen.
I will try to deal with some of the Front-Bench questions. I agree with much of what has been raised, including the recognition of all those, including those with lived experience, who contributed to what is, in my view and experience, a very bold 10-year strategy that actually sets out how we will do this. Both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about clear milestones. I am glad to say that those are set out at the end of each chapter, with dates and the responsible organisations for all key actions and commitments.
The noble Earl raised the workforce plan. It will be published in the spring and will set out guidance—this goes to the point raised by the noble Baroness—not just on expanding numbers but on ensuring that staff are properly trained and supported. This will require a multidisciplinary team approach. We will use training directly as a lever to prioritise training places in trusts, often in the rural and coastal areas that the noble Earl asked about, as it is indeed the case that vacancy rates are higher and performance is lower. Training doctors of course takes time, but this is about long-term sustainable change and about turning around the whole of the cancer pathway. It is the exact opposite of us tinkering here and there. We are working with the royal colleges to boost the numbers of doctors specialising in clinical and medical oncology.
The noble Earl asked about bringing NHS England into the department. I see that as a great opportunity. Within the plan, we have set out a reformed national cancer board. It will be comprised of cancer experts, and it will be accountable—this is so important, as the noble Baroness said—for the overall delivery of the plan. Regionally, we will keep and strengthen the role of cancer alliances, which will work hand in glove with NHS regions to deliver cancer improvements.
The noble Earl asked how young people are being engaged. We worked with the Children and Young People Cancer Taskforce to ensure their voices were heard through its patient experience panel. Importantly, we will appoint a lead for children and young people with cancer to be part of the revamped national cancer board. We want their voices to continue to be heard. We definitely recognise the distinction between children and young people; they have different needs. For example, the plan highlights the importance of play for children, as well as the role of youth support co-ordinators in providing educational, emotional and fertility support for teenagers and young people. I agree with the noble Earl that cancer has a profound psychological impact on all patients and those supporting them. The plan sets out how that support must be standardised for children and young people, including the provision of longer-term support.
The noble Baroness asked about improving early diagnosis. We are providing £2.3 billion of investment in diagnostics to deliver 9.5 million additional tests by 2029 across screening and symptomatic diagnosis. The noble Baroness asked about seeing change; I say go to a community diagnostic centre. That epitomises where we are going with our National Health Service. We will also spend more than £650 million to complete the rollout of lung cancer screening by 2030, which is one of the things that can make the biggest difference in more disadvantaged areas, as well in prevention.
On radiotherapy machines, the responsibility lies at a local level. We expect local systems to continue to invest in new machines to meet the ambitious targets. Through the spending review, providers have been allocated with £15 billion in operational capital for local priorities and £5 billion to support a return to constitutional standards, including for radiotherapy machines.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I must declare my interests in palliative care over the years. I will not list them all now, but I had the pleasure of working on the palliative care commission under the chairmanship of Sir Mike Richards. From speaking to him, I am glad to learn that he will have a role in the modern service framework.
My concern about chapter 4 is that action 7 seems to compound palliative care with end-of-life care. It does not recognise the benefit of someone receiving interventions early. It has been shown that patients benefit maximally from having at least three months of involvement with palliative care, rather than it coming in too little too late. Therefore, when we have integrated services in a cancer centre, time is allowed for a recurrence—when there is a crisis—to be dealt with immediately, rather than patients going home and being told, “Oh, you will see somebody later”. You have to be on the spot and you have to be available 24/7. I hope that there will be recognition that palliative care services save money.
I was glad to see that that the RIPEL study in Oxford was referred to. I ask the Minister whether she recognises the figures that have come from Hull York which show that, where you have fully integrated specialist palliative care services, you can save about £800 million a year by avoiding wasted interventions. I should declare an interest in that I have a young family member with an extremely rare cancer.
I also hope that the Minister will be able to provide reassurance that the speedy processes for modern and semi-experimental treatments will be available much more rapidly because, at the moment, many patients are having to pay privately through fundraising schemes because there are treatments that are emerging but are not yet available on the NHS.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sorry to hear about the member of the noble Baroness’s family.
To the point about treatment, by 2028, every cancer patient will have access to a personal cancer care plan via the NHS app. Tailoring treatment and support through the whole care journey is important, including before the care journey starts. It will be a complete innovation that we are not talking about rehabilitation but what we are now calling “prehabilitation”, to support people.
We are also investing £80 million in four new NHS aseptic medicine production hubs, which will be operational by next year, to increase the supply of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, using advanced automation.
To the points about hospices and palliative care, for some, treatment is not enough; it is about the timely and proactive availability of palliative and end-of-life care. That is what is going to make the difference to their quality of life. We are working with the royal colleges to deliver enhanced levels of care, known as acute and supportive oncology, to consistent standards, and that will integrate palliative and end-of-life care while supporting clinicians to provide the best treatment. We are delivering the biggest investment in hospices in a generation—some £100 million to upgrade buildings, facilities and digital systems.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I echo the praise of other noble Lords for the report. Professor Peter Johnson has done an enormously worthwhile job, and there is so much richness and so many good things in the report.
I will put a spotlight on the unfortunate framing that catching cancer is, largely speaking and for the majority of people, simply a matter of bad luck. The report says quite clearly, under prevention:
“As much as a third of cancers are preventable”.
That is a very conservative estimation of the proportion of cancers that are preventable. Modern analysis would point to systemically preventable exposure to multiple risk factors, which are entirely clustered around class. This framing is incredibly important, because it leads to consequential decisions in the Treasury, among health colleagues and in the rest of government about what we should and could be doing as a society and as a Government to try to reduce the prevalence of cancer.
In Europe, the European Code Against Cancer puts prevention absolutely at the centre of the cancer plan. In countries such as Malta, Portugal and Spain, cancer reduction is not seen as something that is relegated to a paragraph in the introduction: it is absolutely front and centre of the whole cancer plan. It embraces all of health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned screening and vaccines, but it is a shame that those are not much more front and centre and that the Government’s ambitions are not greater. Where are the targets on things such as obesity and clean air? These are the kinds of things that one would expect to see built into a cancer plan. In terms of the “all of government” approach, where is taxation and the planning system, mentioned in the plan as important levers for reducing cancer?
The bad-luck attitude to cancer is an old-fashioned clinicians’ bias that is no longer supported by the epidemiology. So, I ask the Minister, first, is it possible to perhaps review the research framework that has led to that kind of understatement of the preventability of cancer? Coming out of that, secondly, I ask the Minister whether she could perhaps consider looking at a cancer prevention plan, as they have in other countries?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the cancer plan. I should have mentioned this. I will be honest: even as a Minister, I do not always pay full attention to the foreword, and I am sure that other former Ministers might share that, within a plan, but I commend this one to noble Lords, not least because the Secretary of State himself talked about his own experience of being told he had kidney cancer. He described his world being turned upside down. He talked about fear and foreboding, as does our Minister, Ashley Dalton MP. They both talked about fear and foreboding and the need to turn that round with action. That kind of drive, as well as the facts before us, drive this plan.
On the point about a cancer prevention plan and the question of where the strategy is for the reduction of obesity and so on, I say that this is a plan to be read alongside our other commitments. It builds on the 10-year health plan, which laid out the way we would be going forward with our shifts. This is about turning round the whole cancer pathway.
To the point specifically about prevention, I heard what the noble Lord said. We do not take the view that it is “just bad luck”. Where there is prevention, we should absolutely tackle that.
The plan tackles the causes head-on, not just by talking but with government action to cut smoking with the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, reduce obesity, act on alcohol harm and protect people from dangerous UV exposure, including through sunbeds. No one should lose someone to cancer that should have been prevented. We will not ignore the communities that are hit hardest. By having those preventions, we are supporting the communities that are hit hardest. Rolling out lung cancer screening more extensively will be one of the areas of importance.
I referred earlier to cancer alliances. They will promote, for example, new catch-up schemes to enable young people who have missed out on the HPV vaccination at school. They can have it administered at their local pharmacy. We are not leaving matters to chance. We are rolling out home testing kits for cervical cancer for those who do not go to appointments for a range of reasons, rather than offering only one opportunity.
In all these ways, the national cancer plan tackles the causes of cancer. We will continue to see that through. As the noble Lord knows, moving from sickness to prevention is a key factor in our 10-year plan.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I too support the national cancer plan, but I am not here to blow the Government’s trumpet. I will pick up on some of the points.
This is an ambitious plan, and that is good, because it might act as a catalyst for some progress. However, if that progress is to be achieved, the Government need to commit much more than what the cancer plan suggests. The plan suggests:
“Every patient will get a personalised assessment of their needs and a personal cancer plan—a complete support plan complementing their diagnosis and treatment”
and focusing on their wider needs. It goes on to say:
“Every patient will have a named neighbourhood care lead to coordinate their care and support after treatment”.
If that can be achieved, it will be fantastic. Apart from all the technological advances that we will have to fund in research terms, it is ambitious to suggest that liquid blood tests and cancer vaccines could be developed, be tested and be available tomorrow. It could be a long-term shot. Without investment, that will not happen. One of the key areas of deficiency is that there is nothing on what the manpower requirements would be and how this will fit into the manpower plan that the Government already have.
I heard what the Minister said about prevention. I heard nothing about developing cancer centres; we know from experience that outcomes are best when patients are treated in cancer centres, rather than in every hospital in the country. We have no targets to eliminate cancer. For example, it is possible to eliminate cervical cancer by a proper immunisation programme of HPV vaccines.
I am allowed only to ask questions, but it would be nice to have a longer debate. We never had one on the national health plan either. I hope that could be managed somehow.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That last point will, of course, be drawn to the attention of the usual channels. I too would welcome a debate on this. Noble Lords might wish to note that when they have an opportunity to suggest or apply for debates.
The noble Lord’s last point was about elimination of cancer. That is possible in some cases. I am glad that he mentioned cervical cancer. I mentioned in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that we have committed to catch-up HPV vaccination campaigns from this year, to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040. That is absolutely the right thing to do, and to introduce the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which I hope will become an Act, to phase out smoking and reduce youth vaping, which can be a gateway to smoking. That will also reduce risk factors.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is always right to press us to go further. I understand that. This is a plan for the long term but with staging posts along the way. We have already made progress. For example, I was very pleased when we announced a trial called EDITH for breast cancer screening, to harness the benefits of AI, working with operatives for sped up and more accurate diagnoses. This is one example and is to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised about AI.
I hear what the noble Lord says about cancer centres. We are seeking to move treatment and diagnosis from hospitals to community. That is one model, but there are others, as the noble Lord would acknowledge. It is right to push us to go further, but what sets this plan apart is not just its level of ambition and its recognition that all is not right in the world but that it is setting out how we will get there. However, I welcome the transparency and leadership which is attached to this—which noble Lords have called for. This plan merits a lot of attention and support. I shall be pleased to discuss it in this Chamber further.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, I too recognise that this plan is a really good step forward in terms of the long-term plan for cancer sufferers. Many of our families have been touched by this awful disease, which is many and varied. However, I would like to focus on the innovation and research side of this, our speed of uptake within the NHS across the United Kingdom and how quickly, relative to other places in the world, we get some of the testing that is available out to our UK nationals.
A test called an Oncotype DX test, which is used to determine whether or not it is suitable for breast cancer sufferers to have chemotherapy, has recently been brought to my attention. In many cases, people can avoid chemotherapy if the test is actually telling the clinician that it is not necessary. In fact, the majority of patients with a particular type of breast cancer will not need chemotherapy, and that test will tell them and identify them.
The reality is that that test was available in the US from 2004. It was adopted by NICE in its guidelines in the UK in 2015. It is only now being widely adopted in the NHS across the whole country, rather than just in specialist teaching hospitals. That speed of adoption means that many people are actually having unfortunate treatment that they may not have required.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to look at how quickly we adopt these new genomic tests and how quickly we can actually improve that patient path for each and every patient. This was personalised medicine that was designed 20 years ago and we are only just starting to see it roll out nationally.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point, particularly as we are in what I regard as a whole new area of scientific and technological advancement, and we have the chance to harness it.
In general terms, I can say to the noble Baroness that where, for example, there are regulatory problems with getting new treatments out there, we are working to remove all those blocks. That work is going on.
With regard to genomics, the plan does talk about routine genomic testing to match patients to targeted therapies and trials, and it also talks about investment in AI-guided radiotherapy, in cell therapy and in novel immunotherapies. There is also going to be the establishment of a cancer trial accelerator programme by next year, to increase trial access and speed.
My last point, which I hope will be helpful, is that six national research priorities are established, including early detection, mRNA vaccines, rare cancers and paediatric therapies. I take the point that the noble Baroness is making. The cancer plan addresses that, as well as seeking to remove blocks that should not be there.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton
“Duty to commission support services for caregivers of victims of abuse and exploitation(1) This section applies in respect of victims of offences relating to—(a) domestic abuse,(b) sexual violence, or(c) child criminal exploitation, where the victim—(i) at the time of the offence, was under the age of 18, or(ii) is an adult at risk of harm.(2) It is the duty of relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for the parent, guardian or person who has responsibility for the victim under subsection (1) for the purpose of securing the rights of the victim under the Victims Code of Practice for England and Wales.(3) Victim is defined as outlined in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.(4) The services commissioned and provided under subsection (2) must be—(a) appropriate to the needs of the caregiver in supporting the victim,(b) trauma-informed and culturally competent, and(c) accessible without unreasonable delay or procedural burden. (5) In exercising their duty under this section, relevant authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.(6) The Secretary of State must publish such guidance within six months of the passing of this Act, following consultation with relevant stakeholders including—(a) victim support organisations,(b) organisations representing children and vulnerable adults, and(c) persons with the lived-experience of the effects of sexual or violent offences.(7) In this section—“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2026;“adult at risk of harm” means a person aged 18 or over who—(a) has needs for care and support,(b) is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect, and(c) as a result of those needs is unable to protect themselves against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it;“relevant authorities” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on relevant authorities to provide specific services to the parent, guardian or person who has responsibility for a victim of domestic abuse, sexual violence or child criminal exploitation for the purposes of securing the rights of the victim under the Victims Code.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I laid Amendment 38, which proposes a duty to commission support services for caregivers of victims of abuse and exploitation. I am grateful to Restitute for its briefing, not just for this Bill but over the years. Cath Pickles from Restitute and her colleagues do an amazing job working with the caregivers—mainly parents, but also siblings—of victims of very serious abuse who have to pick up the pieces after the abuse, witnessing lives lived in trauma. Of course, it is obvious that, over time, many of these caregivers are traumatised, too.
Cath said in an interview with the Daily Express that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse had findings showing that non-offending parents, particularly mothers, of survivors can experience psychological effects similar to those of the victims. A recent independent report by the University of Suffolk showed that Restitute has built a model of support for victims’ families from literally nothing. However, despite the sea change across the country, Cath knows from her bitter personal experience of the guilt, shame, stigmatisation and isolation that the work that Restitute can do is far from enough and more is needed. That is why Amendment 38 is so important.
It is important to recognise that support does not confer victim status for sentencing, compensation or criminal proceedings, but it can last for the mother—as it is in most cases—who often has to accept a child back into her home who has been an adult elsewhere and has been raped or badly sexually assaulted and may not be able to work or live independently for a very long time. That will of course affect the very close family caregivers. The Child Sexual Abuse Centre is due to publish national guidance in April. It is thought that it will explicitly recognise that parents and carers should be treated as victims in their own right, reflecting the harm that they experience as a consequence of child sexual abuse and the criminal justice response.
The amendment would provide clarity and coherence. It recognises that parents and carers of child or vulnerable adult victims may require proportionate support, distinct from evidential witness support. It would not expand sentencing or compensation rights, or dilute the primacy of the direct victim. However, it would resolve a documented structural inconsistency and support safeguarding, justice outcomes and cost-effective early intervention. Is the Minister prepared to meet me and Cath Pickles to discuss these issues further?
Amendment 43, also in my name, seeks to strengthen victims’ rights to access to restorative justice services. I thank the Common Ground Justice Project and the Why Me? group for their briefing. Today, we have heard so many different speeches mentioning the ongoing trauma faced by victims of serious crime. Many find that moving on is very difficult and they feel unheard. Restorative justice provides an opportunity for them to have a dialogue with the person who harmed them. They have the chance to explain the impact of the crime, then and now, to ask questions to understand why it happened, and to then have a way to move forward, which is often positive not just for them but for the offender.
At a time when only one in 10 victims trusts the criminal justice system, restorative justice achieves 85% victim satisfaction, reduces reoffending by up to 27% and saves £14 for every £1 invested in it. Despite these incredible impacts, access to restorative justice is poor and, shockingly, 95% of victims are not even told about it. We know that restorative justice providers have the capacity to do more, but poor awareness and low numbers of referrals are depriving victims of the opportunity to have their say.
The MoJ mechanism for improving RJ, re:hub, needs radical improvement and putting on a proper footing. The amendment seeks a legal right for all victims of crime to be told about restorative justice at all stages of the criminal justice process and to be offered a referral if that is the right thing. My honourable friend Paul Kohler MP laid this amendment in the Commons, and we were pleased with the Commons Minister’s positive response. We have laid it here because we think that this is the perfect time and the perfect Bill for the Government to make this commitment and make the UK a world leader in restorative justice. Paul is passionate about restorative justice because he was seriously attacked in his home. He and his wife and daughter met one of the attackers and it transformed Paul and his family. It was not about forgiveness, though that can be a byproduct. What it can really do is give victims an understanding and the ability to move on. What is more, it can help the offender as well.
In these tough financial times, using RJ consistently throughout the system would create substantial savings on spending across all the different bodies involved, because of its ability to substantially reduce offending—by up to 27%, as research has shown. I beg to move.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
I will speak to Amendment 45, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I apologise to the Minister for being unable to come to her briefing. It was at the same time as my Committee of the House, so I was pulled deeply. We may be able to discuss these issues at another time, but I thank her for the opportunity.
The amendment would ensure that police forces across England and Wales have access to victim navigators to support modern slavery victims. This would fulfil the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee, which stated:
“Victim navigators should be rolled out nationally. The objective must be that they are available in all cases”.
The provision of victim navigators will be essential to achieving the Safeguarding Minister’s pledge to drive up the prosecutions of modern slavery predators. It will help to fulfil the Government’s mission of safer streets, including tackling violence against women and girls, and achieve their election promise to deliver a justice system that puts the needs of victims first by enabling more successful prosecutions and convictions of traffickers who prey on the most vulnerable.
An independent economic impact assessment concluded in 2025 that a single victim navigator benefitted the country by £150,000. This came through saving police costs, reducing victims’ needs and thus the cost of support, and increasing convictions ensuring that predators are dealt with and victims give evidence. This is vital. It also saves the exploitation of further victims.
The chief executive of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority described the benefit of victims having a victim navigator:
“That means they’re better able to get help, and it also helps us when we’re taking people to court, because they understand the process better, they understand how to engage, and they feel supported. It has made a real difference to us”.
A detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police recently said:
“I am in no doubt that a dangerous predator would not have received a 31-year jail sentence without the support of Justice and Care ... I led the police investigation into the case and think that the Victim Navigators’ work was nothing short of exceptional”.
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)
I support this amendment. It is rare that we have an amendment that goes way back on good practice.
After the riots in 1990, Northumbria Police introduced a way of monitoring and mentoring witnesses going to court. At that stage, that part of the country had the highest crime rate in Europe in relation to car crime and the like. As a result of the monitoring and mentoring—where an officer was paired up with witnesses to go to court—there was an increase of five in the convictions in that area, and it is well documented that crime in that part of the country went down by record levels, still not beaten.
Navigators are surely an expansion of the scheme and will probably deal with more difficult cases than we were dealing with in Northumbria. We know that, in trafficking and slave trafficking, it is extremely difficult to get people to come forward and give evidence, and that when they do, with the justice system as it stands at the moment, taking four to five years to get to the Crown Court, there needs to be an extra delivery to the witnesses. It is the victims who will achieve something in relation to the benefits of this.
The argument from certain quarters, I guess, will be that this is going to cost more money. That is not the case. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said, there are massive savings in this. If it is £150,000 for each case, you only have to combine that with multiples to make the sum extraordinary.
I go back to what I said at the beginning. This is a scheme, in a different way, that worked and was created as best practice by the Prime Minister of the time, John Major. It is an old scheme that is practical and works. So, from my point of view and that of my colleagues I have talked to—you have already heard quoted a detective sergeant, but there are others higher up the tree, and constables—we would welcome this as a positive step forward.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have signed all three of my noble friend Baroness Brinton’s amendments. I will not speak to them at any length. Amendment 38 prompts me to declare an interest, having been chair of the organisation Refuge for very many years. In connection with Amendments 43 and 44, it strikes me that there is quite a read-across between these and those we debated earlier on the response of a victim and how they are affected, and how an offender is prompted, under the amendments on appearance in court, to address what has happened. But it is not that read-across that I want to spend time on.
I was a member of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, has picked up one of its recommendations. Her amendment is a good deal more ambitious than the recommendation in our report, which just talked about the objective being to have victim navigators available in all cases. She is calling for rollout within six months, which strikes me as ambitious. Ambition is good.
The report was headed “evidence gathering”, and the evidence we heard was about assisting the police and getting best evidence. Through a friend who has been involved in assisting the police in a number of slavery cases, I realise how difficult this is. I will mention a couple of them. On one occasion a big police operation was set up to rescue people who were block-paving. It was almost impossible to hold any of the people who were the subject of this. They managed to keep one, despite all the preparation and all the common-sense, humane ideas, such as: do not just pull them into a room and start questioning them, but sit them down and say, “Would you like a glass of juice?” It sounds obvious, but apparently it was not entirely obvious. On another occasion, throughout the police interview a woman who was being prostituted was in touch with her “boyfriend”, who was telling her what she should be saying. How that could have got through, I do not know.
One of the things which prompted us to make this recommendation was that the then Minister who gave evidence seemed not to have heard of victim navigators. They are not the same as advisers who assist victims to cope with the process. There is obviously quite a lot of crossover, but they are very focused on the process and not just a support.
As the noble Lord has just said, and as we so often argue, a bit of investment could yield good financial results. That is one reason why victim navigators are a good idea. I believe there are only 11 at the moment. I pay tribute to Tatiana Gren-Jardan and Louise Gleich, who have been very much behind the scheme, and its success is in large part due to their own skills and input. It is also worth saying that it is not just about getting convictions; one of their achievements has been helping to repatriate victims who want safely to go back to their countries of origin. It is a great scheme, and it is up to the police to pursue it. So perhaps this is something for the MoJ and the Home Office, but I hope this debate can prompt some government support to forward the scheme.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Goudie, for bringing forward the amendments.
Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, proposes a new clause that seeks to place a duty on relevant authorities to commission support services for caregivers of victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence or exploitation. The amendment would ensure that those with responsibility for the victims are not overlooked by the system and have access to the appropriate support. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response as to how the amendment could be delivered and might function in practice.
Amendments 43 and 44 would introduce new clauses concerning restorative justice. These build on the provisions in the Bill, better to enable victims to explain the impact of a crime to the offender and to participate meaningfully in the justice process. Some victims engage with restorative justice services, but such engagement must be voluntary. Victims should not be placed under any pressure to engage further with the offender. None the less, there are findings showing that these services reduce the likelihood of offenders reoffending and can result in other social benefits, including delivering value for money. We on this side are interested to hear from the Minister how the Government will ensure that services such as these are used where it is thought they are likely to be beneficial.
Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, seeks to implement the recommendation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee that victim navigators be rolled out nationally so that they are available in all cases. In response to that recommendation, the Government stated in December 2024 that they want to build on the research of the previous Government on how best to support victims. In addition, the Government said they had met the NGOs delivering the victim navigator programme to understand its impact and to explore options for expansion. We have also heard an authoritative and persuasive speech from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who obviously has real hands-on experience in this area. We should listen carefully to what he has to say, and I hope the Minister will speak to him and engage with him.
We look forward to hearing an update from the Minister on what further research has been undertaken and what conclusions the Government have reached since then. I reiterate my thanks to noble Lords for raising these important issues, all of which speak to the purpose of the Bill: to ensure that victims receive the support and services they deserve throughout their journey through the justice system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
I shall speak first to Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee. While entirely understanding the motivation for the amendment, the Government believe that it would be neither necessary nor helpful to place a statutory obligation on certain authorities to commission certain support services for this cohort. In a world of finite resources, that would prioritise provision to third parties.
I reassure the noble Baronesses that the parents and carers of victims of abuse and exploitation can already access support services. The funding that the Ministry of Justice provides to the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund and to police and crime commissioners can be, and is, used to commission specific support services for parents and carers.
Parents and carers will often access services that the victim themselves is accessing, particularly where the victim is a child. Parents and carers of victims of crime can also seek mental health support or other support through local services and the NHS. Having said this, I recognise that more can be done to support this cohort. As part of the violence against women and girls strategy, this Government has committed up to £50 million to transform support for victims of child sexual abuse through expanding the use of child houses. These are incredible places, as anybody who has had a chance to visit the one in London can tell you. They offer vital wraparound support to non-abusing parents and carers in one physical location. In addition, the Ministry of Justice has founded the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse to develop an online directory of support services for those affected by child sexual abuse. This can be easily navigated to identify services for parents and carers and other affected adults.
I turn now to Amendments 43 and 44 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Jones and Lady Hamwee. This Government recognise the positive impact that restorative justice can have in appropriate cases and are very grateful to the restorative justice providers who continue to offer this important service. We agree that when delivered in the right circumstances restorative justice can improve victim satisfaction, reduce reoffending and bring benefits to victims, offenders and their communities. Under the current victims’ code, victims must be told about restorative justice services when reporting a crime, but we have been told that this may be too early—we are listening— and that is why under the new code consultation launched last week we are retaining this but have proposed an additional entitlement for the victim to be told about restorative justice again after an offender has been convicted. We look forward to engaging stakeholders during the code consultation.
Where services are available and victims and offenders are willing, referrals are already made, and that is supported through PCC-funded local services alongside our facilitation of restorative justice across prisons and probation. However, placing referral to restorative justice for all victims on a statutory footing, in our view, is neither necessary nor appropriate. Restorative justice self-evidently requires the consent and participation of both parties and the safety and welfare of those involved is paramount. Automatic referral is therefore not always suitable. For example, a victim of stalking who has fought tooth and nail to end all contact might understandably see the offer of restorative justice as, at best, insensitive and, at worst, a way in which the perpetrator in their case could continue their campaign.
The Government already monitor delivery. PCCs submit biannual reports as part of the MoJ grant management process, providing insight into victim support services, including restorative justice. Many PCC police and crime plans also set out clear commitments to supporting restorative justice. In our view, introducing a further national assessment would simply duplicate these existing measures. As we prepare for upcoming changes to the PCC commissioning model, we will explore changes to the delivery of victims’ funding, including restorative justice, to ensure that this is delivered in the best way in the future while avoiding unnecessary statutory requirements. For these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to not to press her amendments.
I turn now to Amendment 45 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We value the excellent work delivered by Justice and Care through its victim navigator programme. This Government are committed to ensuring that victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are supported to help rebuild their lives and to engage with the criminal justice system to bring those who have exploited them to justice. We recognise the positive impact that tailored support can have on securing victim engagement, and that is why we have already put provision in place across a number of areas important for supporting prosecutions. Adult victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are already supported by the modern slavery victim care contacts in England and Wales. That is where they have access to a dedicated support worker who will support them to help access legal aid, legal advice and legal representation and assistance during criminal proceedings.
The Home Office is also in the process of procuring the new support for victims of modern slavery contract for adults. To support child victims of exploitation and modern slavery, the government-funded independent child trafficking guardian service provides specialist modern slavery support and advocacy, across two-thirds of local authorities in England and Wales, to child victims and professionals who work with them. This includes help for the child to navigate the complexities of the criminal justice system. An invitation to tender for the national contract, which covers all of England and Wales from 2027, is currently live. Because of the existing provision, the Government do not consider it necessary to enact an additional statutory requirement to fund independent victim navigators, as this would duplicate the support services they have already put in place. I hope that, in the light of this, my noble friend will feel able not to press her amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank all the speakers in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his support and curiosity on how the Minister would respond. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, for speaking so powerfully on the issue of navigators for victims of modern slavery as well.
I thank the Minister for her response, too. She will not be surprised to hear that I do not quite agree with everything that she said. On Amendment 38 and the support for caregivers, she said it was not necessary for this cohort because they can already access support. It is not necessarily clear to that particular cohort that it is available, because they present as trying to fight for the support for their child. That is part of the problem and, as a result, the personal trauma and damage that they live with is often quite repressed. One reason for the amendment was to find a mechanism where people actually say, “And how are you? What can we do to support you?”. I asked the Minister earlier if it would be possible to have a meeting. It would be good, perhaps, to assess this. It is also financial—perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer should hear—because often these parents give up work to look after their children. Their lifestyles change, so it is a very big deal, but I thank the Minister for what she said on that point.
I am glad the Government agree that restorative justice can work. I am sorry to be a bit of a pain, but we were clear in our Amendment 43, in subsection (3) of its proposed new clause, that
“a victim must at all times give informed consent, and participation in any restorative justice process shall be voluntary”.
That is the core, because it would not work if not. The Minister said that it might be a problem for victims of stalking, for example, because they might not want to do it, but that is easy, as they can say, “No, I’m not interested in meeting my stalker”—I personally never want to meet my stalker; absolutely no, sorry—but that crime is of a different nature and there are plenty of other crimes, particularly some of the slightly lower-level ones, where if it really reduces reoffending that much, the Government have to look at it. On that basis, I really hope that the Government will seriously look at expanding it beyond its very small nature at the moment, where it seems to be a few people who might be interested rather than recognising that it will transform the court system and the justice system overall. I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“Victim personal statements(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim must be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 39 in my name would require the Secretary of State to issue revised guidance on victim personal statements, clarifying what victims may include and ensuring that the courts appropriately disregard prejudicial material.
Victim personal statements are a valuable and important part of our criminal justice process. They allow victims to articulate in their own words the impact that a crime has had on them and on their families. This personal element is often deeply cathartic and can provide a sense of agency in a system that victims have described as otherwise procedural and somewhat distant. However, as this Bill was scrutinised in the other place, it became clear that many victims and practitioners find the current approach to personal statements unclear and, in some cases, unnecessarily restrictive.
Members spoke of victims feeling that they were sometimes advised to omit heartfelt and deeply personal material from their statements. These omissions were not for any legal reason, but appeared to be due to an overly cautious interpretation of the guidance. There is also a concern that victims do not always understand what is and is not permissible, and that this lack of clarity can undermine their confidence in the entire process.
One recurring theme from previous debates is that victims should not be left uncertain about what they can and cannot say, nor should they feel that their legitimate expressions of harm are being suppressed for procedural reasons. At the same time, the amendment acknowledges the equally important principle that personal statements must not be vehicles for
“allegations of untried criminal conduct”,
or material that is contrary to
“statutory limitations on free speech”
or due process. It is designed precisely to strike the appropriate balance. It would not remove any existing safeguards. It simply asks the Secretary of State to revisit and clarify the guidance governing the content of personal statements in a way that gives victims clarity and a genuine sense of voice.
The amendment would require revised guidance to be issued within six months of the Bill passing. The revised guidance must stipulate that, when making a victim personal statement, the victim should be able to say
“anything they wish about the defendant”,
so long as it does not go beyond lawful free speech, make untested allegations of new criminal conduct, or contain “disorderly language”. These are sensible and well-established legal boundaries.
The amendment also states that the court must disregard any
“prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement”.
In practice, this would simply enshrine what is already understood by judges: that victims may express themselves freely, while judges continue to confine themselves to factors that are legally relevant and admissible. Placing this in the Bill would reassure victims that greater freedom of expression in their statements will not be misconstrued as diminishing the fairness of proceedings, or indeed as providing a basis for an appeal. This would not mean that victims would be able to litigate matters that fall outside the scope of the case before the court, nor would it mean that victim personal statements would supplant other evidence or judicial reasoning. It would mean that victims would know where they stand, and that they would not be discouraged from expressing the full impact of their experience simply because the existing guidance is interpreted excessively cautiously.
The importance of clarity in this area cannot be overstated. Victims and their families often report that they do not know what is expected of them when making a personal statement, or that they are told they must temper their comments in ways that feel artificial or perhaps insensitive. That undermines public confidence in the system and risks denying victims a meaningful voice at a critical moment in the justice process. This amendment offers a proportionate way forward. It respects judicial integrity and would preserve the lawful limits on personal statements. At the same time, it would provide victims with the clarity and the dignity that they deserve. It would ensure that they can say what they need to say without fear that well-meaning but over cautious guidance may curtail their voice.
I present the amendment in a constructive spirit. I look forward to the Minister outlining how the Government believe that the current guidance is operating—whether it achieves its objectives, and whether there is an appetite for revision that reflects victims’ legitimate expectations—and speaking to the points raised by Members on both sides of the House and in the other place. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My brief observations draw on my experience of what happened about 20 years ago when the statements were being developed. For more serious cases, such as murder and manslaughter, there was an attempt to give the victim’s family an advocate. It had transpired that drafting these statements was not easy, and so this was trialled for a few years. It proved to be an extremely expensive way forward, and the scheme came to an end with the financial crisis of 2008.
That left us with the problem, in all these cases, of how you formulate what was then called a victim impact statement and is now called a personal statement? They are extraordinarily difficult to formulate. Those with experience of civil cases will know that, if you ask a witness to produce something in his own words, or you ask the claimant in a case to do the same, you get something you could never put before the court, because it would never really convey what had to be put forward. Therefore, the way in which progress was made was along the cautious lines of developing guidance. I think such guidance always needs to be kept under review. You need consultation with the Crown Court judges, who see this all the time. Clarity in the guidance is essential, but I greatly caution against allowing a victim to do more than explain to the court the way in which the crime has affected the victim, his family and the community. Going beyond that seems to raise all sorts of problems, and the last thing one wants to do is to revictimise a victim by saying, “You shouldn’t say that in court”. Clarity is essential, but I say, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, that his formulation goes too wide of the mark.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I shall add a couple of very brief points. First, from my own experience, also nearly 20 years ago now when I was a victim of stalking, as were some of my colleagues, I found that the police encouraged me to make a victim statement, but we were advised quite specifically to talk not about what the stalker had done but solely about the effect on us of what he had done: in other words, to completely avoid making any comment about him or his actions. That was quite difficult. I was advised very heavily not to get involved and show how emotional many of us were as a result of his actions, and I chose not to do that at all.
However, I talked last week to Glenn Youens, the father of a four year-old who was killed. He and his family were asked if they wanted to do a victim impact statement, and the police advised them not to use certain language because the court had advised them not to. They were told that bluntness might upset the perpetrator, they could not call him a child killer; they were not allowed any props in court, such as their daughter’s teddy bear; and the CPS advised them not to appeal the unduly lenient sentence, because it might actually make the Attorney-General get less for him in the long run. So, this particular family’s experience of making a statement was the exact opposite of what it was intended to be. While I have some sympathy with some elements of the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, I think I am more with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, on the grounds that we would have to design it so carefully to make sure that a victim is doing it willingly and that they are able to say what they want without jeopardising the court process. I am afraid that that would also mean very strict guidance on the officials helping them not to do so in a way that prevents victims speaking in their own voice.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for talking about what happened to her, because in your Lordships’ House, that kind of personal experience really resonates with all of us. I thank her for that. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for speaking from his experience in the courts. He speaks with a great deal of authority and I know the House has vast respect for him.
Let me start with that with which we all agree: of course I recognise that victim personal statements are a powerful tool for victims and their families to tell the court about the effect that these crimes have had on them. The victim personal statement is also important for the judge when deciding the appropriate sentence. The VPS provides evidence and information which can help the judge in determining the seriousness of the offence as part of the sentencing process, and plainly it is right that victims should have a voice in that. However, it is also right that this must be done fairly. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, that there are limits to what can be said in the VPS, as we cannot have legally irrelevant matters—for example, other behaviour of which the defendant has not been convicted. The judge is not by law allowed to take account of such things.
That said, I too have heard from victims and their families about their concerns about how the VPS process operates in practice. I completely understand how frustrating it must be to be told that they cannot express themselves in the way in which they expected to be able to, or to include all the information which they feel the judge ought to have. We agree that further work is needed to consider how we can make sure that victims fully understand the process, including the value of being able to have their voice heard in the sentencing process, but also an explanation as to why there have to be limitations on this.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, clearly, we have to achieve a balance between preserving due process in the justice system and empowering victims. We have to be able to reassure victims but, at the same time, protect the judicial process. We must reduce the risk of misunderstanding, or indeed even of appeal, in the context of these statements.
However, there does seem to be a widely held concern that these guidance provisions are not working as they should at the present time. There seems to be an understanding that further work is needed to clarify how victim guidance is construed and applied. I suggest that it is not simply a matter for the criminal practice directions, but one that we should consider, whether in the form of a review or further directions or guidance from the House.
In the circumstances, I seek to withdraw the amendment, but I do so on the basis that the Government understand the need to revisit this issue and why the guidance is not working, and will come to a view as to how it can be improved going forward.
Lord Garnier
“Compensation for victims of fraud and other economic crimes(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences.(2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to identify how victims of such economic crimes could be better compensated without such victims needing to pursue civil action.(3) The Secretary of State must provide for a public consultation on the review.(4) In this section “victims of economic crime” includes United Kingdom and overseas victims of complex corruption cases where the harm caused by the offending is not easily quantifiable.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, this is not the first time I have argued that this jurisdiction does not do enough to ensure that domestic—but more importantly, overseas—victims of economic crime committed by people or organisations based here are adequately compensated for their losses.
If the last Government and the present one have been less than enthusiastic about my proposals, I have received support from, among others, Sam Tate, a partner of the London law firm, Clyde & Co, other legal practitioners who have read my speeches and articles on this subject over the years, and from Sam Hickey, a lawyer qualified in Australia and the United States, in his paper entitled Compensating the Victims of Foreign Bribery: UK Legislation, Practice and Recommended Reforms, published in February 2025 by the International Centre for Asset Recovery, which is part of the Basel Institute on Governance, at Basel University in Switzerland.
Having been the initiator politically of the deferred prosecution agreement—DPA—system in this jurisdiction, and as a vocal advocate for the extension of the failure to prevent economic crime regime, and, I should make clear, also as a barrister whose practice includes economic crime cases, I have taken a long-term interest in this aspect of our justice system. It is, regrettably, my experience from the time I was reappointed as the shadow Attorney-General in 2009, then as Solicitor-General during the early part of the coalition Government in 2010, followed by what is now 14 years on the government and opposition Back Benches, both here and in the other place, that all three parties of government—the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party—have acknowledged with warm words the problems my amendment outlines but have not done enough to make the necessary practical changes.
I do not say that the United Kingdom has done nothing, and there is a reasonable case to suggest that we have been at the forefront of efforts to get a grip on foreign corruption. Several of the DPA cases concluded here have involved admitted allegations of failure to prevent bribery overseas, leading to the imposition of serious financial penalties. But when it comes to compensating the overseas victims of these offences, we have fallen short. It is not right that Crown Court judges—and it will usually be High Court or senior Crown Court judges well able to make the necessary assessments with the right evidence who will be dealing with these cases—should feel inhibited by existing statute law and practice from assessing and awarding compensation to the victims I had in mind because the assessment is or may be thought to be complicated. These judges deal with complex points of law and evidence every day, and victims should not be required to take out separate civil proceedings that are expensive in terms of cost and time in order to get justice.
As I said in your Lordships’ House on 7 February 2024, since the introduction of DPAs in 2014, the courts had by then fined corporations more than £1.5 billion for violations of the Bribery Act, yet only 1.4% of that sum had been given to the citizens of victim countries of the indicted corruption. We are therefore open to charges of hypocrisy, because the United Kingdom has been essentially acting as the world’s policeman while keeping the fines for the Treasury.
Sam Hickey in his paper makes six recommendations on how we can improve our performance as providers of just and appropriate compensation to the victims of overseas corruption. Having overburdened the House only last Thursday evening with my thoughts on the need to reform the criminal law of joint enterprise, I will not go into such depth or detail in arguing for my amendment today. But I recommend that the Minister just takes a few minutes to read Mr Hickey’s paper and the basis for his recommendations, even though he kindly makes several references to things I have already said in your Lordships’ House. If the Minister is really short of sleep, I invite her to read my speeches and published articles on the subject—but in any event, Mr Hickey’s paper should be part of the review I am asking for via Amendment 40.
In essence, Mr Hickey and I, both jointly and severally, urge upon the Government—and I have said as much myself several times in this House and in the articles I have written—that we should no longer simply rely on legal principles relating to compensation orders in favour of identifiable human victims in this jurisdiction when deciding whether to include compensation in the terms of a DPA or when sentencing a corporate defendant following a conviction or plea of guilty by the Crown Court. There should be a rebuttable presumption in favour of including compensation in such agreements or following conviction. Where compensation is included in the terms of a DPA, it should be tailored to the facts of each case.
More specifically, the Serious Fraud Office, as the usual prosecutor in cases of this sort, should actively apply for compensation to be awarded to discrete victims who have suffered quantifiable losses. In the case of Glencore, the SFO did not, despite my prompting when I was acting for the Government of Nigeria, seek to apply for compensation. There were legislative problems that prevented the court dealing with it, but at least the judge had the decency to hear my argument before saying, “Thanks, but no thanks”. However, it does seem to me that there should be a preference for compensation to be put toward the benefit of victim communities or societies in the foreign state through, for example, infrastructure projects such as schools or medical facilities, or towards the reduction of national debt. If none of those is possible, compensation moneys should be put towards the anti-corruption initiatives of governments, NGOs or international organisations—as I have suggested in the past, a United Nations ESCO account might be a suitable destination—as a final resort to ensure that some measure of compensation is paid in every case.
In any event, we should legislate for a rebuttable presumption in favour of real compensation. We should, as I have suggested before, consider a variety of methods for calculating the amount of compensation, including a victim’s losses, the value of the bribe, a percentage of the fines and penalties, or the gross profit of the briber. If there are no discrete victims with quantifiable losses, we should look to whichever measure of compensation is the greatest.
We should devise a formal procedure that victims, states and NGOs could use to request compensation. We need to clarify the concepts underlying compensatory practices, including the kinds of remedies available, the harm that might lead to compensation and the victims who might receive it. We also need, as I have said on several occasions before, to incentivise corporations to pay compensation by, for example, subtracting the compensation from the penalty. I accept that it could be said of my argument that repetition never made a bad point better. But I gently suggest that successive government failures to listen to a reasonable argument, year after year, is not evidence of its successful refutation but of a wilful or negligent refusal to see what is in front of them: that is to say, injustice piled on injustice, and corrupt companies being given license to bribe with impunity and to act without concern for their victims because it is happening out of sight and overseas. Amendment 40 is, if I may say so, a moderate amendment in its ambitions—perhaps too moderate—but it is certainly worthy of the Government’s consideration, and I urge them to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 46 in this group. In the Commons, it was tabled by Sarah Champion MP, who has long argued for supporting victims effectively and has a particular interest in the function of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The amendment asks the Secretary of State to amend the criminal injuries compensation scheme to widen eligibility for compensation to all victims of child sex abuse, including online-facilitated sexual abuse, to ensure applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded where offences are linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse, and to increase the time limit for applications for compensation from victims of child sexual abuse to seven years. I will not give any more detail of that.
The reason for this is that, until the 2012 scheme, a crime was generally considered violent if it involved physical injury, the threat of immediate violence or a non-consensual sexual assault. Those were the ones the compensation scheme could look at. In practice, this means that many cases of online child sexual abuse are excluded, even where the abuse involves sustained coercion, blackmail or domination and the child experiences profound and lasting harm.
We know that victims often face significant barriers in accessing compensation for this reason. There is a problem with the strict time limits that the CICA imposes, because that means that many traumatised victims, who may be navigating complex criminal justice processes and/or are unaware of their eligibility, often struggle to apply in time. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse report on accountability and reparations recommended extending the time limit for child sexual abuse cases and giving claims officers greater discretion, but these proposals were sadly rejected by the previous Government.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I also put my name to Amendment 46, which was originally laid by Sarah Champion in the Commons; the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has spoken to it comprehensively, so I will not add anything to that. Instead, I will speak to Amendment 47 in my name, which, in many ways, is very closely related. Amendment 46 came through discussions with Claire Waxman, the Victims’ Commissioner; Amendment 47 comes through working with another organisation, the Marie Collins Foundation in Northern Ireland, which specifically works with child sex abuse victims who have been abused online.
Amendment 47 is an attempt to find, in essence, a clearer definition of what is harmful to CSA victims and, in a sense, to give the Government breathing space while they decide whether they need to go further and be clearer. Under the current CICS, a crime is considered violent only if it involves physical injury, the threat of immediate violence or a non-consensual sexual assault. To a large extent, that excludes online child sexual abuse.
There was a court case in 2023, where an individual called “RN” went to court against the CICA. The Court of Appeal in this case confirmed that online grooming may fall within the scheme where threats cause a child to fear immediate physical violence even if the threats are made remotely. However, the court also said that many online cases would still fall outside the scheme and that this can produce outcomes that are counterintuitive and unjust. It also made it clear—this is the reason for the amendment—that any broader clarification of coverage is a matter for Parliament and not for judicial interpretation.
What we are trying to achieve is to recognise exactly what this type of abuse is. It commonly consists of a combination of blackmail, coercion, threats and domination, which are, in effect, a combination of emotional and psychological abuse. It involves compelled actions, such as the creation and sharing of sexual images, livestreamed sexual activity, or other sexual acts directed by an offender against the child—all of which is online. It results in sustained fear, loss of autonomy and erosion of individual agency. It can also lead to long-term psychological harm, including trauma-related conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and so on.
What we are trying to achieve is, first, to capture online-only child sex abuse cases where the nature of abuse is such that the conduct meets the scheme’s existing criteria for a crime of violence. Secondly, it seeks to operate within the existing legal framework by clarifying how violence is understood, rather than by redefining CSA or injury. Thirdly, it proposes to support consistent and workable decision-making by the CICA on online-only CSA cases, which is not the case at the moment. Fourthly, it would avoid creating any hierarchy of abuse by grounding eligibility in established scheme principles. Fifthly, and lastly, it would provide an interim pragmatic response, pending wider consideration of scheme reform.
I hope that the Government will look at the evidence, take on board what is happening and, in particular, as is often the case with online abuse, look at the scale at which this is increasing year on year, to see whether it is something that needs to be looked at more clearly and recognised in law for the harm that it is doing.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for bringing forward their amendments and helping to shape what has been a valuable debate about the issue of just compensation for victims.
Amendment 40, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, raises an important concern about how the victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences can be better compensated both domestically and abroad. Indeed, I have heard his arguments on more than one occasion before and never failed to be persuaded by them.
These crimes do not just inflict monetary loss on victims; they often involve sophisticated deception. They can cause significant psychological distress, emotional trauma and lasting insecurity. More widely, they undermine trust in our society, and so deserve the Government’s attention. The Government must look carefully at my noble and learned friend’s suggestions for a review. It could be important and beneficial for the City of London, as a centre of finance of worldwide renown. If we can take the lead on this, that would be an encouragement to people to do business here.
This brings me to Amendment 67, in my name. I should say that a gremlin came in here—and I am not blaming the typist. Where it says:
“Sentencing guidelines on court fines”,
it should of course say compensation orders. The amendment is intended to correct an imbalance for victims. Its purpose is clear: to ensure that victims are compensated properly, according to the actual value of items stolen. This principle would apply in cases of fraud, burglary or theft, and in any other crime which has resulted in a victim suffering financial loss. The responsibility for repayment should be put squarely on the offender through the issuing of compensation orders. It is only right and just that offenders pay back the value of what they have stolen to their victims. There should be a direct link, so that offenders fully face up to the consequences of their actions in a real and logical way.
This measure is simply proportionate. At present, offenders may not be made even to begin to compensate for the damage inflicted, which only adds further insult to injury. To correct this imbalance, the amendment would require the Sentencing Council to revise the relevant sentencing guidelines within 18 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. This would lead to a more consistent approach across cases, and sentencing would recognise and account for the amount actually taken or lost. Justice for victims should be material, not merely symbolic. That would help to strengthen public confidence in our courts. We urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the amendment.
Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and Amendment 47, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, concern the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The former seeks to broaden its eligibility to all victims of child abuse; the latter aims to bring online-only child sexual abuse into the scope of recognition of the scheme. It is important that the scheme keeps apace with the evolving landscape in which criminal activity now takes place. All victims must be properly supported, with access to the appropriate mechanisms for compensation and redress. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister, on how the scheme can be updated.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Not at all. I apologise. I waited for the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, to introduce his amendment before I spoke.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 40, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and then to Amendment 67, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I will say nothing on Amendments 46 and 47 on child sexual abuse, except that I fully support them, for the reasons that have been given.
Amendment 40 is on fraud, bribery and money laundering. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, rightly says that it is not the first time that he has brought this issue before the House or before Parliament. Indeed, he has been a formidable campaigner on the issue for a number of years. On these Benches, we think he is right about it. It is a very difficult area on which to propose legislation in precise or specific terms. With this amendment, he seeks to require a review of the whole area of fraud, bribery and money laundering within the UK and abroad.
The background is the inevitable inadequacy of existing civil proceedings, in this jurisdiction or elsewhere, not only from a jurisdictional point of view but because of the inevitable cost of civil proceedings, the difficulty of valuation and the difficulties of enforcement for the victims of substantial economic crime. They cannot be properly compensated by the existing regime of compensation orders. A review is needed to consider how compensation might be ordered and to consider the principles that are brought into play by complex economic crime for criminal activity here and abroad, and not always just in one jurisdiction but often across countries and in multiple jurisdictions.
The noble and learned Lord highlights our poor record as a country—though rightly he says that we are better than many—in providing compensation for victims of economic offences. He highlights that there may not be just individual or corporate losers; there can also be organisations or states which deserve compensation but for which, presently, our law and the law elsewhere makes no proper provision.
These are difficult issues and there are very difficult issues concerning quantification. The inadequacy of how we fail the victims of overseas corruption and other economic crime amounts, in effect, to our holding our hands up and admitting defeat in the face of those issues. The review for which the noble and learned Lord calls needs to be illuminated and energised by some extremely innovative and imaginative thinking which holds out the prospect of real improvement of the position and accepts that we may not be precise in any award of compensation. A real attempt to provide adequate compensation can be made and should be made.
I am bound to say that I also agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that grasping this issue could enhance the business reputation of London as a centre of economic and business excellence where others have failed in this area.
Amendment 67, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seeks a review of sentencing guidelines to insist on compensation which is commensurate, they say, with the value of stolen items, although I appreciate that the way the amendment was opened goes wider than cases of theft.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I apologise once again to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for standing up before him a few moments ago.
Amendment 40 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raises the important issue of compensating victims of economic crime. I really mean it when I say that I am grateful to him for his continued interest in this matter. No one could accuse him of not being consistent. Indeed, he and I are due to meet after the Recess to discuss his amendment further, and I look forward to that.
As the noble and learned Lord knows, I practised at the Bar in the area of economic crime, including fraud and other crimes, and I want to make it clear that the Government take the compensation of victims of economic crime very seriously. It is of critical importance in limiting the harm of these often ruthless and cruel crimes. We are committed to ensuring that, whenever possible, funds are taken from criminals and returned to victims.
As the noble and learned Lord knows, as things currently stand, there are already several mechanisms that enable victims of economic crime to be compensated. For example, the asset recovery powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 already provide the court with the ability to prioritise the payment of compensation orders to victims. Noble Lords may be interested to learn that, where both a compensation order and a confiscation order are imposed but there are not enough funds available to satisfy both, the court may direct that the compensation order be paid out of the confiscation order funds to ensure that victims are prioritised. A total of £47.2 million was paid in compensation to victims from the proceeds of confiscation orders in the financial year ending March 2025. Of course, I acknowledge that we could do better.
In addition, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 allows applications for stolen crypto assets or funds in accounts to be released to victims at any stage of civil forfeiture proceedings.
Through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the then Government legislated to require the Payment Systems Regulator to introduce mandatory reimbursement for authorised push payment scams. In the first nine months of the APP reimbursement scheme, 88% of eligible losses were reimbursed, with £112 million returned to victims. This further protects victims and provides incentives for firms to prevent these scams in the first place.
Victims of unauthorised fraud, where payment has been taken without the victim’s permission, are already reimbursed by payment service providers. But we want to go further. The Government recognise the serious financial and emotional impact that fraud can have on victims, which is why we will shortly publish a new fraud strategy that will improve how we safeguard and respond to victims of fraud.
I am of course acutely aware that one of the noble and learned Lord’s major considerations is overseas victims. As far as they are concerned, the Serious Fraud Office, Crown Prosecution Service and National Crime Agency compensation principles have committed law enforcement bodies to ensuring that compensation for overseas victims of economic crime is considered in every relevant case and to using whatever legal mechanisms are available to secure it whenever appropriate.
Internationally, victims’ interests also continue to be a priority issue for the United Kingdom. As a signatory to the UN Convention Against Corruption, the UK places great importance on the recovery and return of the proceeds of corruption to those affected by bribery, embezzlement of public funds, money laundering, trading in influence and other abuses of official functions. The UK is required to return funds where the conditions for mandatory return are met. However, the UK also exercises its discretion to return funds in appropriate cases even when it is not otherwise required to do so.
The noble and learned Lord’s amendment calls for a review, but the Government have already publicly committed to reviewing UK policies and procedures for compensating victims of foreign bribery in the UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025. We look forward to the results of this review, expected in 2027.
In addition, I refer to the Crime and Policing Bill, which will introduce a new measure to redirect funds to victims when a confiscation order is increased if it is identified that the defendant has additional assets with which to satisfy it. The Bill will also reinforce that compensation orders are to be prioritised over confiscation orders.
There are already significant measures in place, and further work is being done to strengthen the rights of victims of economic crime to compensation. I hope that this provides the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, with some reassurance. I look forward to discussing this further with him, but for now I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to Amendments 46 and 47 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. This Government share the strength of feeling in this House and in the other place about the importance of supporting the victims of child sexual abuse. The proposed new clauses would implement a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse about which the previous Government consulted. However, in April last year, the Government announced that we would not take it forward. The reason is that such changes would benefit only victims of child sexual abuse, and that would undermine the scheme’s core principle of universality—in other words, it compensates all seriously injured victims of violent crimes, and the payments are based on the injury suffered rather than the crime type from which they resulted. We are very concerned not to create a hierarchy of victims in which some are seen as more deserving than others. Different support for different violent crimes would imply that some victims are less important than others. It would also put the scheme under more financial pressure. It is taxpayer-funded and is already facing record and increasing demand. However, we agree that the scheme needs reform, and it is our intention to decide how best to support all victims with the resources that we have. We will update Members of both Houses as our work progresses.
Dealing very briefly with Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I am going to ask him to leave it with me for the time being. I want to give this some further thought. He and I began to discuss it when we met about a week ago. We did not make an awful lot of progress on that occasion, but I would like to talk to him about it further. I know that he has sent me some literature, and I will look at that and consider it further. While I am grateful to the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord for ensuring that we remain focused on the criminal injuries compensation scheme, I ask them not to press their amendments.
Amendment 67 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would require the revision of sentencing guidelines so that the court would have to award compensation to a victim to the value of the items stolen. When a judge passes a sentence, she or he is already required to consider making a compensation order that requires the offender to make financial reparation to the victim for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from an offence, and that includes the offences captured by this amendment. Magistrates are subject to the same duty, but for simplicity I am going to refer just to the judge for the rest of my remarks. If the judge decides not to make such an order, she or he must explain why they are not doing so. There is no set amount for compensation, because that would fetter the discretion of the independent judge. The law says that compensation may be ordered for such an amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to any evidence and any representations made by the offender or the prosecutor. For adult offenders, there is no limit on the value of a single compensation order, and compensation is paid to the victim first before any other financial orders made by the court are satisfied by the offender.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has already powerfully made the point that it is not always a straightforward process to determine the value of the loss. I am not going to repeat that, but I am going to add to the second part of his concerns about this. As part of the process of deciding on the level of compensation, the court must also consider the financial circumstances of the offender, so far as they are known. The reason is to ensure that the offender has sufficient means to pay. This amendment would require the judge to ignore the fact that there may in some cases be absolutely no prospect of the offender being able to pay. This would create a system requiring the authorities to spend time and money chasing people for money that they are never going to be able to pay, in the process causing a cycle of unnecessary harm and emotional distress to victims whose expectations had been raised that they were going to receive compensation for the full amount.
I want to reassure your Lordships that most judges will order the full amount unless the defendant does not have sufficient means. For these reasons, the Government are satisfied that the existing system allows courts to strike an appropriate balance between seeking compensation for the harm caused to victims in a way that is enforceable and ensuring that victims are not left waiting for debts to be paid to them which were always unrealistic. The Sentencing Council has issued explanatory information on compensation which outlines these matters to help sentencers when considering or making compensation orders. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I begin by apologising to noble Lords who had other amendments in the group for not addressing their arguments, but I do not think they needed my assistance. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for their support for my Amendment 40. As has been pointed out, my amendment asks for a review. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that we need to be imaginative and inventive—those were not his precise words, but I think that is the thrust of what he was saying. I suggest that doing nothing, doing a little slowly or patting ourselves on the back for what we might have done in the past are no longer acceptable.
I know that the Minister is sincere in her response. I am also aware of her professional experience, both in private practice and at the Crime Prosecution Service, and I look forward with gratitude to our meeting. I am aware of the terms of the 2002 Act to which she referred, but it does not meet the problem I have identified, as I know from my own professional experience. Furthermore, the provisions of FiSMA are untested, or insufficiently tested in my view, and I am not sure that reliance on that statute answers the problem we have been discussing. The review that the Minister spoke about is not due to report until 2027. Everything is always tomorrow, the week after, the month after or the year after; nothing is ever grabbed now and answered. This is my experience, having spoken about these questions for many years in the past, so I ask the House to forgive me if I come across as cynical.
That said, I look forward to having a positive discussion with the Minister during the Recess.
Lord Garnier (Con)
After? There we are: a week after, a week after, a week after. The great god Delay is the one we all worship—for goodness’ sake. I thank the Minister for the meeting, but I think we spoke about this meeting before Christmas at Second Reading and it has slipped and slipped. I feel like an ice skater who is running out of bad jokes. I thank her for her forbearance. I know she is relatively new to her post and will not have had the joy of having to deal with my repetitive strain injury over the last several years. Anyhow, let us try to make some positive advances, produce some practical answers and not just push this thing further down the road, because there are victims out there whose lives have been ruined by corrupt criminal behaviour. I appreciate our Treasury should be in special measures, but it has been sucking in all this money in London, whereas people in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere are suffering. Having got that off my chest, again, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Brinton
“Access to free court transcripts for victims(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—(a) sentencing remarks;(b) judicial summings-up;(c) bail decisions and conditions relevant to their case.(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.(3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of sentencing remarks, judicial summings-up, and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, the Liberal Democrats have been concerned for a long time about the victim’s right to access court transcripts. We have tabled amendments to a number of Bills, including, most recently, the now Victim and Prisoners Act 2024, and I have Amendment 41 to this Bill. I thank open justice campaigners for the contact that we have had with them during the Victims and Prisoners Act and since then.
During the Victims and Prisoners Bill, the then Minister finally agreed to a trial in certain locations that would ensure that victims could have access to sentencing remarks but to nothing else. Ministers of both this and the last Government have said that it would just cost too much to extend the scheme but, as we have said, the process that is used is extraordinarily expensive, and technology should be our friend these days. To give the Committee a feel of some of the figures that we have been made aware of, we have seen people quoted £30 for a copy of sentencing remarks to over £300 for an original transcript, and where victims requested a transcript of the entire court case we have seen figures of £7,500 and even £22,000.
Victims and their families are in principle able to access remarks at no cost. I am not just talking about since the pilot; I am talking about some of the other things, and I will come on to the detail later on. They can sometimes get access at no cost, but the problem is that the paperwork that some courts have required families to fill out is burdensome and intrusive, requiring families to declare salaries, debts, bank balances and more. That really should not be the case when they are getting to the end of a trial, with all the burdens that that has brought them.
Amendment 41 would go beyond sentencing remarks but not as far as our amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Bill. It would include transcripts of judicial summings-up, bail decisions and conditions that are relevant to their case. It would also set a time limit for the Secretary of State to ensure that the transcripts were provided within 14 days.
We thank the Government for confirming that access to the judge’s sentencing remarks is being rolled out across the country, but we remain concerned that some victims need access to more. This is because for far too long, as we discussed in an earlier group, victims have been advised by the police and prosecutors either not to attend a trial or to frame their own remarks carefully.
I have three brief quotes on that. The first is:
“I wanted to go and watch the trial after I had given my evidence but was told by the prosecution barrister that it would not look good with the jury. The police said the same. I didn’t really question it. I was so scared to do anything that *might* have a detrimental effect on the outcome”.
Another victim said:
“We were advised not to attend because it may make us look bitter”.
And another said:
“I was told I couldn’t watch the court case after giving evidence as I’d look like I wasn’t scared of the perpetrator and it could harm the jury’s decision”.
Open justice campaigners say:
“This advice from professionals is in direct contrast to Judges we meet, who very much want the victims to attend hearings”.
So there is a gap there.
The reason why we propose including judicial summings-up and bail decisions is that there is often more detail in things like bail decisions and conditions that affect the victim directly. I have recently been involved in advising a family where there was a bail condition that required the alleged perpetrator not to go within two miles of the victim. That was changed without the victim’s knowledge, and suddenly she found the perpetrator nearby and could not understand why. A victim in that sort of instance should be able to ask for the details of those. It was clear that she was completely unaware that the bail conditions had been changed after the perpetrator’s solicitor had asked for a hearing. For judicial summing up, there is often more detail in there that can help the victim to come to terms with the entire process. That is one reason why we are pushing for that.
We would still like occasionally for some victims in really traumatic cases, particularly where a therapist advises this—this is not in the amendment, and there is a reason for that—to be able to access the entire court transcript, but we recognise that that is unlikely until technology can provide it at virtually no cost to the court. I think we are nearly there, but at the moment the structure of the way in which people can apply for help and the way that transcripts are made is overly expensive, given the world that we are living in in 2026. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and Amendment 73 in my name. Both these amendments are designed to strengthen victims’ engagement with the justice system by enhancing access to, and the availability of, transcripts of important court decisions.
We give full and unequivocal support to Amendment 41. This is a broader right than the one we were able to secure during the passage of the Sentencing Bill, where our amendments sought to ensure victims’ access to transcripts of sentencing remarks. Initially, that amendment was opposed by the Government, who argued that embedding a statutory duty for universal access and universal publication would create significant operational and resource pressures and risk increasing judicial workload.
The importance of these amendments has been further underscored by the report—released, I believe, today—that the Ministry of Justice has instructed the deletion of a substantial archive of court records held by Courtsdesk: data analysis that supports journalists and civil society in scrutinising the justice system. That archive has long been relied on to track sentencing outcomes and judicial decisions. Its removal has understandably raised concerns about the future accessibility of court information and the practical operation of open justice.
In that context, the case for clear, structured and victim-centred access to sentencing information becomes even more compelling. If independent archives and informal routes to transparency are diminishing, it is all the more important that Parliament ensures that formal mechanisms exist to guarantee access to core judicial material, particularly for victims whose lives are directly affected by these decisions.
In previous debates, Ministers made it clear that they supported the principle of transparency and of victim access to sentencing remarks. Sentencing remarks can already be published in high-profile cases but the Government maintained that expanding those limited provisions into a broad statutory requirement, as initially tabled, was not necessary to achieve the objective of openness and could impose burdens that the current system was not equipped to bear. We therefore tabled a more diluted version of our amendment to extend free provision of Crown Court sentencing transcripts to victims who request them.
The importance of this measure cannot, in my view, be overstated. Sentencing remarks explain the judge’s reasoning as well as the factors taken into account when outlining legal judgment behind a sentence. For victims and their families, this explanation is essential to understanding why justice has been administered in the way it has and becomes particularly important in the context of, for example, unduly lenient sentence appeals.
Amendment 73 complements the amendment passed in the Sentencing Bill, now the Sentencing Act, by addressing the publication of sentencing remarks online. It would require that, when a request is made for sentencing remarks delivered in the Crown Court, those remarks are made available publicly online within 14 days, subject to an important safeguard. The court must first inform the applicant of their right to request that the remarks not be published and, if such a request is made, the remarks must not be published.
This opt-out mechanism is a proportionate and indeed pragmatic response to government concerns that prevented broad publication being adopted previously. Ministers explained that, while they supported the principle of transparency, they could not accept a universal statutory obligation to publish all sentencing remarks, citing the risk of significant workload increases and resource pressures on an already stretched judiciary and courts system. By allowing individuals to choose not to have their own remarks published, this amendment preserves transparency for the public while safeguarding privacy and individual choice and reducing operational risk.
We stand in favour of open justice: the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. When victims and the wider public can access the reasoning behind sentencing decisions, confidence in the rule of law and in the integrity of judicial decision-making is strengthened. A criminal justice system that is opaque risks undermining the very legitimacy that it seeks to uphold. If victims cannot see the reasoning behind the rulings that affect their lives, they and the public will struggle to have confidence that justice has actually been done. When sentences are handed down with discretion and complexity, the need for transparency is greater, not less. For these reasons, we support Amendment 41 and look forward to the Minister’s response to Amendment 73.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend quoted from a briefing from the Victims’ Commissioner, I think from when she was the London victims’ commissioner, about the costs that have been charged and the costs of transcripts for a whole case—which have perhaps been requested rather than actually charged, for obvious reasons. She also mentioned paperwork. I had this briefing. It refers to a form which some courts are asking bereaved families to fill out, so I had a look at that form. I am appalled. I think it is four pages. The amount of detail requested is so intrusive, and it is unclear to me why that is necessary. Why disclose for this purpose the rent you are paying on a home and all your assets, in a whole number of categories? Does it matter how many Premium Bonds you have? On expenses, there are 14 categories, ranging from council tax to TV licences and anything else you can imagine. I wanted to express that, even though it is late. I will not take longer on it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has just talked about open justice. It seems sad if the courts we are talking about cannot go in the same direction as other courts. The Lady Chief Justice talks about the work being done to issue press releases to explain the decisions of the courts elsewhere in our justice system.
The noble and learned Lord is looking puzzled, but I am saying that I agree with him—I know that may be unusual, but on this occasion the direction of travel—a horrible phrase—suggests that we should be going much faster than a trial pilot from next spring. That brings me to my question. When is spring for this purpose? We have known that the seasons of the year are somewhat false when it comes to what Governments propose to do.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I start with Amendment 41, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee. As your Lordships are of course aware, the Government recently announced the expansion of the provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks to victims whose cases are heard in the Crown Court upon request. That is now contained in the recently passed Sentencing Act 2026. The detail of timeframes and processes for providing these transcripts will be set out in regulations, following a review of current operations. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for his work with the Government during the passage of the Sentencing Bill which has brought this about.
Sentencing remarks have been chosen because the way they are structured and what they contain can give victims a real insight into what happened in the sentencing hearing. They are always structured in the same way. They start with a summary of the case and the facts, and go on to explain the background of how the plea came to be entered, if it is a plea, or how the conviction came about. They then set out why the sentence was imposed, which guidelines have been referred to and applied and, if not applied, why, and the various calculations that go on as to what the starting point was and whether it has been increased or decreased. That is all in the judge’s own words.
Bail decisions and summings-up are very different. Extending provision of free transcripts for victims to a wider range of hearing types also risks creating significant operational burdens on the court. I will deal first with bail decisions. The victims’ code sets out a victim’s right to be told the outcome of any bail hearing and any relevant conditions imposed “within five working days”. This is carried out by witness care units, which are also supposed to provide victims with other timely, tailored updates about proceedings. In that sense, we are already delivering the information the victims need in a proportionate and effective way, without the cost and risk that mandatory transcript provision would entail.
Bail decisions are rarely delivered in a structured way that would tell the victim any more than they will already have been told by the witness care unit. What happens normally is that the judge listens to both sides and then simply says that bail is refused—for instance, if there is a failure to surrender, or the prospect of the commission of further offences. Alternatively, they will say that they are prepared to grant bail subject to certain conditions, and they rattle those off. This is exactly what victims are going to be told by the witness care unit. I am not sure what more information I can offer to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; in my experience, there is nothing more.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The problem is that the witness care unit does not always provide that information.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
That is what needs to be looked at, then. Providing transcripts is not going to solve anything that would not be solved by making sure that the witness care unit does what it is meant to do. The noble Baroness gave the example of the victim who had not been told that the bail conditions had been amended. That simply should not happen. That is not a transcript issue, though; it is a witness care unit issue. It is something that plainly needs looking at, though, if it is a problem.
In addition, the vast majority of bail decisions are dealt with at magistrates’ courts, where proceedings are not currently recorded and cannot therefore be transcribed. Without that recording ability in place, it would not be operationally feasible to create a statutory entitlement of the kind proposed. We cannot extend an entitlement that the system is not yet equipped to deliver. As the noble Baroness will know, one of the proposals the Government seem likely to accept from Sir Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts is that all proceedings in the magistrates’ courts should be recorded, and that it will become a court of record. At that point the situation may change, but at the moment we simply cannot provide transcripts of bail decisions in the magistrates’ court.
In the Government’s view, a transcript of the summing-up is unlikely, in most cases, to add significant value for many victims. The summing-up consists of two parts: there is a set of directions on the law, which are written out and handed to the jury, and these could be given to the victim without any difficulty at all if it would help them. Most victims are not especially interested in what is said about the application of the law. The only other thing it contains is a summary of the evidence, wherein the judge decides the level of detail to include, what to put in and what to leave out. The important thing to note is that the summary has to be even-handed, and the judge is not meant to make any comment one way or the other, so the summing-up is not going to help the victim to understand how or why the jury reached its verdict. As these remarks are not an explanation of the outcome, victims may well feel that the summing-up bears little resemblance to their lived experience of the case. So there is a real danger of the summing-up being misunderstood and, in some instances, causing further distress, rather than providing clarity or closure.
For these reasons, we do not propose to extend free provision to include summings-up in cases where the defendants are acquitted. Expanding access further would also create significant operational and funding pressures. Providing transcripts of bail decisions and summings-up free of charge would require a substantial increase in resources, diverting key and limited resources away from core court functions. Importantly, it would take resources away from implementing our existing commitment to provide free sentencing remarks to all victims who request them.
I have heard what the noble Baroness said to me and to the Committee about victims being discouraged from attending the rest of the trial on many occasions. It should not happen. When I was a judge, I used to say to the victim, once they had completed their evidence, “Would you like to observe the rest of the trial? I can have arrangements made for you to do so; we encourage you to do so, and that includes attending remotely where you can’t be seen but you will be able to see and hear, and we can have those arrangements made”. It ought to happen all the time. If it does not, again, that is something that we should look at.
I turn to Amendment 73 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. While the Government remain firmly committed to improving transparency across the justice system, this has to be balanced carefully against our capacity to deliver existing priorities and commitments. Imposing a blanket obligation to publish all sentencing remarks where they have been requested would create significant operational and financial pressures at a time when we are focused on rolling out free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks for all victims, a major step towards increased transparency in its own right. The level of anonymisation required to protect victims’ identities in a published transcript is very different from the level required in a transcript provided to the victim themselves. It is not just a question of redacting the name; it is also a question of removing any other details which might permit a jigsaw identification of the victim. That anonymisation cannot yet reliably be carried out using AI; it has to be done manually and it would have to be done by a judge, taking them away from other duties and inevitably adding to the backlog.
Furthermore, this amendment as drafted places no constraints on who may request a transcript. It could be the offender; it could be their family; it could be a journalist or simply a curious member of the public. A situation where the victim does not have an opportunity to object to sentencing remarks containing intimate details of their case being published online, but another requester does, is not a proposal that this Government can support, and it is likely to contravene the victim’s Article 8 rights.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s commitment to openness and transparency is ongoing. In cases of high public interest, sentencing remarks are already made publicly available online. Furthermore, broadcasting of sentencing remarks is possible, with the agreement of the judge, providing an additional route through which the public may access this information. We are also actively exploring the opportunities offered by AI to reduce the cost of producing transcripts in the future. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and the noble and learned Lord not to press his.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly my noble friend Lady Hamwee for giving details of the ridiculous form that victims have been asked to fill in to access sentencing remarks for free. I hope the noble Baroness will look at that and make sure that it does not continue in this format. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his amendment and I very much appreciate what the Minister said, but I think we are looking for transparency in the longer term. I remain concerned, as is the noble and learned Lord, about the closure or erasure of information from Courtsdesk. I hope we might be able to discuss that in another forum, because it is extremely concerning that it seems to be happening very quickly and suddenly— I am sorry for that quick diversion, given the hour.
I thank the Minister for her explanation. I am not surprised that she has raised the issue of costs. I appreciate the issue about magistrates’ courts, and I really hope that Sir Brian Leveson manages to resolve that in his report in a way that will make it work. Judicial summings-up are important. When we meet on Wednesday, we will be looking at unduly lenient sentences, and judicial summings-up are very helpful to victims if they are considering making an application to the Attorney-General—they have quite a lot of information in them. Victims may not understand it, but if they are going that far, they are likely to consult a solicitor or somebody else involved, and it is quite likely to be helpful.
I think the issue about bail conditions is important, barring the example I gave, which may not have been quite correct. Again, it is useful for victims to see in writing, when something has been gabbled off, exactly what all the conditions are. This is particularly important in domestic abuse and stalking cases, where there may be a perpetrator who is particularly following people and there may have been some form of abuse. However, I am very aware of the hour, and I hope we can continue discussions with the noble Baroness outside your Lordships’ Committee, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.