House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
This Government remain fully committed to the zero emission vehicle transition and the ZEV mandate. In 2025, the UK had the largest electric vehicle market share of any major European economy, thanks to the certainty provided by clear Government policy and the £7.5 billion that we are investing by 2035 to support industry and drivers. The Government will review the mechanisms through which we will achieve the 2030 and 2035 phase-out dates, as planned, in the coming year.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Even the UK gigafactory commission, chaired by a former Labour Secretary of State, says that the ZEV mandate is disincentivising investment in UK motor manufacturing. We all know that U-turns are a sign of open-mindedness and strength. Can we please have another?
Heidi Alexander
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman talks about U-turns. I am sure that I should not be doing this, but I reviewed his tweets from none other than the 2019 general election, in which he was very excited about decarbonisation schemes, electric vehicle infrastructure and clean energy. Perhaps his constituents will be surprised by his flip-flopping on this issue. This Government remain committed to the ZEV transition, and it is precisely the certainty of this Government’s policy that means we will meet the transition targets. Yet again, he is showing that his party cannot be trusted with the economy and the environment.
Mr Speaker
Let me just say to the Secretary of State that if you are struggling to sleep, read a few more tweets.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. I declare an interest as chair of the electric vehicle all-party parliamentary group.
The entire UK charge point industry is united in supporting the Government’s passenger car ZEV mandate to send a signal to motorists that this Government will not follow the lead of the climate change-denying luddites in the Opposition. Does the Secretary of State agree that the ZEV mandate is proving to be a fundamental, market-shaping policy that is driving investment, expanding choice and delivering cheaper motoring?
Heidi Alexander
I do agree with my hon. Friend, who I know has expert knowledge of the charge point industry. The clarity that the ZEV mandate provides has triggered over £6 billion-worth of private sector investment in charging infrastructure, and it is one of the reasons why we have a brand-new gigafactory being built in Somerset and huge investment by Nissan in its Sunderland plant.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Last year, 9.7% of vehicles sold in the UK were Chinese-manufactured electric vehicles—a near doubling of the market share that they had the year before, which stood at 4.9%. What assessment has the Secretary of State’s Department made of the threat that this may pose to national security and to our industrial resilience, and does she share my concerns?
Heidi Alexander
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government take our national security duties very seriously. We are taking significant steps to support the UK car manufacturing sector, and we are also supporting consumers to make the transition to EVs, with over 44 models now available for the electric car grant that we announced last year, but we will continue to ensure that all the security issues to which he refers are front and centre of our minds.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the British buses APPG.
The previous Government’s failure to provide any certainty on the ZEV mandate was not good for British industry or the environment, and I welcome this Government’s progress. We must acknowledge that the ZEV mandate must retain a degree of flexibility, as the Secretary of State described, to enable the transition of our domestic bus manufacturing sector. Prior to the imminent publication of the 10-year bus plan, can the Minister outline what further measures the Government are considering to support the transition of our domestic bus manufacturers?
Heidi Alexander
I know that my hon. Friend takes an active interest in this issue, given the importance of bus manufacturing to his constituents in Falkirk. We are backing Britain’s bus manufacturers with long-term certainty through the 10-year zero emission bus pipeline and the work of the bus manufacturing expert panel. We have also legislated through the Bus Services Act 2025 to set a date after which no new non-zero emission buses can be used, and we will set that date in due course.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The latest Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders data reveals that EVs are losing market share. The president of Hyundai’s European arm has been quoted in The Telegraph as arguing that the ZEV mandate no longer makes sense and needs to be rethought. Without change, he said, the policy could cause manufacturers to become loss-making and prompt some to stop selling both internal combustion engine and electric cars in the United Kingdom. When will the Government understand that people just do not want EVs, and no amount of taxpayer-funded bribes to try to make them do so are going to work?
Heidi Alexander
I am afraid that is just not true. Compared with 2024, EV sales increased by nearly a quarter in 2025, and nine in 10 drivers who switch would recommend an EV thanks to ease of use and a quieter, smoother driving experience. All the evidence suggests that once people get an electric vehicle, they never look back.
Greg Smith
Ministers do not want to listen to Hyundai, so let us try Stellantis. It has announced €22.2 billion of charges as it scales back its electric vehicle production, and its CEO has stated:
“What we are announcing…is an important strategic reset of our business model...to put our customer preferences back at the centre of what we do”.
We are all sent here to represent our constituents, so why will the Government not listen to consumers, set the car market free and adopt the Conservative plan to scrap the ZEV mandate?
Heidi Alexander
To drive investment in car manufacturing, this Government must provide some certainty about the direction of travel, and there is no doubt that the future is zero emission. We are working with the industry to deliver a successful transition, which is why we made the adjustments—the new flexibilities —that I announced last April. It is also why, in conjunction with the devolved Governments, we have announced that a review of the ZEV mandate will start later this year.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Mr Speaker, and most importantly, I wish you a very happy start to the super league season.
Northern Powerhouse Rail will be the biggest transformation in travel in the north of England in a generation. Under NPR, officials will assess options to improve Bradford to Manchester connectivity, including consideration of the Calder Valley line. I know my hon. Friend has been a great advocate for electrification, and the Rail Minister will be keen to work with him on this issue.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Plans for a disabled access lift at Todmorden station were first announced in 2019, yet six years later we are still waiting, with no lifts, no date and no accountability. When I knocked on doors at the weekend, a disabled constituent said she can get in a lift to travel only in one direction, because the promised upgrade has not come. I urge the Secretary of State to intervene, and to help me and local councillors finally to get this project delivered, so that stations in Calder Valley work for all my constituents.
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for his focus on accessibility, and I would be glad to engage with him further on this matter. The project to which he refers was originally remitted to Northern Trains for delivery, but the contractor was stood down from works in August 2024 due to unsafe behaviours. Network Rail has taken over delivery of the project, the funding remains available, and it is currently undertaking survey works and option selection to provide an accessible route to and between platforms. I look forward to engaging with him further on this important issue.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
My Department is working across Government and with partners, including the British Transport police and the transport industry, to ensure that everyone both feels safe and is safe when travelling. Our mainline railway is among the safest in Europe, and our recently published road safety strategy sets out our vision for a safer future for all. The Government’s freedom from violence and abuse action plan features nine transport commitments to help ensure that everyone has the confidence to travel in safety and comfort.
Andrew Rosindell
The Secretary of State is only too well aware of the dither, delay and ineptitude of the Mayor of London and Transport for London over the Gallows Corner A127-A12 junction. It should have been completed last year, but the works will apparently be going on not only until the spring of this year, but even longer. The situation is affecting people right across Havering, Essex and east London, and it is creating chaos and disruption for my constituents and those of many other hon. Members. Will she please take control and sort this matter out as fast as possible, so that it does not do any more damage to our local economy.
Heidi Alexander
I do understand the importance of that junction to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and he has previously asked me about the scheme. It is a Transport for London scheme. I would point out that the previous Government—which, before switching to a different party on the Opposition Benches, he was a part of—provided very limited funding to progress the Gallows Corner scheme, and it is only this Labour Government who have provided substantive funding to allow construction to go ahead.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
At the last minute, with spades set to go in the ground this summer and the design works within the financial envelope, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council is axing the money to improve safety and accessibility at Pokesdown railway station. I am left wondering what it is about Pokesdown, Boscombe, Southbourne and Bournemouth generally that means the Lib Dems constantly take money and opportunity away from us. I grew up caring for disabled parents, so making that station accessible means a lot to me. This decision also undermines safety and the growth sectors on which Bournemouth depends. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government will not look kindly on councils, such as BCP, that withdraw funding from key infrastructure that could unlock growth?
Heidi Alexander
I was as disappointed and, frankly, as angered as my hon. Friend when I learned of the council’s decision to withdraw funding from the Pokesdown station improvements scheme. I understand that a meeting is due to take place in the coming weeks, between the managing director of South Western Railway and the council, in an attempt to get the council to rethink its position on the scheme, which would have significant benefits for the travelling public in the way my hon. Friend has outlined.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency’s top priority is to reduce car practical driving test waiting times while upholding road safety standards. In November 2025, the Government announced that we will change the booking system so that only learner drivers will be able to book and manage tests, with learner drivers limited to two changes to their test. We are also introducing geographical restrictions. In addition, we are utilising military driving examiners. As of December 2025, there were 1,542 full-time equivalent driving examiners in post—the highest number since 2021.
Tracy Gilbert
A number of my constituents have been in touch to share their experience of being unable to book test appointments. These delays have an impact on training, education and employment opportunities. Will my hon. Friend outline what specific steps her Department is taking to reduce the backlog for test appointments at test centres in Scotland?
Lilian Greenwood
Like my hon. Friend, I understand the importance of learners being able to access driving tests, particularly when a driving licence is essential for accessing jobs and training. The upcoming booking system changes, continued recruitment and extra tests through overtime schemes will benefit learners across the whole of Great Britain, including those in Scotland.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is not the fundamental problem that the DVSA is a state-controlled monolith without any competition? Would it not be a good idea to privatise the DVSA and enable young people to access driving tests a lot more quickly?
Lilian Greenwood
This Government are working hard where the previous Government failed. We are working closely with the DVSA to ensure that it is able to provide the tests that are needed. Things are starting to turn around—we had record numbers of tests in December —but I acknowledge that there is much to do. We are getting on and doing it.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I appreciate the measures that the Minister has outlined, because this is a really important issue. Many of my constituents have written to me about unacceptable waiting times and mark-ups on driving test slots. One constituent depends on their licence to complete their qualifications and get a job, but cannot secure a test without paying 10 times the standard rate. What is the Minister doing to ensure that those who are continuing to charge rip-off rates for driving tests are being held accountable?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is completely unacceptable that some unscrupulous people are exploiting learner drivers. That is precisely why we are changing the booking system to block those people from using it and taking action against driving instructors who misuse their access to the system.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Minister for the measures she has outlined. In Edinburgh West this is a significant problem, and it seems to be a problem across the city. Young people, some of them graduates, cannot access driving tests, and then they cannot get jobs because they do not have a driving licence. They are facing long wait times and then sit repeated tests, which has an economic impact on them. Will the Department consider how it can support people who are facing economic impacts because of long wait times?
Lilian Greenwood
We do appreciate the impact that being unable to access a practical driving test has on young people. That is precisely why we are taking the further measures that I have described, and we are starting to see signs of improvement. Between June and December last year, the DVSA conducted 1,158,458 car practical driving tests. That is an increase of over 102,000 compared to the same period in 2024. I appreciate that people are impatient for improvement. We are working hard, and we are determined to deliver that improvement.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
When these Ministers came to power, they promised that they would act to reduce the waiting time for a driving test, and not just by a little bit; they said they would get it down to seven weeks. A year later, the waiting time is now 21.9 weeks. In fact, it has gone up by three weeks since they came into power. That is not really a sign of competence, is it?
Lilian Greenwood
I have to say, the shadow Minister has some brass neck in criticising our Government on this issue. The National Audit Office, in its December report into driving test waiting times, was very clear:
“DFT had limited involvement in helping DVSA tackle driving test waiting times up to mid-2024. Prior to 2024, DFT largely left DVSA to try and resolve the issue”.
The hon. Gentleman does not have a leg to stand on.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
This Government know that many people across the country are struggling with the cost of living. That is why we are taking historic steps to improve affordability for rail passengers, including freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, saving commuters up to £300 per year, and delivering another Great British rail sale in January, with over 1 million discounted tickets sold.
Sarah Green
A parent has been in touch with me about the rising cost of rail travel for her daughter. Despite holding a railcard, the cost of her weekly travel to college increased overnight from £27.80 to over £40. She is worried that this will affect her daughter’s ability to attend college, as she may no longer be able to travel at peak times. Can the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that increases in rail fares do not restrict access to education, and would he, for example, support the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Railways Bill, which would ensure that fare increases do not exceed inflation?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that our railways need to serve as a catalyst for young people to access the educational opportunities they need. I have already explained that we are freezing regulated rail fares for the first time in 30 years, which we hope will have a benefit for constituents across the area that she represents. Ultimately, the only way that we can get fares down in the long term is to have a railway with a single guiding mind and a single point of accountability, and that is through Great British Railways.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, I had a very productive meeting with representatives of Greater Anglia about my campaigns to improve connectivity at Roydon station and improve safety at Harlow Mill station. Does the Minister agree that the move to Great British Railways and renationalisation will mean a better-connected rail service that is safer and will bring prices down for commuters?
Keir Mather
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who continues to be a determined advocate for his constituents in Harlow. GBR will allow us to rationalise the way the railway is run, think about it holistically and make sure that passenger services are run in the interests both of the passengers who use them and of the British taxpayer.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Government claim to be simplifying rail fares, but we are beginning to see what they mean by that. London North Eastern Railway is scrapping off-peak and super-off-peak tickets, doubling the price of some journeys; it says that that is in the name of simplification. c2c has cut a 40% off-peak discount, straight after nationalisation. Elsewhere, analysis by The Daily Telegraph has revealed that rail passengers are now spending 40% more on some journeys than before the general election. Does the Minister accept that removing the cheapest fares in pursuit of a political slogan is not always in the best interests of the travelling public?
Keir Mather
Better late than never, Mr Speaker. The shadow Minister is becoming exercised about rail fares now, but fares rose by 60% between 2010 and 2014 under his Government, and there was an £850 million strike cost to the taxpayer. For the first time in 30 years, we are freezing rail fares so that passengers can have money back in their pocket and continue to use the railway. If the shadow Minister wants to bring down costs for passengers in the long term, the only way is to get behind our move to create Great British Railways.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituents. I thank her for her efforts to push the project forward; the energy coast train line has great potential to boost the local economy. Cumberland council is rightly leading the development of proposals, and my Department will continue to work with it, and to facilitate engagement across Government.
Michelle Scrogham
People in Barrow-in-Furness have had to put up with an increasingly unreliable rail service, which is having a huge impact on lives and businesses locally. From our work together so far on the energy coast rail upgrade, the Minister is aware that we have cross-Government support, and that the technical case for the project is well advanced. Does he agree that the meeting that we have been working towards, bringing Ministers and Departments together with Cumbrian MPs, will be an important milestone as we progress this work?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend continues to be a determined champion both for the project and for the economic benefits that it could bring to her constituents. I agree that a meeting with the Rail Minister is the right way to progress the matter; I give her an assurance that that meeting will happen in short order.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Good, well-run rail services support economic growth. We are investing more than £10 billion over four years to improve the railway, as well as progressing work on major schemes such as HS2, East West Rail and the trans-Pennine route upgrade. Our reforms to establish Great British Railways will drive economic growth, improve services for passengers and reduce the cost of the railway. By providing more frequent and reliable services, Northern Powerhouse Rail will turn cities, including Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield and York, and their surrounding areas into a single high-productivity growth corridor.
Grahame Morris
My east Durham constituency has long suffered from poor rail connectivity, which limits access to job, education and training opportunities, yet published evidence from the Rail Delivery Group and Oxford Economics shows that increasing rail frequency and capacity can boost productivity and attract investment. I welcome the Government’s commitment to an integrated national transport strategy and to driving regional growth, but will Ministers please do all they can to encourage Northern to improve the frequency of rail services in my east Durham constituency?
Heidi Alexander
The timetable change on the east coast main line in December last year has meant extra seats and extra services for many parts of the north-east. The new timetable, plus additional fast services on the Durham coastline, has provided faster journeys to more customers across the north, too. I know that the Rail Minister would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how his constituents can benefit most from these changes.
Rachel Hopkins
Exciting infrastructure projects are under way in Luton South and South Bedfordshire and in the wider region, including the expansion of Luton airport, Universal Studios and the new town at Tempsford. These projects will provide thousands of construction jobs and apprenticeship opportunities for our young people. As we mark National Apprenticeship Week and accelerate support for young people in accessing high-quality jobs, what work is the Department doing to ensure that our transport network is interconnected and can support that economic growth, particularly for young people who cannot drive?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is a great champion for young people in her constituency. I was pleased to sit down with her just last week to discuss the opportunities that this Labour Government are providing for people across Luton South and South Bedfordshire. We are determined to open up opportunities for young people through our investment in transport. Just this week, we laid before Parliament legislation to reduce the age at which someone can train to become a train driver from 20 to 18, meaning that young people do not have to wait around for years after finishing school and college before they can embark on a career on the railways.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State probably knows what I am going to ask. The single best thing we could do to promote economic growth in North East Lincolnshire and Lincolnshire, and particularly in Grimsby, which is one of the largest towns in England without a through-train to London, is to get our through-train to London from Grimsby and Cleethorpes, via Market Rasen and Lincoln. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have campaigned relentlessly for this. We went to see Lord Hendy, who gave us a very good interview, didn’t he?
Sir Edward Leigh
We were very encouraged. There is nothing party political about this; it is all about economic growth in an area that really needs it. I beg the Secretary of State; she just has to lift her finger and get our train. We have had a test run; it can happen now. Will she please do it?
Heidi Alexander
I wondered what the Father of the House was going to ask me. I remember him asking me a couple of months ago to name a train after Margaret Thatcher. I gave him a pretty definitive response to that. On the subject of the station in his constituency and the through-service from it, I will be sure to speak to the Rail Minister for an update on his latest conversations with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I will be happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with an update.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Bath’s hospitality sector depends heavily on weekend services, but Sunday services on Great Western Railway continue to be extremely unreliable, with long delays, packed trains and cancellations. The previous Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), rightly said that we should not have to rely on staff volunteering for shifts to run basic Sunday timetables, but that is exactly what is happening. What concrete steps has the Department taken towards overhauling staff contracts, so that Sunday services are guaranteed and support Bath’s local economy?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady is, of course, right that when people are stood on a platform on a Sunday, the train should turn up as reliably as it does on a Monday morning. The truth of the matter is that there is a raft of different practices across train operating companies. We have a plan to ensure that drivers and train crew are available. We will continue to work on that, specifically on the Great Western route.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
On Tuesday, the Committee published, as well as the report on the Railways Bill, a report called “Rail investment pipelines: ending boom and bust”, which includes discussion of the rolling stock that we need to run our trains. We found a pattern of boom and bust in investment decisions. No strategy means fluctuating orders, and that threatens small and medium-sized enterprise viability in the UK supply chain. When will the Government publish the promised long-term rolling stock investment strategy?
Heidi Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and her Committee for its work on the important report that it published this week. We all want to see an end to the boom and bust in our rail supply chain, which damages capacity and skills retention and does not provide value for money. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Department plans to publish its rolling stock and infrastructure strategy this summer. That will set out how Great British Railways will help smooth demand and generate a steady pipeline of work for the supply chain.
Mr Speaker
I call Mark Pritchard. I was going to call Rebecca Smith, but she is not standing.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am always the reserve; it is the story of my life. I was always on the reserve bench, but I am delighted to be called.
On a serious point, Great British Railways and the Office of Rail and Road will potentially have a conflict of interest when deciding on open access agreements, such as the application of the Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway company. That will likely bring about £2.2 million of growth into Shropshire’s economy, and full, direct rail services to London every single day. Could the Secretary of State reassure all my businesses and constituents in the Wrekin that there is no conflict of interest between Great British Railways and the Office of Rail and Road when deciding these applications?
Heidi Alexander
I fear that the right hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the proposals for reform in the Railways Bill. In future, open access decisions will be taken by Great British Railways, and applicants will have a right of appeal to the ORR. There is no conflict of interest. I can also assure him that in the past I have been as supportive, from the Department for Transport, as Network Rail has been of the open access application from Wrexham, Shropshire and the west midlands, and I will maintain my support for the proposals going forward.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Only the Labour party has a serious, sustainable plan to provide better bus services across the country, with affordable fares and lifeline services where people need them most, including in rural areas. The Government’s £3 bus fare cap is helping passengers save money on everyday journeys, which is why we have extended it until March next year. Alongside that, we have announced £3 billion in multi-year bus funding allocations, to give local authorities the flexibility to set fares below £3 where they choose to.
Rebecca Smith
Young people in my constituency, many of whom have to travel long distances from rural areas, are concerned about the cost of bus fares, especially since the increase from the Conservative £2 bus fare cap to a £3 bus fare cap under Labour. In fact, many are supportive of the Transport Committee’s recommendation that bus travel should be free until the age of 22, to enable easy access to education and work. What response does the Minister have for those young people?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member is right to raise concerns about the affordability of bus fares. Unfortunately, the previous Government talked about maintaining the cap, but allocated absolutely no funding to doing so. That is why we have introduced the £3 cap, but we are also supporting local transport authorities with bus funding, and enabling them to make decisions about how they want to use the funding, including to provide lower fares for young people.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
On the doorstep, at my constituency meeting last November, and when I am out and about in Stocksbridge, Deepcar, Oughtibridge and Wharncliffe Side, time and again my constituents tell me about the urgent need to bring back the SL1 tram-train bus link, after it was cut under the Tory Government. This route must be the cornerstone of the fantastic work that our South Yorkshire Mayor Oliver Coppard is doing to bring our buses back under public control. Will the Minister work with me, South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority and Sheffield city council to reinstate and improve a tram link bus, like the SL1, as soon as possible, and to identify funding for delivering a pilot project as soon as possible?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to advocate on behalf of her constituents living in South Yorkshire. It is almost as if the Conservatives have forgotten that they oversaw 300 million miles of bus route cuts. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), would be happy to meet her to discuss further the plans that she is working on with the South Yorkshire Mayor.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
This Government understand the vital importance of our roads to people up and down the country each and every day, and we are backing our groundbreaking ambition with record investment. Last month, we published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, setting out our plans to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads by 65% over the next decade. We are investing £24 billion over the next four years in improving the condition of England’s roads and delivering safer and more reliable journeys.
Jacob Collier
In a recent incident at Uttoxeter’s McDonald’s roundabout, a car lost control and ploughed into the restaurant seating area. It is a miracle that no one was injured or killed. That is a collision hotspot, and the incident presents further evidence that the A50 needs to be urgently upgraded. I hope that there will be good news in RIS3—the third road investment strategy. What steps is the Minister taking to make roundabouts and roads like the A50 safer?
Lilian Greenwood
I am sorry to hear about that incident. I share my hon. Friend’s relief that no one was injured. As he knows, improvements to junctions across the A50 corridor in Staffordshire are being considered as part of the pipeline of potential future major enhancements to the strategic road network. He is undoubtedly the A50’s greatest champion, and he will not have long to wait for news, as we will say more when RIS3 is published next month.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Essex man and woman love their cars, but the A13 and the A217 in south Essex are at 99% capacity during the morning and evening peaks—they are maxed out. The proposed lower Thames crossing would help, and although Labour now says that the crossing will be 90% privately funded, it will not say by whom. For the fourth time of asking in this Chamber, which companies, banks or other financial institutions will now pay for the lower Thames crossing? Many people in Essex are beginning to believe that Labour will never, ever build it.
Lilian Greenwood
That is just not true. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are determined to provide the road infrastructure that the public want. That is why we are providing public funding to start that project. We will say more in the coming weeks and months.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Over 130,000 motor vehicles are now stolen every year in the UK; there has been a 75% increase in England and Wales in a decade. Much of that theft happens through the exploitation of weaknesses in remote key fobs. Does the Minister agree that this crime trend is a major risk for users of motorised vehicles on our roads, and what steps will her Department and its agencies take to improve vehicle and fob design standards and regulation, as well as driver awareness, to prevent such crimes?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member raises an important question. Of course, our Department works closely with our colleagues in the Home Office to tackle crime of that sort. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), would be happy to write to him about those regulations.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
In rural communities, good public transport options can make the difference to being able to access work, education and opportunities. The Bus Services Act 2025 gives local leaders real control, so that they can plan routes and timetables that work for villages and more remote areas, not just commercially viable corridors. From this year, smaller towns and rural areas will receive £2.3 billion through the local transport grant. That will give councils the certainty and flexibility to invest in better rural buses, safer roads and improved local links as they plan for the future.
Aphra Brandreth
In my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency, villages like Little Budworth have no bus services at all, and are miles from any public transport. Even where a school bus exists, families tell me that if a child misses that single service, there is simply no alternative. In villages like Milton Green, families are forced to rely on infrequent and unreliable rural buses to get children as young as 11 to school—buses that often simply do not turn up. Parents have asked me a simple question: why can they not pay for spare seats on dedicated school buses that are already running? Will the Minister work with me and local councils to deliver a more flexible, common-sense approach for rural families?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful question. As I have already acknowledged, under the previous Government, millions of bus miles were lost, particularly in rural areas. However, the Bus Services Act puts power back with local leaders, and enables franchising and enhanced partnerships of municipal operators to improve services. I am sure that the Minister for buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will be happy to talk to her about her proposals.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Norfolk county council received one of the largest shares of money for bus services in the country, and I am very pleased that we have been able to open new rural bus routes in my constituency, but we still do not have a proper link with train services. What more can the Government do to get buses and trains working together, so that we have a truly integrated transport system?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. There is no doubt that we need to ensure that transport systems work better together. I am sure he will be very interested in our forthcoming integrated national transport strategy, and he does not have too long to wait.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Proper investment in maintaining our roads saves drivers shelling out hundreds of pounds for pothole-related repairs and makes journeys safer and smoother for millions of people every day. That is why we are investing a record £7.3 billion over the next four years to help councils maintain roads, and it is why we have introduced a transparency system to ensure that local people can see that their councils spend this money effectively.
Clive Jones
The funding given to local authorities is woefully inadequate to maintain the roads, let alone improve them. While Department for Transport funding remains well below historical levels in real terms, local authorities such as Wokingham have also had their funding dramatically cut by the Government. How do the Government expect local authorities like Wokingham to deliver on the objectives of the new road safety strategy?
Heidi Alexander
It is sadly a fact that we have seen a decade of under-investment in our road network. This Government are putting record money into local councils —£1.6 billion this year, which is £500 million more than the year before—and we will be doubling the amount of money spent on local road maintenance over the course of this Parliament. The hon. Member raises an important point about the importance of road surface and highways maintenance to road safety, and that is why we are putting our money where our mouth is.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Despite an additional £6.7 million being provided to Reform-led Warwickshire county council, the condition of roads across North Warwickshire remains an absolute disgrace. Potholes are the No. 1 concern for many drivers in my constituency. Our high streets, rural roads and main roads are littered with potholes. Does the Minister agree that Warwickshire county council must do more with this funding and take urgent action to fix our roads before many more women are left alone, waiting for recovery on rural roads late at night?
Heidi Alexander
I see that Reform Members care so much about the state of our roads that they cannot even be bothered to turn up to Transport questions.
Mr Speaker
Just to put the record straight before I get a load of emails, Andrew Rosindell, who is a Reform Member, was here and did ask a question.
Heidi Alexander
Forgive me, Mr Speaker—they change so much at the moment that I have lost track.
The facts speak for themselves when it comes to Reform. Of the 13 local authorities that were rated red last month for their action on fixing local roads, three were Reform-led councils. That is a quarter of all councils that are run by Reform failing to get the basics right. By contrast, Labour councils came out top.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Rail performance is improving following a decade of decline. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear areas of focus to recover performance to acceptable levels. Those include timetable resilience, staffing and keeping trains safely moving during disruptive events.
Brian Mathew
I thank the Minister for his answer. Network Rail’s Wiltshire strategic study identifies a clear strategic and economic case for upgrading the railway through Melksham, with a new passing loop unlocking capacity for an hourly passenger service, increased freight movements and improved network resilience when other lines are closed. The study also highlights how the proposed gateway station would deliver economic growth for Devizes and boost connectivity for towns and villages along the Kennet valley. Does the Minister—
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us has to sit down, and it is not going to be me. The question is too long. I have all your colleagues to get in—they are going to be upset. I am sure the Minister has a good idea of what the question was.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for his important question. I am aware of both the Bath and Wiltshire metro scheme and the Devizes gateway project. While there are currently no specific plans to deliver on those aspirations, we would encourage both him and local stakeholders, including local authorities, Great Western Rail and Network Rail to continue to work together to develop those plans, including sourcing funding opportunities. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will play his part as they do so.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are overjoyed that this Government are investing in the midlands rail hub project, but they are eager for more. Will the departmental team look again at the south Staffordshire line, which would reconnect Lichfield to Burton via Alrewas, and the potential merits of a station to serve the National Memorial Arboretum?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend continues to robustly defend the interests of his constituents to have the rail services that they deserve. If he writes to me with the detail of those proposals, I will ensure that the Rail Minister gives him a fulsome response.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Department launched the review of the airports national policy statement in October 2025, and selected a single scheme to inform that review in November. We are reviewing the ANPS swiftly but thoroughly, and we intend to consult on any revisions by the summer.
Munira Wilson
The Environmental Audit Committee recently found
“that the Government is proceeding without the necessary evidence base to sufficiently underpin its economic arguments for airport expansion.”
Now senior figures in the airline industry are warning about serious economic consequences of the unaffordable, eye-watering costs that will be passed on to their passengers. Will the Minister now admit that the maths for Heathrow expansion simply does not add up, and that the project is about saving the Chancellor’s economic credibility when her other policies are undermining growth?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady asks about the case for Heathrow expansion and collecting the data in reference to that. The ANPS review will do exactly that, reflecting changes in legislation, policy and analysis since the current ANPS was designated in 2018. It will ensure that any proposed scheme for expansion at Heathrow will be consistent with air quality obligations and will contribute to economic growth across the entirety of the United Kingdom.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
This Government are ushering in a new era for our railways, with landmark legislation to set up Great British Railways making good progress in this place. Eight train operators are now run by the public for the public, with West Midlands Railway and London Northwestern Railway services nationalised at the end of January. I am pleased to say that performance is improving. Today, rail services lost due to cancellations and strikes have more than halved compared with the heights of industrial action under the Conservatives.
Finally, last month we made a vital commitment to improving rail connectivity across the north of England. After years of being stuck in the mud under previous Governments, we will deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, investing up to £45 billion to create a turn-up-and-go railway from Liverpool to York, with NPR services continuing on to Newcastle and Hull. No longer will the north have to endure second-rate services. Instead, we will build a railway that the whole of Britain can rely on and be proud of.
Kirsteen Sullivan
The airspace modernisation strategy will rationalise flightpaths last redrawn in the 1950s to cut emissions and noise. However, the community in the historical village of Blackness, in my constituency, are concerned that the opposite will happen with the plans for Edinburgh airport airspace, and that their tranquil village will bear the brunt of the disruption. Will the Minister meet my constituents to discuss their concerns at the earliest opportunity?
Heidi Alexander
I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns, as I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue for many people. Airspace modernisation will provide huge benefits for air passengers, businesses and the UK economy, and the move to more efficient flight paths will be done in such a way as to ensure that any impacts on local communities are properly managed.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Passengers want safe and reliable journeys, and those who work on our public transport system deserve to be safe at work, especially when they do the right thing in difficult circumstances. However, bus driver Mark Hehir, who was praised by the police for stopping a thief, was sacked. I have met Mark and the lady he saved from a robbery, but has the Secretary of State or anyone from the Department met him? Indeed, has anybody from the Department made representations on his behalf?
More broadly, passengers deserve to feel safe on our railways. What are the most recent British Transport police figures?
Heidi Alexander
I am aware of that case from media reports. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is a matter for the employer, Metroline. I understand that the case was taken to an employment tribunal where the employer’s decision was upheld. I am not aware of the full details and I will not be drawn further on the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about British Transport police numbers. The number of officers is in the region of 2,800.
Mr Holden
Nobody from the Department for Transport has reached out to a heroic bus driver, and the Secretary of State is clearly not really paying attention to officer numbers either, because they are down by 112. Ironically, that is the same number of unpaid tickets racked up by fare dodger Charles Brohiri, stealing £48,000 from passengers and taxpayers. He did not even receive a custodial sentence. I ask the Secretary of State again whether her Department has made any representations about the leniency of that sentence, or whether she is comfortable with a two-tier justice system in which bus drivers who defend their passengers lose their jobs and fare dodgers walk free.
Heidi Alexander
Can I gently suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he listens to the answers that I give? He claims that I am not across the details of the BTP numbers, but I can tell him that there has been a slight decrease from 2,910 to 2,852 full-time equivalents in the last year. I can also tell him that BTP has recently been given a 15% increase to its budget, worth £63 million over the three-year settlement. That will see over 200 more police officers recruited, including for a dedicated capability to tackle violence and intimidation against women and girls.
The right hon. Gentleman will know—or should know—that sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary in this country. It is right that the operator took legal action in the case that he mentions, as persistent and prolific fare dodging not only undermines revenues for the railway, but is unfair for other passengers.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
We published the motor insurance taskforce report in December, highlighting the actions being taken to tackle claims costs and, ultimately, to help reduce motorists’ premiums. We are also consulting on a minimum learning period for learner drivers, which may help to reduce premiums if the number of collisions involving young and novice drivers falls.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Government have big ambitions for active travel, but their targets in the third cycling and walking investment strategy are neither bold nor measurable. Over 40 organisations, including some Labour mayoral authorities, have called for a target of 50% of short urban journeys being walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030, as well as planning for a national active travel network. What does the Secretary of State say in response?
Lilian Greenwood
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we consulted on the third cycling and walking investment strategy. That consultation closed in December and we are carefully considering all the representations that have been made. We will publish the final strategy in the spring.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Heidi Alexander
I am pleased that the expansion of Lumo services from Cumbernauld to London will soon benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents. The Department’s position on open access is clear: there will be a place for it in the reformed rail sector where it adds value. Great British Railways will oversee a rail network that delivers better services for passengers, and we know that there is a role for open access in supporting that aim.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
That is precisely why we have established an accountability and transparency framework for local authorities, under which they need to report to us the amount of proactive resurfacing they are doing, which can obviously represent better value for money for the taxpayer. I know that people want to see contractors getting it right first time, and the Government are determined to work with local authorities to make sure that is the case.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not need advice from the Opposition Benches that somebody is reading. Members should not just pick on one side—it is happening on both sides of the House. I do not like reading, but I expect the House to be tolerant on both sides. I am sure Opposition Members will also shout when they see someone on their own side doing it—not!
Heidi Alexander
I recognise that for local people, road closures can be one of the most disruptive aspects of major projects. I know that HS2 works very closely with highways authorities to minimise the impacts. Doing the essential work on the A38 in a single 11-day closure will avoid around six months of repeated full-weekend closures.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
I appreciate that certain roads and certain parts of the country face different challenges due to their geology. I will certainly raise the hon. Member’s point with the Roads Minister, and we will come back to him.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Network Rail has rightly apologised for its failure to deliver a functional Sunderland station following refurbishment. We now have the bare basics in place, and plans for improvement. Will the Secretary of State join me in asking Northern Rail to get on with delivering those improvements, and will she arrange a meeting for me with the Rail Minister to discuss that?
Heidi Alexander
I am happy to arrange that meeting. Like my hon. Friend, I want Sunderland station to be at the heart of a vibrant community, and I pay tribute to him for his campaigning on the issue. I do expect Northern to work closely with him, businesses and the local community to further improve the station, and I look forward to that meeting taking place with the Rail Minister to discuss what more we can do.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Member may wish to tell his residents about the Government’s determination to tackle these issues. For example, we have doubled the fines that local authorities can charge utility companies when works overrun. I recognise how disruptive these works are for local communities, and it is an issue that the Government take very seriously.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
The last Government cut bus services in my community by half, so I am glad that this Government are putting more money into my local community, but we do need more bus services, particularly in rural areas. Will the Minister set out how we are going to improve local bus services, particularly with franchising, in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. We are working closely with local authorities interested in franchising to identify models that work and to offer them tailored support. We are funding bus franchising pilots that will test the viability of up to five different models and investigate how they can be used to deliver improved bus services for passengers, particularly in more rural locations.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are already on this issue across the wider south-east. We are expanding the pay-as-you-go system with tap-in, tap-out technology, and further stations are due to come online. I am happy to talk about a further tranche beyond that, but we need to crack on with the ones that are already in the pipeline.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I will keep it short and sweet, Mr Speaker. Weymouth train station does not have a working toilet, which means that wheelchair users, passengers with heavy luggage and parents with a pram are left having to go 20 minutes to get to the nearest toilet. Will the Secretary of State work constructively with South Western Railway to finally get a working toilet at Weymouth train station?
Heidi Alexander
I understand that the public toilets in Weymouth station have been closed for several years, due to antisocial behaviour and vandalism. That is unacceptable, and I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department will raise it with South Western Railway.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. I have been in contact with the DVLA about this matter; it is putting new systems in place to ensure that it is doing everything that it can, as standard, to process these cases as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I have been keen to ensure that there is an escalation mechanism. I am pleased to hear that her constituents have got a quicker response after they have contacted her, but that should not have to be the case or the norm.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
We on the Labour Benches know that effective bus services are key to economic growth. Unfortunately, when Staffordshire county council was run by the Conservatives, it sought to cut bus services in my county by 41%. One of those was a direct service from the train station to Staffordshire technology park. Does the Minister agree that investing in our bus services is key to growing our towns economically?
Lilian Greenwood
Yes—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are giving local authorities the powers and funding, and we expect local authorities to use them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a recent visit to St Richard’s Catholic college in my constituency, students told me that they face paying an astonishing extra £400 a year in bus fares. How can the Minister justify to those students and others in my constituency the cutting of our bus service funding by £2.5 million?
Lilian Greenwood
I do not know the detail of the position in the hon. Member’s constituency, but I will ensure that the Minister responsible for bus services writes to him in relation to that issue.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
This Government have already invested millions in the future of Cornish industries but they are held back by poor transport links. Our rail link is struggling, and our airport is fragile. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she is committed to transport improvement in Cornwall through Devon?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I am due to meet her and colleagues soon to discuss the resilience of the rail network, among other matters. I appreciate that a well-functioning, high-quality public transport system is absolutely essential to getting the economy firing on all cylinders.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned the Northern Powerhouse Rail announcement and I am sure that it will not have evaded your attention, Mr Speaker, as it did not evade mine, that there was not a single penny for anywhere in the whole of Lancashire in that announcement. Can the Secretary of State update me on whether she has made any progress in identifying a funding pot or stream from which the south Fylde passing loop could be financed?
Heidi Alexander
Improving connections between the great cities of the north of England—making those connections into Liverpool and Manchester better—will have a knock-on impact on the whole region. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about the south Fylde line, in particular, I will come back to him.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The 29 bus route in Glasgow is being cut without consultation, and local people have signed my petition so that people in Mansewood and Hillpark are not left potentially cut off. Will the Minister join me in calling on the Scottish Government and Glasgow city council to do everything they can to protect that route?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Hard-working men and women in the coastguard, such as Bembridge resident Martin Groom, do vital work securing our borders, including, in some cases, intercepting small boats. The coastguard treats them as volunteers, but the Court of Appeal has disagreed and said that they are workers. Will the Government do the right thing and afford them all the rights, protections and fair payment that their worker status entails? The security of our nation relies on them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Government are currently considering the judgment handed down in the Groom case and the next steps that we will take with His Majesty’s Coastguard. In the meantime, we are grateful for the contribution of volunteers across wider society. They are a crucial part of how this country comes together and delivers for the common good.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Last month, my Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley issued a press release stating that DFT data showed that it has the seventh best roads in England. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the data shows that it has an amber rating and does not say that it has the seventh best roads in England?
Heidi Alexander
I am very happy to clarify that that is a disingenuous claim, at best, from Conservative-controlled Bexley council. The Government did not publish a ranked list of authorities, but it is clear that, of the many councils that achieved a green rating overall, Bexley was not one—it was ranked amber.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister has referred to a local transport grant that is of course not available to the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, because it is not deemed to be a local transport authority. Attending medical appointments for my constituents from off-islands on a day like today would cost them £120 return. The Secretary of State has said that she is meeting fellow Members from Cornwall. Will she ensure that that meeting is on a cross-party basis, so that I can raise the serious transport problems on the Isles of Scilly?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is right to raise the transportation issues on the Isles of Scilly and in his constituency more widely—I would be very grateful if he wrote to the Secretary of State on that matter. I understand that the Rail Minister will be meeting the leader of the council of the Isles of Scilly to discuss further some of the issues that the hon. Member is campaigning on.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion
(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
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Humble Address agreed by this House on 4 February 2026, including on progress made, timescales for compliance and the Government’s approach to any material it proposes to withhold or delay.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
Last week, the House made a Humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister updated the House on further action that the Government are taking.
My right hon. Friend 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 Counsellors. He also explained how we have changed the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. He also set out other areas where we recognise the need to go further, including tightening transparency and lobbying.
In that statement, my right hon. Friend also set out how the Government are responding to the Humble Address motion, and I am pleased to provide a further update to the House today. The Government will comply fully and publish documents as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, we welcome both the principle and content of that motion, and we will deliver on it as soon as we can. As such, Departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is under way to identify documents that fall within the scope of the motion. We will do so as soon as possible when the House returns from recess.
In line with the motion passed by this House, where the Government consider that documents may be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the Cabinet Office will refer that material to the independent Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has written to the ISC, and senior officials have met the Committee to discuss what it requires in order to fulfil that role. As I said in the House last week, full resources will be made available to ensure that process happens, and we will work with the Committee to explain the Cabinet Office’s process for providing material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its work, and we commit to full engagement with it to ensure timely and effective release.
The House will also be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan police regarding the ongoing police investigation. That statement made clear that the
“process to decide which documents should ultimately be published remains a matter for…parliament.”
That is absolutely right, and we agree, but as the House would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release anything that may undermine an ongoing police investigation. As such, we are working with the police as they conduct their inquiries to manage this process. I think that is the right way forward, Mr Speaker, and I hope you and the House agree.
In conclusion, the Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously, and given the nature of the issues at stake and the scope of material in play, we will comply fully and deliver this material as quickly and transparently as possible. The Government will keep the House updated as they do so, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will publish a written ministerial statement later today.
Mr Speaker
Now that you have brought me into it, I will just say that the Intelligence and Security Committee is private and independent, and therefore I would not like to see that it was blocked from information. It would not affect any police investigation, because that information would not go into the public arena. I just want the House to be aware of that.
I also thank the Minister for coming to the House. To me, on something as important as this a written ministerial statement is not good enough; I think it should have been brought to the House. All sides are interested in it, and it is right that this House should be informed, so I really am pleased. I am sorry that the Minister has got the short straw, but I thank him for being here.
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Alex Burghart
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker— I could not have put it better myself.
Alex Burghart
Thank you for granting this urgent question, without which hon. Members would not have had a chance to question Ministers before recess. Obviously, the House will rise for recess having received very little in the way of information, so it is very important that we hear from the Minister today so that we can try to have some confidence in the process. Simply put, the purpose of our question today is to try to elicit from the Government a commitment to give the House a timetable, and to confirm—as I think the Minister may have done—that they intend to comply fully with the language in the Humble Address. I say that because press briefings from Government sources this week have suggested that the Government might try to reinterpret the address in some way. For the avoidance of doubt, were that to happen, the Government would have to return to this House for another vote.
Last week, the Prime Minister told us that the process would have integrity because it was being led by the Cabinet Secretary, and that any criticism or denigration of the Cabinet Secretary would not be right. This week, the political forces in No. 10 have been briefing that Sir Chris Wormald is to be replaced—what a turnaround! Will the Minister reassure the House that any change in the Cabinet Secretary will not delay disclosure or publication of the documents that the House has required?
I have several further questions that I will put quickly to the Minister. First, have the Government completed their scoping exercise, and if not, by when do they intend to do so?
Secondly, where the Government propose to release material to the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than directly to the House, will they provide public updates to the House that this has been done?
Thirdly, in respect of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, will the Government tell us the precise legal mechanism being relied on, and will they commit to publish those documents in full when the police no longer request them to be withheld?
Fourthly, will Ministers publish a Keeling schedule-style register of withheld or delayed documents, setting out the category, the reason for non-disclosure and the expected release date for each? There are strong precedents for this.
Fifthly, at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister told me he would write to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) about the Palantir contract. He has not yet done so. Please will he confirm that he will this week?
Lastly, and separately, will the Minister commit to publishing all documentation relating to the nomination of Matthew Doyle as a peer? That is now a matter of acute public interest. [Interruption.] I will sit down, Mr Speaker. The Minister will appreciate that confidence in this Government’s integrity is very low. I hope he will comply in full.
Chris Ward
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Let me try to rattle through those questions. First, and most importantly, we will comply fully. I made that clear in the House. The Government accept the principle and the content of the motion, and we will comply fully with it. A large amount of material—this touches on the scoping question—is potentially in play here, and it goes much broader than other Humble Addresses. That is not a criticism; it is just a factual observation about how long it will take to get through the material. The scoping has begun, and the Cabinet Office is working through that. I will update the House as soon as I can with more. We hope to publish the first tranche when the House comes back from recess. As I say, the scoping is being worked through. The conversations with the Metropolitan police have, as Mr Speaker pointed out, the primacy of this place at heart, but we also, as the House would expect, do not want to prejudice an ongoing police investigation. We are just working our way through that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Cabinet Secretary. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary—
Chris Ward
Thankfully, I am no longer an adviser. I am a Cabinet Office Minister, and it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary. Let me reassure the House that the Cabinet Office is working hard and diligently on this. That process is ongoing. Any speculation around the Cabinet Secretary does not affect the process.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Palantir, and I committed to write to him. I have spoken to officials about that, and I promise we will get that to him. There was an urgent question on this matter, which I think the Ministry of Defence responded to, and which provided an update, but I promise I will come back to him on that.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman touched on Lord Doyle. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address and outside the scope of the papers, so the urgent question does not touch on that.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Parliament is rightly focusing its attention on Peter Mandelson, but along with accusations of other heinous crimes, Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor passed extremely sensitive material on to Epstein and his accomplices during his time as trade envoy to Singapore, Vietnam, China and Hong Kong in 2010. Is it not time that, as well as Peter Mandelson, we call on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to answer to both the police and to Parliament?
Chris Ward
Everyone in this House has been sickened and dismayed by the revelations from all the Epstein papers that have come through and in relation to what my hon. Friend just said. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address, and it is a matter for the Palace to respond to.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The events of recent weeks have substantially diminished people’s faith in politics, when it was already at an all- time low. It has confirmed the worst of people’s suspicions about how everything works and punctured the optimism of those who believed in better. At the centre of all this are the victims, and their bravery is twofold: first, by retelling their trauma, and secondly, by taking on the world’s most powerful men and all those who aided and legitimised them.
The Humble Address passed by this place stands as a test of transparency and a test of parliamentary authority. People demand answers, and they deserve them swiftly. They will not stand for endless consultation, reviews and deliberation. Can the Government therefore confirm when they will bring forward legislation so that Peter Mandelson’s peerage can be revoked? What is their deadline for releasing the necessary files? Who in the Government will be held responsible if that deadline is not met?
Chris Ward
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that victims should remain at the heart of this. In answer to his question on the legislation to strip Lord Mandelson of his peerage and on broader reform of the House of Lords process for removal, that will come forward as soon as possible. It will be in Government time, as I committed to last week, and we will bring that forward after the recess. It is obviously a Cabinet Office matter, so the Cabinet Office is accountable, but obviously the Prime Minister is accountable for this as well. As I say, we will comply fully with the motion, and we will publish material as soon as we can.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Just over a week or so ago, I expressed my horror at what had passed and was shocked that we could not remove a peerage from someone who had brought the other place into disrepute, so I am very pleased to see how swiftly the Government moved on bringing in legislation to do so. Does the Minister agree that full compliance with regard to providing transparency of records as soon as possible is vital to ensure that we rebuild trust in politics and politicians?
Chris Ward
Yes, I absolutely do. As I say, we will comply fully and as quickly as possible. I completely accept my hon. Friend’s point about the removal process for the other place, and it is inexplicable that that is still the case. The sooner we can update that, the better.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the Minister share my concern about the revelations relating to the connection between Mandelson and the Chinese motor manufacturer BYD, which now says that the United Kingdom is the largest destination for its electric vehicles? Is he preventing the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero from disclosing the conversations that he had when he visited China last year and signed agreements that remain secret as far as this House is concerned?
Chris Ward
There is no part of the revelations about Lord Mandelson that I am not dismayed and appalled at. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I am afraid I am not across the detail. That is one for the Secretary of State’s team to reply to.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
There continues to be significant public interest in the Government’s £240 million contract with Palantir Technologies. Could the Minister confirm whether any Government Ministers were present at the Palantir celebration party yesterday? If so, who? Can he commit to ensuring that all materials and records relating to this contract award decision are published?
Chris Ward
The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question is that I have no idea. On the second part of her question, and as I have promised the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) twice, we will give a full written reply about the Palantir contract, which concerns the Cabinet Office, as soon as possible.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Public confidence in this process is absolutely vital. Although the Intelligence and Security Committee is fiercely independent, is it not a matter of fact that it is dominated by Labour peers and Labour MPs, and that the Chair is appointed by a Labour Prime Minister? On a point of detail on the Cabinet Office involvement, how will this inquiry avoid a conflict of interests between the Cabinet Office employees who staff the ISC and the Cabinet Office itself? On the legal advice from the Cabinet Office, would that not conflict with the Cabinet’s legal advisers to the ISC? Is it not the case that the Intelligence and Security Committee should have its own budget to recruit its own independent legal advisers, separate from the Cabinet Office?
Chris Ward
As I said in the House last week in response to a question from the former Attorney General, full resourcing will be given to the ISC to do that. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about how we work that through between the two teams. That is being worked out with the ISC and the Cabinet Office at the moment, and I am confident that it can be resolved. He pointed to the political composition of the ISC. I think it is fair to say that no Members of this House would want to imply that the ISC is not impartial, responsible and entirely qualified to do this. It was important that the ISC was included in last week’s motion, and it is important to have that on the record.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Prime Minister has recognised that he must do more to strengthen standards in public life, including by enhancing vetting for political appointments and providing a broader review of the lobbying system. Would the Minister care to explain a bit more about how the Government are planning to address the lobbying of MPs and public officials?
Chris Ward
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set that out to the House on Monday, and we will come forward with further detail soon. This is an important part of restoring trust, and it cannot just be about reacting to the specifics of the Mandelson revelations. There needs to be much broader consideration of lobbying and the transparency of our politics. This should not be a political point, because it is about all Governments and all parties at different times, but our politics is at a low point of public trust at the moment, and we need to rebuild it.
Chris Ward
To be honest, if I was the hon. Member, I would not be shouting that—not after the last 14 years.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Obese-Jecty, I do not need to hear these side comments, which are now coming from you more often. You are now a Front Bencher, and more restraint is required. I expect so much better of you as an ex-military officer and a gallant Member.
Chris Ward
To conclude my answer, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set out the specifics on Monday. We will come forward with further details, and we will tighten transparency regulations as well.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
First, I should say that, although I enormously respect the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), I disagree with him about the independence of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is very much a Committee of Parliament, and it is independent as such.
The ISC is awaiting receipt of papers from the Government, and it has requested that those relating to the vetting and appointment of Lord Mandelson are prioritised for release to it. Can the Minister confirm that they will be prioritised, and can he give an early indication of the number of documents expected to be passed to the Committee, so it can determine its resource requirements for undertaking this task?
Chris Ward
As I say, scoping is under way. I cannot give a precise number at the moment, because there may be a large amount of information covering a long period of time. I am afraid that I cannot give a date, but the Cabinet Office is working closely with the ISC to deliver the information as quickly as possible, and to do so in the right order of priorities.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned strengthening the process for direct ministerial appointments. Could he say a little more about that and how quickly he believes those strengthened processes will be put in place?
Chris Ward
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set this out on Monday. We are looking at the enhanced security vetting that comes in when there is a direct appointment. The Prime Minister and his Chief Secretary have set out the plans to reform that, and—I may be corrected if I am wrong—if they have not already come in, they will be coming in very quickly. The reform will come in as soon as possible, so we can tighten this up.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Earlier this week, the Health Secretary released the WhatsApp messages and emails that he had exchanged with Lord Mandelson. Can the Minister update the House on what instruction has been given to Cabinet Ministers to follow—or not follow—the initiative by the Health Secretary?
Chris Ward
The Prime Minister has made it very clear that there needs to be a managed process that the Cabinet and Ministers agree with. Such information will be published in the right fashion, and it is important that there is a proper process. We need to agree across the Cabinet and Ministers how that will happen, and that is what is going to happen.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Too often when women in particular raise concerns or sound the alarm about concerning behaviour, their concerns are dismissed or go unheard. Can the Minister set out what further actions this Government will take to ensure that victims and survivors of sexual abuse are heard by those in power?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a broader problem in our politics than the specific issue that Mandelson highlights. The Prime Minister made it clear on Monday and at the Dispatch Box yesterday that this needs to change and that he will drive through that cultural change. I would also point to the very wide-ranging and groundbreaking violence against women and girls strategy that this Government have published. Having worked with the Prime Minister as long as I have, I know he cares passionately about it and is determined to drive it through.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Can the Minister confirm that, in relation to the legislation for the removal of peers, Matthew Doyle will be on the first list to be removed, given that he should not have been appointed in the first place? Can he also confirm the position on disappearing or deleted WhatsApp messages, and whether they can technically be retrieved from the system to be given to the Intelligence and Security Committee?
Chris Ward
As I say, the Government are looking at legislation that addresses the broader question of how to remove people from the Lords; it will be broad legislation, rather than just for specific cases. The sooner it comes to the House and we can consider it, the better. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point in his second question—I am afraid I really do not know the answer. I imagine it is a question that a lot of people are considering; I will come back to him on it.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
There have been plenty of times when the standards of behaviour of holders of political office at all levels have fallen below what is acceptable. None of us has the moral high ground on this, as every party has had issues—some dealt with quietly and some in the court reports. While my question is to the Minister, I want us all to reflect on it. How do we work collectively to make this better to ensure that no woman and no victim is left unsupported? How do we collectively make a change?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend makes the point incredibly powerfully. It is one that we have lost somewhat in the discussion about technicalities around the process, but it is the central point that we should be trying to address. As I say, the Prime Minister has committed to driving through change and ensuring that this Government reflect that. We are bringing forward the groundbreaking, long-overdue violence against women and girls strategy, but there needs to be much broader cultural change as well.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that the Cabinet Secretary’s integrity should not be questioned and then immediately briefed out that he was going to be sacked, having given him the responsibility of overseeing the handing over of documents that could be detrimental to a Prime Minister so desperate to save his political life that he has already thrown his closest advisers—communications and chief of staff—under a bus. How can we know that there is no link between the very integrity the Prime Minister highlighted and the desire to remove the Cabinet Secretary from a role in which he might be at risk of removing this Prime Minister?
Chris Ward
As I said, I am not going to comment on the Cabinet Secretary—it is not appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to do so. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the process is under way in the Cabinet Office and that it is unaffected by other matters.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question; I also thank the Minister for his responses, because this is an important issue that people in my constituency and across the country are obviously very interested in. Can he assure my constituents that this process will be fully transparent? I also wish to add my support to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who spoke about the importance of people in power listening to the victims of these terrible crimes.
Chris Ward
Yes, absolutely; as I say, we will be fully transparent and comply fully with the motion, and we will do so as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend’s second point is the central point to which we need to return throughout this debate and going forward.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his assurances today that these reports and publications will come forward as soon as possible. As I am sure he can pick up from the tenor of the House, many of us are concerned about public confidence in this place—in us—being undermined. Every day that we do not have the reports, there is more speculation and more doubt is heaped on all of us and on the Government. The Government need to be stronger. Will the Minister commit to keeping us up to date regularly and to giving us a date, as soon as he can, for when the public can expect to see these papers published?
Chris Ward
Yes, I agree. As I have said, we expect to be able to start publishing this material as soon as possible after the recess. We will do that as quickly as we can. The hon. Lady’s broader point about public confidence is essential. It is why I tried to emphasise in the debate last week—as heated as it occasionally got—that we want to comply, and to get to the bottom of this. There is no one on the Government Benches who does not want to get to the bottom of the lies that Mandelson told and the problems that led to. It is about broader public confidence and trust. We need to demonstrate that this House is not reflected by the acts of Mandelson et al., and that this House is instead about doing public good and public service. The publication of the material is an important part of getting to that.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The motion passed by the House requires the Government to provide details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson. There are no national security or international relations issue in doing so. Will the Minister tell the House now how much money Mandelson got and what the Government are doing to get it back?
Chris Ward
I think the hon. Member is referring to severance pay. I think the Foreign Office is providing an update on that. I am afraid it is not a question that I can provide an answer to.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
In September last year, we had an emergency debate at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on the sacking of Peter Mandelson. I said at the time that the Government should be turning Lord Mandelson inside out, because someone had politically fatal compromising material on him during his whole time as ambassador. The Government simply said, “Well he’s been sacked.” Do the Government regret not carrying out that due diligence in September last year and instead waiting for more compromising information to drop?
Chris Ward
I think it is safe to say that there are a number of things that we regret around this issue. As I have said, the key point is that we will comply with the Humble Address fully, transparently and as quickly as possible.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Public confidence is so important, and the ministerial code requires that Ministers, including the Prime Minister, uphold the highest possible standards of propriety. Given that the evidence clearly shows what the Prime Minister knew, the appointment of Mandelson did not meet those standards. Can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister will refer himself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards?
Chris Ward
The Prime Minister has strengthened the powers of the independent adviser—and rightly so. The independent adviser now has a more central role in compliance with standards. But I am afraid that the question does not quite relate to what is in the Humble Address.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
As a former journalist, I know that the fourth estate do not always get things right, but they are not in the habit of making things up. What, then, are we to make of reports from Dan Hodges in the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday that the Prime Minister is making a last-ditch attempt to limit the amount of documentation that is released under our Humble Address? There is no smoke without fire, Mr Speaker.
Chris Ward
I really wouldn’t believe everything you read in the press. Let me be very clear from the Dispatch Box: the Government are complying fully and transparently, and are working very hard to so do. Any reports to the contrary are just not right.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The issues surrounding Lord Mandelson and Lord Doyle and their proximity to paedophiles are now intertwined. On 2 January 2026, I tabled a written question, asking the Cabinet Office to publish the findings of the internal investigation that took place prior to the granting of the peerage for Lord Doyle. That investigation was carried out by former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, but also by his deputy Jill Cuthbertson, who is now interim chief of staff. An investigation is currently under way, but there has already been an investigation. Given that this issue has already been investigated, will the Government commit to publishing the findings of that investigation?
Chris Ward
The Prime Minister gave his answer on that yesterday, and No. 10 has provided further information on it, but that question does not relate to the Humble Address.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister is well regarded on both sides of the House, so I am hoping that he will give us a clear and honest answer to this question—I am sure he will do. In his long years working for the Prime Minister—as adviser, staffer and latterly as a Minister—did he voice any concerns in private post the vetting process on the appointment of Lord Mandelson?
Chris Ward
I was not involved in that matter at all, so the answer simply is no.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the WhatsApps, the Minister seemed to suggest that it was not an orderly process. First, is there to be any reprimand for the Health Secretary? Secondly, will the WhatsApps between all Ministers and Peter Mandelson be released, because the Humble Address referred specifically to electronic communications?
Chris Ward
I would never want to imply that it was not an orderly process, so let me correct myself there. The point that I was making is that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office—all of the above—have made it clear that Ministers need to abide by the process that we are carrying out. That will be done collectively. The scope is set out by the Humble Address, and the breadth is being identified—
Chris Ward
Electronic communications are covered within the Humble Address, so that will be looked at by the Cabinet Office, in terms of the breadth and scope.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister said that he and the Government want to comply fully, transparently and as quickly as possible with the Humble Address. I think we can all agree that is exactly what they should be doing, but when things will be released is a vital question. The documents should be released as quickly as possible, as he says, but so far we have had no information except that it will happen when the time is right, effectively. Is that because the Minister does not know, or because he does not want to say? If he does not know, can he give us an example or an expectation of the timescale? If he does not want to say, can he tell us why not?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers to incredibly difficult questions. Procedure is very important in this place—indeed, it is why democracy still reigns. You, Mr Speaker, have epitomised the right way to do it; I think the House recognises the standards that you set for us and everyone in this House. The general public have a huge interest in the issue and have been led to expect that detail is forthcoming, so will the Minister ensure that the Government hold themselves to the highest standards and provide the detail to enable everyone, in and outside this House, to move forward while learning lessons and striving for true accountability at all levels?
Chris Ward
Yes, absolutely; that should be the guiding principle as we go through. The test at the end should be not only whether we have complied with the motion, which obviously we will, but whether it has helped to restore transparency and trust for the public.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr Speaker; I apologise for having missed the Minister’s opening remarks, but I did hear him endorse the integrity of the ISC. I entirely agree. It is important that I say from the Conservative Benches, just as my Committee colleague the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) said from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that we have full confidence in the integrity of the Labour members of the ISC to do the job that the House has commissioned us to do.
May I put to the Minister a point about the problems that the Government now have? It seems to me that the potential problems for them in complying with the Humble Address are: first, the volume of material that it may cover and, secondly, what the Metropolitan police wish us to hold for the purposes of their investigation. On the first point, does he agree that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) put it to him—if the Government seek to moderate the terms of the Humble Address in any way to take account of the volume, they must come back to the House for its consent? On the material that may concern the Metropolitan police, does he agree that as it will not be made public if it is submitted to the ISC, there is no reason to slow down the referral of documents to my Committee simply because of concerns the police may have that if material is made public it may prejudice a future trial?
Chris Ward
I completely endorse the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes about the independence and integrity of the ISC. He identifies two very fair points. I say that not as a reason not to comply; it is just the reality of the complexity of what we are dealing with. The volume is larger than in other Humble Addresses—that is not a complaint, but a statement of fact. However, there is no attempt to narrow the scope and no attempt to narrow the motion. The process that the Cabinet Office is going through is to define the scope and harness what falls within it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the Metropolitan police is well made. The Met and the Government both recognise that, ultimately, Parliament retains the right to publish material, but obviously a responsible Government will wish to act in a way that does not prejudice an ongoing live case, which we would all like to see reach a conclusion. We are working through these matters; they are complicated, but he raises them in exactly the right fashion.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Licensing Hours Extensions Act 2026
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2026
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026.
Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the withholding of Pharmacy First payments to pharmacies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is a pleasure to take the traditional Department of Health and Social Care urgent question before recess—I would not miss it for the world.
Since coming into office, we have reversed the decade of cuts to community pharmacy with the biggest uplift for the sector in years and frozen prescription charges to help our constituents with the cost of living, and women can now get the morning-after pill free of charge across the country. Earlier this week, I spoke to the National Pharmacy Association’s winter reception to pay tribute to its members for their work and to assure them that I have their back, as does the Minister for Care.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) raises the important issue of payments made via Pharmacy First. As he knows, pharmacy contractors receive a monthly fixed payment if they meet certain requirements. We agreed to reduce the claim window, in conjunction with Community Pharmacy England, as part of our deal for 2025-26 to introduce a new Pharmacy First fixed first payment of £500. That has supported a broader range of pharmacies and has meant that more pharmacies have become eligible for payments. We are in discussions with Community Pharmacy England to consider where improvements to the claiming process can be made, address concerns raised by contractors and aim for a more consistent approach to remuneration. We will also consult with Community Pharmacy England shortly on the contractual framework for next year.
There are issues relating to contractors being suspended from providing Pharmacy First that are for separate consideration. When concerns are raised, NHS England can suspend individual contractors from providing the service pending a full investigation. There are a number of reasons why that might be necessary, but the measures are there, first and foremost, as the House will appreciate, to protect patient safety. I am a clinician, as is the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, and I am sure that he will agree that patient safety should be at the forefront of everything we do.
Finally, funding for the core community pharmacy contractual framework has been increased to over £3 billion—the largest uplift of any part of the NHS in the last two years. As part of this year’s contractual framework, we have agreed to keep the current cost control mechanism linked to Pharmacy First that we inherited from the previous Government to ensure that the money is spent within that envelope. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that you did not summon the Minister? I granted an urgent question. Think about the language you choose, Dr Evans, and think that we have given you something.
Dr Evans
I of course withdraw that remark, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for summoning the Minister on my behalf. It seems to have had the desired effect, because the outstanding parliamentary questions have, strangely enough, been answered this morning. I hope to get some clarity as this is really important.
The issue has been explained simply by the chair of the National Pharmacy Association:
“The work was done. Patients were treated. The NHS benefited. Yet payments are being withheld on a technicality.”
What makes that worse is that many pharmacies do not even realise that some of the money is missing. He goes on:
“Statements appear ‘successful’, yet Pharmacy First payments are absent. Contractors are only discovering the issue long after the window has closed, when it’s already too late.”
Will the Minister tell the House how many pharmacies the Government think are impacted? What is the total value of the outstanding payments? What steps are the Government taking to rectify this, and would they consider a late payment mechanism to help solve the issue?
There is a wider concern. Payments are administered by the NHS Business Services Authority. The chair of the NPA labelled the behaviour of NHSBSA “outrageous”. That already follows repeat concerns about NHSBSA’s performance, including multiple serious delays in NHS pension processing and several urgent questions on the Floor of the House. Does the Minister still retain confidence in NHSBSA? Given the ongoing concerns from multiple fields, will he commission a review of the operational performance of the entire NHSBSA?
Community pharmacies are already under intense pressure from this Government, with tax rises on employment and business rates and with increases in costs, and now they appear not to be being paid for work already done. I hope the Minister will act quickly to put this right.
Dr Ahmed
As the hon. Gentleman will know—or should know—the current remuneration method was agreed in conjunction with the sector. The adjustment was agreed with the sector’s representative body, Community Pharmacy England. Advance notice of the change was provided to those contractors by letter and in an article published by the NHS Business Services Authority in May 2025. In addition, Community Pharmacy England knows that, should this be a priority issue for it to negotiate in the next contract, we will take that on board and use it as an option.
There are of course always extenuating circumstances, such as IT not working. Officials have reassured me that, following discussions with Community Pharmacy England, we have introduced specific provisions in the drug tariff that will allow pharmacy contractors to receive payment for claims that were delayed due to IT issues outside of its control.
I can appreciate why the hon. Gentleman wants to expand the remit of the urgent question across primary care—well, let me tell him. I know he had neck surgery recently; I did not realise they put a brass neck in him as well when they did it. He knows what kind of NHS decline and decay over which he and his Government presided over the past 15 years: primary care where people are left wandering around asking for GPs, and the Conservatives left GPs on the scrapheap, unemployed. This Government ensured, when they came into office, that—
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, one of us is going to sit down, and it is not going to be me. Please can we have a little bit more calm? You have come in as the supporting Minister to the Secretary of State. I want you to set the example and not be the naughty one.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to learn the rules between us, Minister. Dr Luke Evans, I have granted you this urgent question. Quite rightly, I wanted your question to be heard by the Minister; I did not want any interruption. I expect you to listen to the answer without interruption.
Dr Ahmed
This Government take our responsibilities seriously in providing an effective 21st-century primary-care NHS, free at the point of care. That is why when we came into power we ensured that the pharmacy sector had the largest uplift of any part of the NHS in the past two years—£3.1 billion. To support primary care further, we ensured that GPs who could not find employment found it under this Labour Government. It is only this Government that can modernise the NHS, make it free at the point of care and ensure that it is a high-quality service going forward.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
My constituent Raj Matharu runs the brilliant Westchem pharmacy in West Wickham, is CEO of Community Pharmacy South East London, and last year was shortlisted for community pharmacist of the year. I have heard from residents across West Wickham how his pharmacy provides trusted and frictionless access to healthcare and advice across a range of issues. Pharmacy First can both provide a quicker, easier service for patients and relieve pressure on primary care. What support have the Government put in place for community pharmacies, especially in relation to funding?
Dr Ahmed
As I have stated, we have given pharmacies a record £3.1 billion settlement. We absolutely endorse the need for pharmacies to do more in our communities. We are enabling pharmacists up and down the country to expand their repertoire, and we are ensuring that Pharmacy First remuneration is a dynamic process, month on month, that reflects the activity that each pharmacy is doing.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Pharmacists play a crucial role in supporting the health service by reducing the pressure on overcrowded hospitals and GP surgeries. They also play a crucial role in local communities by providing access to treatment when appointments remain hard to come by elsewhere. But pressure on pharmacists is severe and has been getting worse, as shown by closures in my constituency and across the country. Those closures hit hardest in rural and coastal areas and in the most deprived areas, where they are most needed. This vital service needs to be supported and not undermined so that our constituents can rely on being able to access the medicines and treatment they need.
Has the Minister considered a new late payment mechanism to ensure that if contractors miss the deadline, they can still receive compensation for the work they have undertaken, especially in the interim as pharmacists adapt to the changes that have been introduced? What discussions has he had with NHSBSA to resolve the technical difficulties being experienced?
Dr Ahmed
I can assure the hon. Lady of our commitment to an effective primary care system up and down the country, in both rural and coastal communities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Care, whose portfolio includes pharmacy, takes his responsibilities seriously and is exploring all avenues to ensure equity of access and funding, including through the Carr-Hill formula.
The hon. Lady asks what mitigations can be employed to ensure that payments are made in extraordinary circumstances. I can assure her that I have had those discussions with my officials this morning, and they reassured me that there will be a degree of flexibility, particularly in circumstances outwith the control of individual pharmacies.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am very grateful for the fact that this urgent question was granted, because pharmacies have been in touch with me about their concerns. I must put another thing on the Minister’s to-do list: independent prescribing. Evans Pharmacy in my constituency has been part of the independent prescribing pathfinder programme, and only 5% of patients seen by the prescribers subsequently require GP prescribing. However, no clear funding or arrangement will be in place after March this year. Will he provide Evans Pharmacy and similar prescribers with clarity about what will happen next?
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Independent prescribers are a key and expanding part of our workforce, providing a sustainable primary care service. I am very happy for the Minister for Care to write to him with the exact funding plans for the next financial year.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
In the past year, I have spent time visiting pharmacies across my constituency, undertaken work experience at Riverside pharmacy in Rickmansworth, and communicated regularly with Community Pharmacy Hertfordshire. It is clear that our pharmacies are under unsustainable pressure from rising costs, especially following the Government’s increase to employer national insurance contributions. Pharmacy First was a great Conservative initiative to reduce pressure on our GPs. Why are this Government hurting pharmacies and patients by delaying payments?
Dr Ahmed
Pharmacy First is indeed a great initiative. It is not the first in this country; it has been developed in other parts of the country. When we came into office, we worked with the sector and stakeholders, and agreements on remuneration and pricing were reached in conjunction with the sector. What is more, we are addressing the pricing structures and payment mechanisms that are not working and need improvement with a dynamism that was lacking under the previous Government.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Trio Pharmacy in Shepperton told me that there are two problems with Pharmacy First. The first is that pharmacies are simply not getting the referrals that they should from GPs. The second is that remuneration for their services does not take into account the amount of time needed for examination, diagnosis and prescription. The Nebel Pharmacy in Sunbury, near where I live, says that the work needs to be looked at as a vocation, because it simply makes no money. That is not sustainable, is it?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need to unblock the referral pathways. The neighbourhood health service is all about ensuring that the process between general practitioner and pharmacist feels seamless. On payments, we are cognisant of the fact that as demographics change, population needs in different parts of the country vary, so different payment mechanisms must apply. We are closely working with colleagues and stakeholders in the sector to ensure that we get that right.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Residents of West Byfleet are frustrated that a new pharmacy that wants to open in their area is not allowed to do so. Be it that unreasonable restriction, the increase in NICs or a lack of funding, this Government’s every action seems to undermine the pharmacy sector. Will the Minister explain why the Government are withholding funding from pharmacies that have signed up in good faith to Pharmacy First, and why they have not introduced a late-payment mechanism?
Dr Ahmed
I am reminded that Liberal Democrat Front Benchers always welcome funding for the NHS, but can never explain where the money should come from. I have already mentioned the record funding that we are putting into pharmacy. I have reiterated that there is ministerial engagement with the pharmacy sector—not just through the Minister with responsibility for pharmacy, but through me, as Minister with responsibility for health innovation. Our relationship with the pharmacy sector is in a good place, and we continue to develop it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Pharmacy First was undoubtedly game changing. When I visit pharmacies around my constituency, many of them are keen to expand Pharmacy First and to offer more lines. However, I can give an example similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) gave. The people at Wendover Pharmacy took me through their books, and on many of the services that they offer, they either barely make any money or make a loss. The Minister said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) that pricing was set with the sector, so clearly something is going wrong, because the experience of Wendover Pharmacy is quite different.
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Member is right that under the Pharmacy First programme, contractors receive a monthly fixed payment upon delivering a minimum number of consultations, as per the 2025-26 agreement. That can go up and down month to month, in a dynamic process, depending on how many patients are seen in pharmacies. I completely take his point that we are evolving our care system, and ensuring a move from hospital to community, but are not quite there yet; however, I think we are on the road. Through our neighbourhood health programme, we are solidifying the relationships between general practice, pharmacies, opticians and other allied health professionals in primary care.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Not only are community pharmacies in my constituency facing problems with Pharmacy First payments, but pharmacies like Abbotswood Pharmacy tell me that they are not seeing the referrals that GPs are supposedly making. Pharmacies can take pressure off the NHS. Does the Minister agree that this combination of referral failures and payment delays is forcing patients to wait longer for care, and what steps will he take to ensure that both referrals and payments are successfully made?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to unblock some of the referral pipelines between GPs and pharmacies. We are absolutely clear in our instructions to the system that pharmacies are an integral and growing component of primary care provision, and that premise underlies all our discussions with pharmacies and GPs.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Allied Pharmacies has taken over a couple of failing Jhoots Pharmacy branches in my area since Pharmacy First was introduced, which is very welcome. The chief executive said this week that the outlook for elderly people and those without a car in rural areas was stark. Between 2015 and 2025, community pharmacies have seen a real-terms funding cut of about 30%—that is £1 billion less in real terms—and rural Devon and Cornwall have seen a reduction of 90,000 hours of pharmacy time in two years. In that context, will the Minister ensure that full compensation is given to dispensing doctors in rural areas for the cost of medicines?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adumbrating how 14 years of Tory Government have led to significant decay in the provision of primary care services in some of our communities. He is right to mention dispensing doctors, who are a vital part of the mixture in hard-to-reach and coastal communities. I had many meetings with them prior to my appointment, and my colleague the Minister for Care will continue to meet them to ensure that they continue to be part of the mix of care provision in those communities.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Last year, I visited a pharmacy in Benson in my constituency, where Vik Patel described to me how the pharmacy’s being rural disadvantages it in the Pharmacy First scheme. His pharmacy never meets the threshold to qualify for payment, and that threshold has gone up over and over again, from five patients a month in April last year to 30 in March 2025, so the pharmacy is effectively delivering a service for free. Vik is a lovely chap, and he is happy to do that, but it is not a sustainable business model. What will the Minister do to help rural pharmacies like mine in Benson?
Dr Ahmed
I can reassure the hon. Member that my hon. Friend the Minister for Care is looking at funding and primary care provision in the round in coastal and poorer communities, and I would be delighted to take back his representations about Pharmacy First in rural settings.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. I want to give a helpful suggestion from a Northern Ireland perspective. He will agree that a rural pharmacy will find it more difficult to meet the ever increasing threshold, and that the point of these payments is to take pressure off GPs, not to provide a back-door way of underpaying earned compensation. In Northern Ireland, we have a slightly different system that involves payment per consultation, which I ask the Minister to consider. Perhaps that would be more appropriate, and would give pharmacies, GPs and their patients what they are looking for.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 23 February will include:
Monday 23 February—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Universal Credit (Removal Of Two Child Limit) Bill.
Tuesday 24 February—Opposition day (18th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, subject to be announced, followed by debate on a motion relating to the charter for Budget responsibility.
Wednesday 25 February—General debate on Ukraine.
Thursday 26 February—General debate on St David’s day and Welsh affairs, followed by general debate on Government support for bereaved children. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 27 February—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 March includes:
Monday 2 March—Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill.
Tuesday 3 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make her spring forecast statement, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 4 March—Estimates day (4th allotted day). At 7pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 5 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill, followed by general debate on contributions of Commonwealth troops in world war one, followed by debate on a motion on the future of palliative care. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 March—The House will not be sitting.
The House will no doubt be interested in recess dates going forward. Members may wish to know that subject to the progress of business, and further to the dates that have already been announced, the House will rise for the summer recess at the close of business on Thursday 16 July 2026 and return on Tuesday 1 September 2026. The House will rise for the conference recess at the close of business on Tuesday 15 September 2026 and return on Monday 12 October 2026. The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the close of business on Thursday 17 December 2026 and return on Monday 4 January 2027.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Tuesday 1 September clashes with my birthday, but we can discuss that later. I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Jesse Norman
On behalf of all Members, I thank the Leader of the House for giving us those recess dates, which will be widely welcomed.
Today is the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the greatest of all United States Presidents, so perhaps this is a fitting moment to talk a little bit about public service. I congratulate the Chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Rev. Mark Birch, on his new job at Westminster Abbey, and I welcome his successor, the Venerable Andrew Hillier. We thank them for their service.
I note that the International Olympic Committee has banned a Ukrainian athlete from wearing a helmet of remembrance for his fellow athletes who have been killed by Russia—talk about public service.
Otherwise, the news has once again been filled by a succession of the most appalling misjudgments by the Prime Minister. These include decisions by him to ignore both public evidence and private advice, and to appoint to the House of Lords not one but two men with continuing connections to convicted paedophiles. It has been confirmed today that the Prime Minister was aware that his nominee, Matthew Boyle, had campaigned for a man charged with distributing indecent images of children two months before the Prime Minister appointed him.
The fallout from the Mandelson scandal has so far included the departures of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and his head of communications, one after 18 months and the other after just a few weeks in post. We now have the leaked news that the Prime Minister’s personal choice of Cabinet Secretary is being forced to step down after barely a year in post. As they say at the BBC, deputy heads must roll.
Of course, no Government are free from scandal—goodness knows, I can say that from personal experience—and certainly not the previous ones, as the House will know well, but let there be no deflection or fudge on this matter. There has been nothing to compare with this catalogue of personal misjudgments by a Prime Minister for perhaps 60 years. Every sitting day, the chaplain leads the House in prayer for public service, that we as a House may
“never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices”.
Every Member of the House knows those words, but that is precisely what these people have failed to do.
I will end on a positive note with a truly uplifting story from this week. Some years ago, my constituents, Sam and Emily Stables, set up a brilliant charity called We are Farming Minds in Herefordshire. It is dedicated to supporting farmers struggling with poor mental health. Sam is a sheep farmer himself, and he knows only too well from personal experience how immensely difficult, stressful and lonely life can be on a farm—still more, given all the recent troubles that farmers have had to endure, including outbreaks of tuberculosis and other diseases, a dysfunctional farm payments system, increasingly burdensome regulations, and of course, most recently, the farm tax.
On average, a farmer commits suicide every week in this country. On Monday, however, Sam embarked on a walk of hope from Ross-on-Wye to London in support of Yellow Wellies’ Mind Your Head Week and of greater public awareness of mental health in the farming community. By my calculations, he is coming through the Chilterns right about now, heading for High Wycombe. With luck, I will find him this afternoon on the trail around Beaconsfield. That is what real public service looks like. Let us all take this opportunity to send our deep thanks to Sam and Emily, and to their volunteers and supporters, for their extraordinary work.
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the two children stabbed in the horrific attack at Kingsbury high school in Brent. My heart—and I am sure the hearts of the whole House —goes out to those affected by this tragedy. I also send my condolences to those affected by the horrific attack in Tumbler Ridge in Canada. Again, the thoughts of the whole House will be with the people there as they mourn their family, friends and loved ones. We wish all those injured a speedy recovery.
I join the shadow Leader of the House in welcoming the Venerable Andrew Hillier, who has been appointed as the new Speaker’s chaplain. I, too, thank the outgoing chaplain, the Rev. Mark Birch, for the support that he provided to everyone across the community, whether they were people of faith or not.
I also want to mark National Apprenticeship Week. Apprenticeships give young people real experience, real prospects and a real route into good careers. The Government are committed to delivering 50,000 more apprenticeships for young people, backed by the growth and skills levy.
As it is National Apprenticeship Week, it is appropriate to draw Members’ attention to the ambitions set out in the report on “Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster”, which was published last week, to support 1,000 apprenticeships and traineeships in addition to the thousands of full-time roles required to deliver the works. If they have not already done so, I encourage Members, whatever their view on the way forward for Parliament, to attend briefings by the R&R client team and to read the report in full.
Finally, before I turn to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, I wish all Members and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, an enjoyable recess. I hope that Members get some time to spend with their family and their constituents. They should also remember that it is pancake day, and I wish them well in that regard.
I very much join the shadow Leader of the House in congratulating Sam Stables and wishing him well. He is a keen farming campaigner. Knowing the shadow Leader of the House’s constituency, Sam will have needed his wellies, whatever their colour, given the amount of water that has fallen in the area. I understand that donations have come in from far and wide, including from the Prince of Wales. Let me say, in supporting Sam, that the Government are stepping up and playing our part. We are supporting farmers’ access to specialist mental health services by funding the farmer welfare grant and, more widely, doing all we can to invest in sustainable farming. I wish Sam all the very best indeed.
Let me turn to the shadow Leader of the House’s remarks on what has happened in the last couple of weeks—and let me do so without any deflection or fudge, as he said. First, Matthew Doyle has had the Labour Whip withdrawn. The Labour party has started an investigation, and it is right that that is allowed to take place. I will not enter into speculation about the Cabinet Secretary, but we read what we read.
On the wider issue of standards in public life, I agree absolutely with the shadow Leader of the House that there can be no prevarication on these matters. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on Monday setting out the action that we are taking. Since entering government, we have delivered on our manifesto promises to strengthen the role of the independent adviser and set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission. We are also publishing Ministers’ interests, gifts and hospitality more frequently, and changing the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. But we understand that we need to go further, and we are working with the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that we reach the highest possible standards in public life.
Let me leave the House with this remark, because it has been a difficult time for us all, not least for the Prime Minister himself. I regard the Prime Minister as a man of integrity and a man of public service. When someone stands up and says that they got it wrong and regret what has happened, we should take that at face value and redouble our efforts to ensure that, going forward, standards in public life are even higher.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
This week is Heart Unions Week, hence the badge on my lapel instead of the Wolves badge that I normally wear. Last Saturday, I was with the Wolverhampton, Bilston and District Trades Union Council handing out information about joining a trade union to passers-by in Wolverhampton city centre. Will the Leader of the House please join me in celebrating the vital work that our unions do in improving the lives of working people across the country, and the work that they did with the Government for us to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation through the landmark Employment Rights Act 2025? Does he agree that one of the best decisions our constituents can make is to join a trade union, for dignity and security in the workplace?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in recognising the vital role that trade unions play in improving lives of people across the country. The Government have worked very closely with trade unions and with businesses to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation through the landmark Employment Rights Act. The Act is a key pillar of the Government’s plan to make work pay, which will grow the economy, boost wages and reduce insecure work, and improve people’s lives.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Over the last few weeks, there has been a national debate raging that, so far, this place has been pretty silent on. It is on the matter of student loans. I know what some on the Government Benches may be thinking, but I am not prepared to duck difficult subjects.
Let us face it: the student loans system has changed beyond recognition since its introduction, and that is one of the key complaints of graduates. Maintenance grants have been scrapped in favour of loans, which means that the poorest students now arrive at university with the largest debt. Interest rates, tied to inflation, have soared in recent years; following the period of high inflation, people have been saddled permanently with much larger debts than they expected. Thresholds have been repeatedly frozen, including by this Labour Government at the last Budget, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates will add around £3,000 on average to people’s debt pile.
All that means that the agreement that students struck has been repeatedly, and unilaterally, changed by the lender after the agreement. I do not believe that would be tolerable in any other walk of life. When the Chancellor was challenged on this last week, she said that the system is “fair and reasonable”. I do not agree, and I think many graduates do not agree, so will the Leader of the House organise a debate in Government time on the changes that have been made to the student loans repayment system?
Sir Alan Campbell
The UK is home to some of the world’s most respected universities, and we all benefit from the opportunities, knowledge and growth that they create. It is important that we pay attention to access to universities to ensure that people who want to go can go, but it is also important that we put the sector on a secure financial footing. That is why the Government are making tough but fair decisions to find the balance between value for money for taxpayers and students and graduates. We know that the cost of living is important for everyone. We are seeking to support graduates by protecting lower earners by lifting the threshold this year, but we appreciate the concern, not least because it is probably being expressed through our inboxes as I speak. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to attend the Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday 25 February, in which he may want to make his points more fully.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I am increasingly concerned about the quality of social care provision in Norfolk. We have had three care homes by three different providers in the last month alone all rated as inadequate by the Care Quality Commission. Having read the inspection reports, I know that they contain some harrowing details. Can we have a debate in Government time on the quality of social care provision?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue of such importance, and I am genuinely sorry to hear about the cases that he raises. We are committed to building a national care service based on a high quality of care and greater choice and control. I will ensure that Ministers have heard his concern. If he wants to seek a meeting with Ministers to brief them more fully on what is happening in his part of the world, I will arrange that meeting.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for mentioning the stabbing at Kingsbury high school. The good news is that the two children who were stabbed are in a stable condition, and the suspect has now been charged with multiple charges, including attempted murder. The police investigation is clearly ongoing, and we cannot comment on it any further.
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for stepping into the breach at very short notice when the previous debate that the Backbench Business Committee had allocated for Thursday 26 February was withdrawn.
As the Leader of the House has mentioned, estimates day debates are coming up on 4 March. We are open for business for applications by a week tomorrow; we will then decide which debates will be allocated time.
When we return, the business in Westminster Hall will be as follows. On 24 February, there will be a debate on Government support for healthcare systems in Gaza. On Thursday 26 February, there will be a debate on Eating Disorder Awareness Week 2026, followed by a debate on the impact of VAT on independent faith schools. On 3 March, there will be a debate on strengthening community cohesion. On 5 March, there will be a debate on the importance of local museums, followed by a debate on World Book Day.
When we return on 23 February, it will be the third anniversary of the hunger strike by Vahid Beheshti outside the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He has had terrible privations as a result of this hunger strike, and no Foreign Office Minister in either the previous Government or the current Government has even had the courtesy to visit him. Given the circumstances in Iran, with more than 30,000 civilians being murdered by the tyrannical regime, Vahid has been calling for the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for the last three years. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to at least meet Vahid so that he can convey his reasons for carrying out this hunger strike?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his update and for the excellent work of the Backbench Business Committee. It is good news that the young people affected in his constituency are on the road to recovery. Of course, it is right that the police get on with their investigation. I hope that the law takes its course and that people are held to account.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, I am aware that it is the third anniversary. He knows that we have already sanctioned over 550 organisations and individuals, including designations against the IRGC. The Foreign Secretary has said that there will be full and further sanctions, where required. We keep this matter under review. I also take into account what he has said about his constituent. All I can say is that I will draw that to the attention of Ministers. I hope they will have heard what he has said; it is a decision for them.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The disgraceful scandals of recent days have left what little remains of faith in our democracy hanging by a thread. One of the lessons has to be that, while inherited privilege is no basis for a second Chamber, neither is self-interested patronage by political leaders. Does the Leader of the House agree that we must end the rotten system of peerages being granted to individuals, despite sickening behaviour, simply because they are rich and powerful, or to give jobs to the boys? Will he convey to his Cabinet colleagues the urgent need for legislation to reform the House of Lords from top to bottom, sweeping away these abuses and ridding us of all these politically partisan appointees?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have already taken action on some aspects of reform of the Lords. He is not really talking about the Lords and their work per se; it is about the people who enter that place. The Prime Minister has confirmed that we will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages, for example, can be removed from disgraced peers. We are looking at what other further action can be taken to improve standards in public life.
The Government are committed to wider reform of the House of Lords, but as I have said before, when we have tried this previously, there has been no consensus. There are many other priorities that the Government need to get on with. While not forgetting about Lords reform, we have to ensure that the Government do all the other things that they need to do, not least in the next Session facing us.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Scottish Government’s Fire and Rescue Service has been reviewing the future of Hawick fire station. Like thousands of local residents, I have signed the petition calling for it to be retained as a 24/7 service, but it has been announced that the decision will be delayed for six months. Does the Leader of the House agree that delaying the decision until after the Scottish Parliament election looks politically motivated, and that local residents should know what the SNP plans for their fire station before they vote?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that important matter to the House. I know from experience, as I am sure others do, just how important fire services and coverage are for our constituents. As he points out, it is a devolved matter and, as I have said before, this Government have provided the Scottish Government with the biggest funding settlement since devolution began, which they should be taking into account. I hope that those responsible in the Scottish Government have heard the hon. Gentleman’s contribution today because, first and foremost, they should be listening to residents.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Roker park is loved by our community, and there is loads going on there—from bowls and model boating to a miniature railway. Recently, I met some of the volunteers who keep the park so vibrant, along with Councillor David Newey, who has attracted investment for the restoration of the bandstand and the installation of new play equipment before the summer. Will the Leader of the House pop down the coast from his constituency and join me for a coffee at Ruhe in the park? Will he also consider a debate on the contribution made across the country by groups such as the Friends of Roker Park?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is a very tempting offer. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the fantastic work being done by volunteers and Councillor David Newey at Roker park. Their work is vital, and he has played a fantastic role in revitalising his community—he is a great example of a good councillor. As I have said before, volunteers are the golden thread that runs through our communities and holds them together. I praise volunteers and councillors for the work they do, and I also praise my hon. Friend for the work he does in his constituency, because he is a great advocate for them.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and the Leader of the House will be aware that all those who serve on the Treasury Bench are Ministers of the Crown. For that reason, from time immemorial, the Government have been described as HM Government—His Majesty’s Government—yet we now learn that that has changed, and that this Administration have decided to drop “HM Government” and replace it with “UK Government”. I do not know whether that is to pander to foreigners who do not understand our constitution or—more likely—to the doubt-fuelled, guilt-ridden bourgeois liberals who fill too much of our establishment. I believe that our traditions matter, because they underpin our shared sense of belonging, and I think the House as a whole probably agrees. This change has been made without consultation, without reference to the House and without discussion, so will the Leader of the House ensure that at the very least there is a statement, and better still a debate, on why this change was made under the radar?
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in many regards, tradition does matter, but so does accuracy. For clarity, communications teams are advised to use “UK Government” rather than departmental names and logos for announcements, but that does not affect the use of the term “His Majesty’s Government”, which continues on all relevant official communications and records, as it should. The “UK Government” term has long been used in public-facing communications.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
The £20 million that the Government are investing in Ellesmere Port is so welcome, but it is undermined by news such as that yesterday, that Halifax is closing its branch in our town centre. One of the justifications Halifax uses is that its customers are now using the app; well, I am a customer of Halifax and I use the app, but the reason I am a customer of Halifax is that it has a presence in our town centre. This is just another example of the smoke and mirrors banks are using to justify wholesale branch closures, regardless of the care and attention they should be paying to those who are not able to bank electronically, so can we have a debate about what more we can do to make sure banks serve the communities they are supposed to serve?
Sir Alan Campbell
This issue often arises, and I understand the concern of residents. I, too, use a bank app, but other people do not; those people look for a presence on the high street, not just from the perspective of convenient banking but because of the importance of our high streets. I encourage my hon. Friend to seek a debate on this matter, perhaps in Westminster Hall, and I am sure he will find others who want to join him.
For their part, the Government have set a target of 350 banking hubs. Most of those hubs have already been rolled out, but that is not the extent of our ambition—we want to go further. I know from the one in my constituency, in Whitley Bay, that those hubs are very popular.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
With World Book Day coming up on Thursday 5 March, I have launched a short story competition for primary school pupils across Chester South and Eddisbury, encouraging them to go all-in and use their imagination through reading and creative writing. At a time when children are spending more and more time on phones and screens, fostering a love of books, storytelling and creativity is more important than ever, so will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging children across Chester South and Eddisbury to take part in that competition and in encouraging everyone to get involved in celebrating World Book Day?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join the hon. Lady in celebrating World Book Day, and commend her for the approach she is taking in her constituency. It is vital that children get access to books, which is why we are promoting libraries, particularly in schools. The hon. Lady will also be aware that we are launching a consultation on social media, and I am sure that the amount of time children spend on social media on their phones rather than with a good book in their hands is one of the factors that will be taken into consideration.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I think we can all agree that small businesses are the heart of our communities and the backbone of our economy, which is why I do a shout-out to a small business in Luton North every single Saturday. It is also why I am launching my small business forum next week, to bring together small businesses such as Steve Hilliard Hairdressing, Bright Light CVs and Oakley Studios. Will the Leader of the House therefore set time aside to discuss the issues my small business community raises with me at that forum, to ensure we support this amazing group of entrepreneurs?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important matter, because small businesses are the beating heart of the economy. We are committed to supporting them and our high streets. That is why we have launched our small business plan. I commend her for the approach she is taking, not least in highlighting the excellent businesses in her constituency. If she sought a debate in Westminster Hall, perhaps, I am sure that others would join her to celebrate businesses in their own constituencies.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Retired civil servants in my constituency and across the UK are being offered interest-free loans after serious delays to pension payments following the transfer of their pension scheme administration to Capita in December 2025. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on the administration of the civil service pension scheme, including the impact of the McCloud judgment and the current backlog?
Sir Alan Campbell
These delays are unacceptable and the Government have made that clear. These people have given public service, and it is a matter of urgency to resolve this situation for them. Before Capita took on the administration of the scheme, Cabinet Office Ministers and officials were assured that a clear transition plan would be in place ahead of going live. There have been a number of challenges. The Cabinet Office is working hard to resolve the situation. There is an expert recovery team to work with Capita, but I will ensure that Ministers have heard the hon. Lady’s comments today. If appropriate, they will provide an update on the situation.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Gurdwara Baba Vadbhag Singh Ji and the BVS charity in my constituency have been serving their community in Exhall with compassion for years. Their Christmas hampers provide food and essentials to families who may be struggling at Christmas, and their Father’s Day event draws hundreds of people from around the local area to their family celebrations with free food and fairground rides. I am incredibly grateful for the warm hospitality they have extended to our community, so will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the wonderful contribution of the Sikh community to North Warwickshire and Bedworth and to our country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the Sikh community. The Christmas hamper programme represents a bright example of their valuable contribution to our communities. She is right to raise that example today, and I am sure she will go on looking for further opportunities to do so.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
In response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), the Leader of the House seemed to suggest that the Government are not undergoing a rebrand from “His Majesty’s Government” to “UK Government”. However, in response to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the Paymaster General clearly stated:
“A strategic decision has been made to adopt ‘UK Government’ as the primary identity for all public-facing communications.”
This is a clear slight on the monarch, so can I ask once again for a debate on the Floor of the House about the Government’s decision to downgrade the King?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I just said, or whether he had already written the question before I got up to do so. We can fence with words, rebrands and whatever, but it has always been the case that “His Majesty’s Government”, or “Her Majesty’s Government” as was, is used on official documents. It is always the case that there is an outward-looking version, and I have explained why. If the situation were as the hon. Gentleman describes, we would all be right to get upset about it, but it simply is not.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
May I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his remarks about Kingsbury school, which for 27 years was in my constituency before it passed over to that of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)?
I want to raise with the Leader of the House schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021, which has still not been implemented. It introduced a mandatory due diligence obligation for businesses to ensure that they do not use illegally produced forest risk commodities. We are now five years on from the passing of that Act, and that provision has not been introduced. My right hon. Friend has made good suggestions that I hold a debate or that I ask the Minister written questions, and I have done both those things. Can we please have a debate in Government time about why this provision not yet been enacted?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry that my hon. Friend is frustrated, not least if the advice I have given him might not have come to anything. I apologise. However, because this is from my perspective a reasonably technical thing, I will arrange for a meeting with Ministers at which he can vent his frustration directly.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The chemical industry sector is particularly important to the local economy in my northern Lincolnshire constituency, the wider Humber region and, as the Leader of the House will appreciate, in the north-east. The Chemical Industries Association recently produced a report showing that in the last quarter of 2025, jobs had reduced by 38%. That is clearly worrying. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the future of the chemical industries sector?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will go further than that, and offer the hon. Gentleman the chance to speak to the relevant Minister directly about this matter. I always share concerns where there are job losses as industries come under pressure and face new challenges. If he seeks a meeting, I will ensure he gets one.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
On Saturday evening, I joined more than 500 members of the local community at Paisley town hall for a spectacular evening of Gaelic music, song and celebration as we celebrated 10 years of Fèis Phàislig. The Fèis provides a fun and welcoming space for young people across our area to learn and share Scotland’s Gaelic cultural traditions. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the director, Grant McFarlane, and the board of volunteers for their commitment to our cultural traditions and wish a very happy 10th birthday to Fèis Phàislig?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Grant McFarlane and everyone else involved in Fèis Phàislig—if I pronounced that correctly.
Sir Alan Campbell
That is easy for you to say, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said before, volunteers are the golden thread that runs through our communities and we celebrate them and great Gaelic traditions.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
When the Government announced the local authority bus grant allocations, the use of the money was subject to conditions, particularly around social need, and the criteria were “to follow”. In the absence of those, the West of England combined authority has extended contracts only until July, leaving my Thornbury and Yate constituents fearing what will happen then. Can the Leader of the House ask his Department for Transport colleagues to publish the criteria as soon as possible, or to come to the House to explain the delay?
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Over the past week, I have been contacted by many constituents in Western Harbour in my constituency who have been left in limbo by the lack of cladding redemption programmes in Scotland. Across England, redemption programmes have completed on more than 1,935 buildings. In Scotland, only two have started. Does the Leader of the House agree that my constituents are being failed by Scottish National party inaction? Will he make arrangements for a written statement on the funding and joint Government work that has been undertaken in this area?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue on behalf of her constituents. It cuts across borders, even though it is a devolved matter. As she has pointed out, we have made great progress and invested £5.1 billion to remove unsafe cladding. We have given the Scottish Government a record funding settlement, and I agree that they should make best use of it.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Heritage buildings are much loved by many members of the community. They underpin our identity. Indeed, many of them are places of worship, including the fantastic St John’s church in Bromsgrove, the spire of which has just had a £500,000 renovation. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Friends of St John’s, particularly Jo Slade, who was a driving force behind the project? Will the Leader of the House press his colleagues in government, particularly in the Treasury, to ensure that the Government always do everything they can to maximise support for these important and much-loved buildings?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Friends of St John’s in his constituency, who do a fantastic job, as do similar groups in many of our constituencies. I thank him for how he phrased the second part of his question, because he is right: the Government want to support heritage, culture and places of religious worship, but he will know that economic times and Government finances are tight. I will draw what he says to the attention of the Treasury.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
Rising employer contributions to the teachers’ pension scheme are mounting significant pressures on post-1992 universities and driving some to cut costs to deliver the same teaching. I have been contacted by staff at Northumbria University who are concerned about the proposed changes to their pay and pension provision. Will the Leader of the House relay my concerns to the Minister for Skills and urge her to update Parliament on what substantive steps the Government will take to address this issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour raises an important matter, and I will certainly ensure that her concerns are shared with the relevant Minister. Should she wish to have a meeting with the Minister, I will be happy to facilitate that. Because we share this issue as constituency neighbours, I would also be happy to come with her.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), I know that the Leader of the House will fully appreciate that he is a member of His Majesty’s Government. In 2022, guidance issued under the last Conservative Administration established “UK Government” as an official corporate identity and a commonplace Government term, but he will know that any Government, including the current one, serve at His Majesty’s pleasure. The Prime Minister does not serve a corporate construct; he serves the Crown—the embodiment of our nation and her people. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the need to reinstate an understanding of, and deference to, our constitutional heritage, which is His Majesty’s Government and the King in Parliament?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not think there is a need for such a debate, because I am still—I am hesitating here—a member of His Majesty’s Government, as Ministers are members of His Majesty’s Government. That does not mean that, for outward-looking communication purposes, “UK Government” is not an appropriate term. I genuinely do not understand why this is such a difficult concept, but I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman’s comments in mind.
While we are here, let me commend the hon. Gentleman for following his new leader’s advice on not working from home. It is a shame that many of his colleagues do not do the same—we rarely see them—but he is an assiduous attender of these sessions, and I thank him for that. I would have described him as a flag-bearer for Reform, but I know how excited he gets about flags.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Whip on duty has confirmed that the Leader of the House is still the Leader of the House.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
South Staffordshire Water is forcing water meters on homes in my constituency, stating that it is “necessary for sustainability”, but residents were never properly informed, with some only discovering the meters after they were installed. My constituents and I find this unacceptable. Can we have a statement on the communication standards that utility companies must meet when imposing such programmes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, because residents should be informed in advance when changes are made to their homes. Should she seek a meeting with the relevant Minister to make her case more fully, I will ensure that she gets one.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House for his help? I have recently learned that the £10 million day case unit in Hinckley is potentially in jeopardy and might get cancelled. This follows a series of delays by the NHS and the local council and, unbelievably, a last-minute plea by the Lib Dem borough council leader to look again at the project, which led to further delays. The planning application did go through, but costs have gone up. Inevitably, the use of the unit has now changed, and it is in real peril. I have already written to the Health Secretary about this issue as a matter of urgency. May I ask the Leader of the House’s office to chase that up as well, so that this gets looked at and, hopefully, we can keep the unit going?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter. I have described him before as an assiduous campaigner for his constituency— I hope that my describing him in that way does not do him too much damage. I understand that he has written to the Health Secretary about this, and I will make sure that he gets an urgent response.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Last week, the east window of Carlisle cathedral was voted the nation’s favourite stained glass window. May I invite the Leader of the House to join me in congratulating John de Salkeld, who in 1359 donated 40 shillings
“to make a window anew in the chancel”
of Carlisle cathedral; Ivo de Raughton, whose work this funded; and Hardman & Co. of Birmingham, which was commissioned in the 18th century to refill the lower panes to create the window we see today? Will the Leader of the House also join me in thanking the Association of English Cathedrals for organising this wonderful competition?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those who worked to create the east window of Carlisle cathedral, which I understand is not just one of the earliest stained glass windows, but one of the few surviving from that period. Their contribution genuinely made history, and it is important that we remember them. I also join her in thanking the Association of English Cathedrals for its vital work. As she rightly points out, places of worship provide vital services to our local communities.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The town of Huntingdon in my constituency has a rich cultural and historical heritage and is the birthplace of Oliver Cromwell—one of my predecessors in this House. It is the former home of the diarist Samuel Pepys, it is the first place in the UK where chocolate ice cream appeared on these shores, and it is also the birthplace of the sandwich—something very close to my heart. Because of this cultural heritage, we are putting the town forward to be the town of culture in 2028. I thank Paul Sweeney and the business improvement district team in Huntingdon for their hard work in putting forward a bid, not only to celebrate our cultural heritage but to build a legacy going forward. Will the Leader of the House join me in championing Huntingdon as the very best opportunity for Huntingdonshire to cement a town of culture for 2028?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me say first that I am a huge admirer of Oliver Cromwell—[Laughter.] I am, actually. The list of achievements for the hon. Gentleman’s area is considerable, including the fact that it is the birthplace of Oliver Cromwell. The hon. Gentleman invites me down the path of town of culture, which might go down well in his area, but I can assure the House that it will go down terribly badly in North Shields, because I am assured that we intend to mount our own bid. Seriously, though, I wish every town well and commend the Government for bringing forward this initiative. I wish everyone well, because it can help to transform towns, which are the backbone of this country.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Two years ago, Butlers Farmhouse Cheeses in my constituency, which makes the famous Blacksticks Blue, suffered a devastating fire that destroyed all its storage facilities. The community rallied around the company, with local businesses and farms helping to erect temporary buildings and provide interim logistics. Following some truly brave leadership, Gill, Matthew and Daniel Hall, and their family, have celebrated the completion of their brand-new extended building, which was opened by King Charles himself this week. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all at Butlers Farmhouse Cheeses on their determination and resolve, and will he consider having a debate on how critical the communities around us are in times of resilience and great need?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a true champion in her tireless efforts to support the local community and to praise them for coming together in support of Butlers Farmhouse Cheeses, which makes great cheese. Following such devastating events, we realise the true need for resilience in our local communities. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a debate on how we can promote not just resilience but a true sense of community across our country.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
As an Oliver Cromwell enthusiast, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the purpose and function of the other place? I am sure that he will have studied very closely the wording of early-day motion 2709, which addresses the role of the House of Lords.
[That this House believes that the use of filibuster tactics in the House of Lords to frustrate the majority will of the democratically elected House of Commons is unacceptable, including where the elected Commons has given its majority support to a Private Members’ Bill; further believes that the case for the outright abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement would be strengthened if such tactics were used; acknowledges that, although the House of Lords often provides a helpful role through scrutinising and suggesting constructive revisions to bills, it should not have the power to block them, nor to use its procedures to the same effect; and calls on the Government to take legislative steps to ensure that Private Members' Bills backed by a majority in the elected House can never be defeated by undemocratic means in the House of Lords.]
The Leader of the House will be aware that some Members of the other place have abused the privilege and procedures of that House in order to frustrate and block a private Member’s Bill that has the strong support of this House, thereby advancing the case for their abolition and replacement. Will he ensure that the House of Lords is there purely to scrutinise and revise legislation, and not to block and frustrate this House, which is the primary and democratic Chamber?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I have said from this Dispatch Box before, the House of Lords needs to be very much aware and should respect the fact that this House has not just once, but twice supported the assisted dying Bill: on Second Reading and Third Reading. The other place should certainly bear that in mind. I do not happen to be of the view that the Lords’ scrutiny is not important, but the way they go about it is important. If there is a warning behind what the hon. Gentleman says, it might be “be careful what you wish for”; if the Lords go down the route described by the hon. Gentleman, they may open up a wider debate about that House that they would need to take seriously. I commend him and others for continuing to raise these matters. As I have said, the Bill in question is not a Government Bill, but if it comes back, I will find time to see how can progress it. This is a timely warning to their lordships that they need to get on with it.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Craigmillar is a brilliant area, but it is blighted by fly-tipping. One site just off the high street beside Craigmillar library, owned by Keyworkers Living Ltd, lies waste to litter and abandoned cars, and is a fly-tipping hotspot. In England, the Labour Government are cracking down on fly-tipping, but the SNP Scottish Government have cut the budget for Edinburgh city council so much that it is the lowest funded per head local authority in Scotland. Can we have a debate in Government time about how we can tackle fly-tipping in Craigmillar and get the Scottish Government to fund our council properly?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Fly-tipping is a blight on our communities. We are giving councils powers to crush the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers and bringing in new prison sentences of up to five years for those who transport waste illegally. The Scottish Government have been given the biggest funding settlement since devolution, and I suggest they take more seriously the matter raised by my hon. Friend.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Enzo Romano is a talented young footballer who has already played for the Welsh youth team. He could have chosen Italy or Spain, but he has chosen Wales first. Despite his birth certificate proving that he was born in Cardiff, his British citizenship application has been refused for a second time. Without it, he cannot further his football career and play in the world cup. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate to ensure the Home Office cannot unfairly hold back talent like Enzo—and others, I am sure, across the UK? He just wants to play football for the country he was born in and obviously loves.
Sir Alan Campbell
I genuinely wish the young man well. Before we get to a debate, should the hon. Lady raise with me the details of this case, I will take it up with the appropriate Department and see if we can get some progress.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
In September last year, I hosted survivors and victims of the so-called gossip website Tattle Life, and we heard the absolutely harrowing testimonies of those who have been targeted by sustained and escalating online harassment, stalking and abuse by its users, with many people driven to feel suicidal. There has been extensive coverage of this issue by the broadcast media, including “Good Morning Britain” and ITV’s “Lorraine”.
I raise this matter because, on Sunday, 16-year-old Prin Dickson died by suicide after facing escalating and intensifying harassment on this dangerous website. Many colleagues and I have called on Ofcom to listen to our concerns and to take down the website. On Monday, we wrote to Ofcom again, but four days on from Prin’s suicide, this website is still live, and users are now discussing her suicide and abusing her bereaved mum. Can the Leader of the House ensure that there is an urgent intervention by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that Ofcom uses all its powers to take down the site and prevent any further tragedy? Can he also ensure that time is provided to debate the Online Safety Act 2023 and failures to safeguard women and children online?
Sir Alan Campbell
What my hon. Friend describes is entirely unacceptable. Although I think the Department that deals with Ofcom will have heard her concerns, I will draw her question to its attention because this appears to be a matter of urgency. On the wider issue of children’s safety, the Government are announcing a consultation on social media, and I hope she will raise some of her concerns through that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to raise of a matter of freedom of religion or belief in Turkey. The European Court of Human Rights has recently decided to jointly communicate 20 cases concerning the expulsion of foreign Christian missionaries and religious workers from Turkey. The cases raise significant questions about due process and the protection of freedom of religion or belief under the European convention on human rights. Will the Leader of the House—as he always does, and I thank him for it—ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what discussions the Government have had with their counterparts in Turkey and the Council of Europe about the protection of religious minorities, and what steps have been taken to uphold freedom of religion or belief across Council of Europe member states?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government maintain a regular dialogue with Turkey, which is a key NATO ally and strategic partner. The UK calls on Turkey, as a founding member of the Council of Europe, to uphold the rights of all religious groups as enshrined in the Turkish constitution. I will draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and he may wish to raise these matters directly in Foreign Office questions shortly after we return from the recess.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I recently attended an event at Oakwood primary school in my constituency, where pupils took part in workshops facilitated by the Children’s Parliament and Save the Children, exploring the impact of poverty. I was so moved that day by the children who recognised that too many of their peers are growing up in hardship and concerned about basic needs such as food and housing. Would the Leader of the House join me in commending the pupils of Oakwood school for their thoughtful contributions, and reaffirm this Government’s commitment to tackling poverty?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in commending the pupils, and indeed the staff, of Oakwood primary school for their thoughtful contributions. The Government are committed to tackling child poverty, which is why we are scrapping the two-child limit and expanding free school meals and breakfast clubs, and we will do even more. The empathy of these students is truly commendable, and I thank them for everything they are doing.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been supporting a local leaseholder who lives in a bungalow in Cramlington because Shenstone, the management company, has recently charged her £525 for a property extension. Hon. Members might think that that was nothing unusual—except that the extension was built 30 years ago, before she even lived in the property. That has been pointed out to Shenstone, but it is still insisting that my elderly resident pay up. Can the Leader of the House assure me that this Government will continue at pace with the changes to address these outrageous practices, and does he agree that these sorts of behaviour by companies like Shenstone are exactly why we need to tackle the leasehold crisis?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree, and I am sorry to hear of that case. Our draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will end the feudal leasehold system, and we are committed to strengthening protections for leaseholders. The measures we have brought forward are not the final steps that we intend to take on the regulation of managing agents; we will set out further details in due course.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Colchester community champion Peter Dutch is campaigning to install bleed kits in schools to help tackle the scourge of knife crime. This week’s terrible incident at Kingsbury school underlines the absolute importance of that. Will the Leader of the House support my call for a debate about installing bleed kits in schools as part of our mission to keep our young people safe?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to the House such an important topic, and Peter Dutch for his campaigning. As she points out, first aid does indeed save lives, and I will make sure that the Education Secretary has heard her contribution. Should my hon. Friend seek a debate, perhaps in Westminster Hall, I am sure her concerns would be echoed by all Members.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Local journalism is the lifeblood of our democracy, but the defamation laws in this country make it difficult for investigative media outfits—like The Londoner, The Manchester Mill and their parent company Mill Media—to speak truth to power. The Government’s own anti-corruption strategy recognises this threat to free speech, and has outlined a priority commitment of comprehensively tackling all strategic lawsuits against public participation, but it sets 2029 as the target date for action. Will the Leader of the House support my calls for a statement from the Ministry of Justice outlining what steps it is taking now to address SLAPPs?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I understand the frustration in his voice, not least because he has raised relevant cases in this area before, as have other Members. The Government recognise the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs on individuals and we are considering all options for reform to ensure that all types of SLAPPs are addressed comprehensively. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a response from the Secretary of State for Justice.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have several constituents, including victims of violence against women and girls, who have been waiting a year or more for Devon and Cornwall police to respond to their complaints. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a meeting for me and the Policing Minister to discuss the capacity of Devon and Cornwall police to respond to complaints, and will he allow a debate in Government time on the handling of police complaints?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Delays in responding to complaints are frustrating for the public and for MPs, who want to be able to help their constituents. As we set out in our police reform White Paper, we will work with the Independent Office for Police Conduct to improve the police complaints and misconduct system. I will facilitate a meeting with the Policing Minister, as my hon. Friend requests.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, my constituents Gillian Greenwell and Craig Turpie from Bathgate’s Turpie & Co visited Parliament and watched business questions from the Gallery. They were visiting London for the Guild of Property Professionals awards, where they won silver in the overall UK award and gold in the Scotland award. As estate agents, they described this place as a period property located in a well-connected, up-and-coming community with views of iconic landmarks. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the team at Turpie & Co, commend them for their contribution to the local economy and wish them well for the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone at Turpie & Co on their success at the Guild of Property Professionals awards, and I thank them for joining us for business questions last week. I hope they enjoyed their visit to Parliament—which, given the R&R report that I mentioned earlier, could perhaps also be described as a fixer-upper.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
In a challenging geopolitical world, would the Leader of the House agree that Scotland both contributes to and benefits from the security of the United Kingdom as a whole?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; Scotland is fundamental to the security of the United Kingdom. We are developing the defence growth deal for Scotland, which will drive innovation and deliver support to businesses, boost local employment and ensure long-term sustainable growth. Our commitment to that and to the role that Scotland plays is absolute.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Schools in some of the most geographically isolated and economically deprived communities, including in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, have found it difficult to secure tour bookings under the new parliamentary booking system, which also affects their ability to access the associated travel subsidy, which is essential for schools from remote coastal areas. Will the Leader of the House commit to looking at how these tours are organised to ensure that pupils from geographically remote areas are not inadvertently excluded from visiting Parliament?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter—one that is dear to my heart, too, given the relative distance from this place to my north-east constituency. It is important to ensure that students living in rural areas, and indeed in any area, do not miss out on the opportunity to visit this Parliament and understand our democratic processes. I will ensure that the House authorities are aware of my hon. Friend’s question, but I can also tell him that the Administration Committee, and indeed the Commission, have asked for information about these matters to ensure that there is, as far as possible, no obstacle to young people visiting this place.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Next week will mark the first anniversary of the passing of Graham Murray, who tragically lost his life aged just 34 following a road traffic accident. Graham was a stalwart of Beckenham rugby club in my constituency, collecting nearly 150 caps, two titles and a promotion. He was also a beloved friend and family man, and I know that this first anniversary will be a difficult time for many of those close to him, especially his wife Aisling, and their children, Tadhg and Croia, as well as everyone at Beckenham rugby club. At their next home game, Beckenham will remember Graham with a minute’s applause, and some of his close friends will travel to Cork to be with his family. Will the Leader of the House join me in sending condolences to Graham’s family and all those who knew him, and in commending Beckenham rugby club for bringing people together, and for the vital role it plays in our Beckenham community?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend in sending our sincere thoughts to Graham Murray’s family and loved ones. It is truly devastating to lose a loved one due to a road traffic accident. The Government are working hard, through our road safety strategy, to try to reduce deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads. I pay tribute and send our best wishes and thanks to Beckenham rugby club for the part it is playing in this situation and the fantastic role it plays in its local community.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
This coming Monday, I will be honoured to join my long-standing friend Tom Jones, who also happens to be my eldest constituent, for his 108th birthday celebration. Tom joined the Labour party under the leadership of Sir Clement Attlee, and has supported our party under every subsequent leader. This year, he will complete 92 continuous years of service with Unite the Union. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Tom a very happy 108th birthday, and thank him for his lifetime of service to our community in the London borough of Bexley?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing Tom Jones the happiest of birthdays. I am sure that he has lived an incredible life, and we wish him well. He was a trade unionist and supporting our party before many Members of this House were born —in fact, before I was born; it is a rare occasion when I can say that. It is really saying something. We genuinely wish him all the very best and a very happy birthday.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, I was honoured to attend the annual apprenticeships awards held by Rochdale’s Hopwood Hall college, which highlight all our brilliant local businesses and talent. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating 19-year-old Lily Chandler, who was named apprentice of the year 2026, and 24-year-old Kieran Riseborough, who won the social mobility award? Both are engineering apprentices and are a great credit to our town and borough.
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Lily and Kieran on their well-deserved awards. It is National Apprenticeship Week, but these hard-earned skills are not just for this week—they are for life. That is why we have backed our guarantee that all 18 to 21-year-olds will have access to training, apprenticeships or help finding work with a record £3 billion apprenticeship budget. I wish Lily and Kieran all the very best for their working life going forward.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I recently hosted a drop-in advice surgery with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for people living with dementia and their carers. I was struck by the vital role played by local dementia support groups, such as Dementia Heroes in the west end of Glasgow. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on recognising the importance of these community-led organisations?
Sir Alan Campbell
Volunteer and community-led organisations are at the heart of our local communities, and the work that they do brings so much support to those in need. I join my hon. Friend in thanking organisations such as Dementia Heroes in his constituency. Every week, we hear from Members about the work of volunteers across our country, so if he sought a debate on the subject, I am sure that it would be popular.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The post office in Uxbridge provides vital services to my constituents. It gives access to banking services, to Government forms for applying for passports or driving licences, and to general postal services. That is why residents were horrified to hear that the post office will close at the end of May, with no replacement in sight, and that when the council approved the redevelopment of the building, it made no provision for a new post office, and placed no conditions on the developer to find a new site for a post office in the town centre. Does the Leader of the House agree that this simply is not good enough, and will he make time for a debate in this place about the vital role of community postal services?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It sounds like a very frustrating time for his constituents. He is right about the importance of post offices to town centres, and that is why this Government set minimum access criteria. I understand that an alternative location in Uxbridge is being actively explored, but he may wish to raise this matter at oral questions to the Department for Business and Trade at the beginning of next month and ask the Minister for an update.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I wrote to the Department for Transport in December 2024, warning that the closure of Kirk Hill bridge by Network Rail for 10 months would have a devastating impact on nearby businesses. Fifteen months later, Dolly’s, a local café, has closed for good. The owner Gemma told me that she needed £10,000 of support to get by over that 10-month period. That would have been 0.15% of the total cost of the project. We have lost a popular local business, and three people have lost their job. Does the Leader of the House agree that more can and should be done to recognise the unique impact of road closures on rural businesses, and will he advocate on my behalf to the Department on this issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for his constituents, and I am genuinely sorry to hear of the case that he raises. He understands that road closures can greatly impact local communities and businesses, particularly in rural areas. I know that he has raised this matter with the Department for Transport, and I will ensure that he gets a response.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
On Tuesday, I joined civic leaders in Leeds, and Leeds United football club, in celebrating the £650 million expansion of Elland Road stadium. It will bring enormous benefits to my part of Leeds, including jobs and opportunities. It will also ensure that those of us who have been on the season ticket waiting list for years can finally buy a ticket. Much more importantly, parallel to that project is the West Yorkshire mass transit project, which has the potential to amplify and extend those benefits to all the people of Leeds. Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate in Government time on ensuring that the Leeds, Bradford and West Yorkshire tram, including stations in my constituency and others, is delivered ahead of schedule and on budget, so that all the people of Leeds can benefit from this investment?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend points out, sport is an important part of the economy for our local communities, and that is why there is a commitment to such investment. This Government are committed to improving transport in the north. The Transport Secretary is working closely with the West Yorkshire Mayor to ensure that we deliver a mass-transport system. Should my hon. Friend seek a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, I am sure that colleagues from his region would join him in doing so. If he seeks a meeting with a Minister, I will facilitate that.
Social Rented Housing Sector
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Florence Eshalomi will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement.
This week, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee published our fourth report, on the condition of homes in the social rented sector. This report is the first of a series of outputs from our broader inquiry on the condition of homes. We have also been looking at the condition of homes in temporary accommodation and in the private rented sector, and we hope to publish reports on that in due course. In this first report, we focused on social housing.
Over the last 25 years, there has been substantial progress on improving the condition of social homes. In 2001, the last Labour Government introduced the decent homes programme to address the large backlog of disrepair that had built up for council homes. They set the target of bringing all social homes up to a decent standard by 2010. To achieve this, registered providers were given nine years to bring their homes to a minimum standard. That target was ultimately missed, but the programme was not without its successes. Over 1 million homes were improved by works carried out through the programme. By April 2009, the percentage of homes failing to meet minimum standards of decency had fallen to 14.5%, down from just under 40% at the start of the decade. That was a significant improvement.
Progress in bringing social homes up to a minimum standard has continued under successive Governments, albeit at a slower pace. However, as our report states, progress has now stalled, with very little improvement being seen since the pandemic. The latest findings from the English housing survey estimated that around 430,000 social homes still fail to meet the basic standard of decency.
Overcrowding continues to rise. Our report highlights that high energy prices mean that tenants struggle to heat their homes sufficiently in the winter. Cold homes and overcrowding can exacerbate hazards such as damp. Two thirds of social homes are at the highest risk of overheating during the summer months. Those are really concerning trends.
The Government have been clear that they want to deliver transformational and lasting change to the quality and safety of social homes over the next decade. They have made good progress. Following recent announcements, registered providers have more certainty about the standards that they will be expected to meet, and the increased resources available to enable them to do so.
Many Members will remember the tragic case of Awaab Ishak, who died aged two from a severe respiratory condition caused by prolonged exposure to mould in his parent’s home. During his short life, Awaab had recurring cold symptoms and respiratory tract infections, and he had to visit the GP surgery more often than most children. Awaab’s parents reported the mould to their housing association in 2017, before Awaab was born. The coroner’s report states that
“no action was taken to address the mould before Awaab died”
in December 2020, at which point the mould was present in every single room.
During our inquiry, we heard from a mother whose 18-month-old baby started getting chest infections because of the black mould behind her bed. The mould had spread everywhere, but complaining got her nowhere. Awaab’s law is now being rolled out across social housing. It enables tenants to take legal action against their social landlord if they fail to remove hazards in a timely way. On balance, we thought that the Government’s decision to introduce Awaab’s law in phases, starting with the most dangerous flats, was right. However, tenants and housing providers would benefit from a clearer timeline of when the next phases of Awaab’s law will apply. Our report calls for the Government to set that out. For many residents, taking legal action against their landlord is not a decision they want to take. We will be keeping a close eye on the effectiveness of Awaab’s law to ensure that it delivers meaningful protection to tenants, especially the most vulnerable tenants.
By 2030, social landlords will need to make sure that their homes comply with new minimum energy efficiency standards. That is a positive step, though the pace of retrofits will need to accelerate if the sector is to upgrade the remaining homes by 2030. Under the official definition of fuel poverty, a household is not considered to be fuel poor if their home has an energy performance certificate rating at band C or above. However, those living in the homes that comply with the new minimum energy efficiency standard may still struggle to heat their home sufficiently if their energy prices are too high. Our report calls on the Government to amend the definition of fuel poverty in their forthcoming fuel strategy to reflect this. Otherwise, the Committee is concerned that the new energy efficiency standards, while necessary, will provide false assurances that tenants are protected from the multiple risks that arise from living in a cold home.
We welcome the Government’s new decent homes standard. Today’s standard was last updated in 2006, and it is in desperate need of reform. Shockingly, almost 430,000 homes still fail to meet the basic standard, 25 years after it was introduced.
The Government plan to bring the new decent homes standard into force by 2035. A lot of work needs to take place over the next nine years. The Building Research Establishment has estimated that about 45% of social homes will need to be brought up to the new standard. Although the last Labour Government’s decent homes programme was successful, many homes failed to meet the decent homes standard. The Government’s new decent homes standard will improve the quality and safety of homes, but we do not want to find that by 2035 a large proportion of homes have still not been upgraded.
Until 2035 is already too long for many tenants to wait. They must not be told to wait longer. That is why we are recommending that the Government introduce interim targets stipulating the percentage of social homes that should be upgraded to the revised decent homes standard in each year before the standard comes into force in 2035. That will help to reassure and demonstrate to the public that progress is being made. We are also asking the Government to introduce a process to review and if necessary update the decent homes standard periodically, at least every 10 years.
As I say, the Government have made good progress, which is welcome. The sector now has clarity, which it needs to meet the standards. Changes to the rent settlement will help registered providers to improve the quality of their homes. However, we are concerned that those steps alone will not be sufficient to deliver the improvements that the Government want. Our view is that there is a strong case for the Government to establish a new, modern decent homes programme to support social landlords to raise standards.
Even with the investment from the Government and the changes to the rent settlement, we are concerned that the sector will not have sufficient resources to meet the new standards. There is a real risk that the cost of new regulation will lead landlords to sell their homes instead of adapting them. Although we welcome the Government’s plans to make a transformational and lasting change to the quality of social homes, they do not address the long-term, systemic drivers of poor conditions, especially the need to replace ageing stock. We hope that the Government’s long-term housing strategy will be an opportunity to fill the gap, and we urge them to publish the strategy as soon as possible.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The quality of social housing is a huge issue across my Woking constituency, and residents and constituents contact me about it daily, so I was pleased to help draft the cross-party report. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for her leadership on the issue. What response has she had from the Government since the publication of the report, particularly to our request for a new and modern decent homes programme?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my fellow Committee member for his work to ensure consensus on this important cross-party issue, which many of us see in our inboxes. We hope for a full, detailed response, so we will allow the Government to come back to us, but I hope that they will recognise that this is a really important issue. If we want to ensure a lasting legacy for Awaab, it is important that the Government enact our recommendations and ensure funding for them.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
As the chair of the recently formed all-party parliamentary group for council and social housing, I welcome the report’s conclusion about the importance of boosting the supply of social housing to meet the huge demand for new, high-quality, genuinely affordable homes and to replace older, lower-standard homes that are long past their lifespan. It is a daunting task, but we know that it can be done: the great reforming post-war Labour Government built more than 800,000 council houses between 1946 and 1951. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need bold policies now to match the scale of that achievement?
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend, like many of us, is a proud advocate for ensuring that this Government honour their commitment to build new social homes. It is important that we look at the range of avenues available to house builders, councils and developers, and that the Government continue to fund them. My hon. Friend may be aware of the affordable homes programme prospectus, which opened just this month. The Government are asking councils, developers and housing associations to come forward with bids; we very much hope that a number of those bids will be for new, high-quality, family-sized social homes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair and the Committee for their report; I declare an interest as the chair of the healthy homes and buildings all-party parliamentary group. Finding a way forward is critical. As a Northern Ireland MP, I see this issue every week. Given the importance of the recommendations and details that the hon. Lady and her Committee have set out, I ask that they be shared with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the major social housing provider in Northern Ireland, and with the housing associations. This is significant, and they need to know about it.
Florence Eshalomi
I always thank the hon. Member for his wonderful, timely interventions on many issues across the House. Conditions in homes have an impact on all constituency MPs across the UK: it is a big issue that we see weekly in our inboxes and our advice surgeries, so it is important that we share best practice and learning from other regions in the UK.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her excellent report. Does she agree that housing associations sometimes try to get the heat taken off them by employing managing agents? When constituents approach them for repairs and so on, they are often sent back from one to the other. I have had particular incidents at the Darcus Howe apartments on Brixton Hill, where Notting Hill Genesis, which is the housing association, and Crabtree keep shirking the responsibility for providing some vital changes. For example, people could not get heating between November and January, the coldest months. Does my hon. Friend think that more should be done? Perhaps we should be better able to hold people criminally liable for the situations in which they put our constituents.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my constituency neighbour for highlighting just one of the many examples that Members across the Chamber will have seen in their inboxes. We need to recognise how some housing associations that receive Government grants to build homes are treating their tenants. It is important to direct residents to the Regulator of Social Housing and other avenues. I hope that the management issue will come up in the forthcoming commonhold and leasehold legislation.
Point of Order
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wrote to the Chancellor on behalf of a constituent on 10 December last year; I followed that up on 6 January and 20 January, but on each occasion I received no substantive reply. It was only when I tabled a written question that Ministers finally informed me that my correspondence had been passed to HM Revenue and Customs. They told me three weeks ago that they would reply by 11 February, yet they have not done so, nor have they written to me.
It has been more than two months since I first raised the matter with the Chancellor. I have no answer for my constituent. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what further avenues there are to ensure that this Government treat Members of this House properly?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for notice of his point of order. It is important that Members receive timely answers from the Government to such correspondence. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench are listening. It is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noticed not only the hon. Member’s concerns but those of other Members about slow correspondence, and no doubt they will pass on his remarks. He may also wish to consult the Table Office about other steps that he can take if he so chooses.
Bill Presented
Representation of the People Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Steve Reed, supported by the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, Secretary Liz Kendall, Secretary Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis, Samantha Dixon, Chris Ward and Josh Simons, presented a Bill to make provision extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds; to make provision about the registration of voters; to make provision about the administration and conduct of elections, referendums and recall petitions; to make provision about election agents’ addresses; to make provision about political expenditure and political donations; to make provision about information to be included in electronic campaigning material; to make provision about offences and civil sanctions in connection with elections, referendums and recall petitions and with donations and expenditure for political purposes; to make provision about the disclosure of information by the Electoral Commission; to make provision about the disqualification of offenders for holding elective offices, and their sentencing, where offences are aggravated by hostility towards persons involved in elections, referendums or recall petitions or holders of such offices; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 23 February, and to be printed (Bill 384) with explanatory notes (Bill 384-EN).
Backbench Business
LGBT+ History Month
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered LGBT+ History Month.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for approving this debate. I am pleased that it has become a regular fixture of the calendar in the world’s gayest Parliament. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), who made the application with me and whose relentless work for LGBTQ+ rights inspires me every day, not least her victory at the Council of Europe, where her report on banning conversion practices passed with a resounding majority. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am pleased that the Government have confirmed that they will publish a draft Bill to that end, and I hope the Minister will use today as an opportunity to set out more details and timelines.
I appreciate the irony of one of the younger LGBTQ+ MPs opening a debate about LGBTQ+ history. Luckily, I respect my elders, so if any of my colleagues who lived through that history would like to intervene, correct me if I am getting it wrong and reveal how old they are, they will be more than welcome—although I am confident that even the most senior among them will not be able to recall ancient Greece, which I will mention later.
I do think, however, that it is appropriate for someone like me to open the debate, because in so many ways I am a product of LGBTQ history. The life I lead today —that I am able to be an openly queer MP, that I was taught in school about LGBTQ+ people, that I can marry my girlfriend if we so choose, that discrimination against me is banned—is because of the struggle of generation upon generation of LGBTQ+ people, from the Gay Liberation Front to those who overturned section 28, from Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners to those who set up Switchboard, and from anti-AIDS activists to the gay MPs upon whose shoulders we stand. They include Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Member of this House, who fought tirelessly for gender equality and sex workers’ rights, and Chris Smith, who came out in 1984 at a rally against gay employees being banned from his local council. Thanks to the last Labour Government responding to the LGBTQ+ rights movement, the age of consent was equalised, section 28 was repealed, civil partnerships were granted, same-sex couples can adopt, trans people can have their gender legally recognised and the Equality Act 2010 was passed.
I feel immensely grateful to those who came before me that I did not experience many of the horrors that they did. I wish that those who are no longer with us could see us now: the record numbers who are comfortable and safe identifying as their true selves and who live better and more equal lives because of everything that they fought for.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful and passionate speech. She is such a fantastic advocate for the LGBT+ community, and she has highlighted the many people who have passed on. As she will know, I am one of the co-chairs of the all-party group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, which still have a disgraceful stigma attached to them. Does she agree that, with the science and innovation theme of this year’s LGBTQ+ History Month, we should celebrate science and innovation across the HIV and AIDS sector along with this Government’s fight to ensure we are one of the first countries to end new HIV transmissions by 2030?
Nadia Whittome
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and I congratulate her on all her work on this since we were elected together in 2019. She is absolutely right and I commend the Government for their work in this area.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that many in our community continue to suffer, both here and around the world. I am proud to be the co-chair of the APPG on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) rights. The situation for our siblings internationally varies immensely from place to place. In 65 countries—that is a third of all states—LGBTQ+ people are still criminalised because of who they are and who they love. While we see progress in some places, in others new discriminatory laws and policies continue to be introduced.
Unfortunately, the UK is one of the places where the state of LGBTQ+ rights has been getting worse instead of better. In preparation for today, I rewatched the speech made in 2023 by, if I may, lesbian icon and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). I was struck by her reflection that she would scarcely have believed the progress that has been made in the three decades since she was first elected in 1992. I am devastated that I cannot say the same for my time here. During the past six years that I have been an MP, progress has not only stalled but things have gone backwards.
Last year, the UK dropped six places to 22nd in ILGA-Europe’s ranking of LGBTQ+ rights in European countries. In 2015, we were No. 1. The only other countries that suffered a similarly dramatic drop last year were Hungary, whose far-right Government banned Pride marches, and Georgia, which is implementing Russian-style anti-LGBTQ laws. ILGA-Europe has been explicit that the Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission are the cause of our regression, as trans people in this country can no longer fully obtain legal gender recognition. Many now live in fear of being terrorised out of public life, whether through discrimination, abuse and violence from those who have been emboldened to become the gender police, or through endless legal threats forcing more and more spaces to exclude them.
We have to ask: what is the endgame here? What do people opposed to trans inclusion want trans people to do—live segregated lives that violate their privacy and dignity, and be forced back into the closet and somehow to stop existing? What about intersex people? What are they meant to do when their biological sex has always been more complicated than simply male or female? That is why I think that this month also acts as an important corrective to the lie that anti-trans activists often tell that sex is binary and that until recently gender identity was straightforward—man have penis, woman have vagina, trans people do not exist. Tell that to Roberta Cowell, the first known British trans woman to undergo gender-affirming surgery and have her birth certificate changed in 1951, or to Charley Wilson, a trans man and ship’s painter from the Victorian era, or to Eleanor Rykener, who was a trans, 14th-century embroiderer, barmaid and sex worker. Tell that, too, to intersex people who have been documented in texts from as far back as ancient Greek, Roman and Indian times, to the two-spirit people of indigenous north Americans or to the hijra in south Asia.
As countless biologists, psychologists and societies across the world will attest, both gender identity and sex have always been complex, diverse and not simply defined by the genitalia that those opposed to trans rights, along with the media, are so obsessed with discussing. It is also not the case that more trans people have just appeared out of nowhere in recent years. Trans people have always existed, trans people will always exist and we should be proud that more people finally feel able to live as their true selves, rather than hide in shame and fear with dire consequences for their mental health.
We should celebrate that, alongside the record numbers of people identifying as gay, lesbian and bisexual. Instead, a vocal minority hopes that if we make trans people’s lives as difficult as possible, if they are hounded and abused, maybe we can get back to a mythical time when they could pretend that trans people did not exist, when gay people were not in their face and when women knew their place. Let me be clear, the roll-back of rights is all linked, and efforts to narrow the definition of womanhood, police people’s gender expression and tie women to our biology are a patriarchal and homophobic wet dream. We are already seeing how the Supreme Court ruling and interim EHRC guidance are leading to women—cis as well as trans—being challenged and harassed in toilets and other single-sex spaces. Gender-critical activists have some brass neck claiming that they are advancing our rights through their actions.
I appreciate the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, and that the Supreme Court had the unenviable job of attempting to interpret the will of Parliament when making its ruling. I also appreciate that this Government therefore had no hand in the decision—but they are far from powerless. The interim guidance from the EHRC went far beyond even the Supreme Court’s ruling; we must ensure that the statutory guidance does not do the same. I hope the Minister can provide an update on where they are on that and confirm that the guidance will enable organisations to be inclusive of trans people instead of mandating their exclusion.
Parliament could legislate to make clear our intention in the Equality Act. I do not believe for a second that that landmark piece of equality legislation passed by the last Labour Government, after the Gender Recognition Act 2004, intended the blanket exclusion of trans people. If the law needs to be clarified, Parliament should make that clarification. We should not be triangulating on issues of human rights. We should not allow trans people to be thrown under the bus in an attempt to appease a tiny, well-funded, radicalised minority who are not representative of women or the rest of the LGBTQ+ community. All of us in the House have a duty to all our LGBTQ+ constituents, including trans people.
Trans people are the frequent topic of debate in this House, yet they have no ability to contribute to it. We must amplify their voices, experiences and concerns, and they are demanding that we oppose their exclusion. As a queer woman, I feel a particular debt to the trans community, because they fought for the rights that I enjoy today. They were on the Pride marches, they were at the die-ins, they lobbied their MPs, and I benefited from it. What kind of person would I be to pull up the ladder when the LGBTQ+ community has always been and will always be one, in struggle and in joy? There is no LGB without the T. We rise together and we fall together, and we must not let our trans siblings’ rights be taken.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) not only for taking the initiative on this debate, but for making a fantastic opening speech and saying so much about our trans community that is so important. I will come back to that in a moment.
In this LGBT+ History Month debate, it is important not only to acknowledge how far we have come on LGBT+ rights, but to renew our determination to protect the progress we have made and to do more both here and abroad to enable LGBT+ people to enjoy the same opportunities that non-LGBT+ people enjoy.
I will not repeat much of the excellent speech that my hon. Friend has just made and will keep my remarks fairly brief. I welcome the fact that through amending the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government are moving ahead with making LGBT+ and disability hate crime into aggravated offences, bringing them in line with racial and religious hate crime. But changes in the law need to be supported by cultural change. Unfortunately, too often we hear of denigration, taunting and bullying of LGBT+ people, sometimes through ignorance but also, I am sorry to say, through open prejudice, even among those who we would hope knew better in our public services.
Research by the TUC into harassment, bullying and prejudice of LGBT+ people in the workplace revealed that over half of respondents, rising to 80% of trans respondents, have been subject to one of those. There should be no rolling back of equality, diversity and inclusion programmes, whether that is LGBT+ inclusive relationship education for young people in schools or in a public or private sector workplace. I am pleased that our Employment Rights Act 2025 gives formal recognition to trade union equality officers and has strengthened employer duties against harassment. That will certainly help, but we should be under no illusion that there is not still much to do. I know a lot of work has been done on the conversion practices Bill, and I appreciate that the Minister is absolutely committed to bringing it forward and ensuring that it is fully trans inclusive, but time is ticking on, and I would be grateful if she could tell us when she is likely to publish a draft Bill.
Turning to the trans community, I have met many trans people and their families this year, as I expect the Minister has, who have been deeply upset since the Supreme Court ruling last April—not just by the ruling itself, but by the way in which the ruling has been seized on by some, interpreted far more widely than the context of the Equality Act 2010 and used as a weapon against trans people. We must find a way to enable trans people to live their lives peacefully and with dignity without having to come out repeatedly in all sorts of circumstances. I ask the Minister to ensure that, however we get to the final guidance on the practical implementation of the ruling, it really does respect the rights of trans people to privacy and to living their lives in their acquired gender, and that it also offers protection to all those organisations that find themselves under attack for being trans-inclusive. We need to see guidelines that focus on inclusion and not exclusion.
Turning to the international scene, we all appreciate that there are significant financial pressures at this time, but I would like to make a specific plea to ministerial colleagues to protect the support given to LGBT rights programmes through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s foreign aid budget. In the great scheme of things, it is not a huge amount of money, but it is nevertheless extremely important for several reasons—first and foremost, because it is not just a minority rights issue. Sadly, we see attacks on LGBT+ rights around the world used as a weapon to undermine our democracies, sowing division and dividing societies, and such attacks are often as a precursor to attacks on wider minority rights and to greater authoritarianism.
I will not repeat all the comments I made in Monday’s debate about the interference of Russia in our democracy and politics, but research by the Kaleidoscope Trust and its international partners, alongside UK Government and Equal Rights Coalition statements, has shown that hostile states, such as Russia, systematically promote anti-gender and anti-LGBTI+ narratives, which are used to polarise electorates, mobilise nationalist and populist movements, and even undermine trust in institutions, such as NATO, the EU and the UN. That is a threat to us, but it is an even greater threat in countries where democracy is more fragile.
Secondly, the UK still commands respect abroad, and strong support from the UK for programmes supporting LGBT rights sends a clear signal to other donor countries of the importance of this aid. Conversely, the cutting of UK aid for LGBT rights programmes may influence other donors negatively. Thirdly, any retreat from supporting LGBT rights is likely to embolden those who weaponise them and to exacerbate existing difficulties.
I am pleased to hear that the UK will host the IDAHOT—International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia—meeting in 2027. I ask the Minister if we could use that meeting both to improve our position in the rankings and to support LGBT rights internationally.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)
It is a huge honour to co-lead this debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). We share many things, not least our proud queer identities and a deep commitment to equality, so I am pleased to have worked together to mark LGBT+ History Month.
After years of progress, it feels to many of us as though we are going backwards on many of the rights that LGBTQ+ people have fought hard for and gained. Rights that were hard won are now being treated as optional. Protections that people fought for—often at great personal cost—are being chipped away, one argument, one dog whistle, one headline at a time. For our trans siblings in particular, this feels like a dark and dangerous time. That is why LGBT+ History Month matters. Our history shows us the patterns—progress, backlash, progress again—and now we face another backlash. That backlash is never without harm; it comes at significant human cost.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend—and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome)—on securing this debate and on the work she has done at the Council of Europe to secure the passing of that report on the trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban. That was a monumental achievement. Is she, like me, concerned about the rise of the far right across Europe and in the UK, and the threat that it poses to our constituents of LGBTQ+ backgrounds?
Kate Osborne
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the far right and others.
While we celebrate the trailblazers—the organisers, artists and campaigners; the nurses and carers who held hands in hospital wards when families would not visit; the friends who became family; the people who marched when it was dangerous; and the people who stood up when they were told to sit down—we also learn from their courage. We also remember that our history includes Pride marches and community groups, as well as trade union solidarity and working-class organising. One of the strongest lessons in our LGBT+ history is this: when working people stand together, we win change that reaches far beyond the workplace.
I declare an interest: I am a proud member of Unite the union. I take this opportunity to mention that, as well as LGBT History Month, this is Heart Unions Week. Trade unions are always at the heart of the fight for equality. They push employers to have policies on discrimination at work, and decades ago they brought about trans-inclusive policies. At a time when division is being weaponised, that lesson of solidarity is more important than ever.
In my beautiful Jarrow and Gateshead East constituency, I am proud of the work done by Out North East, particularly Drew Dalton and Peter Darrant, and their fantastic community work with youth groups and older LGBT people. Just last week, they opened new, bigger premises for the One Centre, the first LGBT media and business centre in the UK—and it is in my constituency. The location is a brand new LGBTQ+ inclusive space, and its facilities are incredible. When I visited, I was honoured and moved to realise that I was featured on the icons wall, alongside Bowie, and that there was a room named after me and another after the wonderful Lord Cashman from the other place. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I am proud to have led the debate at the Council of Europe, and I am pleased to say that my report on banning conversion practices passed with support from across the political spectrum and across Europe. The report contains a framework for legislation that each of the 46 countries is expected to adopt in its own Parliament. Our Government should now adopt that framework, because conversion practices do not just happen in theory; they happen to real people, in real life. They happen under the guise of “therapy”, “guidance”, “deliverance” or “counselling”. Their message is always the same: “You are broken. You are wrong. And you need to be fixed.” Well, I am here to say that I am a lesbian, and nothing about me needs to be fixed, thank you.
I am afraid that, instead of learning from the stigma and prejudice of the past, here we are marginalising, discriminating, preventing vital lifesaving healthcare and support, and excluding trans and non-binary people from sport, spaces and society. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that future MPs, Ministers and possibly Prime Ministers will stand where we are right now to dish out the kind of apologies, compensation and retribution for the wrongs of yesterday that we see happening all too often today. Why do we not save ourselves, and, most importantly, the trans community, by stepping up for them right now, instead of capitulating to a small band of very loud and well-funded bigots? Let us not make today’s discrimination tomorrow’s inquiry, public apology and compensation scheme—that is exactly where we are heading.
Let me finish with a celebration of our history. We are here today in the gayest Parliament in the world—12% of this Chamber is LGBT—and I am delighted to be serving queer joy in Parliament for all Members to hear. To the homophobes who are still just about clinging on to their prejudices, I say: I have some queer joy for you, too. It is 2026; we are still here, we have always been here, we are out and proud, and there are more of us than ever before, so just get over it already.
I am here to reaffirm my commitment to fighting for equality. As the new chair of the APPG on fertility, I will continue to fight for IVF for all. As the chair of the APPG on women’s football, I was pleased to be at the launch of the Premier League’s new “With Pride” campaign. It is great to see the rainbow flag flying across every football ground in the premier league. Football is a great unifier, and the north-east is renowned for being a hotbed of football. Perhaps that is why I loved it so much when I moved there back in 1989, and why I have never left. Football transcends borders and brings together people from diverse backgrounds. It is for everyone, so my message to the Football Association is this: let the dolls play football!
I thank the Minister for her support, for the many productive conversations that we have had, and for her work to introduce a ban on conversion practices and make LGBT hate crime an aggravated offence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a real honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne). I reiterate my congratulations on her fine work on the report on banning conversion therapy in Europe. That is greatly needed, and I hope that the Government will soon follow suit.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who are both brilliant members of the Women and Equalities Committee, for their speeches. I note that other members of the Committee are here, too. My hon. Friends called out queer icons, but let me say that they are my icons. Not only do they serve the LGBT community, but they serve our movement—thank you.
Today, we are learning about history and how to learn the lessons of the past, so I am deeply disappointed that there are not more Opposition Members here. I am not surprised that Reform Members are not here—they are unwilling to learn, come together or bring people together—but I am surprised that there are no Green, Lib Dem or SNP Members. I have to say, I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who was sitting next to the shadow Minister, has left his place. He did not listen with respect to the brilliant opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East. Instead, he rolled his eyes. I feel that, although we try to bring everybody together—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member possibly remembers and knows that when we refer to other Members of the House, we let them know in advance. Has she had time to do that?
Sarah Owen
I shall be doing so. I had expected the hon. Member to stay and perhaps learn from the subsequent speeches. Perhaps he could come back and learn a bit more.
In every year that I have spoken in this debate, it seems that the LGBTQ+ community has had a tougher year than the one before. That is sadly as true today as it was last year. The mainstream has moved dangerously further right, to focus not on what brings people together but on what tears people apart. That is not leadership. The politics of the right is one of fear—it is cowardly. True strength is shown in the ability to learn, understand and lead people to a better future. Progress is not inevitable; we will have to fight for it. I say to the LGBTQ+ community: “You are not alone in that fight.”
I would understand why many people feel alone right now, however. Between March 2024 and March 2025, more than 18,000 hate crimes were motivated by sexual orientation alone, and there were more than 3,000 trans-related hate crimes. Although 2024 saw a slight dip in reported hate crimes, there has still been a 44% increase over the past five years, and horrifyingly, there has been an 88% increase in hate crimes against trans people in that time.
Those horrifying statistics make it clear that some elements of the public are taking their lead from the current political discourse. Reform’s candidate in Gorton and Denton wants tax cuts for people who have children, which is deeply offensive to not only people like me, who have struggled to have a child, but to many LGBTQ+ people as well. We know that Reform ultimately does not want LGBT people to have children. Reform’s leader has gone on record with his belief that children are better off brought up in heterosexual households, rather than just with parents who love them. They are not hiding how they feel; they are saying it with their full chest, and they are reaping the benefits of a culture war where everyone is a casualty apart from them—a culture war that none of us sees an end to without serious leadership.
We know that when they are done with trans people, they will go after the LGB part of the community, and I wonder how long it will be before Reform and some elements of the Conservative party call for an end to same-sex couples being allowed to adopt. What was unthinkable years ago is not just being muttered quietly under their breath any more; it is now a full-throated attack under the cynical guise of “safety”—all a smoke- screen for the abuse and real danger that women and children face.
I wish I could say that this toxicity only exists in the right-wing parties, but sadly not. I cannot express how disappointed I was when my own party took the decision to exclude trans women members from our women’s conference. It has led me to my decision, which is, sadly, not to attend women’s conference for the first time in a very long time. It used to be one of my favourite parts of the conference season—a place for inclusivity and sensible discussion; I have even chaired some of the debates, which are so memorable in my mind—but if all women cannot go, neither will I. I have attended every party conference and many trade union conferences for nearly 20 years—yes, I am that old—and my safety was never put at risk from trans women, trans men or the LGBTQ+ community, but it was by cis men with power. These men are unaccountable to anyone—something that many are slowly cottoning on to in this place and others.
Accountability is incredibly important—it matters—so where is it? Where is it for the people who consistently trade off one person’s rights for another’s, only to serve their own agenda? Does the Minister believe the Equality and Human Rights Commission is up to the challenge of this ever more toxic environment? Is it resourced properly? I hope it is, because we need a defender of all our rights. Otherwise, as we watch America tear itself apart, I fear we are just one sneeze away from catching the disease of state-sanctioned hatred that sees leaders openly attack gay people, disabled people and ethnic minority people. We can do so much better than that.
There are many questions for the Minister, but I want to pose one that has already been raised: when will we see the ban on conversion therapy? As many young trans people wait for the puberty blocker trials to go ahead, what support is being given to them and their families in this time of uncertainty? I know our Labour Government are so much better than what we are seeing overseas right now, and I know the British public are so much better than to want what they are seeing overseas right now, but I also know that we can do better. Our country is not just tolerant but at its best when we celebrate difference, learn from one another and come together to celebrate the brilliant country we are. That is the country I want back.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who gave an incredibly powerful speech. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for her incredibly powerful opening remarks and for securing this debate. She is a proud, queer British south Asian who is a role model to so many, and that representation really does matter. I also want to say how proud I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) is at the Dispatch Box. We were friends long before we were elected to this place, and to see her here, responding to the debate, is quite a moment.
Happy LGBT+ History Month, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am here as a proud friend and ally. Stratford and Bow has a very proud history of queer resistance. It was home to the Tower Hamlets Lesbian and Gay Campaign Group when Thatcher’s Government introduced section 28. When they tried to silence and erase an entire community, the campaign group fought back with defiance, holding meetings at Bromley public hall to spread awareness and solidarity. While libraries across the country stopped stocking queer literature, Tower Hamlets defied this ban, even producing a gay and lesbian book list for their libraries. The campaign group also published Out East community magazine, spreading word far and wide. In Stratford, East London Gay Community was a thriving social group. It operated a telephone hotline every Tuesday night, taking up to 15,000 calls a year at its peak, offering help and support for gay people in east London and beyond for decades. Instead of shame, it offered solidarity, acceptance and care.
These stories are not just history; they are a legacy that has profoundly shaped our communities in east London and throughout London. We are still home to queer celebration and resistance, whether it is being the home of UK Black Pride at Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park; Forest Gayte Pride, who defied hatred when people defaced our local flags; Out To Swim, who meet at the aquatics centre to support local LGBT+ people participating in sports; or amazing initiatives like Positive East and Newham LGBT Seniors, who meet at Stratford library. Everyone is welcome in Stratford and Bow, and we celebrate our history and heritage.
But as we celebrate LGBT+ History Month and look back on how far we have come, we cannot risk forgetting the lessons of that history. Those lessons are rarely convenient, and the risks of backsliding are ever present, as we have heard today. As I mentioned briefly, we have had our own issues in Forest Gate. We sadly saw hatred come to our community when our rainbow crossing—our Pride flag—was shamefully defaced multiple times. It reminded us that we cannot assume or take for granted the progress that we have made. This awful act was a hate crime and an attack on our local queer community, and it was not just the LGBT+ community in Forest Gate but everyone—all our neighbours—who were affronted that it had happened. We now have rainbow wraps adorning our street lamps. When we unveiled them, the community stood together to share a defiant message: hate will not win here. LGBT identities will never be erased, and certainly not on my watch as their MP.
As I said, we cannot risk complacency. Progress is hard fought and hard won. In the months since the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act, hundreds of my constituents have written to me to share their experiences, their fears and the deep impact that the interim guidance issued by the EHRC is having on their daily lives. The lack of clarity also has an impact on organisations across the country and on trans people, who increasingly find themselves excluded from this discussion. Just as we demand that women’s voices are heard and respected, so too must we listen to trans women’s voices, who find themselves subject to mockery and abuse as those on the far right stoke culture wars. These are real people and real lives.
Last year I wrote to the Minister for Women and Equalities to make the views of my constituents clear: we must ensure that the Supreme Court ruling does not leave anyone facing yet more barriers to living a full, happy and dignified life, free of discrimination and harassment. I shared stories from my constituents. One, who transitioned over 25 years ago, told me that the place where they have worked for 13 years now has segregated toilets. They are terrified that they will now have to disclose their trans identity to their colleagues, infringing their right to privacy and risking their safety and inclusion at work.
This is not an abstract discussion; it is about the real lives of real people living in every one of our communities. They deserve dignity and freedom to live as they have been living, in many cases for decades, without issue. That is why we must see the new EHRC guidance come forward as soon as possible. We cannot risk backsliding by allowing this judgment to license discrimination or undermine the norms of trans inclusion. It cannot signal a move away from LGBT liberation after decades of progress. We often hear that Pride is a protest, but Pride is also a movement rooted in resistance, in defying silence and in refusing shame. We have come so far, but it bears repeating that the lessons of history are clear: progress was hard won and it must be defended.
This LGBT+ History Month is not just about struggle; it is about joy and the celebration of queer identity, and I am here as a proud ally to celebrate this. It is what the Tower Hamlets Gay and Lesbian Campaign Group and the East London Gay Collective stood for, and it is a legacy that we must all carry forward—in particular at this moment for our trans friends and neighbours. As we celebrate LGBT+ History Month and look back on how far we have come, let us remember that progress is never inevitable. It demands resolve and allyship, including from each and every one of us in this place.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for her introduction to the debate.
According to data compiled by the House of Commons Library, over 10% of the population of my Glasgow North constituency identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual—one of the highest proportions in the country—and over 1% identify as transgender, which is also well above the national average. The data illustrate a wider story of a growing number of people feeling confident to live their lives openly as their true selves. At the same time, there are those who feel unable to do so, and those who feel that they can only be open about themselves in some circumstances but not in others.
The recent history of LGBT+ rights has seen a growing confidence shaping and being shaped by legislative change and by cultural-societal change: cultural-societal change influencing legislative change; and, in turn, legislative change influencing cultural-societal change. Progress has been made in recent decades, but for many that progress now feels less secure than ever.
LGBT+ History Month gives us an opportunity to reflect on this history: a history of prejudice and of progress; a history of shame and of pride; a history marked by hatred and by love. Too many personal histories have never fully been told, too many talents never fully celebrated, and too many denied the opportunities to live their lives fully. There are also those who, despite challenges and barriers, hatred and discrimination, have lived their lives as fully as they could, enhancing the lives of many and still remembered today.
Constituencies like mine, in large cities, have so often been a magnet for LGBT+ people, who see the big city as perhaps more liberal or more anonymous: the smalltown boy phenomenon, put into anthemic form by Bronski Beat in the ’80s. For many, big cities like Glasgow have been a lifeline and have become their space, but for too many others, the dazzle of the bright lights hid dark places.
The draw of the big city has been around for many decades. In 1933, two working-class Scots, Robert Colquhoun and Robert MacBryde, often referred to as “the Two Roberts”, arrived at the Glasgow School of Art from Ayrshire. They went on to become renowned artists and shared a lifelong romantic relationship at a time when gay relationships were illegal. There are histories of LGBT+ artists, writers and musicians, but there are histories too—not recorded and not told—of LGBT+ shop assistants, delivery drivers and joiners. These histories need to be written and told.
As we recall and retell LGBT+ history this month, we celebrate progress but also recognise the difficult times. I was a teenager and became an adult in the 1980s, when the world was faced with what is now referred to as the AIDS crisis. At the time, I recall the newspaper headlines referring to “the gay plague”. I still remember clearly reading a news story about how schools were cancelling swimming lessons at a local authority swimming pool because gay men had been swimming there. I also remember a story about a café owner who reassured his customers by telling them not to worry, as he had smashed and got rid of the crockery and cutlery used by a gay customer and deep cleaned the café. There was a clear popular narrative that gay equals illness equals death. Even by 1996, when the film “Beautiful Thing” was released, it was still possible to shock by having a mainstream film with gay characters who end the film alive, well and happy.
LGBT+ History Month is an opportunity to recall history, to celebrate and to pay respects. It is also an opportunity in this place to reflect on how legislative change has not just been the result of cultural-societal change, but also how legislative change can be a tool to drive cultural-societal change. It is an opportunity for us in this place to reflect on that and to acknowledge the importance of the leadership that can be taken through legislative change. Ultimately, it is a call for us to act.
History moves on. It is our job to make the next legislative change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the progress that is being made to bring forward comprehensive and inclusive legislation to ban conversion practices outright. We need to bring forward that legislation, quite rightly, in response to calls for it, but also because it is our duty in this place not just to respond but also to lead progressively. It is for us to take action and to legislate to reflect the changes in society, but it also our duty to use the powers that we have to change society for the better. In this LGBT+ History Month, let us remember the history that has brought us to where we are, but also remember our responsibility to help shape the history that is still to be written.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing the debate and for their powerful remarks. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for his powerful speech calling for the change that we need. He reminded us of the horrors of the 1980s and the way that the LGBT community was represented at that time. I remember that really clearly, and I think it will take us a long time to recover from the horror put into young people at the time and the damage done over decades.
I am here as a proud friend and ally to the LGBT community, and to talk about what LGBT+ History Month means for my constituency and my constituents. The purpose of the month is to celebrate, reflect, learn, and plan what we need to do to secure rights going into the future. I am grateful to hon. Members for talking about struggle and about joy. I want to talk about the joy that I know takes place in my community and my constituency every day, and some of the struggles that we face.
I am so proud to represent a constituency with such historic ties to the LGBT community. It is home to London Pride, G-A-Y, the City of Quebec—the oldest LGBT venue, we think; I invite any historians in the Chamber to challenge me on that—and She Soho, and has been home to historic figures including Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing and Vita Sackville-West. I have had the joy of representing and talking to my constituents in the Westminster LGBT+ Forum, and I want to give a shout-out to that forum for the kindness that I have experienced—I have worked with Professor Pippa Catterall, its chair—as well as to Pride in the Square Mile. I also want to celebrate the Bishopsgate Institute and its incredible archive of LGBT history. If anyone has time over recess, I strongly recommend a visit; everyone here would be welcomed. We are incredibly proud, too, to host 56 Dean Street, an inspiring sexual health service based in Soho that has a pioneering approach to securing excellent sexual health services.
It has been truly inspiring to hear about the progress that has been made over the years; support for gay marriage has gone up from 54% in 2010 to 78% in 2023. We have also heard this afternoon of incredible stories of sacrifice. It is less than 30 years since the horrendous attack at the Admiral Duncan pub. Many of us will remember that week and what it felt like to live in a city where people could be attacked—where people could be murdered—for who they were. I pay tribute to the National Hate Crime Awareness Week team, who are friends of people who lost their lives in the Admiral Duncan attack, to the Rev. Simon Buckley and to Councillor Patrick Lilley—the Westminster LGBT champion and lead member for Soho—for the work that they do at the annual remembrance event for the victims of the Admiral Duncan attack. I do not think there has ever been singing in the Chamber, but I cannot articulate how powerful it is to listen to the Pink Singers sing “I Wanna Dance with Somebody” at that annual remembrance service. All Members are welcome to join me there to show respect and celebrate the joy, but also to remember the terrible struggles that people have lived through.
Six months ago, a homophobic group marched through the very centre of Soho, attacking people for who they are and chanting hate. That is still very live for us.
We are also now facing an attack on trans rights. My constituents, like those of many other Members here, have contacted me in deep pain about what they are experiencing in the horrific culture war that we are living through—that many of us are fighting to get through. We cannot allow the current level of attack on trans people to continue, and we cannot allow the interim guidance to stop people living their life as who they are.
We in this Chamber are united in wanting to rally towards a position where people can live freely as who they are. We all deserve dignity in struggle. We all deserve dignity in love. We all deserve dignity in joy.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I am so proud and pleased to be taking part in this debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). She may be young, but she is a fearless, knowledgeable and compassionate champion of our movement. I also pay tribute to all my other wonderful colleagues, both those from my community and the proud allies, who have spoken in this debate. I was particularly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), who shared stories that vividly brought back to me what it was like living through the 1980s. I thank him for that.
LGBT history in this country is shaped by courage, service, resilience and, far too often, injustice. The history of discrimination against LGBT people runs through our armed forces, our healthcare system, our laws, the way that our courts treated lesbian mums, and our communities. It is a history that reminds us that progress is not inevitable and that if equality is not defended, the progress we have fought for can be destroyed far too easily.
I attended my first Pride in 1986, not long after the great work of Mark Ashton and Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners. It was a celebration of how far we had come and a protest that we still faced injustice. I never could have predicted that section 28 would be introduced just two years later. That year, I attended Pride alongside angry and distraught friends.
Section 28 was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly. It stigmatised lesbian, gay and bisexual people. In just two years, the progress that I had seen as a student had been ripped away from us. That is a reminder that equality is an ongoing battle. Today, I see the same people who supported section 28 trying to row back on rights for trans people. That is why LGBT+ History Month matters, because it reminds us that progress cannot be taken for granted.
This LGBT+ History Month, I want to remember all the LGBT soldiers and veterans who have served the United Kingdom. Even when the armed forces rejected them, they proudly served our country. Many had their careers ended, their ranks stripped and their sacrifices and service erased simply because of who they were and who they loved. That treatment was a moral stain on our nation.
As a Labour MP, I am proud that it was a Labour Government who lifted the ban on LGBT people serving in the military. We can never undo the harm that was done to veterans, but we can take responsibility for it. That is why it is important to implement the recommendations of the Etherton review so that LGBT veterans get compensation, have their ranks restored and have their records corrected. Only by implementing those recommendations will we restore dignity, pride and historical truth.
It was truly an honour to see the King unveil the memorial to LGBT military personnel at the National Memorial Arboretum, which is not far from my constituency. I spent a wonderful day on Boxing day with my partner, Dawn, visiting and thinking at that memorial.
Turning to the present, in the coming weeks, the amendment to hate crime laws, which I called for in the House last year, will be brought forward in the House of Lords. I worked with my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), and over 100 other MPs, to equalise the law on hate crime. It will make all hate crimes aggravated offences so that disabled and LGBT people receive the same support as victims of other hate crimes and have the same time to report those distressing, vile, degrading and often violent crimes. That will mean that their experiences are treated with the same severity as those of people suffering hate crimes because of their race or religion. That was a manifesto promise from the Labour party, and I am proud to be part of a Government who are delivering on that promise and who turn up on these Benches when these issues are debated and LGBT history is celebrated.
LGBT+ History Month is not just about the past; it is about highlighting how discrimination persists today. Homophobia and transphobia still destroy lives. I was pleased to welcome the Premier League With Pride launch this week, which uses the power of sport to promote inclusion and respect. Hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, we may see premier league players coming out as gay and being supported.
LGBT people have long faced barriers to healthcare, from the stigma faced by gay men during the AIDS crisis to lesbians being denied help with painful periods and reproductive health problems and trans people trying to navigate a system that often meets them with suspicion instead of care. History teaches us that inaction is not neutral; it only allows harm to continue. That is why I welcome the steps that this Labour Government are taking to improve LGBT people’s access to healthcare. The HIV action plan is groundbreaking and will support the goal of ending new transmissions by 2030. I applaud the excellent work done by the Terrence Higgins Trust. Thousands of people will benefit from improved HIV testing and treatment. That is the change that a Labour Government can make.
I have one final point to make: we must be bolder when it comes to standing up for the rights of trans people. Culture wars have polluted online social media platforms with vitriolic hatred towards trans people, who make up less than 1% of the population. When I speak with them, I hear the same story: all they want is access to the healthcare that they need and to live their life without fear of discrimination. The parents of trans children who come to see me in my surgery want the same thing. At the same time, we see a minority, who claim to represent the views of women, calling for trans people to have their rights eroded.
I believe that we can stand side by side. I know that most people want to live and let live. Now more than ever, the LGBT community and our wonderful allies must continue to stand against all homophobia and transphobia. We must learn from our history, so that we never allow our progress to be taken from us. We are proud of our history, we are proud of who we are, we are proud of who we love, and we are never going underground.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I start by congratulating my faves, my formidable hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), on securing this vital debate and on their brilliant speeches. I know that this debate means a lot to members of the LGBT+ community in my constituency and across the UK.
I am pleased to hear the reflections on and recognition of the incredible achievements of LGBT+ people throughout history, and about the remarkable fight for equality and an end to discrimination. Sadly, we all know that that fight is not yet over and there is still a substantial way to go before LGBT+ people are free to live and love without prejudice.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East on her victory at the Council of Europe in passing the report on banning conversion therapy, because one step to end discrimination that the previous Government—and, so far, this Government—have failed to take is the introduction of a complete trans-inclusive ban on LGBT+ conversion therapy, a vile practice better described as a form of torture of LGBT+ people. We said:
“So-called conversion therapy is abuse—there is no other word for it—so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity.”
I was pleased to take those words in our 2024 manifesto to the electorate, and I was proud to hear the promise reiterated in the King’s Speech, yet almost two years on, we are still awaiting the draft conversion practices Bill.
For every day that the legislation is delayed, LGBT+ people are subjected to medical, psychiatric, psychological, religious and cultural and other abusive interventions that seek to change, “cure” or suppress their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. A person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is not something that needs to be cured, nor should it be suppressed. There is nothing wrong with being lesbian, gay, bi, trans or queer, or identifying in any other way that comes under the LGBT+ umbrella. It seems like we are taking steps back on equality when we have to state that in 2026, but it is necessary because conversion practices have not been banned in their entirety, and those undertaking them seek to say otherwise. They seek to tell LGBT+ people that their identity is wrong when that is simply untrue.
It is not uncommon for individuals to question or explore their sexual orientation or gender identity and seek guidance and support from their friends, family or even religious leaders, but it has always irked me when people attempt to use faith in these arguments, especially when I think of Jesus’s final commandment: quite simply, to love one another. I have never understood how you can love someone while at the same time discriminating against them.
Conversion therapy is not supportive, not affirming and not therapeutic. It is a one-directional practice that seeks to force LGBT+ people to change their sexual orientation or gender identity through pseudoscientific counselling sessions, threats, corrective rape, being prayed over as a form of “healing”, and even exorcisms. These practices do nothing to make a person straight or cisgender; in fact, all they do is cause immense psychological and physical harm. For every day that the legislation is delayed, these vile conversion practices continue, and LGBT+ people are at risk of having them offered to them or forced on them.
The previous Government promised to bring in a ban, but they delayed and U-turned and, ultimately, failed to introduce one. I am sure it is not a spoiler to say that I am sure the Government will deliver on their manifesto commitment, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate, particularly because I know that she has long campaigned on these issues, but the urgent question that I would like her to answer is: when?
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in a debate that was opened with such excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne).
It is also an honour to speak having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), whose mention of “Beautiful Thing” got me thinking about the different ways that queer culture has been depicted in our culture. He reminded me of a social media post a few weeks ago by the TV critic Scott Bryan, who said that over his lifetime, LGBT+ and queer storylines have gone from
“being a rarity or…too controversial”
decades ago, to being in soaps, where they were often depicted as a moral outrage,
“to being occasionally mentioned but never explored (aka the gay best friend)”.
In other words, LBGT+ characters were presented but their storylines were never developed. Later, there would be some exploration, but typically there would be a tragic ending and the character would die. Later still, a gay or LGBT+ character might be explored, but only after the watershed, and really only to be embraced by an LGBT+ audience. In more recent years, we have seen the creation of queer shows, which may be targeted at younger people to tell them that everything is going to be okay, or, as we saw with “Heated Rivalry”, something altogether different—I think I will leave my description at that.
In thinking about that, I realised that what we are talking about are largely lesbian and gay TV shows, not trans TV shows. In turn, that made me realise that, although Pride is primarily of, by and for the people who dance under the same rainbow, it is also about liberation for everyone from prejudice. Really, we can only open our eyes to a safe and more compassionate society if we listen to trans people and protect them.
I want to reflect what some of my constituents who are trans have said to me. They have told me that they believe that too often their identities, their rights and the care that they receive are separated completely from what they need, and politicians do not listen to what they have to say. We do not realise that, although we talk in debates about the difficulties that trans people face, the predominant narrative is not universally true. It is not the case that all trans people are constantly suffering, depressed or impoverished. Susannah, who lives in my constituency, said:
“I am a very happy person leading an ordinary, productive and caring life. I am loved by my family, loved by friends. Trans people are doctors, accountants, crafts people, nurses, teachers, pilots, shopkeepers, carers… we are good and decent people spread across the country, leading productive lives.”
When we tell stories like my constituent’s, we are telling stories about real people and real families, and we are talking about the harms and the opportunities that society chooses to prevent or permit. In telling these stories, I also want to pay tribute to the parents of trans children; when society at large seems to have it out for their kid, that often takes a toll on them. They have fierce, unwavering love, but often that is ignored and their concerns go disregarded. I want them to know that I am listening to their views, just as I am listening to the views of their trans children.
That is particularly important because, although we do not choose our sexual orientation or gender identity, being openly gay or trans very much is a choice. I could no more be straight than a trans person could make themselves cisgender. The alternative is to stay in the closet and feel shame wash over you—a shame that can lead to anxiety, depression and sometimes even suicide. Being gay or trans is about choosing yourself—that is the choice. When our opponents try to make the cost of choosing yourself too severe to bear, when they try to make transgender people cisgender by denying them care or surgery, when they say that they seek to spare young people from medical care or surgery, they are effectively implying, although they do not say it, that people can be cured of being transgender—that all it takes to convert them is the denial of gender-affirming medical care or surgery.
That is important to dwell on given that Parliament will—very soon, I think—be considering a ban on conversion practices. We can ban the practices, but we have to realise that the rhetoric itself can be used to attempt to convert. Opponents do not care at all about the danger involved in forcing a transgender person to be cisgender, and they do not care that it will not work. Just as they would not see that forcing a gay person to be straight is dangerous and will not work, so they do not realise it about transgender people.
I choose to support trans young people in making their own decisions about transition, from early and more reversible options such as changing a name or pronouns, or starting puberty blockers, to less reversible options such as surgery, which usually come later. I choose to support trans youth in deciding their own identity and future, because it is wrong to force them to identify with the sex they were assigned at birth.
In fact, all of us here would choose to support anyone and everyone, in deciding their identity, to choose themselves, whatever that means and whatever it may be. When politicians in this place, on issues affecting trans people, divide us with rhetoric that inflames, unconcerned by whether the things they say can be backed up by evidence, they are pursuing a politics based on scapegoating, not science. Those who say that this move can be contained to trans people should know this: trans people can never be sidelined or sacrificed, because every human is entitled to dignity and respect. That comes through in the words of my constituent Antonia, who says:
“As a trans woman all I want is to receive the same health care, freedom and be able to live my life the same as everyone else. We work, pay bills, go shopping, watch TV and have friends. We’re not a cult or a freak show.”
In the words of Mich,
“The phobia whipped-up towards the trans and gender non-conforming is so disproportionate to the small numbers of us and how unthreatening we are — we’re just trying to live our lives”.
On its own terms, the argument falls apart. When trans people are attacked, it is not just harmful to trans people; it is about attacking trans people today, potentially with a view to attacking other minorities tomorrow. History warns us what happens when the way is paved and the bar is lowered for all minorities to be attacked. Too many of us who are not trans or gay simply are not free in our society and our country to choose themselves in their everyday life, and that is a problem.
We must all support trans young people. When we do not, it continues a problem that we have in our society of ignoring young people full stop. Whether it is about sexual orientation, gender or something else entirely, younger people go unlistened to. When that happens, it has a hugely negative impact on them. We should all choose to support trans and gay young people, but we should especially choose to support children and young people.
If we listened to many young trans people and enabled them to choose, we would listen to what they have to say about puberty blockers. Puberty blockers are reversible, but puberty is not. Puberty blockers can stop the harms of an unwanted, irreversible puberty, as children watch their bodies change in ways that might be difficult or impossible to undo later. That is why it matters that young people do not miss the window in which blockers can prevent the irreversible physical changes of puberty while simultaneously extending the diagnostic period. In other words, blockers are a way to buy time and enable young people to have the choice and freedoms to explore their identity without the added stress of pubertal changes. With blockers, children report feeling less anxious and more comfortable with themselves. Liberated from the constant dread of puberty, they can bring their focus back to the things that matter in childhood and everyday life—learning, socialising and simply being kids. We know that pubertal suppression can help the mental health of trans children.
I said that we need to think about the science; at least eight recent studies have linked pubertal suppression to improved mental health, including a UK study that found improvements in overall psychological functioning. Those who oppose or query what I say should look at Rosalia Costa’s piece in the Journal of Sexual Medicine from 2015. Similarly, a study by a Harvard medical school research group found that adolescents who received puberty blockers had lower odds of experiencing suicidal ideation later in life compared with those who desired blockers but were unable to access them. There was an article by Jack Turban in Pediatrics in 2020 that is comprehensive on that point.
This goes to the point that we need all policy decisions to be led by the clinical evidence, but we also need to be clear-minded about what that means. In clinical medicine, it can never be known for sure what an outcome will be for patients. Medicine is always a field of probabilities, not certainties, and that will be true of puberty blockers. It is because they are so hotly politicised that we have to be careful to hold puberty blockers to the same standards as all other medication; we cannot allow the debate to fixate only on the risks and unknowns from medications that are emotionally charged and heavily politicised in our country. We need to do that, because gender dysphoria is real. It can show up in serious ways, including eating disorder symptoms and other mental health struggles. When we allow younger people and children to experience those harms, we are doing them and our society a disservice.
I hope that all politicians in this place will be led by the science and by compassion. I hope that with this Labour Government, we will see not just the conversion practices ban come forward in the time before the next King’s Speech, but, over the course of the first term of this Labour Government, a movement towards a trans persons’ civil rights Act.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank my indefatigable hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for leading this debate so well.
Let me start by celebrating how far we have come. I was 14 when Labour came to power in 1997, and I already knew that I was gay. From 1997 onwards, I recognised that politics had a direct impact on my life. The John Major Government had already lowered but not equalised the age of consent in 1994, but it took a Labour Government to lift the ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual people serving in the military in 2000; to equalise the age of consent in 2001; to repeal section 28 in 2003; to pass the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004; to equalise adoption rights for same-sex couples in 2005; and to pass the Equality Act 2010.
The 1997 election saw out gay politicians elected for the first time, including my predecessor as the MP for Exeter, Sir Ben Bradshaw, who was the second elected, by around an hour, after the former Member for Enfield Southgate. He faced the most appalling homophobic campaign in Exeter, but the people of Exeter saw through that and soundly elected him to be their MP. A corner was truly turned for our community in British society.
Although all the legislative changes come from this place, we must always remember that it is activists, campaigners and ordinary people—LGBTQ people and their families, friends and allies—who have always had to make the case for equal rights from the outside in. As with many other communities, it is my job in this place to listen and act to ensure that we continue on the path of equality.
In Exeter and across the south-west, that community network still thrives. The Intercom Trust is a south-west LGBT+ charity that last year served more than 4,000 service users from Exeter, Plymouth and Truro offices, providing a free phone helpline, one-to-one support and advocacy, a domestic abuse and sexual violence support service, hate crime support, school groups, counselling and much more.
The first Exeter Pride event was held only in 2008, during LGBT History Month. The founders, Alan Quick and Michael Hall, hosted the event at the central library—another very good case for why libraries are so important in our communities—featuring art displays, games for children, panel discussions and stalls. Alan still plays a vital role in the life of our city, not only by publishing newspapers, but as a trustee of Inclusive Exeter. Indeed, I saw him just last Sunday, at our fantastic Hongkonger community celebration of the lunar new year.
However, we know that while progress has been rapid in the UK, it is not all one way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) referenced, hate crimes based on sexual orientation are up by 44% in the last five years. If we add trans people, the statistics are worse—an 88% rise in hate crimes. The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has stated that he did not support equal marriage at the time; he declared it a “wrong” thing to have done and to have been brought in.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has informed the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) that he was going to mention him.
Steve Race
I absolutely did, Madam Deputy Speaker; I sent the hon. Gentleman an email before this debate.
In the wake of the Supreme Court judgment and a relentless campaign waged against trans people in some quarters, with funding from outside this country flooding in to stoke division, it has never been more important for people like me in positions like mine to say: I see trans people, and I recognise your contribution in all areas of our society. Trans people have always existed and will continue to exist, and I will do everything that I can to stand with you to ensure that you can live your lives as equal citizens in our country.
That is why I am proud to be a Labour MP. While the political consensus fragments in some quarters, in this place and beyond, in the pursuit of headlines and knee-jerk politics, I know that this Government continue to stand on the side of equality and fairness. We will soon see draft legislation on a trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy, thanks to the work of the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) has ensured that we will legislate to make crimes motivated by prejudice against people because they are LGBT, because they have a disability or because of their gender identity, an aggravated hate crime.
We are improving the experience of LGBT+ personnel and veterans in the armed forces and delivering financial recognition to LGBT veterans as per the Etherton review. We are tackling HIV transmissions to meet our target of no new HIV transmissions by 2030. We are improving access to healthcare and providing nearly £500,000-worth of specialist funding for LGBT+-focused domestic violence services. We will continue to reject the politics of division and hate, and we will build on Labour’s long history of fighting for equality.
However, we must look at the international situation. I thank the Elton John AIDS Foundation and Kaleidoscope for their work and support in this area. Since 1983, 84 countries have decriminalised consensual same-sex relations, and 65 have recognised marriage equality. Countries across Asia have legalised same-sex marriage, including Taiwan in 2019, Nepal in 2023 and Thailand in 2025, and same-sex relations have been decriminalised in Africa by Botswana in 2019, Mauritius in 2023 and Namibia in 2024. New Zealand became the first country to recognise non-binary gender markers on passports, and India, Pakistan and Bangladesh recognise hijra, or third-gender individuals. Globally, we have also seen positive trends in adoption rights and legal gender recognition. In 2016, after sustained campaigning by activists worldwide, the UN voted to create a mandate for the independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, which was a landmark moment in international human rights protection.
However, 65 nations, which is nearly a third, still classify LGBTQ+ people as criminals, and homosexuality is punishable by death in 12 countries. In the last two years alone, several countries have passed harsh new laws targeting LGBT+ people. In 2024, Georgia banned gender transitions, legal gender recognition, Pride events and LGBTQ+ symbols. For the first time, Mali criminalised homosexuality with a punishment of up to seven years in prison in 2024. In the United States, over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ Bills were introduced, aiming to restrict trans rights and LGBTQ+ education.
Burkina Faso’s Government passed a law in September 2025 banning homosexuality, with those found guilty facing two to five years in prison, according to the state broadcaster. The draft law was unanimously passed by 71 unelected members of the country’s transitional Government, who have been in place since the military seized power. In late 2025, Ghana parliamentarians reintroduced a Bill to criminalise identifying as LGBTQ, with penalties of up to three years in prison. Funding or forming an LGBTQ-related group would be punished by up to five years in prison.
I recently met LGBT activists from Hong Kong and Botswana who talked to me about the repression that communities in those places still face, as well as the support they receive from Kaleidoscope and the funding for programmes that comes from the FCDO’s official development assistance, which are vital to some communities around the world. LGBT rights are not just a nice to have; they are fundamental to human rights, and they are fundamental to healthy societies too.
For the first time since UNAIDS began reporting on punitive laws a decade ago, the number of countries criminalising same-sex sexual activity and gender expression has increased. An analysis of data from 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa found that HIV prevalence among men who are gay, bisexual or have sex with other men in countries that criminalise same-sex relations is five times higher than in non-criminalised settings.
I am proud that the UK is leaning in yet again and supporting the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria with a new £850 million pledge. However, as Elton John and David Furnish pointed out in a recent independent op-ed:
“the force which enabled Aids to become a global catastrophe was not immunological; it was fear and apathy.”
Stigma, homophobia and transphobia play as big a role in health epidemics as the virus and the healthcare system itself. That is why Pride still matters, and that is why LGBT History Month still matters.
While we have achieved so much in the UK, we still need to fight to retain our rights here, because around the world homophobia and inequality still exist, hurting individuals and communities. The UK has a vital role to play, partly because of the historical context of colonialism, in supporting the progress towards a more equal world, and I am proud to say that I believe we will continue to do so.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I start by thanking the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing this really important debate, and for their amazing contributions—the hon. Member for Nottingham East gave a particularly passionate and powerful opening speech.
I also thank some of the other Members who have contributed to the debate. I will not speak about all of them, but I want to single out the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) as she spoke incredibly passionately. While I was listening to the debate, I could see her empathy and compassion for this subject, and I want to thank her for that. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) spoke about lived experience and history, but he also reminded us that history is not done yet. We still have a long way to go, and we are creating it every single day.
Several Members have pointed out that progress is not permanent, and what we have seen in recent years completely underlines how important it is that we carry on fighting and never take anything for granted. I also thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for reminding us of something that should be obvious: we cannot change people. People are who they are, and to pretend otherwise is harmful and cruel, and we must fight against it.
As equality and inclusion are being undermined both at home and abroad, it becomes ever more important to reflect on and celebrate the historic achievements of LGBTQ+ individuals, and LGBT+ History Month gives us the chance to do exactly that. As Members have noted with great pride, British history features a remarkable diversity of gender and sexuality. The theme of this year’s LGBT+ History Month, science and innovation, encourages us to celebrate the many contributions of LGBTQ+ people in shaping the modern world—from the infamous computer scientist Alan Turing, who literally changed technology forever, to John Maynard Keynes’ enormous contribution to economic thought.
We also recognise those closer to home, such as Barbara Burford, who is recognised this LGBT+ History Month for innovation in public service and healthcare leadership. As a medical research, writer and equality champion, her work helped shaped the NHS’s approach to diversity and inclusion, showing that genuine innovation also emerges through systems, policies and organisational culture. LGBT+ History Month also reminds us of the historical harms inflicted on the community through the medicalisation and pathologisation of their identities.
I also want to take the opportunity to highlight that this month coincides with Football v Homophobia Month, originally established by the Justin Campaign to tackle anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in football, in memory of the UK’s first out professional footballer, Justin Fashanu. The month remembers and celebrates those who have been trailblazers in the beautiful game, while encouraging fans and clubs to share the “Football for Everyone” message and reaffirm their commitment to create safe and welcoming spaces in which LGBTQ+ people can flourish. It is only in the past 30 years, owing to the tireless advocacy of LGBTQ+ individuals and campaign groups, that we have come to recognise and correct these injustices. It is by acknowledging this history that we can build ethical medical practice and inclusive institutions for the future.
I am proud to say that my party, the Liberal Democrats, has a long legacy of leading the fight for LGBTQ+ equality. It was the Liberal Democrats, for instance, that led the repeal of section 28, introduced by the Conservatives in 1988, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities in schools, and had been stifling LGBTQ+ representation for 15 years. The Liberal Democrats were also instrumental in securing the legislation of same-sex marriage during the coalition Government. We designed the Alan Turing law, as part of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which granted posthumous pardons to more than 49,000 men convicted of gross decency.
It is the Liberal Democrats that continue to push, agreed cross-party, for an immediate, full and inclusive ban on conversion therapy, covering both sexual orientation and gender identity without loopholes. We have always been a champion of LGBTQ+ equality, which is one of the many reasons why I am proud to be in this party. That was again brought home to me last year during the Essex Pride parade through the high street in my Chelmsford constituency. It was an honour, as I had done in previous years, to be at the front of the parade, carrying one of the rather large balloon sculptures that formed the words “Essex Pride”, and to be part of such a joyful celebration of human diversity and of the advances made towards LGBTQ+ inclusion.
However, despite past progress towards LGBTQ+ equality in Britain, the community still experiences discrimination and harassment on a daily basis, and there is evidence that it is getting worst. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East highlighted, with divisive extremist rhetoric on the rise, we are slipping backwards in this country. In 2025, the UK fell six places to 22nd on ILGA-Europe’s LGBTQ+ rights ranking. To put that in context, we were No. 1 in 2015. As was referenced by the hon. Member for Luton North, hate crimes have nearly doubled over the past five years. Research from Stonewall conducted by Opinium found that in 2025, less than half of LGBTQ+ people felt safe holding their partner’s hand in public. In the workplace, it is a similar story; research found that almost 40% of LGBTQ+ employees hide their identity at work. Meanwhile, around two thirds of trans people experience harassment and violence simply because they were identified as trans. That is appalling.
Indeed, it goes without saying that this past year has been a difficult time for the LGBTQ+ community, and an especially worrying and upsetting period for our trans and non-binary friends here in the UK, following last April’s Supreme Court ruling. Like many other Members, I have received heartbreaking stories from trans and non-binary constituents fearful of even being able to participate in public life. It is simply not acceptable that the rights of everyone, trans and non-binary included, do not appear to be deserving of the same respect and recognition. That is why Liberal Democrats have been clear that the leaked Equality and Human Rights Commission code of practice was deeply flawed, and have since called for new, inclusive and workable guidance. That guidance should also be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, including debate and a vote.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. When we talk about issues of trans rights, it is so important to consider the very real trans people behind the statistics and arguments. Last year, I met my constituent Hannah, a trans woman, to discuss her experience of transitioning. She told me about the very real impact that the erosion of trans rights would have on her, including the indignity, shame and difficulty it would bring, yet too often, voices such as hers are shut out of our conversation in favour of those who can shout the loudest. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to find mechanisms for voices such as Hannah’s to be given the prominence they rightfully deserve in this conversation, so that all our trans constituents can continue to live dignified lives?
Marie Goldman
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for reminding us that this is about people. They are not statistics—they are people, whose everyday experiences and lives are being harmed by the decisions that are being made right now and by the awful, appalling, divisive rhetoric that is coming from some parts of the community, and some parts of the political community in particular. We must fight against it, and I thank the hon. Member very much for reminding us that this is about people and that their voices must be heard.
As we celebrate LGBT+ History Month and reflect on the historical achievements of LGBTQ+ individuals, we must also look forward, challenge prejudice wherever it appears, and recognise our responsibility as Members of Parliament to continue to push for LGBTQ+ equality.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. With it being LGBT History Month, I particularly welcome this debate on this year’s important theme of science and innovation, which was highlighted by many Members this afternoon. Those sectors are absolutely vital to our economy and to the wellbeing of us all, from technology to business, our environment and—crucially—our healthcare. Today, we celebrate all LGBT people, past and present, who contribute so much. I too am a proud ally and friend, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), of course. [Interruption.] Well, he cannot sit in the Chamber all afternoon and not get a mention.
In that spirit, I welcome the positivity with which the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) opened the debate. She highlighted the international situation, which it has been crucial to raise this afternoon. The hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) talked about being an out and queer woman; it was lovely to hear her words once again. Funnily enough, just to let Members know, I saw Uncle Frank—the former East Grinstead mayor and long-serving Conservative councillor—last night.
Today’s debate has focused on science and innovation, so it is absolutely right that Alan Turing has been mentioned. He was a man who diligently served his country and who used his great mind to crack the Enigma code, along with many others, helping us to win the war. People say that his work and that of others in Bletchley shortened the second world war by years, saving many lives. He was a true war hero, and what was his reward? He was prosecuted simply for being gay, and very sadly went on to take his own life. His death shames our country’s history. Today, he is rightly celebrated on our £50 note—if anyone has seen one of those recently. In 2017, under the Conservatives, the Alan Turing law was passed, which pardoned men who were cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts. I am very proud that it was the Conservatives who acted and delivered that important change. Other highlights have also been raised this afternoon.
The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), rightly celebrated queer icons. She also made some comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst); I am keen, as is he, to put on the record that when he was in this Chamber, he realised that his diary needed him to be in Westminster Hall—that was his frustration. Compassion is not confined to any one party, nor should it be.
The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) talked about a full, happy and dignified life for all, which is exactly what we are celebrating this afternoon. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) rightly spoke about equality being an ongoing battle; she spoke powerfully, particularly about servicepeople, veterans and our armed forces community. We all have constituents who this matters particularly greatly to—those who have served and given so much. The work of Fighting With Pride is to be welcomed, as is that of the Royal British Legion.
Football has been mentioned today. I am sure that many of us will have been utterly shocked and disgusted to see that the German referee Pascal Kaiser was assaulted in his own home just a week after his public proposal to his boyfriend. The day before he was attacked, he received threats and his address was leaked. We have talked about the international situation; that attack is a terrible reminder of the threats, intimidation and acts of violence that people face, in sport and across society, for being who they are and celebrating who they love. That proposal was a joyous celebration—an act of love and real commitment—but it was shortly followed by homophobia and hatred from others. I am sure that everyone in the House would want to send our regards to Pascal Kaiser and his fiancé. Our thoughts are with them, and we wish them well for the future, with happiness in their marriage and their life together.
I am proud that it was the Conservative Government who brought in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. There is nothing more Conservative than bringing together families and people to make a solemn promise of love and commitment to each other. We want everyone to be true to themselves—to love who they love without the state getting in the way—and we made a significant positive impact on the rights and lives of gay men, lesbian women and bisexual people, so that they can make a public commitment in front of their friends and family, showing their love and commitment to each other. That is something that we on the Conservative Benches should be very proud of—indeed, it is something that we should all be very proud of.
It would be remiss of me to be at the Dispatch Box and not talk about Jed and Elliot’s marriage. It is 4 July this year—it is definitely happening.
Mims Davies
We’re all going, aren’t we?
One of the best things to happen to me over Christmas was to be at the celebration of Brad and Tom’s wedding.
Tom Hayes
The shadow Minister is talking about the introduction of same-sex marriage, and I want to emphasise that that was a moment of cross-party history. The Liberal Democrat Baroness Featherstone worked as part of the coalition Government with the Conservatives to introduce that legislation, which was carried overwhelmingly by Labour MPs. Does the shadow Minister recognise that as an example of cross-party consensus behind LGBT rights, which we should celebrate?
Mims Davies
I am delighted that it was the Conservative Prime Minister who I came into the House under who drove that legislation through. It truly was cross-party— I very much agree. Today is not about one-upmanship; it is about celebrating our party, our place and all the work we do where we can.
I had the joy of headlining and co-DJing the LGBT Conservatives’ closing party at party conference in 2025. It was the 50-year celebration. People described it as a cross between DJing and a Peloton class. The Terrence Higgins Trust reception is another staple of our party conference calendar. We hear at those events from members of our party—I am sure this has happened across many parties—who had to meet in secret. Those are now some of our most popular events at conference, and that shows deep pride in the change that we have all seen.
The first HIV testing was funded under a Conservative Government, and I am pleased to say that I got tested—as, I am sure, did many others—here in Parliament this week. It was quick and easy, and it was important to remind people that they can show their status, and get treatment and peace of mind for themselves and their loved ones. It rightly tackles the stigma that remains; the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) mentioned “the gay plague” and the previous stigma.
I encourage people to sign up to get a test online and have it delivered to their door, whether they are in my constituency, in Sussex or in the rest of the United Kingdom. Being rural or far away from a sexual health clinic should not hold people back from getting tested and staying safe. I welcome the updated HIV strategy, which builds on previous heavy lifting by the Conservatives. In 2014, we legalised self-testing kits for HIV, and they were rolled out in 2015. We then had the PrEP trial in 2017. This gives me the opportunity to point out that women, older people and ethnic minorities are all more likely to get diagnosed late, so they should look after themselves by taking the test.
I thank all the charities and campaigning groups, because we all want to say the same thing: love who you love and make sure that you take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. It is key that we get more ambitious with PrEP usage in order to get to the goal to which we are all committed: ending new HIV cases.
Finally—I have said this previously, especially to my constituents, but it is especially true as we head towards Valentine’s day—we all need to be clear that no matter what political party people support, where they live or who they love, they should never feel unsafe or worried about who they are. We will always work together to strive for dignity, inclusion and compassion.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the shadow Minister for talking passionately about the things that her party helped to introduce. Will her party support moves to make sure that hate crime against all LGBT people is treated as an aggravated offence when that measure comes forward in the other place?
Mims Davies
My understanding is that people are already charged and hate crime should be acted on, no matter who it happens to. I do not think we should see it in any other way. That brings me to my final comments, which I hope the hon. Lady will find helpful: this is no time to step back when it comes to supporting equality and it is no time for division.
The Minister for Equalities (Olivia Bailey)
I am proud to be able to contribute to this important annual tradition, and to do so as the Minister for LGBT+ equality. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) and for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for sponsoring the debate, and I applaud them both for their tireless work advocating for the LGBT+ community and for their powerful and important speeches this afternoon.
This has been a fantastic debate, packed with pride and heartwarming stories. In the words of the motto of the LGBT Foundation, which I visited earlier this week in Manchester and promised I would get on the record, it has been a debate full of “queer hope and joy”. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East talked about Out North East and the new ONE Centre in her constituency, which I am looking forward to visiting, just as I am looking forward to visiting the “Osborne room”.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) told wonderful stories about LGBT history and the wonderful LGBT spaces in their constituencies. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster that I was asked the other day to reflect on my favourite queer space, and I sadly realised that as a firmly middle-aged lesbian with two children, my favourite queer space is now my living room.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) told some wonderful stories and remembered the King opening the armed forces memorial, which was a really powerful moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) gave us a powerful reminder of the difference that progress has made to his life and to the lives of his constituents.
Liam Conlon
I thank the Minister for celebrating and acknowledging the contributions that other Members have made. Graham and Vinny, from Kings Hall Road in Beckenham and Penge, hold a Pride street party every summer, and it gets bigger and bigger every year. Among the entertainment this year, they had the London Gay Men’s Chorus and several cardboard cut-outs of Kylie Minogue, and well over 1,000 people attended. As well as being a day of fun, I believe that it sends a really powerful and important message of tolerance and inclusion. Does the Minister agree?
Olivia Bailey
I absolutely do agree. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that with us, and I congratulate Graham and Vinny on all their work.
There has been a consistent theme in the contributions this afternoon: the stories that many Members have told of the fear, shame and anxiety being felt by many of their LGBT+ constituents, particularly their trans constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made a powerful speech on the cost of being yourself and the importance of listening to young trans people. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) made an important speech about the political weaponisation of our identities, with some people saying that families like mine are less stable. Such stories are painful to hear, and I want to say very clearly that I recognise the fear and anxiety that LGBT+ people are feeling at the moment. I feel it too, but this Government will always stand with LGBT+ people against the politics of division and hate, and we will protect and extend LGBT+ rights.
We heard a wide range of other contributions this afternoon. A number of colleagues mentioned the EHRC guidance and asked for an update on timings. The Government are considering this issue very carefully and will bring forward an update as soon as we are able to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, who has been a powerful campaigner, talked about the Government’s proud commitment to address the issue of hate crime; I am looking forward to the Government equalising the hate crime laws in the House of Lords.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) gave a powerful speech on the damage done by conversion practices. Let me be clear: they are a form of abuse, and this Government will ban them. On the timelines, I am working on the legislation with the urgency that every Member of this House expects of me, and will bring it forward as soon as possible.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), who took a very delicate and sensitive report on abusive conversion practices through the Council of Europe two weeks ago and managed to receive support from pretty much all Members from across the Chamber, with the exception of the hard right? She did it with such sensitivity and skill, and perhaps this is an opportunity to thank her for that.
Olivia Bailey
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me that opportunity. I have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East on her important work on this vital topic, and I do so again on the record.
I also take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith)—I have been in trouble on my pronunciation of her constituency before—for her phenomenal work as my predecessor in this role. She rightly challenged me to make the most of the European IDAHOT conference that we will host next year, and I would like to take that challenge from her and say that we will absolutely commit to doing so. I will say some more about that in a moment.
On days like today I am reminded of the consequence of this place. As we have heard, it was hon. Members like us in this very Chamber who decriminalised homosexuality, scrapped section 28 and legalised equal marriage, but it was also here in this Chamber that those laws were first made. For me, that is an important reminder of the fragility of our progress and the importance of our role. In this place, we must never forget how important it is to make the case for our rights, and hon. Members have done that brilliantly today.
I am very proud to be a member of the gayest Parliament ever and to be a member of a Government who will advance LGBT+ rights. We have righted the historical wrongs committed against LGBT veterans, funded LGBT+ violence against women and girls services and pledged to end HIV transmissions by 2030. This morning, I visited the fantastic 56 Dean Street, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, to take an HIV test myself to mark National HIV Testing Week. I thank the staff at 56 Dean Street for their fantastic work, and I urge all hon. Members to encourage their constituents to go online and get a free HIV test this week.
While I am proud of the things we have done, I am most proud of the things that we will do, including fulfilling our manifesto commitment to equalise hate crime laws, bringing forward our trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices and supporting LGBT+ rights on the world stage. We are funding global LGBT+ partnerships, and we will be proudly hosting the 2027 European IDAHOT forum, taking our place on the world stage in the fight for LGBT+ equality. I am looking forward to doing all this in partnership with those in our wonderful LGBT+ sector, whom I was delighted to invite to Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister the other week.
In LGBT History Month, we are encouraged to remember the iconic trailblazers who fought for our rights such as Mark Ashton, Maureen Colquhoun, Chris Smith, Roberta Cowell, the Tower Hamlets Lesbian and Gay Group and the others we have heard about today. I also think it is important that we remember the people who did not make it into the history books, because our history is one of everyday resistance and courage—people choosing to link hands in the street, people choosing to stand up for their community and people choosing pride over shame. I think it is important that we remember that everything we do in this place is built on that courage, and that courage is needed now more than ever.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister will no doubt want to pay tribute to the late Lord Etherton and the excellent work he did in his 2023 review, in which there were 49 recommendations. What progress are the Government making on those recommendations? I have received permission from the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) to mention that, because as the Minister will know, we are working on a cross-party basis to get a new review of the UK intelligence community, as the Etherton review did not look at the intelligence agencies. It may well have touched on defence intelligence, but not on other parts of the UK intelligence community. Could the Minister update us on the 49 recommendations, and will she join me, in a cross-party spirit, in hoping that the Government will somewhere have the space to look at the courageous men and women who served in our intelligence community between 1967 and 2000, and get justice for them?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I do pay tribute to Lord Etherton, and the Government are driving forward on all the recommendations of that review. I would be delighted to meet the right hon. Member to discuss the important points he makes and to work on a cross-party basis on this important issue.
As I was saying, that courage is needed now more than ever. Around the world, hostility and violence are rising and hard-won protections are being rolled back. For the first time in recent years, the number of jurisdictions that criminalise LGBT+ people has risen—from 62 to 65 in the past year alone. In this country, LGBT+ people are facing new and evolving challenges. I have spoken to LGBT+ organisations across the country about the rise of dangerous chemsex, online harassment, mental health concerns and overwhelmed support services. In our politics, we are contending with the rise of a populist right that thrives on the politics of division.
We will stand against the politics of division and hate, because our history teaches us that our stories are our own, claimed and retold by us, not just to remember but as a rallying call to never lose hope that love and pride will conquer fear and prejudice. We will honour the courage of those who have come before us and leave this place better for those who come after us. I will be very proud to work with all hon. Members to do just that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Nadia Whittome to quickly wind up.
Nadia Whittome
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had no idea I was expected to wind up.
Madam Deputy Speaker
There is no need to wind up, if the hon. Member does not want to.
Nadia Whittome
I just want to thank everyone so much for taking part in the debate. Everyone made incredibly powerful contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). I hope that the Government—and, indeed, everyone—heed his words.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As I am sure Members will agree, that was the best wind-up ever.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered LGBT+ History Month.
Rural Mobile Connectivity
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government and service providers to help improve mobile connectivity in rural areas.
I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting time to hold this vital debate and for granting us a second opportunity to do so, as the debate had to be postponed earlier this year because of overrunning Government business. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities.
As MP and resident of one of the most rural constituencies in England, I know from first-hand experience how frustrating it is to try to call the office or family members from a mobile phone. Whether at home, travelling around by car, out in the countryside or—more rarely, I have to say—travelling by train or bus, there is always a significant chance that we will not be able to make a phone call or connect to the internet.
This has a very real impact on my constituents’ lives. Stories of people being forced to sit in the loft or stand in the one spot in the garden with signal, regardless of the weather, would sometimes verge on comical if they were not so serious. For constituents waiting for their GP to call or for their disabled daughter to say they have made it to work okay, or for constituents in their 90s who have been left without power or heating, this situation is not funny at all. In the words of Terence, a disabled 80-year-old veteran:
“What is really annoying is that I am paying the same amount for my unreliable mobile service that someone in an area with good mobile signal pays.”
This week, I asked people to share their mobile signal experience with a single Facebook post. Within a day, 400 people had commented to share how awful it is in their area; whether they were in St Martins or Selattyn, in Welshampton or Woore, it was the same incredibly frustrating story. As one constituent said:
“Finding 4G is like striking gold.”
It is not just North Shropshire where reliable signal is such a rare commodity; it is the same in rural areas up and down the country. Elderly residents in sheltered accommodation are forced into digital isolation, out of contact with their families. Others have forked out for the privilege of playing provider bingo. As another constituent told me:
“Our adult daughter has a disability and learning issues, so having a good signal is imperative to us. Because of this, all three of us are on different networks (EE, O2 and Vodafone) so that we can ‘work the system’ and find the best signal available, at additional cost to us.”
That might have been acceptable 20 years ago, when mobile phones were a novel piece of technology and people could rely on letters and landlines, but in 2026, when landlines have been switched to digital and Royal Mail reaches the house once a week or even once a fortnight, it is simply not good enough. Mobile phones are an essential part of daily life, yet huge swathes of the country are being forced to cope with a substandard service. People have to put up with not just awful coverage but being gaslighted by companies telling them that their signal is just fine.
One of the biggest issues that comes up time and again, in my work as both MP for North Shropshire and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, is the mapping data provided by the industry to Ofcom, which is often false. In July, the River Severn Partnership advanced wireless innovation region, which is funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, conducted the UK’s largest independent survey of mobile coverage in partnership with Streetwave, supported by over 30 councils through the use of their bin lorry routes. The report confirmed a significant difference between Ofcom’s view of mobile network capability and the real-world experience endured by those of us in rural areas.
Ofcom stated that 1.45% of geographical areas were considered areas without “good” voice capability from at least one of the four network operators, while the River Severn Partnership showed that it was 15.33% of postcodes. That is a huge difference.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, a fellow Shropshire MP, for giving way. Part of my constituency used to be her constituency, and she will know that there are lots of small rural businesses that rely on connectivity, not just broadband but cellular connectivity and being able to take and make telephone calls. Will the hon. Lady join me in calling on the Minister—as I previously have done—to ensure that Ofcom requires greater transparency and integrity in the data that the mobile companies are providing to all our constituents and, more importantly, that Ofcom is more robust and takes action when it thinks that the data is not as accurate as it could be?
Helen Morgan
The right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, makes an extremely good point. The quality of the data is critical. One of the recommendations of the APPG is exactly that: to ensure that data is reliable and that Ofcom can challenge it where they know that it is inadequate.
There is a huge difference in which areas are considered to be without “good” voice capability. Ofcom disputes Streetwave’s findings because of the methodology that it used, but the experience of those of us who live in rural areas suggests that it is Ofcom that is wrong. It is no good telling people that their service is good when their own phone is telling them that it not. Unless Ofcom establishes clear requirements to define the quality of service that networks must deliver, how can we ensure real regulatory accountability?
Put simply, Ofcom and the Government must do more. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to improve coverage reporting in the statement of strategic priorities that it published yesterday, but at the moment we do not have the information that we need.
I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think people in rural areas are sick to death of being told to believe that they have never had it so good, discounting their own daily experience. Last year, Ofcom increased the accuracy of its mapping data by zoning in on smaller areas. However, if network operators do not have accurate data about the areas that need improvement —and we think that they do not—then investment is unlikely to be put into the areas of greatest need.
The shared rural network initiative, which has delivered, I have to say, no noticeable improvement in my area, involved the then four mobile network operators spending half a billion of their money to end partial notspots, based on the Ofcom data that has now been superseded and that we all suspect is a bit on the dodgy side.
EE—the same company as BT and Openreach—already had an extensive network of mobile masts, and it met its obligations in advance of the June 2024 deadline for the shared rural network, while other operators experienced delays. Some of the causes of delays are difficult to overcome. It is difficult to get planning permission for a new mast; there is a lack of planning resource in local authorities; there are logistical challenges to building masts in remote and rural areas; and there are issues over access to land.
Another part of the problem was that EE did not share access to its masts, because it failed to reach agreement with the other mobile network operators. That was a commercial negotiation into which I do not have insight, but the reality is that better coverage could have been achieved simply through effective equipment sharing. My Bill, the Access to Telecommunications Networks Bill, sought to fix the problem by requiring telecommunications companies to share their equipment; penalising them if they did not; and, in areas where they did not, requiring people to be enabled to roam between networks. We are all familiar with that issue if we have travelled in Europe.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It would be wrong to let this moment pass without reflecting on the fact that EE has its network of masts as a result of significant public investment, because it got the contract for the emergency services network. Does that not impose a duty on it to do more than merely commercial negotiation in relation to other companies?
Helen Morgan
My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the use of public money and how we develop infrastructure fit for the modern age as part of a public and private operation.
Rural roaming measures have been opposed by the industry, but they were recommended by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in its 2019 report. I am convinced that if the Government are serious about enabling economic growth in rural areas, they should explore that option. My constituent Rob Paul, a consultant with vast experience of rural telecoms projects, suggests that robustly enforced financial penalties are the only thing that operators will respond to. After years of being let down, I cannot disagree.
I turn to the digital switchover. Mobile phones have been cited as the default back-up option in a power cut once the copper landline network is switched off, as has now happened over most of the UK. That is hugely concerning for people in areas prone to extensive power cuts in winter storms. As we are rural, our power is not put back online as a priority. Back-up batteries for routers will last for a couple of hours—perhaps up to 12. People in remote parts of North Shropshire are sometimes left without power for several days. Someone who is at home on their own, in the dark and frightened, might want to call someone other than the emergency services in the event of a power cut. It is crucial that people can access their mobile phone and get a reliable signal when the power is down, whoever they are.
One 90-year-old constituent told me that she purchased a phone because she was concerned about the digital switchover and wanted to ensure that she could still make calls in the event of a power cut. The mobile connection in her village of Knockin is so bad that she was never once able to use the phone. When she asked EE to end the contract, it required £293 to release her.
It is not just about power cuts. Hundreds of people in Kinnerley and Ellesmere have been left without any service at all when their broadband cabinet has been taken out by other factors such as fire or car accidents. Peter, who lives near Whittington, has terminal lung disease. Last weekend, his internet went down for 12 hours, which also meant that his landline was down. There was no mobile signal at his home. If Peter had had an emergency, he would have had no one to turn to.
Improving rural phone signal would not just help vulnerable individuals. It would help local businesses, grow the economy and help our health and social care system. Smartphones are an essential part of daily modern life, whether that is for a GP patient who needs to book an appointment or request a repeat prescription or for a small business owner who needs to take payment from a customer. I have spoken to countless elderly people who struggle to access key services. I have heard from farmers, landscape gardeners, taxi drivers and dog groomers whose businesses all suffer because of signal problems. One livestock and arable farmer told me:
“I cannot express strongly enough how frustrating it is farming in the modern world. It is depressing the amount of time wasted walking around the yard trying to get a slight signal to answer the phone”.
Someone who gets injured may have no way of contacting the emergency services or seeking other help. Vast sums have to be spent on helping tractor GPS systems to navigate the inconsistent signal.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I represent a rural area like hers—mine is in Lincolnshire—and in some Wold villages it is appalling: there is no mobile connection. All the red telephone boxes are being closed, and it is a tremendous struggle to persuade BT to keep them open. I wonder whether we could do more work with councils such as West Lindsey on the voucher scheme and Project Gigabit to get to the last hard-to-reach areas. Through this debate, can we encourage the Government to put resources into helping district councils such as West Lindsey?
Helen Morgan
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will mention Project Gigabit and its shortcomings, but we could have a three-hour debate on the subject. I wholly agree that we cannot consider mobile coverage and broadband separately. They are two parts of the same thing: the areas with the worst broadband signal tend to have the worst mobile signal. It is a very difficult problem to resolve.
As I was saying, modern farming requires modern technology, but if the signal is inadequate it does not work. Being able to rely on broadband would also help those who work in an office, but just 50% of rural commercial buildings in North Shropshire have access to full fibre. The announcement of Project Gigabit gave us real hope, but after two years, the contract was handed back having connected just 3,500 of the planned 12,000 properties. The word I would use to describe Project Gigabit is “shambles”, as my adjectives of choice are unsuitable for the Chamber. We are still waiting for details of when the rest of the properties will be delivered, but meanwhile we continue to pay exorbitant prices for mediocre broadband because Openreach and other companies neglect to invest in our area. Across the House, Members are calling for a change in direction for rural digital infrastructure.
I am conscious of time so I will speed up slightly. Essentially, gaps in mobile and broadband coverage threaten to undermine national ambitions. My report from the APPG on digital communities highlights how co-ordinated action to address the challenges and unlock the full potential of the UK’s digital infrastructure is crucial for rural areas and for growth in the rest of the UK as well. Successive Governments have failed to grasp that. We can just look at the emergency services network, which should have been introduced in 2017. Nearly a decade on, we are still waiting for it to be properly rolled out.
The Government’s ambition is to have high-quality 5G in all populated areas by 2030, yet we rank 30th among 39 developed economies according to the Social Market Foundation. We know that we are lagging miles behind and we are still trying to make up the ground. In Shropshire, we would be grateful for consistent 4G. People who live in rural areas pay the same, or even higher, fees as people in towns in return for a second-rate service. We must be given the connections that we need to reliably access modern life.
Successive Governments have treated rural areas with disdain, telling us that everything is great when we can see for ourselves that it is not. It would bring far more money into the Treasury and unlock the huge potential of the rural economy if the Government finally saw sense. I hope that the Minister will address the abject failure of the shared rural network and Gigabit projects, and outline a sensible strategy for delivering rural infrastructure in future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
If Members can limit their remarks to around five minutes, we should be able to get everybody in.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for bringing forward this important debate. Mobile connectivity remains a real concern for many in rural communities, especially in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. It affects how people run their businesses, how they keep in touch with family and how they keep safe, as the hon. Lady said, particularly on isolated roads and farms.
I will begin by acknowledging the great progress that has already been made in this area. My experience of the shared rural network and its extended coverage to around 280,000 homes and businesses after £500 million of investment has been positive. I recognise the importance of that investment in the difference that it has made to Staffordshire.
My constituency is about 40% rural, with 60% of people living in towns, and there is such a marked difference in the experience of connectivity. The gap is still quite stark: nearly half of rural deprived areas are not classed as 5G hotspots, compared with just 2.7% of urban deprived communities. In rural areas, only 20% of mobile masts have 5G deployed, compared with 48% in urban areas. Those figures show that although coverage may look strong on national averages, rural communities are feeling the gap and feeling left behind.
The issue is raised with me and my team regularly. Residents in Mare, Whitmore and Acton have all contacted me about unreliable mobile access, which leads to dropped calls, weak indoor signal and stretches of road with no coverage at all. That is just part of their daily lives when living in rural areas.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Similarly, in my constituency, I surveyed residents in a number of villages such as Edingale, Clifton Campville and Harlaston to ask how bad the situation was. Some 49% said that their mobile connectivity was so bad that they could not work from home or even run their business. Does she agree that this really has to be a priority so that our villages are not left behind?
Leigh Ingham
I thank my hon. Friend. As fellow Staffordshire MPs, we experience broadly similar issues, and that echoes exactly what many people in my constituency have told me, particularly about working from home.
For farming businesses in particular, of which I have many in my constituency, the impact is even more clear. The National Farmers Union’s most recent survey found that only 22% of respondents report reliable mobile signal across their entire farm, and nearly one in 10 have no 4G or 5G access at all. At the same time, 98% said that mobile signal is important to their business. Here in this House, we regularly ask farmers to access schemes online, communicate digitally with our agencies and adopt new technology, yet many operate with poor or patchy connectivity. The gap between need and access is stark.
In the village of Church Eaton, residents endured years of very poor mobile coverage, at times unable to make 999 calls or receive NHS alerts, despite a mast having already been built under the shared rural network. The infrastructure was there, but it had not been switched on, which left the village in limbo and left residents—let’s be honest—really annoyed. Working closely with the determined residents—I pay tribute to them and the parish council that has campaigned on this for many years—I raised the issue in Parliament and VodafoneThree’s leadership got in contact directly to help get that site back into the company’s investment plan. I am pleased that following that joint effort and constructive engagement, the mast has been running since September, bringing reliable 4G coverage to the village for the first time, but it should not take an MP standing here for that to happen. The infrastructure was already there; the village was not waiting for it. The mast has meant stronger coverage not only for VodafoneThree customers in the village, but for customers of a wide variety of signal providers.
I want to place on the record my thanks again to the parish councils across my constituency that have worked on this issue for years. They regularly gather evidence, engage with providers and keep the issue alive. Their persistence is invaluable in making progress in this space, because as more and more public services move online, access to stable mobile and broadband connectivity become even more important.
Rural communities should not be left waiting while national averages improve on paper. We need faster delivery of the shared rural network to eliminate the total notspots, alongside support for a mix of technologies to reach hard-to-access areas. Most importantly, rural communities must have confidence that they are not an afterthought in any roll-out plans. People living in villages, on farms and down country lanes deserve the same reliable connectivity as anyone else, and closing that gap is essential for fairness and productivity, and also to increasing opportunity in rural Britain. We have some wonderful businesses and local farms that want to develop, but a lack of connectivity can hold them back. I would love to hear what steps the Minister is taking to advance mobile connectivity and involve rural communities moving forward.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the last 18 months, the Government have been sitting on the guidance relating to gender-questioning children in schools—a very controversial subject—which the Government keep saying is coming. It has become apparent in the last half an hour that they plan to publish this guidance at 4 pm today, just moments before the House goes into recess for a week. It is hard to see this as anything other than a deliberate attempt to avoid the scrutiny of this House on an important issue. What can we do to put this right?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he will be aware, it is up to the Government as to whether they want to make a statement, but I will ensure that Mr Speaker is aware.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. My speech about mobile connectivity in my constituency in the Scottish Borders will echo many of the remarks that the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) has just made—I suspect we will get a lot of consistency across the House.
In an age when digital access is a necessity, too many rural communities remain cut off, not only by geography, but by inadequate infrastructure and poor decisions by mobile phone providers. We often speak in this place of levelling up and ensuring that no part of our country is left behind. Yet for many of my constituents in the Scottish Borders, making a reliable phone call, sending a text or accessing mobile data is still a daily challenge. In some area residents must stand in a particular spot or drive up a hill just to get a signal. That is simply not acceptable in 2026.
Connectivity is about far more than convenience; it is about safety, economic resilience and tackling rural isolation. Farmers operating machinery, elderly residents living alone, small businesses processing payments and families keeping in touch all depend on reliable phone networks. When that signal fails, the consequences can be serious. Rural communities already face longer journeys to hospitals and benefit from fewer local services. Unreliable mobile coverage only deepens the divide between rural and urban Britain.
A point that has not yet been touched on is smart meter connectivity, which is a particular concern in my community. Households have been encouraged to adopt smart meters to improve efficiency and accuracy, yet in many rural areas, poor mobile coverage means that those meters cannot function properly. Constituents are left with devices that cannot transmit readings automatically, undermining confidence in both the technology and the wider energy transition. If rural households are asked to modernise, the supporting infrastructure must be fit for purpose.
I am also deeply concerned by the decision taken by many mobile phone providers to switch off their 2G and 3G network signals. While modernisation is undoubtedly necessary, those networks remain the only reliable options in many rural areas. Turning them off before robust 4G or 5G alternatives are fully in place risks leaving residents with worse service than before. That decision affects not only phones, but telecare devices, alarm systems, payment terminals and agricultural equipment. Vulnerable individuals who rely on telecare linked to legacy networks could face serious risks if signals are withdrawn prematurely.
I know from my own experience driving around my Scottish Borders constituency, and from speaking with my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), that we are finding it increasingly difficult to do our work as MPs. In the past, we have had relatively good mobile phone signal, but because network providers have decided to drop the service, we have lost the ability to use our phones. When we raise that with the phone providers, they say that it is all fine. The hon. Member for North Shropshire made this point in relation to the Ofcom data. I believe that for Ofcom, EDGE signal, or E, is sufficient, but to make a phone call, access emails or use any other basic phone functions, the E signal is simply not sufficient.
Similarly, I do my weekly commute along the east coast main line from Berwick-upon-Tweed station to Kings Cross. In the past, I had a very good signal for the duration of the journey. Now, I get usable signal—not the signal that appears to satisfy Ofcom—only when I am in the centre of Newcastle station, the centre of York station or approaching London. Unless I can get LNER wi-fi, I cannot effectively use my phone anywhere else in between.
Telecoms companies have commercial interests, but they also have responsibilities. I urge the Government to engage closely with providers to ensure that no community is left without reliable service as networks evolve. The shared rural network is welcome, but delivery must be accelerated in the Scottish Borders, across Scotland and in all parts of rural Britain. Rural Britain does not seek special treatment—only fair treatment. Reliable connectivity is essential to economic growth, public services and community life. If we are to build a truly connected United Kingdom, rural connectivity must be a priority, not an afterthought.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Mobile coverage in my constituency is not good at the best of times. Although we are frequently told by the big four mobile network providers that they have 99% 4G coverage in the UK, including in my constituency, that does not ring true to anyone who, like me, is from Cornwall, and therefore knows what it is like to struggle regularly to get signal. Where there is 5G coverage, it is often from a single provider, and not one premises has 5G coverage from all four providers. Last year, Which? and Opensignal produced a mobile network quality map for the year, by using real-world data from people’s phones and assigning a score to each postcode. TR4, which covers places like Chacewater, Trispen and St Erme in my constituency, ranked the second worst for network quality, with a consistent 4G or 5G signal just 57% of the time. Sadly, that is not at all surprising.
As a rural part of the world, we have often struggled with connectivity. That has a particular impact on rural businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) pointed out, including farms, which still experience poor mobile and broadband service. Data from the NFU shows that just 33% of farming businesses have access to fibre, while only 22% report reliable mobile signal across their farm. Despite that, support schemes like the sustainable farming incentive and communication with the Rural Payments Agency are increasingly done online, so digital connectivity is more important to farmers than ever before.
Mobile coverage in my constituency failed spectacularly last month when Storm Goretti struck Cornwall, triggering a rare Met Office red warning, with gusts of about 100 mph. The storm caused widespread power outages and brought down over 1,000 trees, leaving many people completely cut off, with no internet and poor mobile phone signal. The new digital landlines that replaced the old copper networks did not work without power, and Ofcom’s rules require only one hour of battery back-up for vulnerable customers, which is completely inadequate. This meant that for days, and in some cases weeks, large parts of Cornwall were disconnected from the outside world, with no means of accessing information or getting assistance. For many, that was very frightening and showed how in some circumstances, mobile connectivity really could mean life or death.
The loss of telecommunications and poor signal made it harder for responders to identify and support vulnerable residents. Unlike the national grid, Openreach relied on people contacting their service provider to say they were offline, which was not sufficient in a context where many residents had no internet or phone signal. This was not helped by the fact that the providers generally displayed minimal customer service, and it was impossible to get through to human beings in many cases. There was then another layer of delay while the providers reported to Openreach, which had no map of the areas that were offline.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the role of Openreach in this scenario. I have said for some time that its role is equivalent to that of electricity distribution network operators. Although we all pay our bills to an electricity company, it is the distribution network that is responsible for getting our power back on, but Openreach delegates that to the individual service providers. Openreach needs to do more to look after the customers who are affected in these instances.
Jayne Kirkham
I agree. Although mobile providers are a category 2 responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 framework, they do not have the duties, responsibilities and powers that, say, National Grid or water companies do. There is a strong argument for changing that.
Furthermore, the storm exposed the fact that most mobile masts do not have back-up generators or meaningful battery reserves, making them highly vulnerable to power loss. That contrasts with the expectations placed on water and electricity companies, which operate under established resilience duties. Telecoms providers are arguably just as essential, and the civil contingencies framework should reflect that reality in practice, not just in statute. We need stronger requirements and powers for comms providers in emergency situations, and Ofcom needs the teeth to enforce them.
Storm Goretti demonstrated how dependent communities and responders now are on digital and mobile networks, and it showed the weakness and lack of resilience of those networks in rural places like Cornwall. As Private Eye pointed out, an Ofcom technical report from last year noted that roughly two thirds of the population would be able to make emergency calls in a power outage of under an hour. The number who would be able to do so by the six-hour mark was redacted and described as being “far fewer”.
As extreme weather becomes more frequent, it is crucial that rural areas are better connected. The deadline for nationwide 5G coverage has been pushed back to 2032, but communities like mine cannot wait, as these severe weather experiences become more and more frequent. The Minister has indicated that places like Cornwall could be pilot areas for emergency resilience measures, and I very much look forward to that work beginning as soon as possible.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. I agree with much of what she said in her speech, and much of what other hon. Members have said.
My hon. Friend’s constituency shares many similarities with mine: they are a comparable size, have a comparable population, contain much farmland and have scattering of medium-sized settlements. In my case, those settlements include the city of Ely, which is home to over 20,000 residents. According to Ofcom’s coverage map, the entire city is covered by all mobile network operators, with at least “good outdoor” coverage. Given such confidence, I invite Ofcom inspectors to Ely, where I will challenge them to catch even a single bar of mobile signal in the city centre. They will be sorely disappointed. Instead, the Government could look at data gathered by a number of different independent sources that reports remarkably poor mobile service in areas of my constituency that Ofcom claims are covered.
Alternatively, the Government could simply listen to local people. They would hear from local business owners in Ely market square who cannot get a signal for their card machines; residents, such as my constituent Alan, who has tried to install a smart energy meter in his home on four occasions, each unsuccessful because of insufficient mobile signal, which is not only irritating but means he cannot get the cheapest fuel options that are available only to people who have working smart meters; or the new restaurant in the middle of the city centre that cannot take orders because it cannot get internet or mobile signal.
Rather fittingly in a debate about mobile connectivity, the major failure in the Government’s approach thus far appears to be a total lack of communication and connection with the lived experiences of citizens on the ground. The Government claim that mobile coverage has reached 96% of the country, but thousands of my constituents in Ely and East Cambridgeshire—and, I am willing to bet, in almost every other rural constituency—would beg to differ.
Given the way that the Government are assessing coverage, serious doubts are raised over the sincerity of their connectivity goals overall, including the roll-out of the shared rural network. Although that is due to be complete by this time next year, the Government seem to have minimal capacity to direct investment and new infrastructure to reach their goals, relying instead, as we have heard, on the mobile network operators, who put commercial interests above the interests of our constituents.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
One of those commercial operators is O2. My constituent, Martin Ferdinando, contacted O2 over 40 times. He was offered a handset, a new 5G SIM, an escalation to the ombudsman and, in the end, a £125 goodwill payment. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that our constituents do not want such “goodwill” payments and that what they want is a functioning mobile system, which would be developed if we had a proper shared rural network?
Charlotte Cane
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Our constituents do not want compensation or apologies: they want a mobile signal that they can rely on. How can they have confidence that their digital connectivity will improve if Ofcom does not engage with a reliable reporting system to direct investment in response to on-the-ground need? Conversely, there is bit of my constituency that allegedly has no connectivity, but every time I go there I have no problem getting a mobile signal, so ironically there are some places where the signal is better than Ofcom thinks.
In an era when public services are increasingly moving online, rural and digitally excluded populations risk becoming increasingly isolated. Good mobile connectivity must be considered a basic necessity and not an object for compromise. It is especially essential for accessing emergency services, defibrillators and on-call healthcare, a major concern for the many farmers in my constituency who experience lower-than-average health outcomes and work in more accident-prone environments, yet have very limited connectivity.
I think the Government would agree with me that we should move towards greater access to healthcare in the community, foster social connection and ensure safely policed neighbourhoods. However, key to each of those is guaranteeing the rights of all, including those in rural areas, to swift and ready access to mobile signal. More than that, it also means a reliable process of reporting and mapping the real-terms coverage and capacity of mobile networks.
Fundamentally, improving rural mobile connectivity must start with genuine two-way communication. Will the Minister now agree to overhaul Ofcom’s coverage maps so that they are tied to real-time data, and to revise the coverage goals of the shared rural network accordingly so that my constituents, and the many others we have heard about, can finally get an assurance that a reliable connection is on its way—and soon?
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for bringing forward this delayed but important debate. My constituency includes the very rural area of north Cumbria, bordering Scotland and Northumberland. It is beautiful, remote and, in parts, devoid of mobile coverage.
The lack of mobile connectivity is a particular issue in winter months, as we have heard, when snow and wind block roads and bring down power lines. As has been said, the shutdown of the public switched telephone network means that a loss of power to landlines, coupled with a paucity of mobile coverage, now leaves many of my constituents not only without telephony, but without any means of letting their electricity distribution network know that they have no power at all.
It is a year since Ofcom published the findings of its consultation on mobile RAN—radio access network—power resilience. I will forgive Members if they have not read it as I have. Currently, the regulator suggests a minimum back-up duration of just four hours for mobile RAN sites—the masts—and a minimum duration of one hour for battery back-up units for fixed-line phones, as we have heard.
Last year, however, a power cut affecting the village of Kershopefoot, which sits on the border of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), lasted five days. I therefore think that a sensible and proportionate solution would be for Ofcom to require mobile networks to maintain a small fleet of electricity generators that could be used to power masts until the electricity grid can be repaired. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that point and an assurance that he will press Ofcom to go further on the issue of RAN resilience.
I will turn to the factors that determine the ability of mobile network operators to improve and maintain coverage: network investment, planning policy and spectrum availability. The first factor is principally a matter for shareholders, but the Government clearly have a role in creating the right conditions for investment, safeguarding competition and removing the policy barriers to network expansion. That brings me to the second factor, which is planning policy. I strongly urge the Minister to engage constructively with Mobile UK on the reform of permitted development rights and the notice to quit regime, which can see mobile operators forced from sites before a new site can be built.
That leaves the third factor, which is spectrum—a subject in which I take an unusual interest, having witnessed at first hand the contrasting approaches, and their consequences, of the Blair and Cameron Governments. The UK’s 3G spectrum auction in 2000 was designed not only to inject competition into the mobile market by reserving a licence for a new entrant, but to create a level playing field by preventing the incumbent networks from using their existing spectrum for 3G services. The effect was to create a level playing field and a competitive market for 3G services, with the result that the UK became the first country in the world to deploy a commercial 3G network. Prices fell, innovation grew and new services were spawned.
As take-up grew, more spectrum had to become available for 3G and 4G services, but simply allowing the four networks that had legacy spectrum to reuse it for 3G services would not only give them a competitive advantage over the newer entrant, but distort competition between the incumbent networks that held different spectrum frequencies. Different frequencies mean different capabilities. In particular, lower frequency spectrum is essential for getting coverage in rural areas.
The then Labour Government’s solution was to direct the regulator to take back the legacy spectrum and reallocate it to maintain a level playing field and maximise competition. Unfortunately, the 2010 election intervened before the legislation to direct Ofcom could pass, and in January 2011 the Cameron Government allowed the incumbent networks to use their 2G spectrum, creating, in the words of the new entrant, a “competitive distortion”—one that I argue has driven the consolidation in the market over the last decade, weakened competitive pressure on the networks to expand their coverage, particularly in rural areas, and left the taxpayer to pick up the tab for a market failure that was entirely avoidable. I urge the Minister, in matters of spectrum, to be more Blair and less Cameron, and ensure that this Government have a spectrum policy that supports a competitive mobile market that benefits every corner and field of our country.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to this important debate on an issue that affects so many of my constituents and matters so much to us all. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for opening it, and for resecuring it from the Backbench Business Committee.
I echo many of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). I felt like he was reading my speech, but I found it particularly interesting to reflect that my constituency is between 30 miles and 60 miles from Westminster. I think that sums up some of the challenges that we all face in this area. My constituency of East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages contains many very rural areas, as well as parts of Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill, and mobile connectivity is a major issue that people write to me about and raise with me in person in and around the constituency.
It is with great sadness that I tell the House just before Valentine’s day that, since the boundary changes, I have had to leave one of the longest relationships I have ever had—with Vodafone. It was failing and, yes, I walked out. I am afraid that connectivity, particularly where new housing has been built, has been dire. I have said to my family, friends and colleagues, “Don’t bother to call. You won’t get through.” I am a bit embarrassed to say this, but I recently semi-kidnapped one of VodafoneThree’s parliamentary affairs gentlemen—he knows who he is—to drive him around my constituency and show him where the actual signal simply does not match what the company has on its maps and what it sells people in its shops.
Throughout 2025, I met mobile providers and ran a constituency survey. I am grateful to all those who contributed. Around 90% said that they have been affected by a complete lack of service, and 132 reported that they rarely or never have a signal. The areas of my constituency that are most affected are the chronic notspots of Horsted Keynes, Fairwarp, Maresfield and the wider Ashdown Forest, Wivelsfield and Isfield. People in those areas said that they never have a signal, despite constant complaints to their providers, and that their visitors are surprised that there is
“no decent signal in 2025”.
I represent a rural Sussex constituency, but it has areas that are more urban, and people there report problems too. Constituents in East Grinstead say that the signal in the town centre is almost unusable, and miles away on the outskirts, such as down in the village of Ashurst Wood, there are near dead zones where—as the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), who is not in her place, described—going online is near impossible.
My parish councils have been doing much of the heavy lifting in representing the concerns of people across the constituency. People’s calls drop out, they are cut off in the event of a power cut, they are unable to do online banking, and their purchases fail because verification codes sometimes take days or do not come at all. For self-employed people, remote workers and people who are trying to run small or micro businesses—a large number of the businesses in my constituency—these are serious challenges. Seventy-seven local businesses said they regularly experience severe disruption. If we want growth to support jobs and get the economy going, this is a clear infrastructure need. It is an economic issue and a public safety issue; in the event of a power cut, people cannot rely on wi-fi calling. This is a serious issue, and it endangers lives. I also absolutely agree with the point about smart meter failings.
One of the most egregious issues that I have had happened during a recent office move. It took me one month to finally get a connection from the guys at BT Openreach. That is one month of my constituency office having no broadband! I would love for the Minister to meet me and many of us, because we are universally connected by the fact that we have no connectivity. This needs to be seen as an essential service, just like water—but do not get me started on that.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate for the second time.
In rural areas like my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, the challenges of infrastructure and connectivity differ substantially from those in urban settings. Decision makers too often hold outdated assumptions or misunderstandings about the differences between rurality and remote coastal areas like Cornwall. Policy reform is urgently needed; if we can fix it in Cornwall, we can fix it anywhere.
Substandard critical infrastructure that normally attracts little attention from policymakers becomes visible to them only when it fails. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) said, that is precisely what happened on the evening of 8 January. Residents across Cornwall received red weather warnings, as winds of up to 111 mph blasted roofs from buildings, brought down telephone lines and ripped huge trees from the ground. Around 200 telegraph poles were brought down, hundreds of metres of cabling were destroyed by fallen trees, and entire areas became completely inaccessible. At the peak of the storm, more than 120,000 homes lost power.
The engineers and workers on the ground have been exceptional. I commend their commitment and professionalism, but the reality is that too many of my constituents still lack basic mobile connectivity. My hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Ms Minns) and for Truro and Falmouth have commented on the requirement for back-up power for masts and on the failings of both Ofcom and Openreach. I was pleased to meet Minister Baroness Lloyd yesterday, along with Cornish colleagues, to raise those issues directly.
Alongside the immediate disruption, we face the ongoing problem of the system reverting to business as usual after the crisis. According to Cellnex, based on data from Ofcom, all six Cornish constituencies appear at the bottom of the UK mobile connectivity list. The mobile market review, which runs until 21 April, is a crucial opportunity to change that. We fundamentally need a higher standard of service quality and robust and transparent measurement so that improvements in mobile connectivity actually translate into benefits for customers.
Richard Foord
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the frustrations in Cornwall, which my constituents really can relate to. This issue is peninsula-wide, across Devon and Cornwall. Only 52% of mid and east Devon is covered by 5G, compared with 62% nationally. Does he recognise that this is about our remote south-west peninsula?
Perran Moon
Yes, I do, but there are other parts of the United Kingdom with this issue. It is not just in south-west England and Cornwall, but in areas further north, as we have heard. There is an opportunity to really focus on those areas so that they are not left behind in the digital transition.
Here is why this issue is so important. The Government are investing tens of millions of pounds in critical minerals and renewables in order to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger. That investment is designed to unlock private investment into those growth sectors, but investment will be directly hamstrung by the paucity of mobile communications. It is fair to say that in Cornwall, as well as other places, we are fed up with being left behind in the digital transition. When the Minister gets to his feet, will he please commit to taking this moment to work across Government to transform the weaknesses in Cornwall’s mobile communications into strength? That way, businesses can grow, and no one will ever again be left in the dark, with no way of communicating with the outside world.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this debate. Over the past 20 months or so since coming into this House, I think that rural connectivity has been the most constant issue in my inbox, which is really not surprising when we consider the fact that my constituency is 69% rural and still suffers from a large number of notspots.
A report issued by Vodafone in November 2023 found that nearly half of rural deprived areas are classed as 5G notspots, whereas the same can be said of only 2.7% of urban deprived areas. Ofcom’s “Connected Nations” report, published in November 2025, provided further evidence of rural areas lagging behind urban areas in both 5G and 4G access. Both those reports show how rural connectivity falls short of what urban areas receive.
Over the past few years, the shared rural network, which is funded through private investment and public money, has worked reasonably well in Caerfyrddin, with an additional number of masts being built in hard-to-reach areas. Like the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), I have had two masts built in my constituency on the shared rural network scheme, but neither has been switched on. The mast in Myddfai has power and is ready to go, but Vodafone is yet to turn on the network. In Llanwinio, the mast has been built—again, over a year ago—but there is still no power connected to it. Its electricity was due to be connected in January, but based on the timescale for building the Myddfai mast, we could be waiting another year before connectivity is switched on—it really is not good enough. Public purse funding has been poured into both mast projects, and there is nothing to show for it, at a time when digital connectivity is seriously needed.
Broadband access in the rural parts of my constituency is also not good enough. Rural businesses, including farms, now rely on connectivity for all transactions, including banking, tax and VAT returns, reports on the British Cattle Movement Service’s cattle tracing system and payments in our rural village shops. The results from the National Farmers Union’s rural digital survey are worrying. As has been mentioned, 21% of respondents have broadband speeds of less than 10 megabits per second, compared with the national average of less than 1%, and only 22% report having reliable mobile signal across their entire farms. It is just not good enough.
Rural homes and businesses must be able to contact emergency services as and when they need to. During Storm Darragh, which was far worse for us than any of the recent storms, the digitalisation of our tele- communication systems meant that the networks failed. Although batteries help, according to one of my constituents just last week, businesses are not eligible for those, as only domestic dwellings can have battery back-ups. People were left with no means of communication and unable to reach emergency services, which is unacceptable. We must ensure that when public money is spent on upgrading networks, they are switched on and actually work for the communities in which they are built.
Finally, Caerfyrddin includes some of the hardest-to-reach homes, with properties tucked deep into valleys or set in extremely remote locations. In those areas, it is much harder for traditional masts to provide reliable coverage, no matter how many are built. That is why it is essential that a satellite solution is available and affordable for all the households that will otherwise be left behind. Starlink currently charges around £75 per month for network coverage, which is not affordable for many of my constituents. I hope that in the next year or so competition will make that cheaper, and that other companies can provide that service. Whatever system communities and constituents use, it must work. It must be reliable and affordable, especially when public money has been used in good faith.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on being persistent and finally securing this very important debate.
Few phrases in modern Britain ring as hollow as “world-class connectivity”. Speaking plainly, rural mobile phone connectivity in this country is not merely patchy or inconsistent; in some places, it is so poor that the advertised service bears no resemblance to reality. There are areas in which actual service levels are hundreds of times worse than advertised—that is not a rounding error, or the result of momentary network congestion. It is a difference between promise and performance that is so vast that it would be comic if it were not so economically corrosive.
Take Worcestershire, for example. It is a rural county, with lots of villages, small towns and industrious small businesses. There are farms and villages where the coverage map glows reassuringly in bright corporate colours, but the lived reality is far too often just a single bar if you stand at the upstairs window, facing north and holding your phone aloft like some kind of digital divining rod. We have already heard about how the River Severn Partnership in Worcestershire was a beneficiary of this. Quite innovatively, local councils stuck gadgets on the bin lorries that went up and down every single road, particularly the rural roads, and realised what we probably all suspect: how terrible the service is. In parts of Worcestershire, the mobile phone signal is around 900 times worse than the mobile phone operators claim.
We could forgive the odd dropped call. After all, rural topography presents challenges—there are hills, and trees are inconveniently organic. What cannot be forgiven, though, is the persistent gulf between what is claimed and what is delivered. It is the same with broadband; we hear broadband providers advertise speeds of up to 80 megabits per second, but the reality of what many of my constituents experience is very different. Those advertised figures are in the realm of fiction. This is not just anecdotal grumbling from the shires; a survey by the National Farmers Union has painted a sobering picture, with 21% of respondents reporting broadband speeds under 10 megabits per second in 2026. This is at a time when a single video could devour bandwidth instantly. What my constituents want is the ability to consume data and make voice calls at the same time. I cannot stress enough how sick and tired I am of hearing from mobile phone companies that everyone is just consuming data. As the traditional telephone service is switched off, constituents—particularly those living in rural areas—are increasingly reliant on the ability to make voice calls.
The lived reality for a business in rural Worcestershire attempting to submit mandatory forms online to a regulator or placing an order, is that they must drive to the nearest town to do so. Businesses cannot reliably place orders or process card payments. As banks close in our towns and villages, people are shifting or being pushed towards more online digital services, so it is crucial that we have the mobile connectivity to back that up. If I may say so, there is also a little bit of cultural condescension at work. Rural Britain is far too frequently romanticised as a place of bucolic tranquillity; it is that, but it demands parity with urban Britain at the same time. What does that mean? It means that we want a reliable mobile phone signal, so that we can drive down the road on a short journey without it cutting out, and if we need to receive a call from a loved one, a relative or perhaps a GP, we can have certainty that that call will come through.
Coverage maps have been drawn with a particularly optimistic crayon, and the problem with advertised speeds being hundreds of times better than reality is not merely technical; it also erodes trust. Quite often, those conditions are laboratory conditions that do not bear any resemblance to reality, so I invite the mobile phone companies to come and do a very thorough inspection across Bromsgrove and the villages.
Mims Davies
I concur with every word that my hon. Friend is saying, particularly around the challenges in national parks, where connectivity can be more difficult. If I may, I will take him back to his point about callbacks from GPs or people working remotely, differently and flexibly. Missing that callback is a real problem for anyone, but it can be particularly serious for people in rural areas.
Bradley Thomas
My hon. Friend is spot on. Constituents, particularly older residents, have contacted me because they have missed out on crucial calls from GPs and other supporting services that they require. It is about the safety and wellbeing of our constituents as much as it is about connectivity and the economy.
In the limited time that I have, I have a few points that I implore the Government to focus on. First, transparency must improve. That means bolstering regulatory requirements for the mobile phone companies to advertise speeds that are realistic, not theoretical and based on laboratory conditions. Secondly, it is not just about population coverage, but geographic coverage, which must carry greater regulatory weight. Britain is not composed solely of cities. Land matters, and the people who steward it and rely on these mobile phone connections matter. That means that the Government should give serious consideration to rural roaming. Finally, infrastructure sharing should be pursued with seriousness to ensure that mobile phone coverage across the country, but particularly across Bromsgrove and the villages, is as robust as it can be.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. From Tilston to Tattenhall and from Acton to Audlem, poor mobile connectivity is all too common across Chester South and Eddisbury, but the House need not take my word for it. Earlier this year, I launched a mobile connectivity survey, and I take this opportunity to thank the 544 residents who took the time to complete it.
It is vital to get the real experiences of people living and working in Chester South and Eddisbury, because, as we have heard from other Members today, the level of coverage that Ofcom and the mobile network operators claim, all too often does not reflect reality. Ofcom gives statistics based on modelling, not on-the-ground evidence. It does not differentiate between 4G and 5G coverage and, crucially, it does not test network capacity.
In my mobile survey, I asked constituents on a scale of 1 to 10—where 1 is very poor and 10 is excellent—to rate different aspects of their mobile service. The average score for both the signal to make and receive calls, and the average reliability for calls was just 3 out of 10. The ability to stream or download larger files scored even lower, and many shared their experiences of poor levels of signal and data making it impossible to even download messages or emails.
I asked whether constituents could get a usable phone signal in the main areas of their home. Of the 544 respondents, almost 300 said they could not. It is worth pausing to reflect on that. More than half my constituents surveyed cannot get a usable mobile phone signal in their own home. That is simply unacceptable in 21st-century Britain, and the consequences are very real. We know that since the pandemic, more people are working from home, making reliable connectivity vital. According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly 10 million people in the UK are hybrid workers, with a further 5 million working exclusively from home. It is now a fundamental part of our modern economy. If the Government are serious about economic growth, addressing poor mobile connectivity, particularly in rural areas, must be part of that plan.
The impact is not only economic, but social. Digital isolation compounds physical isolation. Not being able to rely on a mobile connection to contact friends, family or support services can have serious negative impacts on mental health. There is also a safety dimension to this issue. As more services become digital by default, rural residents are increasingly disadvantaged, unable to reliably take calls from doctors, carers or other essential providers. Constituents have raised concerns about being unable to make calls in emergencies, particularly in more remote rural areas. That is not simply inconvenient; it is dangerous.
What my constituents need is meaningful action. I urge the Minister to consider the views of people across Chester South and Eddisbury who completed my mobile survey, and to share in the Government’s response what steps are currently being taken to work with providers, particularly in the rural context, to address the unacceptable gaps in coverage. We need reliable mobile connectivity for work, for school, to make doctor’s appointments and to connect with friends. I will continue to push the Government, so that all villages—including Audlem, Wybunbury, Wrenbury, Malpas, Tattenhall, Tilston, Farndon, Christleton and so many more—get the connection that they rightly expect and deserve.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this really important debate. One of the issues that appears most often in my constituency mailbag is digital connectivity, as it affects thousands of my constituents. It has become as essential to modern life as electricity or roads. The issue is absolutely fundamental to the future viability of rural communities, not just in my constituency but across the whole country.
I will share some examples from constituents who have been in touch with me recently—real people facing real problems in their daily lives. There is a woman living in Deanland Wood Park, a park home site in my constituency, who can only use her mobile phone when she is out and about. Let me be clear about what that means: in her own home—the place where she should feel most comfortable, secure and connected—her phone is essentially useless to her.
There are a couple living in the village of Berwick. One is with Tesco Mobile, and the other is with Vodafone. Neither of them can receive calls when they are at home. This is not merely an inconvenience; it has a huge impact on their work. He has had to completely change how he communicates with clients, and relies entirely on email and WhatsApp because he simply cannot depend on phone calls. What truly concerns me is that her father is in a care home, and he does not always get through when he calls. Hon. Members can imagine the stress it causes when an elderly man tries to reach his daughter and the technology simply fails both of them. Their phones work perfectly well when they leave Berwick; there is purely a problem of coverage in the village itself.
I recently heard from a couple who have moved to my constituency from rural Staffordshire. They were genuinely shocked to discover that they have no signal whatsoever in their new home in East Dean. They have moved from one rural area to another, and somehow our connectivity is even worse than what they left behind. At one of my advice surgeries, I spoke to a farmer from the same village who is dealing with the same problem, and this is where it becomes really serious. What happens if someone on his farm needs to call the emergency services? What if there is an accident, a medical emergency or a fire? Every second counts in those situations, and it is not just about emergencies. Try doing online banking or running a business without mobile connectivity. Try doing any of the things that we are all expected to do online these days, and which those of us in towns and cities can largely take for granted.
A gentleman in the village of Upper Dicker regularly has to drive to his son’s house just to use his phone, because the signal at home is so poor. Every time a website needs to text him a verification code—something that happens more and more these days—he is stuck. He cannot access his bank account or log into Government services. He cannot do any of the things that we are increasingly required to do online.
According to research published last year, the UK has the worst average 5G download speeds of all G7 countries. We are not slightly behind; we are dead last. When one looks at rural coverage specifically, the picture is even more concerning. Only 69% of rural areas in the UK are said to receive 4G coverage through the four major mobile network providers—not 5G but 4G, which is technology that is already years old, and we are at just 69%. So much of what we are told is 3G, 4G or 5G is actually mislabelled. The signal bars on phones can be deeply misleading. There might be full bars and the assumption is that everything is fine, but when trying to make a call or load a webpage, suddenly you realise that those bars do not mean what you thought they meant.
In rural areas, poor connectivity is fundamentally undermining the viability of our communities. It is not just annoying; it is existential. Young families cannot move to rural areas or stay there, because they cannot work from home. Businesses cannot operate effectively, and elderly residents cannot stay in touch with family or access online health services. Farmers cannot use modern agricultural technology, and students cannot do their homework. The digital divide is no longer just about cities versus countryside; it is about whether rural communities can survive and thrive in the 21st century.
The inequality of provision as the 5G network is rolled out is deeply concerning. It is simply wrong that people should be disadvantaged because of where they live. Someone’s postcode should not determine whether they can fully participate in a modern society. We must ensure that improving broadband and mobile connectivity starts with the hardest-to-reach areas first—not as an afterthought and not eventually, but first. I recently met Vodafone, which is responsible for the roll-out in our part of Sussex, to press that point.
The Government must also prioritise major investment in broadband for underserved communities, and here there is an economic argument. Investment in these areas will help unlock the vast potential of our rural communities. Research has demonstrated that ubiquitous 5G could add £159 billion to the UK economy by 2035. That means not just money for telecoms companies, but businesses in our rural communities operating more effectively.
I am asking on behalf of my constituents for the Government to live up to their promises to invest properly in rural connectivity and ensure that companies such as Openreach and Vodafone communicate clearly with residents and meet their commitments. The woman in Deanland Wood Park deserves to use her phone in her own home, the couple in Berwick deserve to do their jobs and stay in touch with their elderly parents without constant stress, the farmer in East Dean deserves to know that he can call for help if there is an emergency, and the gentleman in Upper Dicker deserves to log into his bank account without driving across my constituency. My constituents deserve better and rural constituencies across the country deserve better, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I very much thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for bringing forward this debate on a subject she knows so much about and on which she is such a passionate campaigner.
Rural areas are too often the last in the queue when it comes to decent mobile internet connectivity. I certainly receive many emails—although not as many as I probably would if they were better connected—as well as calls and letters from constituents who tell me how woeful mobile connectivity is in parts of Frome and East Somerset. One elderly constituent told me how anxious she is that she or her husband will suffer a fall and have no way to contact the emergency services as their home has no mobile signal.
The Liberal Democrats believe that mobile coverage is a basic utility that is as essential these days as running water. People need mobile connectivity when they are travelling, working, running businesses or responding to emergencies. Yet for too long, Government targets have not been ambitious enough, and have been based on connecting households directly rather than on geographical coverage. The Government claim to have reached 95% of geographical broadband coverage, but residents in rural areas tell a very different story, and the problem lies in how coverage is measured.
A constituent wrote to me about persistent signal blackspots throughout the village of Rode. He told me he no longer expects to receive any mobile signal at his home. Ofcom’s mobile coverage checker suggests he should have a strong outdoor signal from every provider, but his experience proves otherwise. This is why we support a nationwide programme to install hyperfast fibre optic broadband across the UK, with a particular focus on connecting rural areas. Ofcom’s capability to understand coverage relies on measurements based on grids of 100 metres by 100 metres, which means that vast swathes of rural areas are underserved in areas such as Rode. More accurate techniques based on smaller grids would offer better coverage pictures to allow for targeted support.
Rural businesses are crying out for better connectivity. A survey by the Countryside Alliance found that 85% of rural businesses cited their connectivity as poor but manageable, with 80% saying better-quality connectivity would be the single largest improvement to their business. In Midsomer Norton, a fairly sizeable market town in my constituency, Zen Rebel Studios has long struggled with poor mobile signal and inadequate broadband. Mobile reception inside its premises is extremely limited, and despite being only a few metres off the high street, it has been unable to secure an extension of the fibre network. As a result, only a handful of people using its café can currently use its wi-fi at any one time before the system crashes, which is simply not sustainable for a modern business.
This really matters for productivity. Rural areas are 18% less productive than the national average. Closing this gap would be worth up to £43 billion in England alone, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in areas too often blighted by underemployment. Some rural stakeholders have complained about a lack of transparency about where coverage improvements will be delivered. Ultimately, it is up to the mobile network operators to decide where to deploy coverage.
The Government and Ofcom do not have legal powers to force them to build masts in specific locations. However, when the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) served as Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, he convened a working group with MPs and mobile providers to explore how to accelerate mast installation and improve rural mobile coverage. Unfortunately, this has not yet been restarted under the current Minister, who I hope will consider reinstating it.
I want to conclude by raising something that has not yet come up, but which is a consequence of rural connectivity failure that goes beyond economics or inconvenience. I have a constituent who, after leaving a long-term coercively controlling relationship, experienced sustained cyber-intrusion by his former partner over several days. He reported it to the police and obtained a crime number, but his abuser retained sole control of the broadband account for the home in which he was living. As the coercive controller was the named bill payer, my constituent could not take over the account. His former partner explicitly refused to release it, even when requested to do so during separation proceedings.
Here is where the absence of mobile coverage becomes critical: there is zero mobile signal at my constituent’s property. In fact, that goes for the whole village. Broadband was therefore his only means of communication. His abuser controlled whether he could make a telephone call, access support services or even work. Through locked devices connected to the network, my constituent remained vulnerable to surveillance. A private security sweep, costing £5,000, discovered that his TV sound bar had been configured as a listening device. He had to live with his wi-fi turned off, activating it only when absolutely necessary, leaving him feeling desperately vulnerable and unable call for help during the moments it was on.
My constituent contacted his broadband provider four times and, while staff were compassionate and escalated the situation, there was no safeguarding protocol available to them and no mechanism to transfer control. His former partner continued controlling his internet access and which devices could connect. Currently, broadband is regulated as a consumer contract and not as essential infrastructure; while an energy supplier would have had to recognise domestic abuse and allow an account transfer, telecommunications providers face no such duty. When reviewing rural connectivity policy, will the Minister also consider requiring telecoms providers to have such safeguarding mechanisms, and will they ensure that where police evidence documents abuse, broadband control can be transferred to the person at risk?
I am sure that the Minister hears similar frustrations from his own constituents as we have heard today, and I hope he recognises how urgently these issues need addressing. If we are serious about protecting people, supporting rural communities and enabling economic growth, we must treat digital access as the essential service it has become.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions.
The previous Conservative Government understood the importance of UK-wide mobile and broadband coverage to the public and to our economy. That is why they put in place ambitious plans to ensure that people across the United Kingdom have access to this essential infrastructure, regardless of their location. The shared rural network, announced in 2020, secured significant investment of around £500 million from the largest mobile network operators. Under the SRN, private investment is complemented by Government funding for the construction of masts in the most underserved locations, with additional coverage provided by the emergency services network programme.
For 4G, the Conservative Government set a target of 95% geographic coverage from at least one mobile network operator by the end of 2025. By January 2025, 30 Government-funded mast upgrades went live, enhancing local connectivity without erecting new masts. According to Ofcom, as of July 2025, 96% of the UK landmass had 4G coverage from at least one operator, exceeding the previous Government’s target. I am proud of the Conservative Government’s record of delivery under the SRN and I welcome the fact that this Government maintain the coverage commitments made under the scheme.
Despite the progress made up to this point, there are still some acute challenges, as we have heard from Members today. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) talked about the reality of living in rural areas with poor coverage, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), and the impact it has, especially on farmers. He also made an important point about the switch from 2G and 3G to 4G and not rushing that process.
The hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) must let us know if Ofcom takes up her generous offer to come and visit. Knowing how beautiful Ely is, it would be mad not to do so.
I was very sad to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) had split up with Vodafone.
Peter Fortune
It is sad, but with Valentine’s day just around the corner, perhaps there is the opportunity to reconnect. [Interruption.] It is my first time as a Front Bencher! It was good to hear from the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), who is having similar issues with Vodafone. Can I suggest that she takes a leaf out of my hon. Friend’s book and kidnaps one of its Government relations people? Maybe she will get her way that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), as ever, was on the front foot serving her constituents with her mobile survey, highlighting the issue of digital isolation and the impact it can have on mental health. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) talked about the impact on online banking and how, with the closure of front counters, we need that connectivity to keep these services alive. That was echoed by the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), who talked about the impact on real people. I was sad to hear that for my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove to take a text message, he has to run upstairs and hang out of a window to get reception. Now that I know that—
Bradley Thomas
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not have to do that, but I know many people who do.
Peter Fortune
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification; it will save me some time, as I was going to spend all weekend texting him.
We have heard about the real issues to do with mobile phone connectivity and how it is impacting people. Based on commercial mapping of 113 local council areas across the UK, EE offers acceptable coverage in only 69% of the UK. For Vodafone the figure is 61%, for O2 it is 50% and for Three it is 38%. The Minister who previously had responsibility for this area engaged with Ofcom on improving data collection standards to get a more accurate picture of 4G coverage. That resulted in Ofcom launching its online coverage checker in June 2025, incorporating some improvements.
The need to ensure that everyone has reliable mobile phone coverage is becoming ever more pressing, as public services are increasingly digitised. The last Government recognised the need to tackle non-commercial barriers to the roll-out of digital infrastructure by amending planning legislation. However, as planning is a devolved matter, standards are not consistent across the four nations, so what discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the devolved Administrations on this matter?
On 5G roll-out, the Conservative Government set a target of nationwide coverage of stand-alone 5G for all populated areas of the UK by 2030. The development of this infrastructure has been market-led, and commercial investment has achieved 5G coverage from at least one operator over approximately 65% of the UK landmass.
In December, the Government launched their call for evidence on reforming planning rules to accelerate the deployment of digital infrastructure. The call for evidence is due to end on 26 February. Given the urgency of this matter, when does the Minister expect to be able to update the House on the outcome of the call for evidence and the Government’s proposals for planning reform?
Touching briefly on broadband, I welcome the publication of the draft statement of strategic priorities yesterday, and I know that businesses will appreciate the clarity that it has provided.
The continuation of the Conservatives’ commitment to competition is welcome, and it is important, as the telecoms market consolidates and the Competition and Markets Authority watches over the process, that competition is actively upheld to reduce consumer costs and continue improving services. There is clearly cross-party agreement that we need to do more to ensure that rural areas have improved connectivity, and I hope that the Minister will engage constructively with all Members who have contributed to the debate in order to achieve this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
First and foremost, can I start by thanking the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate on mobile connectivity in rural areas? I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions.
While I am here speaking in place of my noble Friend in the other place, the Minister for Digital Economy, I feel the pain described by many hon. Members personally, as I too represent a rural constituency. In that context, I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and the hon. Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for their representations on behalf of farmers and agricultural communities, whom I know face a particular challenge.
I also thank the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) and for Lewes (James MacCleary) for talking about not only maintaining bucolic beauty but parity and economic opportunity. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who raised a very concerning case about coercive control through the use of connectivity. I encourage her to write to the Department about that, as I would be keen to follow up on that particular issue. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) has features of rurality and remoteness, and has coastal communities, and from my constituency I personally understand those features too.
The all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, which the hon. Member for North Shropshire is a member of, along with the other Members, published in January a detailed report on this topic. It provided valuable insights and recommendations.
It is well understood across the House that access to high-quality, reliable and secure digital connectivity is essential to day-to-day life, with many services now requiring an online presence. It is important not only for consumers, but for the businesses in every sector of the UK economy that depend increasingly on fixed and mobile networks in some way. From taking card payments to managing businesses online, digital connectivity is central.
The focus of this debate is on mobile connectivity. The Government have an ambition for all populated areas, including rural communities, to have access to higher quality stand-alone 5G by 2030. Although stand-alone 5G is already available outside 83% of premises across the UK, I acknowledge that we need to go much further.
Operators are starting to align investment and delivery plans with the ambition that the Government have set out. VodafoneThree has committed to investing £11 billion in its 5G network over the 10-year period following completion of its merger; progress against that commitment will be monitored at regular intervals by Ofcom. BT and Virgin Media O2 have set out similarly significant investment plans into their networks, both aligning with the Government’s stand-alone 5G coverage ambition.
John Lamont
Does the Minister acknowledge that there are issues with the data that has been provided both by the telecoms companies and by Ofcom? We have all shared experiences across the Chamber today in which maps produced by Vodafone, EE or whoever appear to demonstrate good coverage in our constituencies, but the coverage on the ground is just not there. Is the Minister challenging the providers on their data?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. I will come to that question, because I recognise the gap between the aggregate picture and the experience felt on the ground.
Let me return to aggregate investment. To ensure that investment delivers coverage improvements for communities right across the UK, including in rural areas, we continue working to identify and address barriers to deployment where it is practical to do so. I may not share the significant expertise and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) with matters of spectrum, but I certainly share her enthusiasm. When I was an undergraduate student, the global example of the last Labour Government on auction design and the 3G spectrum was very much a part of my curriculum. In that spirit, I hope to take her advice and continue the spirit of Labour, not that of the last Conservative Government or of the Liberal Democrats, who were complicit in the auction challenges of that Government.
The focus on investment includes implementing the remaining provisions of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government are considering where planning rules could be relaxed to support the deployment of mobile infrastructure.
The shadow Minister mentioned the call for evidence, which is due to close on 26 February. In the usual spirit, I can confirm to him that we will make a prompt statement to the House, but I am afraid I cannot give him a specific date on this occasion.
On the reporting of mobile coverage, Members across the House are totally right to highlight the issues with its accuracy in some cases. I feel very personally the depth of their frustration; although I cannot condone the semi-kidnapping experience described by the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), she has my particular sympathies for her pre-Valentine’s break-up with Vodafone. Accurate coverage data is essential for consumers: it allows more informed decisions as to which operator provides the best level of service for life, work and travel.
Mims Davies
The way for someone to report poor signal in their area is to go to ofcom.org.uk, enter a postcode, select a provider and then provide coverage feedback—if they can get a signal. That is the irony for many of us who have to drive around rural areas trying to give feedback, hence Vodafone’s parliamentary affairs person very kindly allowing himself to be actively kidnapped to drive around and see the reality.
Kanishka Narayan
I confirm to the hon. Member that there is no sense of judgment on the Government Benches on the conduct of her cause.
The Government continue to work with Ofcom to improve the accuracy of reported mobile coverage, building on the launch of its Map Your Mobile tool in June last year. I am glad that hon. Members recognise that that is reflected in the draft statement of strategic priorities for telecoms, spectrum and post, which the Government laid before Parliament yesterday. It will remain a firm priority for the Government, and I will make sure to represent to my noble Friend the Minister for Digital Economy the concerns that have been raised today.
More accurate coverage data also allows us to understand coverage gaps. Addressing these gaps requires investment by the mobile network operators. The Government recognise that the investment climate has been difficult for the mobile sector over recent years. We are committed to working with industry to support its investment in our networks. That is why we are undertaking a mobile market review to understand the factors impacting the sector’s ability to invest, and I know that the recent digital communities APPG report calls for an independent review of the digital connectivity landscape. The mobile market review and the accompanying call for evidence, launched on Tuesday, will enable the Government to consider what we can do to support the sector too. Through the call for evidence, we are looking to gather views on the quality of mobile service and level of coverage required to harness the full benefits of stand-alone 5G, as well as where our ambitions on stand-alone 5G should go further still.
As Members will be aware, as part of our work with industry, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State chaired a roundtable yesterday with CEOs of major UK telecoms firms to discuss investment challenges, as well as agreeing to a telecoms consumer charter, which looks to strengthen transparency to empower consumers, as well as to improve support for those struggling to pay. On the provision of reliable 4G connectivity, I know it is essential to many. At the spending review in 2025, the Government committed to continuing to deliver 4G coverage in areas with little or no coverage. The shared rural network has helped to deliver 4G mobile coverage to 96% of the UK land mass from at least one operator and to 81% from all four. The publicly funded elements of the shared rural network will continue to deliver improved coverage up to January 2027, with over 100 masts already delivering new coverage across the UK.
Where there is no mobile coverage, we are starting to see some positive developments in the satellite direct-to-device market. To the point made by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin, I also share her enthusiasm and hope for cost reductions as we have greater competition in that market. The UK is taking a pioneering step in enabling direct-to-device connectivity, moving ahead of European counterparts to unlock connectivity as well as growth across remote parts of the UK. Those developments have the potential to increase the resilience of our services and provide a back-up for crucial ones should territorial networks face disruption.
Having coverage alone is clearly not important enough by itself. As Members have raised very clearly, there needs to be confidence that mobile networks will be available in the most difficult of times and that they are secure against threats. Though the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 introduced a world-leading regime for the protection and security of such contexts, I know that there is more work to do. In particular, I appreciate the points made right across the House on the resilience of mobile services to power cuts. We welcome that Ofcom is completing a detailed regulatory review on that question. I will make sure that the points raised today are represented as part of Ofcom’s considerations, and in particular I will be sure to convey the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle around possible ways of ensuring duration of support as backstops. We will ensure that the guidance for public telecommunications providers reflects evolving technologies and emerging threats, taking into account input from industry and expert advice from the National Cyber Security Centre.
Before I finish, I will address specific points raised by Members. To the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield, I would be happy to make sure that the Minister for Digital Economy meets her as part of her recurring surgeries. To my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, I know that he is a strong cross-Government champion for Cornwall on all matters and I will continue to make sure that we play our part in supporting the strength of his advocacy. To the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin, there are three Home Office masts in her patch and two are already activated as part of the shared rural network. I will be happy to engage with her through correspondence on her particular concerns about those masts, should she wish to raise that. To the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk who, with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, raised the point on 2G and 3G switch-off, though the expectation is that operators will provide broadly equivalent levels of coverage after switching off 2G, I have heard his concerns and will make sure that both the Minister and, as a consequence, the regulator are focused on the complete delivery of that aspiration.
Finally, I am conscious that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk also asked about smart meters, as did the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield. The Data Communications Company is obligated, under the conditions of its licence, to provide smart meter network coverage to at least 99.25% of premises across Great Britain. One solution for those who do not currently have smart meter wider area network coverage, which the DCC and Government have decided to focus on, involves harnessing customers’ broadband connections to also carry out smart metering communications. We are looking at how we can use modified smart meter communications hubs, as well as additional devices, to plug the gap. That is not to say that we will not continue to focus on how we can ensure mobile connectivity plays its part in that context as well.
I am sure you wish for me to come to a prompt conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker. First and foremost, I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire, as I do all hon. Members for their contributions. I will continue, with them, to champion mobile connectivity across our rural communities.
Helen Morgan
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I am conscious that it is the final Thursday afternoon before a recess, so it shows just how important this matter is to our constituents that so many Members have come along and made good points. Bearing that in mind, I will be brief. I have done a lot of work on this issue over the last year because of the activities of the all-party group, and it is testament to the value of a Backbench Business debate that I have learned quite a lot this afternoon as well.
I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on deteriorating signal. In many areas, this problem is getting worse not better, and we need to focus on that. The issue is probably due to the quality and capacity of the signal, rather than the coverage. We are using coverage as a shorthand, but we need a high- quality, high-capacity signal in all those places, too.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) made some good points about spectrum and licensing. I fear that an opportunity has been missed given that 5G licences have already been issued without those quality parameters. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) mentioned the importance of satellite solutions in filling in some of those gaps, which might overcome some of the planning issues, so I hope the Minister will look at that too. I thank everyone once more.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government and service providers to help improve mobile connectivity in rural areas.
School Minibus Safety
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
It is good to see so many hon. and right hon. Members present to take part in this important debate on school minibus safety. No family should ever have to question whether their child will return home safely from a school activity. For my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, that unthinkable fear became a devastating reality. In November 1993, a minibus carrying 14 children was involved in a catastrophic crash on the M40 near Hagley. Twelve children and their teacher lost their lives, and among them was Liz and Steve’s beloved daughter, Claire.
I first met Liz and Steve while campaigning in my by-election in 2023. They bravely shared their story with me and invited me to support their ongoing campaign to make school minibuses safer, so that no child would ever be put at risk while travelling to or from school activities. Since then, I have stood with them in their tireless efforts to improve safety, not just for the children who travel in these vehicles, but for the teachers and staff who are asked to drive them. More than 30 years have now passed since that tragedy, and while important improvements have been made in areas such as seatbelt provision and vehicle construction standards, the underlying regulatory framework that allows teachers to drive minibuses without full professional training remains largely unchanged.
Children’s safety should not be up for debate. This is about reducing risks that we already know can be prevented. It is about asking whether the legal framework that governs the transport of pupils to and from school activities truly matches the weight of that responsibility. Every time a child steps on to a school minibus, parents place their trust in the system that stands behind it. That system must be strong, consistent and—above all—capable of keeping every child safe. At the moment, many of us believe that that system falls short.
The system that governs school minibuses is built around section 19 permits, introduced under the Transport Act 1985. These permits allow not-for-profit organisations, including schools, to run minibuses without holding a full public service vehicle operator’s licence. Under that system, drivers must meet certain basic licensing conditions, but they are not required to hold a full passenger carrying vehicle licence. Nor are they required by law to undertake accredited professional training.
The official guidance, which dates from 2013, states that drivers must be suitably trained and correctly licensed. It even recognises that driving a minibus requires additional skills, and is simply not the same as driving a large car. However, it is guidance, so it is advisory, and there are no checks by the Department for Education or Ofsted on its implementation or use. Schools are encouraged to consider specialist training, but they are not required to do so. At the moment, the guidance is not strong enough to guarantee children’s safety. That is why, alongside Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the NASUWT, I have been calling for stronger, clearer regulations to make sure that every child can travel safely, and that teachers and staff are properly trained and supported to carry out that responsibility.
It is also important to understand how and why the framework came about. Section 19 and 22 did not emerge from a careful review of child passenger safety. They were shaped largely by European market rules designed to regulate competition. In other words, the system that we rely on today was driven more by economic considerations than by the safety of schoolchildren. That historical origin has left us with a fragmented and confusing framework.
Private schools that are not charities are treated as commercial operators, and they must hold a full operator’s licence, meet strict financial and safety requirements, appoint a qualified transport manager, and employ fully licensed, professionally trained drivers with regulated hours. That comprehensive legal framework is designed to protect children and ensure accountability. By contrast, many state schools transport children daily under section 19 permits without the same safeguards. They operate largely on guidance rather than law, with no mandatory professional training or oversight. In practice, teachers may drive minibuses at the end of a full teaching day without the protections required of commercial drivers.
That raises simple but troubling questions. Why should a child’s safety depend on the type of school they attend? Why should children in private schools travel under a full safety regime, while children in state schools rely on discretion and good will? I criticise not independent schools, which are complying with the law, but the two-tier system that affords different levels of protection to children—that is unfair and unacceptable.
The inconsistency goes further. Across the UK, standards vary by nation. In Northern Ireland, for example, driving a school minibus without a full D1 licence can be a disciplinary offence. Children’s safety should not depend on postcode, school type or geography. Every child deserves the same standards, protections and assurance that those responsible for their transport are properly trained and accountable.
The Government recently stated before the Transport Committee that they do not wish to relax D1 licence requirements for community minibus drivers, citing road safety concerns. Around one in five candidates fails the D1 test, even after extensive training. That failure rate is a clear indication of the level of skill and competence required to operate such vehicles safely.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I am concerned that under the current system, someone could fail their test to drive a minibus in a professional setting and it would not stop them from driving one in a school setting, which does not require a D1 licence. Why is that licence not required to drive children to and from school activities? It fundamentally does not make sense. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Sarah Edwards
That is precisely my concern. It does not make sense at all given that failure means an inability to drive safely. We should surely apply the same standards or higher when children are involved.
Under the current school system, a teacher over the age of 21 who holds only a standard category B car licence and has just two years’ driving experience can legally drive a minibus carrying children, without holding a full passenger carrying vehicle licence and without undertaking any mandatory accredited training—so, too, can the individual who has failed their D1 driving test. This creates a stark and troubling inconsistency in the Government’s own stated aims.
In every other context, professional passenger transport is treated as high risk, with rigorous training, testing and regulation designed to protect passengers. Yet the law allows schoolchildren—the most vulnerable passengers, some might argue—to be transported under a system that relies on guidance rather than on statutory safeguards. We must ask ourselves: if the Government recognise the dangers and the skill required to drive a minibus in every other setting, why do they not apply the same standards to those entrusted with the lives of children? The safety of our school pupils should not be left to chance or good will.
Current guidance recognises the dangers of driver fatigue and advises against long journeys after a day of work, but those are only recommendations. In practice, teachers are often expected to drive minibuses at the end of long teaching days. They are responsible for driving larger, more complex vehicles while supervising pupils at the same time. In some cases, they are the only adult on board. That presents serious risks in the event of a breakdown, an emergency or a behavioural incident. This is not about blaming teachers—they are dedicated professionals—but the system places enormous responsibility on them without the professional safeguards that exist in other areas of passenger transport. It is no surprise that growing numbers of teachers are choosing not to drive minibuses, citing stress and concerns about personal liability.
There is also clear confusion and inconsistency in the system. Guidance on section 19 permits has been interpreted in different ways, and some local authorities and academy trusts apply their own requirements that differ from national guidance. That uncertainty does not make children safer. The NASUWT teaching union has described the current regime as “not fit for purpose”, and a 2024 survey found inconsistent compliance with legal requirements and guidance across many schools. In some cases, management is aware of the shortcomings. In others, problems arise because guidance is unclear and training is lacking. Vehicle faults and poor maintenance have been identified, leaving teachers unknowingly responsible for the vehicle’s roadworthiness. The same survey found that 24% of teachers felt pressured to drive a minibus despite feeling unqualified to do so. Although NASUWT guidance is available to teachers, the union ultimately advises staff not to drive minibuses at all, due to the legal, safety and personal liability risks involved.
Concerns have also been raised about the use of lightweight minibuses, which are basically converted vans fitted with seats. Many of these vehicles weigh less than 3.5 tonnes, which allows schools to bypass the training and licensing requirements that would otherwise apply to those who obtained their category B car licence after 1997. In effect, these vehicles have become a cheaper workaround for schools, but that cost saving comes with significant safety compromises: these lightweight minibuses often lack essential features such as side impact protection or full airbag coverage, leaving children and staff more vulnerable in the event of a collision. In practice, gross vehicle weight limits are not always routinely checked before journeys begin. Many teachers are unaware that once they take a vehicle on to the road, they are legally responsible for not only their driving but ensuring that the vehicle is roadworthy and compliant with regulations.
This combination of under-equipped vehicles, insufficient oversight and limited professional training creates a serious safety risk. Teachers can find themselves responsible for dozens of children in a vehicle that is not designed to carry them safely, with no back-up if something goes wrong. The risk is not theoretical; it is a real and present danger that must be addressed. We should not accept a system where cost, convenience or outdated loopholes determine the level of protection that children receive. Every child, in every school, should be transported in a vehicle that meets robust safety standards, driven by someone who is properly trained, and supported by a clear and enforceable legal framework.
The so-called short distance exemption further complicates matters. Section 19 permits assume that journeys will normally take place within a 10-mile radius, except in rural areas, but many schools, including church schools and large multi-academy trusts operating across several counties, regularly travel well beyond that distance for sports fixtures and other activities. When what is meant to be exceptional becomes routine, it is reasonable to ask whether the legal framework is still fit for purpose.
At the same time, parents are often unaware of the regulatory distinctions that underpin school transport. Traditional written consent forms once gave parents a clear understanding of arrangements. Increasing reliance on digital systems means that many parents simply assume that robust, uniform standards are already in place. How many parents have been informed prior to a trip and asked whether they were happy for their child to be driven in a minibus by a teacher or staff member who could not demonstrate the level of training required for professional minibus operators?
Everything that we have heard and considered today makes it clear that the current system is failing both children and staff. We are allowing a two-tier approach to safety, where the protection that a child receives depends on the type of school that they attend. That cannot continue.
Sarah Edwards
I met Ministers from the Department for Transport in May 2025 and from the Department for Education more recently, but the suggested changes are yet to be made. The issue was not mentioned in the Government’s road safety strategy. I have already raised that concern with the Minister, and I am raising it in the House today to provide the detail and substance behind those concerns for the official record.
The road safety strategy sets out excellent ambitions for the protection of road users and cites issues around appropriate licences, which I applaud. I know the Minister is rightly proud of the strategy as a piece of work. I raise the issue of the continued use of permits for school minibus driving precisely because it cuts across the sentiment of the strategy, and I am disappointed that terms like “community transport” or “school minibuses” do not appear in the document at present, despite these inconsistencies being known to Departments.
I ask the Minister to take action about the following suggestions that I will set out. All schools, whether state-funded or independent, must be held to the same safety standards, with best practice an absolute minimum. Section 19 permits for schools should be replaced with statutory regulations, moving from guidance-based advice to enforceable legal standards, and aligning all school minibus operations with road safety priorities rather than simply community exemptions.
The Department for Education should have a list of all associated minibuses that schools use and operate, regardless of whether they are a local authority or an academy trust school. This information should be jointly shared with the Department for Transport, because at present no such information exists, nor does the ability to extract minibus accident data from generic passenger vehicle data, meaning that minibuses are treated in the same way as buses or coaches in Government data. That makes further analysis of the issue difficult.
The professionalisation of school minibus driving must be mandated. All drivers should hold a passenger carrying vehicle licence or D1 qualification in order to operate a school minibus. Every school fleet should be overseen by a transport manager, and drivers must undergo checks on eyesight, health and driving records.
The use of lightweight minibuses must be phased out or banned. Children should travel in vehicles built to proper safety standards, not those chosen to save costs. A national inspection and enforcement regime must be introduced. DVSA inspections should cover all school transport, not just commercial operators, with vehicles and drivers tracked in a centralised, transparent system.
Legal grey areas must be clarified. Government guidance should remove ambiguity around terms such as “volunteer”, “hire or reward” and “non-commercial”, and the guidance must be court-tested and enforceable.
Teacher wellbeing and safety must be protected. Driving duties should not fall to teachers after a full working day. Minibus driving should be recognised as a specialised responsibility in schools, not an informal task. We also believe that transport safety should be included in Ofsted inspections, and the long-term impact of accidents on both pupils and staff, including mental health and trauma, must be taken seriously.
In closing, these are not abstract or minor reforms. They are essential steps to ensure that every child can travel safely to and from school activities, and that the adults entrusted with that responsibility are fully supported, trained and accountable. I think of Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the courage it has taken them to turn their personal tragedy into a tireless campaign for safer school transport. Their determination reminds us all why reform cannot wait, because sadly during the time that we have been campaigning together and meeting Ministers, other such tragedies have occurred.
I urge the Government to take steps to close the ambiguity and to further their aims for road safety for all who use them. Our children deserve nothing less than a system that guarantees their safety, values the teachers who transport them and removes the inequalities and risks that underpin the current framework. It is time for decisive action. I thank the Minister for coming here today and I commend this debate to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing a debate on this important subject. I pay tribute to her campaigning. I know that she has shown real determination in working with her constituents, education unions and others on this issue throughout her time in the House.
The minibus collision on the M40 in 1993 was a truly dreadful incident, and my heart goes out to all the parents and families, including Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald, who suffered such an awful loss. We all want to do everything we can to ensure that such an incident never happens again.
Since the tragic crash, many improvements have been made to enhance the safe operation of minibuses, including mandatory seatbelts in minibuses and coaches; a ban on the crew bus where minibuses had two benches facing each other; and improvements to the driver licensing regime. Road safety statistics show an overall decrease in the number of incidents and serious collisions involving minibuses in the last 10 years, but I recognise that there is always more to do. I strongly believe that road safety, and the safety of students, school staff and teachers travelling in minibuses, are extremely important.
I will start by setting out what the Government currently do to support the safe use of permits. The permit system that is set out in the Transport Act 1985 recognises the value of not-for-profit organisations that provide services for community, social and charitable benefit. There are section 22 permits used for community bus services, and the more common section 19 permits. Those permits allow the holder to operate transport services that would otherwise require a full public service vehicle operator licence.
Users of section 19 permits will include schools, but also a wide range of charities and community transport operators that support trips every day across the country, such as dial-a-ride, social club trips or camping trips by youth groups. The permit system was designed because we recognise the value of those activities, and that small, non-profit-making organisations do not always have the capacity of larger, commercial ones.
Driving a minibus usually requires D1 entitlement on a licence, as my hon. Friend said, but a vehicle with a section 19 permit can also be driven by someone with two different types of entitlement. First, prior to 1997, car driving licences came with an automatic form of D1 entitlement. Secondly, there are more limited circumstances in which a minibus can be driven on a car—category B —driving licence. Those circumstances include being 21 or older, having held the licence for at least two years, driving on a voluntary basis where a minibus is being used for social purposes by a non-commercial body, and meeting vehicle weight restrictions.
Even though permits are not a full operator licence, holding them comes with important responsibilities and obligations. Operating and driving minibuses is never to be taken lightly. To support permit holders with their responsibilities, we publish guidance to promote and support the correct and safe use of vehicles operating under permits. That guidance sets out the permit rules and the responsibilities of permit holders, including schools, for ensuring the safe operation of vehicles. Those responsibilities include vehicle maintenance, for which the guidance sets out recommended arrangements.
The guidance also covers the need to ensure that drivers are correctly trained, have the correct driving licence and take adequate breaks. It notes, for example, that drivers should plan more rest breaks than are set out in the regulations if they do not drive for a living, and that drivers should be given clear, written instructions about their responsibilities covering all aspects of vehicle operation. The guidance further sets out that all drivers should be aware of the risk to passenger safety from driving when tired, and that it is not sensible to start a long trip after a full day’s work, whether that work involves driving or not. I might add that no driver—teacher or otherwise—should ever be put under pressure to drive a minibus.
In addition to the overarching sections 19 and 22 permit guidance, we have specific guidance for schools and local authorities on driving school minibuses. That was published jointly with the Department for Education, and it outlines driving licence entitlements, training, insurance and other legal requirements. It is of course important that all our guidance is as clear, direct and helpful as it can be to end users, and I am always open to hearing about ways in which anyone thinks it could be improved. I also acknowledge the work of the minibus driver awareness scheme—MiDAS—administered by the Community Transport Association and, I understand, used by many schools, in contributing to the improved safety of minibus drivers.
Notwithstanding everything that is currently done to support permit users, my hon. Friend raised important and well-expressed challenges, and they warrant further thought. I acknowledge, for example, her argument about different rules applying to different sorts of schools, and the importance of children being safe regardless of such distinctions. The section 19 permit framework has wide-ranging benefits, but it is right for us to keep challenging ourselves to ensure that the system is striking the correct balance between flexibility and safety. I know that my hon. Friend recently met the Minister for School Standards, and I can commit that Ministers in both Departments will meet to discuss the subject further. I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestions, and I am sure that they will form the basis of part of that meeting.
The Government take road safety very seriously, as shown by the publication of our road safety strategy last month, which my hon. Friend recognised. The strategy sets out a clear and ambitious path to improve road safety in Great Britain, and its targets include a 70% reduction in the number of children under 16 killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 2035. As she will know, the strategy also includes measures around safe road users and safe vehicles, and proposes further action in relation to those who drive for work. We plan to develop and launch the national work-related road safety charter later this year, and I will raise with my officials the point that she raised in relation to schools.
I thank my hon. Friend again for her continued interest in, and advocacy on, this very important subject.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I wish all colleagues a peaceful and productive recess in their constituencies and, I hope, some time with their families as well. I look forward to spending time with my nephews, Ali and Aadam, who are superfans of Bad Bunny—they make me listen to his music non-stop, and they are looking forward to teaching me the dance moves next. I am not sure whether that is good or bad.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
UK-EU Agritrade: SPS Agreement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
We begin with a Select Committee statement. Mr Alistair Carmichael will speak on the publication of the fifth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, HC 1661, “UK-EU agritrade: making an SPS agreement work”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of it, and I will call Mr Alistair Carmichael to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each. I call Mr Alistair Carmichael, Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Thank you, Ms Jardine. It is, as ever, an inestimable pleasure to serve under your stewardship in Westminster Hall. May I place on record my appreciation of the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for me to make a statement to mark the publication of our Committee’s fifth report of this Parliament, “UK-EU agritrade: making an SPS agreement work”?
The report is the third major output of our long-term inquiry into animal and plant health. As part of our inquiry, we have spent time in discussion with domestic stakeholders in farming and food production and with officials and parliamentarians in Brussels. It is clear from our time in Brussels that the Prime Minister’s reset in May 2025 has created a political environment in which the early conclusion of a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union is a realistic objective.
Progressing towards an agreement at pace brings with it both opportunities and threats. The main threat we identify is that the process of dynamic alignment could result in us aligning with regulations that weaken the position of our food producers, as it might deny them access to products on which they currently rely. That threat is particularly acute in relation to plant protection products used by our arable farmers. This is a complex area where the needs of our farmers must be understood and protected. I do not doubt that in the negotiation of the agreement the Government will seek to do that. I am less convinced, however, that in practice they will have the depth of knowledge necessary to avoid the law of unintended consequences coming into play. That depth of knowledge exists and is readily accessible for the Government from British farmers and other businesses involved in the manufacture of plant protection products. Securing their fullest engagement is the best way to ensure that any agreement is workable and will not leave our food producers at a disadvantage.
On the subject of engagement, I observe in passing that, when in Brussels, the Committee benefited from high-level and good-quality engagement from officials in the Commission and Members of the European Parliament, as well as other relevant organisations. By contrast, our engagement with our own Government has been less straightforward. The Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations declined our invitation to appear before the Committee and has offered instead a private briefing for me as Chair. I am afraid that that offer, while appreciated, rather misses the point of how Select Committees work, and especially how the EFRA Committee works. I am not blind to the sensitivities of a live negotiation, but we are a Select Committee of the House of Commons charged with the scrutiny of the Government. For us not to scrutinise fully the Government’s conduct of these negotiations would be a dereliction of our duty, which I am not prepared to countenance.
Let me place on record that the Committee’s work on this most important of areas for our food producers is continuing and that we look to the Government for better engagement than we have had. If the sensitivities of the negotiation mean that Ministers are unwilling to appear in public—that is not an unreasonable position—other means must be found for the Committee to fulfil its duties. At the very least, I would hope to see a briefing of the whole Committee in private.
A central issue in these negotiations is dynamic regulatory alignment. Under such a model, the UK may be required to adjust domestic laws when the EU changes its own, particularly in areas such as animal welfare, pesticide regulation and precision breeding. We heard deep concerns from the agrifood sector that unqualified dynamic alignment risks placing additional burdens on UK farmers, while undercutting them with cheaper imports produced under weaker standards. Our report therefore recommends that the Government seek a Swiss-style carve-out for animal welfare rules, ensuring that the UK is not compelled to follow every regulatory change that could be to the detriment of higher UK standards in this area.
Similarly, the Government should seek an exemption from dynamic alignment for precision-bred products. Some of the UK is ahead of the EU in this area, with farmers in England already having been enabled to grow and market precision-bred seeds, plants, food and animal feed. Without an exemption, we risk losing the benefits of moving first. Mandatory alignment with future EU rules could undermine our progress and innovation and weaken the UK’s leadership in the sector.
On pesticides and maximum residue levels, we heard evidence that EU rules developed post Brexit may not reflect UK agronomic conditions. Imposing them without consideration of our climate, crops and production systems risks unnecessary burdens for growers, which at best may be impractical, but at worst may be impossible. We therefore recommend that any sanitary and phyto- sanitary agreement must guarantee that UK scientific evidence is fully considered in all risk-based decisions affecting our agriculture.
Our inquiry also highlighted that SPS alignment will not succeed without public understanding and trust. Dynamic alignment involves choices. We need a national conversation between Government and the public to set out the realities, opportunities and constraints of a potential SPS deal.
I turn now to Northern Ireland and the provision of veterinary medicines. Although veterinary medicines are not formally within the scope of the SPS agreement, they remain an unresolved and urgent issue under the Windsor framework. The continued uncertainty about the availability of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland poses real risks to animal health, farm businesses and trade. We therefore recommend that the Government pursue a veterinary medicines agreement with the EU, concurrently with the SPS discussions, and set out clear timelines and priorities for doing so.
For Parliament, these negotiations raise fundamental questions. If future EU regulatory changes may affect UK law, Parliament must have a clear and meaningful role in scrutinising the negotiations and any subsequent rule changes. We have recommended that the Government publish detailed plans for parliamentary scrutiny, including how EU legislation would be assessed before being considered for assimilation into UK law.
A workable SPS agreement will require careful, phased implementation. Border authorities, the Food Standards Agency, local authorities, port health teams, laboratories and industry all made clear to us that significant regulatory change requires long lead-in times. Staff training, new systems and revised working practices cannot be introduced overnight. We therefore recommend a minimum 24-month implementation period for any major regulatory changes arising from an SPS agreement.
In this report, we have set out the opportunities of an SPS agreement, and they are significant. A well-designed agreement could ease trade, reduce costs and strengthen ties with our largest trading partner. But the risks are also significant. Poorly managed alignment could burden farmers, erode trust, undermine innovation and weaken the UK’s ability to act on its own scientific evidence.
Our recommendations are practical and proportionate. They are designed to ensure that any SPS agreement supports UK agriculture, strengthens biosecurity and commands public and parliamentary confidence. It is crucial that the Government enter these negotiations with absolute clarity and purpose and a determination to safeguard the interests of the UK’s agrifood sector. Farmers need certainty, fairness and a Government who recognise the weight of their responsibility. The stakes for our farmers, food system and national resilience are simply too high for anything less.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I very much welcome the report. In particular, I support the recommendation on an exemption from dynamic alignment for precision breeding. In my part of the country, we are proud to host the Norwich Research Park, the Quadram Institute and the John Innes Centre, which are at the forefront of scientific innovation. They are not only a British success story, but important for local jobs and the local economy. Does the Chair of the Select Committee believe that the Government recognise the value of precision breeding as a scientific advancement?
Mr Carmichael
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I welcome him formally to the Committee and thank him for his contribution to its proceedings. We benefited from our time at the John Innes Centre, and it is not a subject of any controversy to say that the Committee was very impressed with the professionalism of all those who work there and their commitment to improving our commercial advantage in precision breeding and gene editing.
It is fair to say that the position on precision breeding in England is one that farmers in other parts of the United Kingdom look to with a degree of envy, and it would be a great shame if we lost the advantage that England has from being an early adopter. From speaking to people in the Commission, my impression is that they are keen to see the steps the UK has taken as encouragement for their member states to come towards our position, and that dynamic alignment will not necessarily be a one-way process. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point, and any SPS agreement that does not respect and enhance our advantage will miss a most important trick for our farmers.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I welcome the report and I reiterate the thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity. The right. hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report done by the Andersons Centre, on behalf of CropLife UK, which indicates that alignment could wipe out £810 million-worth of farm profits in year one alone and see production of wheat down by 16%, apples down by 7% and potatoes down by 6%, possibly costing 9,000 agricultural jobs. With that in mind, does he agree that it is paramount for the Minister responsible for EU negotiations to come before our Committee, either in public or in private, at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman knows my views on this; in fact, I have touched on them already. I think it is absolutely essential. It is to the benefit of everybody that those responsible for the negotiations have the fullest understanding of the views in Parliament, out there in the production sector—CropLife UK is a good example of that—and of farmers, who have day-to-day responsibility for these issues. A good SPS agreement that gets things right should not have too many unintended consequences. While a cliff-edge implementation would apparently result in the loss of £810 million, a lengthy implementation period would allow us the opportunity to smooth out any wrinkles that we might inadvertently have agreed to. We know from the trade and co-operation agreement that rushing can sometimes make things more difficult in the longer term.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The SPS is a really positive development and an opportunity for us. If the suggested timescales do come off, it will be impressively quick, but with such fast timescales come the risks mentioned in the report. Does the Chair agree that it is important to not only maintain our higher welfare standards but ensure that our UK farmers are not undercut by imports with lower welfare standards?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She was on the Committee when we heard from the Swiss representatives in Brussels, and they were successful over a rather longer negotiation period. I give credit to the Prime Minister for having created a political environment in which a negotiated agreement this year is not just possible but expected. I understand all the reasons why the Prime Minister would want to see the earliest possible implementation—there are imperatives coming from the political electoral cycle, shall we say—but at the end of the day it is more important that our farmers get what is necessary to allow them to take advantage of the agreement. If they cannot sell the products into market, we have missed the whole point of having an SPS agreement; it would be an agreement simply for the sake of it. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that, in this agreement, as in any other trade deal we have, leaving ourselves open to the import of food produced to lower standards than we expect of our farmers would be absolute madness.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chair of the EFRA Committee for laying out the top lines from this excellent report, and I also commend the Committee for its work on the inquiry into animal and plant health. My right hon. Friend spoke about the Cabinet Office Minister not appearing before his Committee, but the Minister did appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee in September, as part of our inquiry into the UK-EU reset, although that is of course not the place for detail on SPS arrangements. Any alignment with the EU on SPS policy needs to be phased in. Could my right hon. Friend expand on why the shift needs to be a transition, rather than an immediate removal of friction, given that the National Farmers Union has said it is critical that we avoid a cliff edge?
Mr Carmichael
On any objective analysis, it is very important that we get this right, and we can get it right by doing it slowly and carefully. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst)—the lobster capital of Europe—referenced the report from CropLife UK. The report seeks to quantify the financial cost of a cliff-edge implementation, and puts it as high as £810 million. CropLife UK is obviously not saying, “Don’t do this,” but simply, “If you do this with no proper implementation period, there will be financial cost attached to it.” At a time when the Government’s central mission is economic growth, and when that growth must be available to every community in the country —rural as well as urban—taking that sort of risk for the political imperative of timing seems an unacceptable way of managing such an important agreement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his clear message on veterinary medicines for Northern Ireland, and for his and the Committee’s encouragement to the Minister to ensure that the agreement is in place as soon as possible. We very much welcome alignment between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the report highlights that an SPS agreement could significantly reduce regulatory friction between Great Britain and Northern Ireland by aligning standards, which could potentially remove physical checks and “Not for EU” labelling requirements. However, did the right hon. Member and his Committee consider the fact that the Government cannot exercise re-entrance to Europe by the back door? How can the Government ensure that seeking a tailor-made UK deal for all is their approach?
Mr Carmichael
If our ultimate destination were re-entry, whether by the back door or front door, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I might struggle to find a common position. Let us be clear what we are dealing with. An SPS agreement is tightly drawn, and is about our food producers having frictionless access so that they can get their products to market in our single biggest market. That is why there is a real opportunity here.
To my mind, the veterinary medicines agreement, for example, goes beyond trade; it is a matter of animal welfare. Allowing questions of constitution to get in the way of providing the animal welfare products we need, in any part of the United Kingdom, would be unforgivable.
Healthy Relationships
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for healthy relationships.
It is a pleasure to be under your chairship, Ms Jardine. May I start by wishing you a happy Valentine’s day for Saturday?
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”
That is probably the most famous line in British literature, but when it comes to British policy, the role of relationships seems too often to be an afterthought, yet they are the building block of a healthy society. I am the first to jump on our cultural obsession with relationships when there is a new “Bridgerton” season, but it is time that relationships became a political obsession, too.
Valentine’s day is a moment each year when the country reflects on love, partnership and the relationships that underpin our families, communities and society. With public interest high in the pressures facing modern couples and with a growing body of evidence that respect, trust and equality prevent relationship breakdown, this debate offers us a timely opportunity to consider the factors that enable healthy partnerships in Britain today.
Healthy relationships are fundamental to a number of key policy domains. Strong and stable partnerships are associated with improved mental wellbeing, reduced loneliness and better overall health outcomes, while relationship distress is linked to increased demand for NHS and social care services. In education and children’s services, the quality of parental relationships strongly influences children’s emotional development, attainment and long-term life chances. In the economy, relationship stability and equality affect workforce participation, financial security and the capacity of families to balance work and care. In efforts to tackle violence against women and girls, healthy norms, cultures and values are clearly fundamental.
Policy decisions across those and other areas have a significant impact on couples’ abilities to build and sustain equal, healthy relationships. Workplace policies, such as parental leave and access to flexible working, shape how families organise care and employment. Housing affordability and security influence relationship formation and stability. Mental health provision, early years support and the wider social safety net all play a role in reducing pressures that constrain partnerships, while legal and justice frameworks affect how society responds to abuse, coercive control and family breakdown.
The fact is that relationships today look entirely different from those just 20 years ago. Today, more than two thirds of families with dependent children have both parents in employment, meaning that the majority of households are dual income. With divorce well entrenched in our culture, one in four families with dependent children is a single-parent household. There are huge benefits to more people working, especially for women, and it is a good thing that people have access to divorce when relationships are not healthy, but we cannot just take the benefits of these improvements and not mitigate the impacts.
What happens to child development when both parents are working full time, or when a single parent has no capacity outside work and childcare? What happens to our ability to bond with each other as a couple in a romantic relationship? What happens to our capacity to engage in and contribute to our local communities? Those shifts in the roles of couples and households also have negative impacts on relationships. We could mitigate those impacts, but as yet we have struggled to do so. This Government are rightly focused on growth as the key way this country can get back to a time of prosperity, but most parents I know—bear in mind that parents make up a huge part of the working population—are exhausted, and if I know one thing as a parent of small children, it is that nothing good or productive comes of being exhausted. How can we expect great output and productivity from people in the workplace when the strain on couples is so high? We have to pay closer attention to how households are coping.
Relationship challenges impact not only what we produce in the workplace, but how we sustain our population. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has recently highlighted our falling birth rate and has rightly highlighted actions taken by this Government to try to change that, such as better funded childcare and measures on the cost of living and housing. Couples are operating under unprecedented strain to both parent or care and to work full time, yet we barely talk about the psychological toll. Then we are surprised that domestic violence rates increase, that mental health in both men and women is plummeting and adding to our welfare bill, that special educational needs and disabilities issues are skyrocketing and that couples are deciding that one child is enough. As a Government, we give couples screen time advice and encourage them to have more children, but we rarely ask, “What is life like for you right now, and what would make your life easier as a couple and as a parent in 2026?” Let us do that more.
When it comes to domestic violence, the Government have made huge strides in developing a comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women and girls, but the fact remains that 3.8 million people experienced domestic abuse last year, and a quarter of all UK residents have experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16. The time when abuse starts in earnest is during pregnancy and the first 1,001 days of life. Some 30% of domestic abuse begins in pregnancy, rising to 40% in the first 1,001 days, precisely when infant brain development is the most sensitive to stress and trauma, but, terrifyingly, only 0.5% of maternity patients disclose abuse, so those numbers miss the majority of cases. Abuse during that period worsens maternal mental health, increases adverse birth outcomes and damages infants’ socio-emotional development. Those effects shift costs on to the NHS, social care, education and the justice system for years.
Relationships between parents and children can lead to stronger and more secure relationships and behaviour among those children as they grow up, but we know that currently only 55% of infants develop secure attachments, and that insecure attachment is a key driver of poor outcomes later in life. Research this month from the Centre for Mental Health and the Parent-Infant Foundation finds that expanding access to parent-infant relationship teams to support parents in the most deprived areas to bond with their babies could save the Government £1.2 billion annually.
The single most significant thing we could do in this Parliament to change all of this would be to introduce much better paternity leave—ideally at least six weeks at 90% of pay. Paternity leave in this country is truly embarrassing: two weeks is not enough. The UK’s offer of two weeks of unpaid statutory paternity leave is among the least generous in Europe, constraining fathers’ early involvement and entrenching relationship inequality. Modelling by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that six weeks at 90% of pay could deliver £2.68 billion to the wider economy, primarily through increased maternal employment and more equal sharing of care. Some 59% of people agreed that bad paternity leave made it difficult to share childcare responsibilities equally, not just in the short term, but in the long term, with patterns proving harder to shift.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Women are 10% more likely to report that they do the majority of childcare. Some 66% of people surveyed want care to be more equal, and 74% of men want it to be more equal. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can only achieve that greater equality by addressing the fact that two weeks is not enough, and that patterns are laid in from day one that hold women, babies and men back from enjoying family life?
Maya Ellis
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; she is right that both men and women want this. Everyone in society is demanding this, and I really hope that the Government will listen and take action. An even more critical point is that it is not just men and women but children who will benefit from this. Ten to Men found that a loving paternal relationship was the single biggest factor in preventing a boy becoming a man who abuses his partner.
The macro win of all of this is higher labour supply and reduced gender gaps, the fiscal win is higher tax receipts and lower benefit dependency, and the household win is healthier relationships and more resilient income. Imagine the benefits if a dad or a partner could build a bond and confidence with their baby, so that understanding is deepened between parents, bonds are built to strengthen the determination to care for the baby, and a society is developed where protecting your family bubble becomes the pride point.
I will be frank: I truly hope that this Labour Government and the most progressive and gender-balanced Parliament ever will catch us up by committing to six weeks of protected paternity leave at 90% of pay, paid for by Government, and do it soon. If we do not take the single biggest step we can closer to equality, I do not know what we are here for.
The fact that radicalised me more than any other, and that tells me that we are still early on in the journey to equal and healthy relationships, is that before 1991 it was still legal to rape your wife. Anyone who got married before 1991 did so knowing that fact. We are only 35 years into a world that expects men and women to be equal in a marriage, and we are only beginning to work out what that means for us as a society.
One of the biggest hills we have to climb is helping men and boys find newly empowered roles in equal relationships, in the same way that women and girls have been doing. Many colleagues in this place are doing important work on building role models and positive education for boys, and the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy includes teacher training to spot the early signs of misogyny in boys. I truly welcome the plans for improved relationships education in schools that the Government are introducing this year, particularly plans to start this earlier in primary schools and to focus on how to develop healthy relationships. None the less, we must remain alive to how early we subconsciously introduce power disparities.
As part of preparing for this debate, our friends at the Dad Shift challenged us to remember couples we admire for their equality, because role models are critical. The couple I admire most is Tom and Barbara Good from “The Good Life”. Amazingly, I only discovered the 1970s show recently and was slightly taken aback by how good they are to each other, in a way that makes me feel we have in some ways regressed from these days.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. A relationship that I admire for its equality is that of local constituents Mick and Jane Yates. They have been together for 16 years. To watch him go from being a councillor with many political demands, while his wife was not a councillor, to his wife not only becoming a councillor but leading Bolsover district council—a strong and inspiring leader whom he supports to thrive in her role—is just the best. Jane says they do not always agree on things, political or not, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that, even when we disagree, we find ways in a healthy relationship to love and respect each other? That is what is at its core.
Maya Ellis
It is great to hear that Jane and Mick have such a positive relationship. One of the things that I really value is debate. The fact that in our new schools framework, we are introducing oracy—the ability to debate and discuss well—is really important. It has always been possible to have healthy relationships. We must create the right social and policy decisions to make them easier.
At this point, I want to give a quick shout-out to the incredible role models I see talking to women and men about building positive, healthy relationships—people like Neha Ruch, Libby Ward, Joeli Brearley, Ashley James, and so many others who are relentless in making sure we talk about what healthy relationships look like. I know there are similarly strong role models for men out there too, but we still have a long way to go.
Did you know, Ms Jardine, that there are only nine mentions of the term “mental load” in Hansard, yet as a mum on parenting Instagram I see it every other word? In my office we have four core aims, and one of them is to be useful, so I will end by leaving everyone with the most useful tool I have come across to tackle the mental load and promote equality in creating healthier relationships.
In Eve Rodsky’s book “Fair Play”, she says every task has three parts: conception, planning and action. To get something done, you first have to notice that it needs to be done. Then, you have to work out and plan how to do it. Then, you have to do it. It is great to see more couples starting to share actions around the home, but let us see more equal sharing of the noticing and planning too—and yes, that will probably involve realising how big the mental load actually is for some people.
Healthy relationships underpin healthy progress as a society, and whether we want to admit it or not, Government policy underpins healthy relationships. We are doing great things as a Government, with improved relationship education, a powerful VAWG strategy, more flexibility built into employment rights, a huge increase in best start family hubs investment and a strengthened court system, but we have to do more. Ninety per cent. of dads say they want to be more present in family life and have a more equal relationship, but our current paternity leave offer is one of the worst in the world. It blocks them right out of the gate. Stanford research published just this week found that couples who work one day a week from home would have around 0.5 more children on average, moving the current birth rate of 1.4 closer to the replacement rate, yet there are political voices saying that we should not work from home at all.
I hope we put healthy relationships more at the front and centre of all we do here. Our future depends on it. Again, I wish you a very happy Valentine’s day for Saturday, Ms Jardine.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that if they wish to speak, they should bob. Informally, speeches should be kept to around five minutes.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing such an important debate.
As someone who, before I was elected, worked in the sector, delivering programmes with and to young people, I understand how key this issue is. When we talk about healthy relationships, we are really talking about the kind of country we want to be. Long before a child sits an exam, applies for a job or decides who they want to spend the rest of their lives with, they are learning how to treat other people and how they expect to be treated themselves. Healthy relationships are therefore the foundation of confidence, safety, educational success and mental wellbeing. If we can get this right early on, we can prevent harm later; if we neglect it, we end up paying the price in poor outcomes and avoidable crises.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this excellent debate. One organisation that does really interesting work in this space—which, I am ashamed to say, I did not know much about until last year—is Soroptimist International, which has developed fantastic “Loves me, Loves me not” bookmarks that it takes into schools and colleges. The bookmarks detail the component parts of a healthy relationship, as well as how to detect whether or not someone is in one. Does my hon. Friend agree that more initiatives like that would take us in exactly the direction we need to go in?
Leigh Ingham
I agree with my hon. Friend. Soroptimist does incredible work in my constituency on supporting healthy relationships, as well as work to support women in prisons, which I have worked with it on, so I completely agree.
Schools in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages are working really hard to get this right. I will speak to a couple of specific examples. At Tillington Manor primary school, healthy relationships are not an occasional lesson: they are woven through the culture of the school. Through a structured personal, social, health and economic education curriculum, children learn about friendship, family, communication, conflict resolution and how to recognise healthy and unhealthy behaviours.
The lessons are all age appropriate, and they build year on year. They are delivered through safe discussion, role play and reflection in a safe environment. But what really stands out to me is the whole-school approach. The school has dedicated spaces, such as the nook and the hive, where emotional support is provided for children and families, and the staff are trained in emotional literacy and wellbeing. As a result, the pupils are more confident in identifying healthy relationships and more likely to seek help from trusted adults. The school has found that, as a result of the programmes, repeated conflict has reduced over time. That is what prevention can look like in practice.
At secondary level, Sir Graham Balfour school teaches relationships and sex education from years 7 to 13 as a spiral curriculum. Students are learning about consent, safety, what healthy relationships look like and what toxic dynamics look like. The school also runs focused workshops on toxic relationships and masculinity for groups of pupils who might be struggling.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned the debate around boys and young men. The discussion often becomes incredibly polarised, but the reality is that many boys and young men are navigating a confusing online landscape where extreme and harmful messages about masculinity are only a click away—and then not even a click away, because algorithms amplify extremist content, and it gets worse and worse.
We need to create spaces where boys can talk honestly about respect, emotions and what it means to be a man, because we know that if we do not, someone else will fill the vacuum. Teaching children about healthy relationships is not about blaming boys; it is about equipping them and helping them to build the skills to form respectful partnerships, handle rejection and understand that strong men do not prey on the weakest in society. The healthy relationship that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) spoke about was a wonderful example of that.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the pressures facing girls and young women. Schools in my constituency report increasing concerns about body image, self-esteem and unrealistic expectations, fuelled by social media. Girls are measuring themselves against edited, filtered versions of reality that are being presented as the norm on their phone screens.
When another school in my constituency strengthened its RSE curriculum, students began to come forward about inappropriate touching that had previously gone unreported. That was a significant step in creating the foundations of healthy relationships, and it makes it crystal clear why such lessons are so important.
Last week, I visited Burleyfields primary school, where four and five-year-olds told me how they keep their brains happy and healthy. They suggested—we all need to know this—baking, reading books, imaginative play and spending less time on our devices. Let us be honest: we could all do with a bit of that. Even at that age, the children knew what a healthy relationship and healthy activities could look like.
But schools cannot do it alone. Our Government have a real opportunity to build on the strong foundations that are already in place. Continued investment in high-quality PSHE and professional development will help to ensure consistency across the system, and strengthening early intervention mental health services would support children and families before things escalate.
I welcome the Government’s focus on attendance, behaviour and school improvement, which is helping to create conditions for healthier relationships in schools. With 140,000 fewer children persistently absent, and the new attendance and behaviour hubs spreading really good practice, we are seeing how structure and support can work effectively together.
In Stafford, our schools are already leading the way. They are demonstrating that when healthy relationships are embedded across the whole school, culture changes, behaviour improves and children feel safer. What steps is the Minister taking to advance the progress the Government have already made and build on the incredible work that is already being done in schools such as those in my constituency?
We all know that healthy relationships are not a luxury; they are a vital fabric underpinning our society. They define so many of the debates we have in this place, from academic attainment to mental health and public safety. If we want to create a generation that is resilient, respectful and ready to contribute, we must invest accordingly.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this debate. I know from the work we do together on the all-party parliamentary group on babies that she is a powerful advocate for babies in particular, and I am grateful for her input to the APPG for fatherhood, which I chair.
I want to use my time to zoom in on three issues that put stress and strain on relationships that are otherwise very healthy: parenthood, in particular the role of the father; caring for a child with SEND needs; and couples experiencing challenges with fertility.
First, on parenthood, there is no doubt that sleepless nights and the massive demand on time, energy and the emotional resilience that is required to raise a child leaves relationships on the back foot. All that is normal, of course, I am told, but the demands of modern life —the rising costs of living, the crippling costs of nursery and the need for couples to maintain two full-time jobs just to stay afloat—pile on the pressure and increase the scope for conflict. Couples can experience a loss of connection, becoming little more than roommates, and passing ships in the night.
One thing that would help is better parental leave and pay. The UK paternity offer is the lowest in Europe. Two weeks is not enough. The lack of leave paid at a liveable level leaves men and birthing partners less connected to their child and less able to make an equal contribution to parenting. That can drive resentment and disconnection in relationships, bake in traditional gender roles from the start, and leave children with lower-quality relationships with their fathers.
Research shows that fathers who take extended leave are more involved in their children’s lives long term, and that higher involvement improves cognitive and emotional outcomes for children. Higher paternal affection has been identified as the single biggest determinant from boyhood in preventing violence against women and girls. Paternity leave should increase to at least six weeks at 90% of earnings, and eligibility should be extended to self-employed parents.
I welcome the parental leave and pay review; however, I am concerned by the pace at which it is moving. Families have already struggled so long under the existing offer, and they do not have time to wait further for the Government’s extended deliberation. I have already pressed the Minister for Employment Rights, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), on the speed of the review, and will continue to do so.
On caring for a child with SEND needs, I am sure that other Members will be familiar with the SEND crisis in their constituencies. The Government are not providing upper-tier authorities with enough funding for SEND care. In Oxfordshire, there is a lack of specialist places in schools, and mainstream schools are struggling to cope. The funding attached to education, health and care plans does not cover the cost of SEND provision, including teaching support. Small schools in rural areas are least able to cover the cost from elsewhere in their budgets.
The whole system treats children as a burden to be managed and minimised. Parents must therefore fight with the system, often to tribunal, to get the support they need. Understandably, that places an immense burden on the parents’ relationship, which leads to higher rates of separation among parents with SEND children.
Finally, let me turn to the strain on relationships caused by fertility issues. Under the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West integrated care board, in vitro fertilisation treatment is restricted to women under 35, and only one cycle of treatment is provided. Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend that women under 40 should be offered at least three cycles. Given that the average age at which a woman will begin IVF is 35, the current offer in my area is unreflective of demographic and scientific evidence.
The ICB says that its decision is based on the unaffordability of providing IVF to patients over 35, but in what other area of health do we allow ICBs simply to ignore NICE guidelines because of affordability? The cost of going private places additional strain on relationships at a time when physical, mental and emotional burdens are high.
It is often cited that at least 50% of marriages end in divorce, but are we setting up couples to succeed when they start families? Starting a family and raising a child is not for everyone, but it is in everyone’s interest to support those who want to do so. We should not place all the burden on individual couples to maintain healthy relationships when so many structural barriers lie in their way.
Unhealthy relationships rarely exist in isolation. If we are serious about prevention, rather than simply picking up the pieces we must look honestly at the structural pressures and strains that families face, long before crisis ever surfaces. The relationships I really admire are those that endure through hardship by focusing on mutual support, empathy and understanding, but let us, in this place, give them a helping hand.
I have spoken about what can be done to help couples to stay together, but ending unhealthy relationships that have broken down is just as important. The state has a role here, too, where marriage, property and children are involved. I hope the Minister will consider improvements in the areas I have outlined.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for setting the scene incredibly well and allowing us all to participate in this debate. As a husband, father and grandfather, the motion urged me to take a moment to think: what is a healthy relationship? I posed this question to myself before I came here, and I have been thinking about it in relation to how we might contribute to the debate. It is a question we should all ask ourselves, so I thank the hon. Lady for giving us pause today. If we are honest, we can all work on healthy relationships to make them that bit better and more successful. From partners to children, friends and colleagues, finding a healthier balance is something we all can and must do.
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well. We very much look forward to hearing her responses to our questions.
Many have referred to grandchildren, and my two grandchildren are staying with me at the minute. We live on a farm, and my son—along with his wife and the two children—is going to build a house on the farm. I always think about this when I come home after a hard week—and sometimes the weeks are incredibly difficult, with the pressures of life. Wee Freya is only five, and she always tells you that she loves you. Wee Ezra is only three, but he has that big smile. Both those things show just how important grandchildren are. These relationships are incredibly important for us all, and I so value the opportunity to have grandchildren who can lift you when you do not feel very much like being lifted. I know that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has her children, and they lift her, and others in this Chamber will know the importance of those things.
It is also clear that part of having healthy relationships is ensuring that our children and grandchildren understand what healthy is. To me, a healthy relationship is a respectful one, which I think is incredible. Am I perfect? I am far from perfect. I probably say things I should not say and do things I should not do—I regret it often—but I understand that respecting a loved one means watching our words and actions. If we respect them as we should, and as I do, we will be at pains to control our tempers or hurtful words.
I have three sons who are each married and have two children, and I know that my daughters-in-law and my sons are teaching their children that they are worth more than harsh words or actions, and that they are treasures worthy of a mutually respectful relationship. Where does that happen? It is done in the home, first of all, and we do it in our own lives, as we should, but it is also done in schools. Many schools in my area are always talking about how we build relationships. As a Christian, I should mention the importance of churches when it comes to a young man meeting a young woman, or vice versa. Churches give couples time to build their relationships and try to guide them in a way that they can understand and use in their lives. There is so much out there that we need to do.
We have incredible problems in Northern Ireland. There are probably problems across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the message does not seem to have landed well in Northern Ireland. We have struggled with unhealthy relationships and, notably, both genders are the perpetrators. Domestic abuse remains a critical issue in Northern Ireland, according for nearly 20% of all recorded crime. I know the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland—it is a devolved matter—but it is worth giving the figures to add to the debate.
While reported incidents have overall shown a slight decline recently, certain categories such as sexual offences have seen an increase. Police recorded almost 30,000 domestic abuse incidents and almost 18,500 domestic abuse crimes in the 2024-25 financial year. Wow, that is incredible. That is scary. On average, the Police Service of Northern Ireland responds to domestic abuse incidents every 17 minutes. Females represent some 67% of victims, while males represent some 33%. That is the highest male proportion recorded to date. One in four women in Northern Ireland will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime.
There are a number of tragedies that must be recorded. There were eight domestic abuse motivated homicides recorded between 2024 and 2025, compared to six during the previous 12-month period. That is simply too many lives lost. That is too many children devastated, because there are those that are left behind, too. Sometimes we look at the person—the individual—but there are those that are left behind: the children, the mums and dads and all of the families who are mourning. It simply did not need to happen.
A further disturbing aspect of domestic abuse is the effect that it has on children. Over 23,000 referrals were made to support children affected by domestic abuse through school-based programmes in the past year in Northern Ireland. Boards of governors are now tabling Operation Encompass on each meeting agenda. Again, I underline the importance of schools to try and help in that area. That is a partnership between the PSNI and schools. If the police attend domestic incidents where a child is present, they notify the child’s school by the next morning so that immediate trauma-informed support can be provided. That wee child could be greatly disturbed by what they may have witnessed the night or day before. It is really important that these things are put in place.
My heart, and indeed, all our hearts ache for the children who are living with bad examples of healthy relationships. They may witness that every day. They have been conditioned to accept what is unacceptable. We all have a duty to ensure that schools have funding available to put on programmes and take time to provide a safe space and a listening ear. Again, that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I am keen to hear what her thoughts are, because that is the only way that we can help to break the generational acceptance of the unacceptable. That is something that each of us in this Chamber, both individually and collectively as a House, strives for. It is something that I believe we can and will change. I have no doubt whatever that those who are present, and many who were not able to be, are committed to that change. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who has done us all a massive favour by giving us the opportunity to come and make a contribution.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Before I move to the Front Benches, does anyone else wish to speak?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I think it is the first time I have spoken in a debate that you have chaired and it is wonderful to see you there.
I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this important debate today. Before I get going, I just want to say what an honour it is to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We often joke in this place that he is at every debate, speaking on everything; today it is truly an honour to see the emotion and passion with which he spoke about being a grandfather. I sadly never got to know either of my grandfathers, and I would have been delighted to have had someone like the hon. Member for Strangford as my granddad. I thank him for that.
To be honest, when preparing for today, I thought, as the education team were asked to cover the debate, that we would largely be talking about relationships and sex education. I see that the Conservative Front Bench thought that too, and maybe even the Minister, so there we go.
I will go a little bit off script, because the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was much broader in her speech, talking about family policy and how we support and champion families. I am the education, children and family spokesperson for the Lib Dems. That is very deliberate, because as a party we believe that we should look at children and families much more holistically and not just through the prism of education. We are very keen on championing family policy, not just as a party but cross-party.
As several hon. Members have pointed out today, healthy relationships are difficult to build when we are living in such challenging times. There is a cost of living crisis; there are parents who are working full-time jobs and sometimes juggling two or three jobs, while trying to put food on the table and looking after children, and all the pressures that brings.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) both talked about parental rights. I recognise the fiscal situation that this Government find themselves in, but we need to find the money to spend on parental rights and parental leave. All the evidence tells us that, in those early weeks and months after a baby is born, and in the early years, parental involvement at home can make a massive difference.
That is not making a judgment on those who want to go out to work—I say this as a working parent myself. I was very clear with my husband from the get-go—“I am not staying at home even part time, once I finish my maternity leave. I want to be back in the workplace.” He actually wanted to take the decision to go part time with our first child and was largely full time, apart from being a local councillor, with our son.
Munira Wilson
I will just get to the end of my point, and then am very happy to give way. The time at which my husband wanted to take more parental leave when our first child was born was towards the end of the coalition Government, before the new parental leave rights had come into place. He could not take any paid leave, although we were able to afford for him to do that. I will come on to what I think we should be doing on parental leave and paternity pay, but will give way first.
Sarah Smith
An important element that maybe has not come through so far in the debate is the class impact of the current policy situation. Currently, 90% of paternity leave claims are made by the top 50% of earners. It is very rare that low-income earners are able to even access the current system. Unfortunately, the challenge of the policies laid out under the coalition is that parental leave is only accessible to those who were better off to start with.
If we are going to get this right going forward, we have to design a policy framework and put forward legislation that puts those fathers and those families first. If we are not achieving parental leave for the families who are, if we are honest, those who are often dealing with the most complex situations, we are letting down the children that need us the most.
Munira Wilson
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. I am not suggesting that the parental leave policy was perfect by any stretch of the imagination. If it was perfect, we would have far more fathers taking more parental leave, but typically it is mothers who take most parental leave. It is far from perfect, but the Government have an opportunity now, with their parental leave and pay review, to consider the situation holistically.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame has already set out, we as a party would like to see all parents being able to share parental leave. There would be six weeks of “use it or lose it” parental leave each, so that fathers, as much as mothers, have an entitlement of six weeks. However, the rest of the 46 weeks—taking us up to 52 weeks—would be for a mother and father to share as they wish.
Again, recognising that that is challenging fiscally at the moment, frankly we have an ambition to try and double the rates of statutory maternity pay, which is also parental pay. That probably relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), because at the moment the rates of statutory pay are, frankly, less than the minimum wage and lots of parents just cannot afford to take time off, and feel driven back into the workplace, often before they are ready to return to it. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the Leader of the Opposition, who at one point said that maternity pay was “excessive”. I think that it is far from “excessive”; indeed, it is far too low and we have a long way to go to improve it.
While we are discussing the parental leave and pay review, we should not forget about kinship families. Lots of families are not conventional families. Many children cannot grow up with their parents, but other family members look after them. Kinship carers step up overnight to look after children, frequently giving up jobs and careers, and incurring costs that they do not necessarily have a statutory right to receive any support for. Also, they are not allowed to take leave; often, they are excluded from adoption leave as well as from parental leave. When we are discussing family policy and building healthy relationships, that is a real gap in the system that needs to be fixed.
I will move on to what I was originally going to say today, which is about trying to build good relationships. We cannot take for granted that children growing up today will necessarily have access to the right sources of knowledge. The rise of technology and social media has put our children at increased risk of encountering extreme and harmful content that distorts their understanding of how they should interact with each other, what romantic relationships look like, and—frankly—what sex looks like.
We know that women are 27 times more likely than men to be harassed online, and that a third of young women between the ages of 17 and 21 have received unwanted sexual images online. We know that the online world needs to be reined in, with tech companies and influencers alike profiteering by exploiting the insecurities that men and boys often have, through the use of addictive algorithms that often promote radicalising content and monetise misogynistic content.
It might have been the hon. Member for Ribble Valley who said that we should not stereotype our image of what men and boys are like at the moment. However, I think it is true that many men and boys feel increasingly lonely and isolated, and struggle with all sorts of issues, whether the cost of living or a lack of access to other positive activities. So, we need to look at men and boys as well as at women and girls, and to consider the different needs of each.
I said in a debate on relationship education last year that we need a culture change in all aspects of society. We must encourage the men in our lives—our brothers, fathers, friends, boyfriends, husbands and sons—to stand up against the toxic masculinity that we have seen, and to demonstrate to other men in their lives, particularly young men, what it means to be compassionate and kind in all relationships, and to realise that compassion is a strength and not a weakness.
Given the significant amount of online content that promotes violence against women and girls, which is particularly targeted at men and boys, we need to ensure that we protect our children and young people, not only because of the risk of harm to their mental and physical wellbeing but because of the impact on their social development and how they build relationships.
That is why we, as a party, have called very strongly for a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. Different political parties have different proposals on how such a ban could be implemented, but I think it needs to go hand in hand with getting people off their devices and into other activities, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) mentioned. We cannot start restricting things for children and young people if we do not give them alternatives. I have seen that at youth facilities that are easy and cheap, or free, to access. When the young people at those facilities were asked, “What did you do before you came here?”, they said, “We would be on our screens, in our bedroom, on our phones.” We have to provide those third spaces for young people.
Leigh Ingham
During the years in which Staffordshire had a Conservative-led county council, which coincided with the Conservative Government, we suffered the third-worst youth service cuts in the country. One of the things most regularly brought up with me when I meet constituents is how few activities there are for young people.
Indeed, I spoke to the vicar of a church in Eccleshall who told me that he had made a map of the activities in Eccleshall for older people and those for younger people. He came up with 112 things for older people to do in that part of my constituency, but none for younger people. Does the hon. Member agree that, while we are considering healthy relationships—and youth workers are key to modelling this behaviour, because they give a safe space to talk—we must focus on equipping our local authorities, in my case a Reform-led local authority, to prioritise the needs of young people?
Munira Wilson
I could not agree more. Youth services are critical and youth workers are amazing, whether they are employed by local authorities, our churches or voluntary groups up and down the country. I am the parent of an 11-year-old who is at the age where, in the holidays, she absolutely does not want to go to holiday clubs. I am trying to persuade her to go to some of the youth venues in the area. We are lucky that we still have two or three of those facilities, but I recognise that in some areas of the country there is not very much. I welcome that the Government have made announcements in this area—the Culture Secretary has made some very positive announcements on this issue. I would like to see a longer-term strategy to support those announcements, particularly in relation to the workforce.
In the classroom, relationships and sex education is so important for tackling and preventing violence against women and girls. I see amazing examples in my constituency, where schools are working hard on this issue. I am proud that our local authority, Richmond council, is White Ribbon-accredited and does lots of work with schools and lots of awareness-raising work in the area.
However, age-appropriate relationships and sex education at school has a crucial role to play, alongside the role of parents and carers, in giving children the knowledge and information they need to keep them safe by teaching them about consent, healthy relationships and online risks such as pornography and sexting. That is essential for safeguarding. Yet, according to a report by Internet Matters, many children say that they have
“received no specific education in relation to sexual image sharing or only very superficial coverage”
in relationships and sex education lessons, and that they do not feel able to get the information they want in whole-class groups. Many children felt that they were not offered enough information when the issue was discussed and that, when information was delivered by teachers who were not subject specialists, those teachers
“often sped through the topic because they found it ‘awkward’”.
[Interruption.] Was that a cough to say that I need to wind up, Ms Jardine?
Munira Wilson
Okay. I was not sure whether you were struggling. I will bring my remarks to a close.
The Liberal Democrats believe that an age-appropriate RSE curriculum should be led by a qualified teacher, be delivered in a safe, non-judgmental setting, and include teaching about sexual consent, LGBT+ relationships and issues surrounding explicit images. All young people deserve access to high-quality education that empowers them to make safe and informed choices. That obviously also means proper funding, training and resources to deliver high-quality RSE. I have already set out some of the family policies we would like to see. If we want to achieve a society in which all can flourish and have happy, healthy relationships, we need to invest in our families and in our education system.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) on a refreshing, measured, fantastic speech. Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I expected a slightly different topic, but it was pleasing to hear so much about the importance of strong families. Maybe we can do this debate again and I will write a slightly different speech. Between us all, we will cover various aspects that are relevant and important. I would also like hon. Members to know that I, too, am watching season 4 of “Bridgerton”—a classic Cinderella tale—which is very enjoyable.
Healthy relationships are underpinned by respect. In most cases, the way we would wish to be treated ourselves is probably a good place to start our relationships with others, but we continue to see high levels of violence against women and girls, as well as other kinds of abuse such as coercive control, with no real signs of reduction. That suggests something is going badly wrong, and the Government have rightly set challenging ambitions to address this huge societal problem.
We very much welcome the Government’s recently published VAWG strategy and their ambition to halve such violence, and we hope it will build on the work undertaken by the previous Government. The Conservatives elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that policing leaders must treat as a national threat, and we committed over £230 million to the tackling domestic abuse plan from 2022 to 2025. That included quadrupling the funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, and it complemented the £300 million investment in the 2021 tackling VAWG strategy as part of the goal to drive down the prevalence of domestic abuse.
The previous Government also created two new offences: stalking and stalking involving fear of violence, serious alarm or distress. That made it easier for victims to hold stalkers to account. On top of that, we also outlawed upskirting to further protect women and girls, criminalised revenge porn and deepfakes, and introduced the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and, accordingly, domestic abuse protection notices and orders. We are clear that robust action against offenders is vital in the fight against VAWG.
Although relationship education in schools can go only so far in addressing male violence against women and girls, it nevertheless plays an important role in educating young people on what positive and healthy relationships looks like, and the importance of putting in place clear boundaries. Those skills are vital in navigating relationships, recognising potential abuse, including coercive control, and knowing how and when to seek help when needed.
Relationship education was made compulsory in all primary and secondary schools in 2020. It has several core objectives: to foster pupil wellbeing, to develop resilience and character, and to ensure that pupils are happy, successful and productive members of society. In spite of that, shockingly, nearly three women every single week are killed by men, and many, many more are raped and abused.
The risks and harms arising from the online world are feeding this problem. Pornography is available online at the touch of a button on smartphones. Let me be clear: this is harmful stuff that depicts strangulation, rape, violence and degrading acts such as spitting on young women. Any young man seeing such misogynistic content day in, day out will inevitably view women and girls differently. They will be more likely to see them as an object to use and degrade. By comparison, the relatively trivial amount of time spent learning the opposite in a classroom cannot hope to offset that. The single best thing we can do to stem the tide is to introduce a ban on smartphones in schools for under-16s and increase the age limit for social media to 16. That will not address the whole issue, of course, but it will massively help. The Conservatives have backed it all the way, and I ask the Minister to do so too. The Government’s proposal to ban strangulation content is welcome and a positive step forward.
I am concerned that our strong desire to eradicate VAWG has led to boys and men being unnecessarily demonised. There is a difference between calling out abusive behaviour and labelling a whole set of masculine attributes as toxic. Masculinity is a wonderful thing—the yang to femininity’s yin—and it is certainly not toxic in the great majority of cases, particularly when it is not fuelled by online porn.
Our answer to a genuine question about the abuse of girls has been to tell a generation of boys, “You are the problem,” and then we are surprised when that approach, instead of nurturing healthy relationships, creates resentment and pushes more young men towards the very online subcultures that feed off grievance and rejection. Instead, we need to positively embrace what being a good man, a good partner and a good father look like. Fundamentally, boys need positive role models from which to learn and model their own relationships. That is why fathers and other male role models are so important. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that.
When it comes to education on healthy relationships, we have seen an ever-growing load of subject matter covering issues from relationships to mental health. Good RSHE can be a protective factor when it is age-appropriate, factual and taught impartially, but it is also important to recognise that schools should not try to replace the education that should be the family’s role. There is a careful balance to be struck.
As well as confident, self-assured boys, we need confident, self-assured girls who are clear about their boundaries and what behaviours they are willing to accept and not accept. That means not telling them that selling their bodies is empowering, not expecting them always to be kind, and not telling them that the feelings of men are more important than their safety. On that point, I hope we might hear something today about the Government’s unresolved approach to gender-questioning guidance for schools and the release of the long-awaited code of practice on single-sex spaces following the recent Supreme Court ruling.
The Government cannot claim to support healthy relationships so long as they leave schools to navigate the issue without proper guidance. It is incumbent on this Government to reinforce rules that entitle our girls and women to privacy from males when they are getting changed—that is basic safeguarding.
We received the draft non-statutory guidance on gender-questioning children back in December 2023, but two years later, schools and parents are still waiting for it to be published. Will the Minister confirm when we can expect to see both the gender-questioning guidance and the revised code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
My final point is on the need to be honest about where the deeper formation of relationships happens. Schools matter and good teachers can be life-changing, but let us not lose sight of the fact that children spend most of their time outside the classroom. The attitudes that shape relationships are forged primarily at home, as well as online and in peer groups. If we want healthy relationships, we cannot pretend that a curriculum document can substitute for a loving and nurturing family structure. Families can come in all different shapes and sizes, but the important thing is that they are loving, nurturing and respectful. Children learn how to interact with others from their main caregivers. What are the Minister’s plans to support strong families, given that it is likely to be the most impactful way a Government can ensure healthier relationships?
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for opening this debate on the Government’s support for healthy relationships. It was great to hear hon. Members talking about what healthy relationships mean to them, and it is wonderful to see both Movember and Dad Shift in the Gallery today.
This debate could not come at a more welcome time. We have recently published our groundbreaking strategy for halving violence against women and girls in the next 10 years, backed by at least £1 billion of Government funding. We published updated relationships, sex and health education guidance last summer, which will be implemented in all schools from September, and we have committed £8 million to support schools to maximise the impact of curriculum changes. The importance of healthy relationships was written in our manifesto, and we are proud of the action this Labour Government are taking in this area.
The new curriculum reflects the importance of supporting young children to build the skills for healthy relationships from the start of primary. We should not pretend that relationships are easy, and the reason we are having this conversation is because we know they are not. We will support children to learn the difficult skills of setting and recognising healthy boundaries, balancing different people’s needs and preferences, managing conflict and communicating with kindness and respect.
In secondary school, we will move away from an exclusive focus on consent, which has led to a culture of “anything goes, so long as I’ve got a yes.” Young people must understand the importance of consent, but they must also understand that consent alone is not enough. We want to raise a generation of young people who value kindness, who pay attention, who notice power imbalances and who look out for vulnerability. This is fundamentally about how we approach our relationships. Are we out there trying to get what we want from other people, or are we here to be kind and take care of each other?
We will teach young people how to turn a critical lens on content that encourages harmful attitudes or prejudice in any form of media. In the online world of Andrew Tate’s AI deepfakes and hatred presented as brotherly advice, we will ensure that young people can identify misogyny and recognise how social media influencers capitalise on it to the detriment of men and women and boys and girls. We have to be absolutely clear that this does not mean stigmatising boys, or making boys feel that they are the enemy. Where society polarises, the job of schools is to help young people find their common ground. Where boys and young men feel lost or isolated, the job of schools is to ensure they have a safe space where they feel they belong. None of that is easy and we are not saying teachers hold all the answers, but they clearly need support. That is why we are investing £11 million in support for schools; £8 million to support the RSE curriculum and £3 million to provide targeted support for children who are displaying harmful behaviours. We believe that every child deserves the support needed to develop healthy relationships.
Hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to the importance of strong, loving families, and many have discussed the need for stronger paternity leave. The Government have launched a full review of the parental leave system. It is a chance to look at how the whole framework can better support working families and reflect the realities of modern work and childcare. Equitable childcare arrangements not only promote family stability, but help address the gender pay gap.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley rightly raised, what it means to grow up in a typical family has fundamentally changed; divorce rates have grown, more women are in the workforce, and households are much more likely to have two earners. Government policy must reflect and support families as they exist in modern working Britain. That is why, through our strategy for giving every child the best start in life, we have set out our first steps to expand and strengthen family services. It will make early education and childcare more accessible and affordable, and improve the quality of early education and childcare to make real change happen for families and children across the country.
We are already delivering support to working families. Eligible working parents of children aged nine months and older are now benefitting from 30 hours of funded childcare per week, which can save families up to £7,000 per eligible child every year. We are improving access by creating tens of thousands of places in new and expanded school-based nurseries. Schools have already reported that more than 5,000 places have been made available through the first phase of that programme. Backed by £45 million of funding, phase 2 will deliver at least 300 new or expanded school-based nurseries that will be ready to offer new childcare places in the 2026-27 academic year. There will be an increased focus on supporting families from disadvantaged areas to access early years provision.
Phase 3 will be led by local authorities, who have been invited to develop multi-year funding proposals. The Government continue to prioritise and protect investment in the early years. That is why we are investing more than £1 billion more in the early years entitlements year on year, and we will continue to go further. From next year, we will give additional funding to extend the early years pupil premium in the areas most in need, testing new approaches to maximise its impact and ensuring that children most at risk of falling behind receive high-quality, evidence-informed support. To make sure that the early years funding system is hardwired to benefit those children in parts of the country that have higher levels of additional need, we will review early years funding, including national funding formulas, and consult the sector on the changes by this summer.
As part of the child poverty strategy, we will work with the Department for Work and Pensions to make it easier for parents to use universal credit childcare and the funded hours together, helping them to access work. Those changes are made with modern families in mind. The 30 hours of childcare entitlement is designed to help families get on, not just get by. It is assessed on a per-person basis to ensure there is no incentive for the lower earner in the household to reduce their income to be eligible.
Not every child gets the chance to be born in a safe and stable family. Domestic violence can sometimes begin during pregnancy. Refuge has reported that
“1 in 3 pregnant women experience domestic abuse”
and between April 2024 and March 2025,
“14% of Refuge’s service users reported being pregnant.”
That is why NICE guidelines are clear that all women accessing maternity services should routinely be asked about domestic abuse, typically at their first antenatal booking appointment, so they can be referred to specialist services. As our strategy for halving violence against women and girls makes clear, tackling domestic abuse is a whole-society effort. When proximity to such violence begins in childhood, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley is correct that Best Start family hubs can be vital for identifying and tackling it. When parents are struggling to support their children, family hubs can give them new skills to help their children’s social, cognitive and emotional development. That is why we are building on this year’s £126 million funding boost for family hubs and the Start for Life programme. We will be rolling out our Best Start family hubs to every local authority from April.
Children also learn from their peers, and that is why we are actively considering the evidence on peer-to-peer and trusted adult relationships as we develop our pupil engagement framework. That framework will help all schools measure and improve the key factors that determine pupils’ engagement in education. That includes a sense of belonging, safety and inclusion, and relationships with teachers and fellow pupils.
Rich, healthy relationships thrive in a context of shared purpose and understanding. We all know that from our experiences of taking part in sport, putting on plays or even confronting and understanding differing points of view. That is why we are supporting schools and colleges to develop strong and strategic enrichment offers through our upcoming enrichment framework, which will encourage a sense of belonging and enable children and young people to form communities, explore their interests and develop their skills.
I was really touched to hear of the couples admired by Members across the House. Their contributions reminded me of my own parents, who worked so hard to raise me and my two siblings. They both worked long shifts, put food on the table and, around that table, made decisions together. They taught me the values I carry with me today. I grew up with the benefit of healthy relationships at home, at school and in my community. Every child deserves that chance, and has such capacity to enjoy positive, healthy relationships when given the opportunity. Through our childcare expansion, our strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, our work in schools, our review of parental leave and our plans to support and nurture boys, this Government are committed to helping everyone benefit.
Maya Ellis
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. This has been an important opportunity for us to reflect on what healthy, equal relationships look like in Britain today, the pressures that couples face and how policy can better support them. I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed, and I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his beautiful tribute to his grandchildren. Children learn from what they see, and his grandchildren are clearly growing up in a loving family to reflect such love to him. I also acknowledge the spokespeople in the Chamber, the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). The topic of healthy relationships spans multiple Departments, and part of the challenge is ensuring that it does not fall between the gaps, for that reason.
Some days we carry the load, and some days we are carried. I am grateful for all the relationships in the Chamber, and all those at home, that carry me on a regular basis. On that note, I give final thanks to my husband, who I called just before the debate to tell him that the holiday I thought I had booked for Saturday in fact starts tomorrow, to which he just laughed and said, “I’ll start packing.” That is sharing the load, and that is what we all deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for healthy relationships.
Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles
(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
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I pay tribute to Baroness Lola Young of Hornsey, who is a great champion for this policy area in the Houses of Parliament.
For centuries, the UK was known as a world leader in garment and textiles production, and we retain that global reputation based on quality and craftsmanship. Every region has its speciality, from Nottinghamshire shoes to Scottish tweed and Yorkshire wool—and from Savile Row to Brick Lane, our capital city has been synonymous with fashion throughout the decades. The sector indirectly supports 200,000 jobs in London. People come from all over the world to shop here and many come to study, with 55 UK universities offering fashion and textiles courses. Nothing says more about our place in global culture. In an increasingly uncertain world, our reputation and expertise are everything, and UK soft power opens many doors.
I am sure a lot of people are thinking: what qualifies an MP to talk about fashion? Well, many years ago—in 1985, to be precise—my sister, who is a wonderful seamstress, returned to Australia after a visit to the UK, and with her she brought her most prized Liberty fabric. She made it into a skirt for me, and that is what I am wearing today. Slow ethical fashion is timeless. Had I known in advance that the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), was going to respond to this debate, I would have encouraged him to wear his handmade tartan kilt, which we would have loved to have seen. I am sure we will be able to do that next time.
Last month, I sponsored a Backbench Business debate on food inflation and the cost of living. Some might think that onshoring fashion is a completely different topic, but both go to the heart of who I am as a Labour MP, what I came into politics to do and what kind of country we need to be. We need an inclusive economy that works for everyone, where work pays and where anyone, whether they are a young person starting out or a parent returning to work, has access to skilled jobs, training and a bright future for them and their family. In politics, everything we do should start with these most basic of values.
How do we put our values into action? We know that the rapid rise of fast fashion encouraged outsourcing and offshoring, but growing awareness of environmental and social issues in fashion has sparked a revival in the UK industry. Today, the Government have a chance to support slow ethical fashion and invest in home-grown talent and skills. Fashion and textiles manufacturing in Britain could be a key driver of economic growth. The Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to prioritise ethical sourcing and local manufacturing. There is huge potential here for UK industry. Onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry could unlock £3.1 billion in GDP, 64,000 new jobs and £1.2 billion in tax receipts. That is vital when we know that the UK services trade has exceeded expectations this quarter, but our goods trade still has some way to catch up. I ask the Minister to support the industry, encourage public procurement of local suppliers, provide support to small firms for capital expenditure and research development, and work with the industry to promote training and apprenticeships.
I was so pleased that in last November’s Budget, the Chancellor announced funding to make apprenticeship training for under-25s completely free for small and medium-sized enterprises. There was also an increase of the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds from April 2026 to over £10 an hour for the first time. We need to give young people the support and opportunities they deserve. The Budget also included new measures to stop overseas online firms from undercutting UK bricks-and-mortar businesses by ensuring that customs duty applies to parcels of any value, and I look forward to seeing the impact of those measures. But before I say more about how the Government can help, let me address the industry, and particularly those brands that are manufacturing offshore.
I know that Brexit has not helped the UK industry. It was a game changer, and many firms have had to reassess their whole business model—from the overnight delivery of buttons and zips to big impacts on the workforce, and many teachers in the world of fashion. There are costs to producing in the UK, but what about the benefits, including more flexibility and agility from local suppliers, faster turnaround times that global competitors cannot match due to distance, and more transparency as customers know exactly where their clothes are made? “Made in the UK” is a point of pride for us all. Ethical manufacturing is an asset to a brand. Particularly with the Government’s new flagship Employment Rights Act 2025, businesses can assure their customers of world-leading workers’ rights and ethical employment standards. Every garment they produce can not only say “Made in the UK” but “Made in the UK under fair conditions”.
Contributing to the circular economy, there is a huge potential for recycling, used garment collection and regenerated fabric, which could set the UK apart as the global capital of truly sustainable fashion. By manufacturing in the UK, manufacturers are also a vital part of our towns and cities. Other Members in this debate will talk about the opportunity for the regions to create jobs directly and indirectly, where money earned stays in local communities and helps every family to thrive.
How can the Government help? First, procurement. As I have said, the Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to prioritise ethical sourcing and local manufacturing. The Government’s industrial strategy talks about driving innovation and increasing access to talent. The national procurement policy statement emphasises
“taking into account priorities in local and regional economic growth plans”.
Public bodies can procure in a way that supports the economic needs of the communities they serve, rather than having pounds, shillings and pence as the sole consideration.
One example is uniforms. There are some best practice examples of school uniforms, but what about uniforms that are used in the prison service or even the military, which is one area where we know that there will be growth in public expenditure? Britain is a global leader in camouflage fabric production, yet the majority of military uniforms are manufactured overseas. The House of Commons Library has been very helpful: it has given me information on contract sizes and which firms are procured, but the supply chains are complex and a bit opaque. I am not sure whether the Minister has expertise in this area. If he does not, I am sure he can write to me later, or perhaps I can try with the Ministry of Defence again.
Ministerial questions have revealed that exact details of the quantities and location of where the armed forces’ dress and combat uniforms are produced are not held centrally. An inquiry from 2013—a long time ago, now—revealed that just 6% of UK military uniforms were made in the UK. We see quite a lot of flag waving in politics at the moment, but is not true patriotism about making sure that our young people have a secure future, with opportunities for skilled jobs?
How else can the Government assist? We could also look at how business practices affect small firms. It is impossible for clothing manufacturers to survive if they do not have certainty about production, deliveries and payments. That can be due to a lack of formal agreements with buyers, or any agreements simply not being honoured. That puts manufacturers’ cashflow in difficulties. Materials need to be bought; wages need to be paid. There can be an unfair transfer of risk from brand to manufacturer. Small enterprises can be mistreated by their more powerful business customers. That is why I support the creation of a fashion watchdog, to protect small garment manufacturers. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of that concept.
On a similar theme, we need to ensure that there is a level playing field for UK manufacturers on ethical working practices, sustainability, transparency and compliance. We know that the Competition and Markets Authority has published guidance for fashion businesses making green claims about their garments. We need to ensure that the online giants comply with all the regulations and are not undercutting UK enterprises with opaque information about how they source their products.
Let me turn to technology and education. I am pleased to welcome Professor Susan Postlethwaite from Manchester Metropolitan University, who may be with us today. Her report “Reshoring UK Garment Manufacturing with Automation” makes the case for agile, small-scale, reshored garment manufacturing systems and a newly trained, highly skilled workforce. The report focuses on technology and education, the potential for new robotic and automated systems in UK fashion manufacturing, and redesigning fashion education to embrace this technology. How can the Government help industry to rise to the challenge and create high-quality jobs across our communities? Most of all, let us kick off the discussion with the industry and the Government working together, so we can focus on what is important: making the UK the global home of sustainable fashion.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes fantastic points. The importance of sustainability and the environmental impact of offshored fashion extend into the whole life cycle of our clothes. One of the first meetings I had upon being elected was with Chris Carey’s Collections, a textile recycler in my constituency of Beckenham and Penge, which told me how the widescale proliferation of cheap, imported fast-fashion products with low-quality fabrics was leading to huge declines in its recycling rates and condemning more and more clothes to landfill. Does my hon. Friend agree that when evaluating the feasibility of onshoring, we should consider the whole life cycle of our clothes?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is so much going on in our constituencies but with relatively little support from local government or central Government. With a small amount of effort, we could help the sustainable fashion sector to really flourish. As I was saying, we need to focus on making the UK the home of sustainable fashion, delivering high-skilled jobs and creating a truly inclusive economy that works for everyone.
Finally, I have some questions for the Minister. Will the Government promote onshoring across the industry and promote the benefits of manufacturing in the UK? Will they turbocharge public procurement from local suppliers and increase awareness across the public sector? Procurement is no longer just about pounds, shillings and pence, but about best value for communities. What can the Government do to provide support to small firms on capital expenditure for research, development and technology? Will the Minister work with the industry to promote training and apprenticeships—I know that he is a great supporter of that already—and so help parents who want to return to the workforce, as well as youngsters? Will he assess the merits of the fashion watchdog? Finally, UK manufacturers need a level playing field. Are the regulations and guidance about sourcing and transparency up to scratch, or is it time for a review?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is wonderful to see you in this place, Ms Ghani. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) not just for securing this important debate but for her commitment in travelling all the way to Leicester, my home town. That shows how seriously she takes this matter.
I will focus my speech on my home town. Leicester is a city rooted in textile heritage, from Tudor hosiery knitters working in their homes to the industrial expansion of the 19th century. In fact, Leicester once proudly claimed to clothe the world. By 1936, it was recognised as the second richest city in Europe, and at its height had more than 1,500 factories employing tens of thousands of people.
As a young boy—this is not just nostalgia—I grew up in the shadows of those factories. I saw at first hand how they powered enterprise, created family wealth for people who had just come to this country, and fostered a culture of community entrepreneurship and philanthropy. The businesses did not just produce garments; they sponsored local events, supported charities, built places of worship and invested in the city. Manufacturing was woven into the social fabric of Leicester, shaping not just livelihoods but lives.
Today, across the county, the garment sector still supports approximately 11,000 jobs. Every component needed to make a complete garment is still available in the city. Leicester offers true end-to-end production— from design concept to finished product—with a speed, flexibility and technical capability that many overseas supply chains simply cannot match. Yet garment manufacturing now accounts for just £375 million of the UK textiles sector’s £25.6 billion; that is less than 2%. Meanwhile, tens of millions of our public procurement pounds are leaving our shores. We surely have to ask why.
The economic case for onshoring is really strong. The British Army clothing budget alone is worth nearly £80 million annually. In previous years—as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet mentioned, figures are available only from 2013—only a small fraction, 6%, was manufactured in Britain. That means that an overwhelming 94% was being manufactured abroad.
NHS uniform frameworks are worth £125 million over five years. During covid, the Department of Health and Social Care spent more than £13 billion on personal protective equipment, with billions-worth written off as unusable and millions more spent on storage. During the pandemic, we saw that UK factories could pivot rapidly to produce PPE and scrubs at scale. The capacity and skills exist; what is missing is a clear mandate.
Other nations understand this very clearly. In fact, in the United States, military uniforms must be made domestically, for national security reasons. I believe the UK should adopt a similar principle. Military uniforms and NHS clothing should be manufactured in Britain wherever possible. I am not promoting protectionism; it makes perfect economic and strategic sense.
The environmental case for onshoring is also extremely strong, because it reduces carbon miles naturally and allows tighter environmental oversight. Leicester innovators such as Nanofique and Shibori dye house, working alongside De Montfort University, are pioneering waste water treatment methods that demonstrate how environmental responsibility and industry can work hand in hand.
There is also a powerful social case. Garment manufacturing provides flexible employment. That is valuable for all, but particularly for women, enabling many to rejoin the workforce after having children, combating isolation and providing financial independence. I recently met trainees at Fashion Enter’s Leicester hub, alongside Jenny Holloway, and saw at first hand the appetite for skilled ethical production. Community organisations—they have joined me today—such as Wesley Hall and the Shama Women’s Centre offer sewing classes that serve as a pathway to work for many disadvantaged women. Leicester does not lack workforce readiness; it has that in abundance.
I appreciate that the industry in my city has faced negative headlines. We cannot shy away from that, and I agree wholeheartedly that any form of exploitative behaviour must be addressed and rooted out. The Operation Tacit review, launched after those serious allegations, found, yes, some cases of non-compliance, but it made it perfectly clear that the portrayal of an industry dominated by widespread modern slavery was overstated. Enforcement bodies found no evidence of prosecutable modern day slavery offences. The vast majority of Leicester factories are hard-working, skilled and ethical, and they certainly deserve recognition for that, not stigma.
If we are serious about ethical supply chains, we must also be serious about ethical purchasing. That is why proposals for a garment trading adjudicator—a fashion watchdog modelled on the Groceries Code Adjudicator—deserve serious consideration. Research recently presented at a Fair Work and Supply Chains in the UK Garment Industry event showed the strain that purchasers are put under by brands: 100% of suppliers pay for audits, yet only 6% are guaranteed future orders. Lead times can drop at the drop of a hat, halving from 30 days to 14 days, and payment terms are lengthened without warning. Orders are cancelled or altered mid-production. In fact, 67% of manufacturers are reporting that brands refuse to cover the cost of any of these changes. That volatility destabilises factories and workers alike and is simply not fair or sustainable.
[Christine Jardine in the Chair]
Leicester Made, through its Leicester Textiles Renewal project, is already bringing together expertise to strengthen UK supply chains, celebrate regional skills and accelerate sustainable, tech-driven onshore production. Fashion Enter is leading calls for public procurement reform. These are not abstract campaigns, but practical and deliverable solutions.
We must also target packaging waste and introduce penalties for firms that produce large volumes to bring down unit costs, only for much of it to remain unsold 12 months later. Changing what waste means may force retailers and brands to stop volume of production, because the current carrots are simply not working. Let us incentivise our manufacturers by creating tax breaks for companies that are making clothing from waste and deadstock. The cost of dealing with fashion waste, especially from low-cost Chinese retailers such as Shein, is rising exponentially. Introducing an incentive for UK manufacturers to create garments from deadstock would help to tackle that issue and create a steady stream of business for UK companies.
We need to create a uniform national body to advocate for the sector, and a national director of manufacturers. That would help to join the dots to create competitive clusters. It is already happening at the Sheffield and Manchester city councils, which are developing local cluster productions and competitive local supply chains. We must also ensure awareness; we must fund a consumer awareness campaign. Multiple research projects show that people will pay more to support local communities and businesses. We should create a new “Made in the UK” trademark that only the businesses making clothes in the UK can use. Currently, “Made in the UK” does not mean that something is made in the UK; it can be made somewhere else and packaged here, and still count.
Onshoring increases our economic prosperity, reduces carbon footprint, strengthens labour standards, enhances national security and restores community pride. Leicester and other garment manufacturers do not need charity, they need fair enforcement, responsible sourcing and Government leadership in procurement. A modest increase, raising the share of UK-manufactured clothing sold domestically to just 10%, would be transformational. It would create thousands of skilled jobs, rebuild capacity and create enormous revenue for the Treasury. Leicester once clothed the world. With the right policy direction, it can clothe Britain again, ethically, sustainably and proudly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). He and I support the same football team, although I am afraid that they are not doing that well at this moment in time—we hope for better things in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for setting the scene so well. She referred in her introduction to many places in the United Kingdom, and I am going to refer to Northern Ireland, where linen was one of our major industries—it is something that we are very proud of. I could never be called a fashion icon; I might be a dedicated follower of fashion, but that does not make me a fashion icon by any means. But I can certainly appreciate good craftmanship, which is part of the history and legacy of Northern Ireland, with its world-famous linen industry. The legacy of quality linen work continues to this day throughout Northern Ireland.
I am old enough to remember—it is probably no secret that I am the oldest person in this room—when my constituency of Strangford, particularly in Newtownards, had somewhere between 15 and 20 factories producing textiles, fashion, linen and threads. They are all away now—I think we have only one left. Indeed, it was not unusual for someone to leave a factory on a Friday night and start a new job in another factory on the Monday morning, such was the opportunity, but the world has changed—although I will refer to others in Northern Ireland that still do incredibly important work.
The fashion and textile industry in Northern Ireland has shifted from mass production and is now a specialised, high-end and innovative sector, focusing on luxury linen, technical textiles and advanced garment manufacturing. The remaining firms thrive through digital, sustainable and specialised technology. William Clark and Sons, for example, is leveraging its 300 years of expertise. Key players such as Ulster Carpets use robotics, while others support the niche market for luxury in apparel and homeware.
I should have said that I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, as always. Expectations are high, but I am sure we will not be disappointed with his answers to our requests. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), in her place. She is doing a double run today—she did the earlier debate and now she is doing this one, so well done.
The industry has transformed from high-volume production to design-driven, specialised manufacturing. Many of our specialised companies are renowned globally for their luxurious products. We remain incredibly proud of the industry in Northern Ireland, because it does all the things we hoped it would.
The industry has contracted, as I illustrated in Newtownards, the main town in my constituency, although there are examples of factories in many others, including Comber, Ballynahinch, Ballygowan and Killinchy—they are all away, although there does seem to be a focus in Mid Ulster. However, the sector remains a notable part of the local economy. It still accounts for 2,000 firms in Northern Ireland and employs over 10,000 people, with employment heavily centred on textile manufacture—over 40% of that workforce—clothing manufacture and washing and dry-cleaning services. That is an illustration of how the sector has adjusted to the modern age and, at the same time, been able to survive, albeit in a smaller way in terms of the number of factories.
From the Cooneen Group in County Tyrone to individual fashion houses, Northern Ireland continues to produce quality goods with a growing global reach. I am thankful to those who promote the best of British brands globally. I know that the Minister will be careful to ensure that every part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is included in British brand promotion—I know that is his commitment —and I look forward to the industry going from strength to strength.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—there is nobody better to chair a debate on fashion, if I may say so. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for her excellent opening speech and all the wonderful points she made. I want to get slightly competitive for a moment: I admire her skirt, which her sister made, but I want to draw attention to the top that I am wearing, which I made myself—onshoring fashion in action.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
You’re taking other people’s jobs—typical Lib Dem!
Sarah Olney
The Minister’s sedentary intervention gives me a good opportunity to say that the hand knitting industry supports many jobs in many rural areas, right across the country, including Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. However, I have spoken to the people who own Knit With Me, the amazing knitting shop on Richmond Hill of which I am a regular customer, and they tell me how much harder it has become to send some of their amazing products abroad since Brexit. Of course, pure wool is an animal product, which falls under those regulations, so the customs requirements to send packages to the EU have become so much more challenging for them. I am therefore here just as much to stand up for the knitting industry—I am literally standing up in my hand knitted top—although that is not quite what the debate is about, so I beg your pardon, Ms Jardine.
The Liberal Democrats recognise the urgency to transform the way in which fashion operates. We must reduce pollution, curtail environmental damage and tackle unethical practices in the supply chain. The fast fashion industry has been linked to unethical labour practices and modern slavery, tarnishing the appeal of the garments people wear. We urgently need a more sustainable fashion industry. Increasing domestic production is an important aspect of that, as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) so passionately set out when talking about his own constituency.
Onshoring is the process of bringing fashion and textile manufacturing back to the UK from overseas. It aims to shorten supply chains and rebuild domestic production capacity that has been lost through decades of offshoring. There are many benefits to onshoring production: it could create local jobs and support British manufacturers and suppliers. More domestic production would also strengthen the UK’s supply chain, reducing reliance on distant producers and the risk of global disruption. There are also benefits to brands seeking agile, flexible production—especially smaller and emerging labels that value local partners—not to mention the reduction of carbon emissions by minimising long-distance shipping. It also fits with growing consumer demand for climate-friendly products, while allowing better quality control and adherence to environmental and labour standards.
Currently, less than 3% of the clothing worn in the UK is made domestically, which shows the scale of the decline. However, the UK fashion and textiles sector retains a base of skilled mills, heritage factories and emerging micro-factories that could support scaled-up onshoring. As such, it has significant potential for domestic growth. UK labour, energy and running costs are, however, significantly higher than in many overseas locations, which makes price competition difficult, and small businesses may struggle with the high initial investment required to rebuild facilities.
Many of the challenges of growing the sector are compounded by a shortage of skilled workers such as sewing machinists. There is a risk of losing these kinds of specialist crafts if they are not actively rebuilt and supported. More broadly, access to training, and hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses of all kinds across the country. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the industrial strategy at the beginning of the Parliament, and the commitment to an increase in skills and training.
We would introduce a general duty of care for the environment and human rights in business operations and supply chains. We would introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability in their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions, as well as the introduction of joint liability for sub-contractors in the fashion and fabric industry.
The UK imports around £20 million-worth of clothing from countries around the world every year, and around 25% of that is estimated to come from China. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Chinese Government’s actions in Xinjiang constitute a genocide. The National Crime Agency decided not to launch an investigation into the importation of cotton products manufactured by forced labour in the Xinjiang province of China. The Court of Appeal found that to be unlawful, a decision that the Liberal Democrats welcome. All human beings should be treated with decency and have their human rights respected. With 19 billion units of clothing produced in China yearly, it is not unbelievable that much of that is produced by detainees in Xinjiang.
Shockat Adam
Does the hon. Lady agree that any company found to be utilising cotton produced through slave labour should not be allowed to list themselves on the stock market in this country?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to take much firmer action to ensure that no products traded in the supply chain in this country—or, as he says, stocks listed on the stock market—are produced through any kind of forced labour. The use of forced labour is an affront to human rights; but also, and more pragmatically, it does not create a level playing field for producers who are treating their workers fairly and using ethical processes in their production.
The Global Legal Action Network, which brought the case forward, says that there is abundant evidence that UK companies import cotton made with forced labour from China, and that 85% of Chinese cotton is grown in the Xinjiang region. Slavery is not an issue of the past. Today, almost 50 million people are trapped in slavery worldwide. We call on the Government to reverse the Conservatives’ roll-backs of modern slavery protections, and introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability in their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions. We want to champion human rights and support survivors.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to issue a comprehensive China strategy that places human rights and effective, rules-based multilateralism at its centre. My colleagues and I will continue to stand up for people’s human rights in the UK and across the globe, including in China, where much of the UK’s fashion comes from. But in order to encourage onshoring, the UK Government must do more to help UK business. They must champion start-ups and the UK’s entrepreneurs, do more to help small and medium-sized enterprises with costs for things such as energy and people, and upskill our workforce to be able to do the jobs created.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Jardine—twice in one afternoon; a treat for both of us! I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing today’s debate, and I have listened with huge interest to the points that have been made.
We are all no doubt proud of what Britain makes, and I certainly agree that we should do all we can to create the environment for businesses to flourish and produce more here. The harsh truth, however, is that production is often offshored due to the UK not being competitive on cost. With sky-high energy costs, labour costs and taxes and all the regulatory burden, we cannot be surprised to see many of our manufacturing businesses packing up and moving elsewhere. However, the good news is that we can still compete when it comes to quality and speed, with many businesses where cost is not the driving motivation choosing to source from the UK—knitwear being a good example.
Despite the challenges, the fashion and textile industry in the UK is significant and important. UK Fashion and Textile Association research commissioned from Oxford Economics found that the wider sector supported a £62 billion contribution to UK GDP, 1.3 million jobs and more than £23 billion in tax revenues. That same work underlined how geographically spread those jobs are—from London to the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, the south-west, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and how important the sector is for younger workers and women.
Many different services and skills are needed to transform fabrics into finished garments. Designers, technicians, machinists, graders, pattern cutters, fabric technologists, dye houses, finishing plants, logistics and aftercare all play an essential role. I saw that at first hand just before I entered politics, when I worked for the retailer Jigsaw, which is also very much known for its knitwear—that seems to be a theme today.
We are not going to get to a point anytime soon where every button and zip can be made in this country. Frankly, without a cheap energy plan, we will not even see garments made here either. Warm words are not enough to bring about the change the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet is calling for, but businesses are now discovering that cheaper production on the other side of the world has its downsides. Major retailers have described how customs-related supply chain frictions, increased admin costs and global events affecting major routes, including disruption around the Suez canal, have impacted transit times and driven up costs across the industry. There is clearly an appetite to address these issues by producing closer to home—maybe even at home—so that does present an opportunity.
Considerations around sustainability can also play to our advantage. The rapid rise of so-called fast fashion has pushed production far from the consumer, and has often pushed environmental and social costs wholly out of sight. Now, though, we are in an era where customers, investors and regulators are far less willing to accept, “We didn’t know,” as an excuse. They want to know that their clothing has been produced ethically. Traceability is becoming a brand asset in and of itself. That is why the UK Fashion and Textile Association points to the opportunity for technology such as QR codes, radio frequency identification or even AI-enabled systems to strengthen transparency and build consumer trust in “Made in the UK” as a mark of ethical production.
If that is the opportunity, we also need to recognise the barriers to us benefiting from it. First, there is cost, which I have mentioned a number of times, given its importance. UKFT’s “Reshoring for Real” report captures a real appetite among brands to source more domestically, but only if the cost model makes sense and if standards can be trusted. It really is not rocket science: if we want companies to onshore production, we need to make it cheaper for them to do so. The Government’s lack of action on bringing the cost of energy down, the imposition of the jobs tax, higher business rates and the disastrous Employment Rights Act 2025 show that they do not get it.
Secondly, there is the issue of skills. When a country loses capacity, it also risks losing the training pipeline. We can talk about onshoring, but if there are not enough skilled people to do the work, the opportunity will be taken elsewhere. That is why, in previous debates, Members in both Houses have raised the need for stronger skills routes relevant to garment and textile manufacturing, and why the engagement with industry on training and technical education undertaken by the previous Government mattered.
Thirdly—I was shocked to learn that this was an issue—past labour compliance issues in British factories have damaged trust to the point that some companies will remain wary of, or keep in place concrete policies against, UK sourcing until they are confident that these issues are resolved. Such circumstances make further basing or investment into the UK a difficult proposition for reputation-conscious firms. That clearly needs to be addressed, but with a careful eye on not heaping even more regulatory burdens on compliant, law-abiding businesses.
In 2023, the then Business and Trade Secretary, who has now gone on to greater things, set out that her Department was engaging and promoting fashion and textile companies domestically and internationally, noting that fashion, footwear and textiles exports totalled £7.5 billion in 2022, and that Government funding was supporting London Fashion Week through the British Fashion Council, and supporting UKFT activity at key international trade shows. I hope the current Government will be as robust in their support. Such support matters, because onshoring does not sit in a silo. A stronger domestic manufacturing base goes hand in hand with strong exports and with a globally respected brand Britain. If we have a solid local supply chain, we attract design talent. If we attract design talent, we build brands. If we build brands, we export. If we export, we grow.
A point in the application for the debate referenced UKFT estimates that suggest that onshoring could unlock substantial additional growth, jobs and tax receipts. There is a real prize here, particularly in places where manufacturing capability already exists or could be rebuilt. For communities that have lived through the loss of industrial jobs, modern textile manufacturing, technical fabrics and high-value apparel production can be part of a new story: one compatible with innovation, automation and clean growth. However, that can happen only if the right environment is created for those businesses.
On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I commit that we will continue to press for a serious, pro-growth approach to business and trade that would allow industries such as fashion and textiles to flourish. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s approach.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
It is an enormous delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—I cannot imagine a greater delight this afternoon. I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this debate, and for the passion with which she has approached the issue, not just today but over many months; indeed, it is one of the issues that she has talked about throughout her time as an MP. Burberry used to be based in my constituency, and then left, so I feel quite strongly about some of these issues, and I am delighted to stand in for my colleague in the Department this afternoon.
It was great to hear from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). Of course, we all know of Leicester’s strengths in the garments industry over many decades. In fact, many different parts of the garments industry, including parts of the shoe industry, have been based in areas across the midlands and have been intrinsic to its economic success over centuries. We know about some of the problems there have been with working standards and labour standards, and he made a strong argument for his constituency.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he is a dedicated follower of fashion. He was of course referring to the song by The Kinks from 1966, which he and I are old enough to remember. I remember one of the lines—it is a polite line; there are others that might not fit him so well—which goes:
“One week he’s in polka dots, the next week he’s in stripe”.
I think the hon. Member is pretty consistent in his attire: he is smart, elegant and to the point. He made a strong set of points on behalf of his constituents.
I agree with many points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I am particularly conscious of the issue of people in artisanal or small businesses in particular—sometimes those are hobby business, but sometimes they are more substantial—trying to send packages into Europe and finding it very difficult to do so. That is one reason for needing to get to fiction-less trade—I mean frictionless trade, not the fictional frictionless trade that was promised by some people in another political party when they were in government—and we are seeking to do that as much as we possibly can.
I am focused on how we can enable the whole value chain in the UK to discover ways of exporting into the European Union, which still represents around 45% of our export opportunities, and more widely around the world. We know that a UK business that is able to find a second market and to export is more likely to pay its staff better, be more resilient, grow faster and still be there in 10, 15 and 20 years’ time. For all those reasons, we want to do everything we can to enable more of that sector to export.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to responsible business conduct, which I will come on to a little later. I will also come to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), who has a slightly fanciful memory of what the previous Government was like, in my humble opinion—I think if we had a vote on that, we would win; it would be all versus one.
We all know that fashion is about as British as tea and crumpets. There are so many massive household names: Ted Baker, Paul Smith, Superdry, which I never knew was British, Barbour, ASOS, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, All Saints, Dunhill, admittedly owned by a Swiss company at the moment but nonetheless a very British brand, and Richard James—and I am just talking about the clothes I am wearing today. [Laughter.] I am not wearing all those, obviously.
It is similar with shoes. I used to be the youth officer for the diocese of Peterborough, living in Northampton. In Northamptonshire, as well as in neighbouring counties, shoe manufacturing has been so much a part of their history. Whether it is Dr Martens, Dune, Cheaney, though I never know how to say it, Tricker’s, Joseph Azagury, Yull, Church’s, Clarks, Grenson, Loake, John Lobb, Crockett and Jones, or Jeffery-West—these boots were made for walking, and that’s just what they are going to do. Whenever we go anywhere in the world, we see so many British shoe brands on every major high street, in airports and elsewhere, and we are immensely proud of that. Quite a lot of those, though not all, are made in the UK.
It is easy to talk about big brands, but part of this debate is precisely to say that there are lots of smaller brands making their way, and that we as a Government must do everything we can to help. One of my favourites, which I have referred to before in the House, is Howies. It was originally based in London and is now in Cardigan in Wales. It is ethically based, and produces a whole range, including sporting clothing and other things. Original Fibres, too, is a London brand; it is ethically sourced, and is trying to bring forward the best in British styling as well as manufacture.
There is Shrimps, Saint and Sofia, Talia Byre, Peachy Den, Black and Beech, and perhaps one for the hon. Member for Strangford, Sleazy Rider.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is saying no to that, but he does not know what it is like.
In Edinburgh, of course, there are lots of other brands; perhaps the most famous is Pringle. We have talked a little about knitwear brands such as Beira, Rowanjoy and Mackenzie. We really want those smaller brands to prosper, because so many of them know that part of their key selling point is that they are British and bring something special to the market. They have a particular eye and source their materials in an ethical way. It just gives us a buzz to wear some of their clothes. That is precisely the kind of industry that we want to support.
When I was shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, one of my best days was going down to see the Royal School of Needlework. Hon. Members may think of this as a rather posh thing that puts together items for royal coronations and things like that, but it is the only place in Europe where one can gain a qualification in needlework that is essential to some of the higher fashion brands in the UK. I thought I was going to meet lots of very posh people from Reigate or wherever it may be, but I was absolutely delighted when I walked in to find that the first two young women I met were both from the Rhondda. They wanted to go into the fashion industry, and they knew that by acquiring all the skills they could from the Royal School of Needlework, they were really going to flourish.
The sector is worth bazillions—that is an official term. The statistics people in the Department will probably want me to correct the record on that later. This sector is worth £62 billion to the UK economy, and it supports 1.3 million jobs and generates £23 billion in tax revenue every year. As the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned, there are major manufacturing hubs in many parts of the land—for instance, in Leicester, as we have already heard, across the midlands and in the highlands. I have not yet mentioned Harris Tweed, from which I have a very splendid waistcoat, or Favourbrook—another great British brand.
We are not just talking about textiles for clothing; camouflage has been mentioned, and high tech and new developments in the sector are really important. Yesterday, I met representatives of Panaz Ltd from Burnley, which produces a series of fabrics, including antimicrobial and fire retardant textiles. It is very much at the cutting edge—that sounds wrong, because that is a metaphor from the textile industry—of innovation in the sector, and it sells across the world, which is brilliant.
There are of course connections between the sector and many others we excel in. That is why they are integral to our industrial strategy. One has only to watch 10 minutes of “Bridgerton” to know that fashion and textiles are a really important part of what we are selling to the whole world. One could say the same about Bond, though I would prefer it if he wore British tailoring, even though Bond is now owned by Amazon.
Incidentally, British tailoring is so big that the biggest supermarket in Spain is called El Corte Inglés, which means “The English Cut”. Founded in 1890, it got its name because tailors in Madrid knew that the best tailoring in the world was British and they wanted to sell on the basis of that. It was bought up in 1934 and became an enormous chain in Spain. That just shows our connection. One final connection I would like to make is with British jewellery. We have some of the best jewellers in the world, and often the connection between fashion and jewellery is a really important part of the things that we excel at.
Some specific points were made about procurement. I had not heard the point about uniforms before. It is a really good one, and I am going to chase it down. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet does not have to go and metaphorically beat up the Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. I will do that for her, and I will get all the details. It would be good if more of our British servicemen and women were dressed in British uniforms. I remember once being in Sarajevo and being introduced to the new Italian uniforms, which I think are done by Dolce & Gabbana. They had previously been Armani, but they thought they would upgrade to Dolce & Gabbana, or it may have been the other way round. I am not sure—I might have to correct the record again. My hon. Friend spoke about the Procurement Act 2023, which gives public bodies greater ability to prioritise ethical and local sourcing. One would think that that would apply to the whole of Government rather than just parts of the Government, so let us see whether we can make that happen.
My hon. Friend asked about Government investment. We have set aside £4.3 billion to support manufacturers over the next five years, and up to £2.8 billion of that is for research and development. Quite often, the creative industries such as fashion are hesitant about seeking research and development money, because they think that there is nothing new under the skies and that they therefore would not qualify for it, but one has only to watch “Kinky Boots” to know that research and development is just as essential in fashion as it is in any other sector.
We have revamped our support for businesses to make it more effective, including through the development of the business growth service. I urge any business to seek help and advice when they need it. We are very keen on enhancing our trade promotion work. The spring version of London Fashion Week is coming up; unfortunately, it is just for women. I would like us to get back to having a spring fashion week that has both male and female fashions, though the economics of that do not necessarily add up at the moment. We are very supportive of the autumn London Fashion Week.
Of all the big fashion weeks around the world, the UK goes for the edgier part of the market, as Members may already know. That is precisely where we should be, which is why it is so important that we provide financial support for what we call “newgen”, which has produced a suite of new designers in recent years, many of whom are now breaking into much bigger markets. Of course, we continue our support through the British Fashion Council.
We also produced a small business strategy last year, which is really important, not only because many fashion and textiles businesses suffer from late payments, which is something that we definitely need to work on far more effectively than we have in the past, but because of the lack of availability of cash, whether that is for significant investment or for export investment. On both of those issues, we have set aside additional financial support to make sure that that is available for small and medium-sized enterprises.
I come on to the issue of responsible business conduct. Several hon. Members referred to issues such as forced labour or sustainability, but we have not talked about palm oil or deforestation or the production of cotton in different parts of the world, and so on. Hon. Members will know that we have been engaged in a responsible business conduct review, which is nearing completion. I hope we will be able to announce our conclusions fairly soon.
My aim is not to load businesses with more regulation but to try to make sure that the regulation they are subject to is truly effective. One of my anxieties is that sometimes we just get businesses to produce reports; somebody is employed to produce lots of different reports, which get bunged in the annual report and nobody in the world reads them ever. I just do not think that is as effective as other measures that we might be able to introduce. We are trying to curtail the regulatory burden, while at the same time making regulation more effective.
Sarah Olney
Does the Minister agree that effective regulation is not about putting burdens on business, but about ensuring a level playing field, so that ethical businesses and those that have committed to the welfare of their employees and to sourcing good quality materials have a level playing field to sell their products and are not being undercut by people who do not observe those standards?
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with that, but I would make another point. As we put together our trade strategy, we also have to consider whether there might be unfair subsidies in other parts of the world that make it impossible for British businesses to compete in the market. Dumping and other unfair trade practices around the world are part of the set of issues that I want to be able to take to the World Trade Organisation for proper consideration.
I end with a couple of thoughts. We have all loved the fast fashion industry, and shopping is a pastime for many. For many, the availability of cheap clothing is an absolutely essential part of being able to dress themselves. At a time of global crises and financial difficulties for many families, where parents might be worrying about being able to pay the next bill that comes through the door, making sure that the clothes they buy for their kids to go to school and so on are affordable is essential. I get all of that, but I do rejoice in my heart when I talk to younger generations, including my nieces, who are as much in love with preloved clothes as they are with stuff that they might buy new today—with discovering something that has been around for a very long time, and not just buying something and chucking it out two months later.
There is joy and an economic opportunity for all of us if we can manage to onshore more in a variety of different ways, such as enabling people to recycle their own clothes a bit more often, to recycle the clothes of others, and to invest in ethical brands who really do the business in this country. Of course, that means that we have to invest in skills so that there are people able to develop these things—I think the hon. Member for Richmond Park is offering to provide knitting classes for all of her constituents.
Incidentally, I should say I do love “The Great British Sewing Bee”. It is a great television programme. It shows lots of people that we can make our own clothes, and that ethical and sustainable products are an important part of making sure that we live in a world that we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren, or our nieces and nephews.
Catherine West
I thank the Backbench Business Committee again for giving me this opportunity to promote sustainable fashion in the UK and to ask the Minister some questions.
I enjoyed hearing about the picture in Leicester, as well as my visit to Leicester. I also enjoyed hearing about the recycling operations in Beckenham and Penge, and about luxury linen production in Northern Ireland. We heard, of course, about the human rights considerations. The key point to make is that some of our really good retailers are complying with the Government’s guidelines, but others are not doing so, and I think that is what is meant by trying to level things a little bit, so that not all of the cost goes on to our really good retailers and in the shops things are a bit more seamless—[Laughter]—so to speak.
I also thank the Minister for exhibiting his usual flair—[Laughter.] He did so to talk about the importance of frictionless trade with the EU and to explain how he is straining every sinew to achieve that. The importance of research and development cash or funding was also discussed. I thank him for his offer to approach the MOD on military uniforms—hopefully, he will get his officials to do some digging for me on that issue—but there are prison uniforms and other places where it is necessary to wear uniforms. Of course the late payment strategy is so important for small business, as is cash availability for trade abroad by SMEs, which is another vital element of the trade strategy. We look forward to the responsible business review and hopefully we will be at the launch of it, whenever that is; we will come and applaud.
I also thank Fashion Roundtable, Fashion Enter and Baroness Young of Hornsey for all they do to promote the understanding of and up-to-date information about all that is happening in the UK on sustainable fashion, so that we can be really accurate in our debates.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry.
Written Statements
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Last week, the House made a Humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office also updated the House this morning in response to an urgent question. Given the considerable interest this matter has generated, I wanted to provide an update on the process now under way through which the Government will comply.
Departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is now under way to identify which documents fall in scope of the motion. We will publish a first set of documents as soon as possible after the House returns from recess.
The House will be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan police regarding the ongoing investigation. As you would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release material that may undermine an ongoing police investigation, and as such we are working constructively with the police as they conduct their inquiries. I will update the House accordingly.
Senior officials have this week met with the Intelligence and Security Committee to discuss what the Committee requires in order to fulfil its role in relation to the Humble Address. We are working with the Committee to put in place processes for making available to them material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the Committee for its work and commit to full engagement with them to ensure these processes are timely and effective.
The Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously given the nature of the issues at stake and scope of material in place, and we will ensure that Parliament’s instruction is met with the urgency and transparency it deserves.
[HCWS1341]
Radio Review: Terms of Reference
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
Radio continues to be a strong and highly valued medium. It contributes significant public value through its provision of trusted news and diverse entertainment, and underpins the wider media plurality landscape in the UK. However, listening habits are continuing to evolve as even more people access radio via digital and online platforms, whether at home or on the move.
It is therefore important to consider the impact of changes in listener behaviour and audio markets over the past five years and assess the future challenges the BBC and commercial radio are likely to face in the coming years in order to support continued investment in radio.
I am pleased to announce the scope of a new radio review, which will take place in 2026. DCMS will come together with key industry organisations to carry out this review, which will be completed by the end of 2026. The review’s terms of reference are to:
(a) Investigate future scenarios for the consumption of UK radio and audio content on all platforms into the 2030s, taking into account likely models of future listener behaviour, market trends, and technical developments.
(b) Consider the impact of these scenarios on current and future distribution strategies for the UK radio industry and on the future availability of UK radio services for listeners on all platforms.
(c) Make recommendations—based as far as possible on a cross-industry consensus—on the future distribution of radio services and provide advice to Government on ways of strengthening the long-term viability of UK radio until the early 2040s.
[HCWS1333]
Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Acquisition
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
My Department has today written to Penultimate Investments Holdings Ltd and the Daily Mail and General Trust, the current and proposed owners of the Telegraph Media Group Holdings, in relation to the proposed acquisition of TMGH by DMGT.
In my written statement to Parliament and by letters to the parties, all on 20 January 2026, I confirmed that I was minded to intervene in and refer the proposed acquisition to a phase 1 investigation under the Enterprise Act 2002. Having given the parties the opportunity to make representations to me regarding the concerns raised in my letters to them, and having considered those representations in detail, I have now reached my final decision.
I have today informed the parties of my decision to issue a public interest intervention notice in relation to the proposed acquisition of TMGH by DMGT.
My decision to issue a PIIN relates to concerns I have that public interest considerations—as set out in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002—may be relevant to the proposed acquisition of TMGH by DMGT, and that these warrant further investigation. The public interest considerations concerned are the need for a sufficient plurality of views in each UK market for news media and the need for a sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises serving every different UK audience.
My decision to issue a PIIN triggers a requirement for the Competition and Markets Authority to report to me on jurisdictional and competition matters and for Ofcom to report to me on the media public interest considerations in section 58(2B) and 58(2C)(a) of the Enterprise Act 2002. I have asked both the CMA and Ofcom to report back to me by 10 June 2026.
My role as the Secretary of State in this process is quasi-judicial and procedures are in place to ensure that I act independently and follow a process that is fair, transparent and impartial.
DCMS will update Parliament after both reports from the regulators have been received and considered.
The PIIN can be found on gov.uk.
[HCWS1338]
Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel: Baby Victoria Marten
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
In July 2025, Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were found guilty of the gross negligence manslaughter of their daughter, baby Victoria. The court heard that the couple had gone to great lengths to evade authorities, living in unsafe and transient conditions in the weeks following the birth. Their actions resulted in the death of a vulnerable newborn whose life should have been protected and supported from her very first moments. The death of Victoria was a profound tragedy, and the Government’s thoughts remain with all those affected.
While justice has now been served, and Victoria’s parents are serving prison sentences, nothing can repair the loss of her life, and it is incumbent upon us to do everything in our power to ensure such tragedies are prevented wherever possible.
Across the country, child protection professionals dedicate themselves to safeguarding vulnerable children, often in circumstances that test even the most resilient among them. I have no doubt that they, like all of us, were deeply shaken by what happened to Victoria. Yet as a safeguarding system, and as a society, we must have the courage to confront uncomfortable truths and examine openly where failures occurred.
Today’s publication by the child safeguarding practice review panel into the case of baby Victoria identifies a series of significant and complex safeguarding concerns, including concealed pregnancy, persistent non-engagement with services and practitioners, domestic abuse, risks posed by serious offenders, and the challenges that arise when families move frequently between local areas. It also highlights the need for more proactive, relational and multi-agency safeguarding and child protection practice, with clear pathways for support for parents and strengthened approaches to safeguarding unborn children.
As I noted in my statement following the heartbreaking murder of Sara Sharif in November 2025, this is precisely why we must press on with the sustained and meaningful reforms needed to strengthen co-ordination between local safeguarding partners, all firmly anchored in clear and authoritative national guidance. I want to reassure the House that this Government regard the review’s conclusions with the utmost gravity and will inform our ongoing programme of reforms to children’s social care, supported by the £2.4 billion investment announced by the Government to improve early interventions, family help and outcomes for vulnerable babies, children and their families. We are also considering how forthcoming changes to statutory guidance, working together to safeguard children, can better reflect the needs of babies and unborn children.
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, now progressing through Parliament, represents an important step in our work to build a system that protects every child, especially the most vulnerable. Its purpose is simple but profound: to make sure that no child slips from view, and that when concerns arise, agencies act together swiftly and with clear purpose. Schools and early years settings will have a strengthened role in local safeguarding arrangements, recognising the trust they hold and the unique insight they so often have into a child’s daily life. New multi-agency child protection teams will bring professionals together to focus squarely on cases where there is a risk of significant harm, improving the speed and quality of the response and ensuring that expertise sits right where it is most urgently needed.
Better information sharing, supported by a single unique identifier, will help prevent the gaps through which children can sometimes tragically fall. And by giving local authorities clearer duties in relation to children who are educated at home, alongside establishing a register of children not in school, we will support families while also ensuring that no child becomes invisible to the system. Crucially, we are embedding family led decision making, because when a child’s safety is at stake, families deserve to be heard and involved in shaping the support around them.
These reforms matter not in the abstract, but because of children like baby Victoria. Her short life, and the unimaginable circumstances in which it ended, remind us of the devastating consequences when agencies cannot reach a child in time, when help is not accepted, or when families evade the very services designed to protect them. Nothing can undo the heartbreak of her loss. But we can, and must, let her memory sharpen our determination to build a system that is more alert, more joined up, and more capable of acting decisively when a child is at risk.
Through the families first partnership programme, we are also transforming how support is offered on the ground. Family help will ensure that families receive the right assistance at the moment they need it, not only to improve outcomes, but to prevent problems escalating into crisis. And by involving wider family networks through family group decision making, we can reduce unnecessary court processes, prevent children from entering care where it is safe to do so, and provide families with the stability and support they need to thrive.
All of this is about honouring the lives of children like baby Victoria by learning from what went so tragically wrong. It is about ensuring that no child is ever beyond our line of sight, and that every child grows up safe, supported, and surrounded by adults who are equipped and empowered to protect them.
While the distressing details of what happened to baby Victoria will not fade easily from memory, we must try not to let her be remembered only through the lens of tragedy. She deserves to be known not just for the harm she suffered, but for the cherished life that should have been hers. It is the recognition of her brief but precious existence that must strengthen our determination to ensure every child is given the safety, security and chance of happiness that she was so tragically denied.
I will provide a fuller written response to the panel’s recommendations by the summer, setting out the Government position and the steps we have taken—and will take—to strengthen the safeguarding system for all babies and families.
[HCWS1331]
Keeping Children Safe in Education
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Keeping children safe could not be more important to this Government and this afternoon, they are launching a public consultation on proposed changes to their “Keeping children safe in education 2026” statutory guidance. All schools and colleges in England must have regard to this guidance when carrying out their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. It is the primary source of guidance and support for schools and colleges.
Schools and colleges play a critical role in keeping children safe and KCSIE sets out the legal duties that schools and colleges must comply with, together with good practice guidance on what schools and colleges should do to keep children safe. The guidance is extensive, covering what staff should know and do to safeguard children, the management of safeguarding in schools and colleges, safer recruitment, responding to allegations of abuse against staff, handling reports on child-on-child sexual harassment and sexual violence.
The purpose of this consultation is to gather views on proposed changes to KCSIE 2026. The consultation will run for 10 weeks, closing on 22 April 2026. The proposed changes include among other things, further advice for school and college staff on:
Grooming gangs and serious violence (including weapons)
Operation Encompass (the duty on police forces to contact schools the next day following incidents of domestic violence)
Misogyny
Information sharing between safeguarding agencies ahead of a pupil’s child protection file being transferred where children move school
Child sexual abuse/criminal exploitation
Advice on mobile phone use
The consultation also includes advice to schools and colleges in relation to children who are questioning their gender. We have proposed separate new sections on toilets, changing rooms and showers, boarding and residential accommodation and single-sex sports. These sections are informed by the public consultation on the draft non-statutory “Gender Questioning Children” guidance for schools and colleges. This advice reflects the importance for schools and colleges of making careful decisions about what is in the best interests of children, including children who are questioning their gender. It draws on the Cass review of gender identity services for children and young people to set out the key principles that we expect schools and colleges to follow, including taking a strong stand against bullying, safeguarding all children, involving parents in decision making and taking a cautious approach, particularly in relation to primary-aged children. The guidance is clear that supporting social transition should not include allowing children into facilities designated for the opposite sex.
The consultation document, containing full details of the proposals and inviting responses will be available via gov.uk. Copies of the consultation document and departmental advice will also be deposited in the Library of each House.
[HCWS1339]
Vincent Chan: Sentencing
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
In December, I gave a statement to the House on the Metropolitan police investigation into child sexual abuse in Camden. Today, Vincent Chan is due to appear for sentencing at Wood Green Crown court in relation to 56 offences, to which he has pleaded guilty.
His crimes are absolutely sickening, and our thoughts remain with the children and families affected as they continue to receive the support they need. We will continue to assess what more can be done to stop vile acts like these from happening again.
A local child safeguarding practice review is currently being conducted and that must take its course.
Children's safety is at the very heart of this Government’s plan for change. That is why we are taking action to strengthen child protection.
Last September, we strengthened requirements in the early years foundation stage for early years providers to follow robust safer recruitment practices, including appropriate pre-employment checks, ongoing suitability monitoring and clear whistleblowing procedures.
We are putting a renewed focus on strengthening safeguarding across early years with our new expert panel soon to start work on CCTV and digital devices guidance. The guidance will set out best practice, technical information and clear expectations. The expert advisory group will also consider whether CCTV ought to be mandatory in early years settings.
We are also introducing free, universal safeguarding training for staff working in early years settings in collaboration with the NSPCC. This will support staff to meet statutory safeguarding requirements and help embed a strong and open safeguarding culture across early years settings.
And we are working with Ofsted to introduce reporting on larger nursery chains, so that issues that span a group of providers can be addressed. We are funding Ofsted to inspect all new early years providers within 18 months of opening and move towards inspecting all providers at least once every four years. Ofsted will continue to keep all settings under review to ensure that visits take place when risk assessments deem them necessary.
Our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill marks the most significant reform to child protection in a generation. It will deliver stronger multi-agency child protection teams and better information sharing between police, education, health and social workers, so that no child falls through the cracks again.
And through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are making it mandatory for child sex abuse incidents to be reported and making it illegal to prevent someone reporting them, so that no child is left invisible when facing child sexual abuse.
In December, the Government put forward proposals for a new child protection authority to protect children from harms including sexual exploitation and abuse, domestic violence, trafficking, organised crime, and other complex risks.
The CPA will provide strategic oversight of child protection and safeguarding threats nationwide and was a key recommendation of Alexis Jay’s IICSA report on group-based child sexual exploitation.
Keeping children safe is one of the most important duties of any society. I want to thank our early years staff and wider children’s services workforce, who work hard, day in and day out, to give the children of this country the best start in life. This Government will work with them, and with the victims and families affected, to continue to strengthen child protection. We will root out abuse wherever it hides, and we will never stop working to rid our society of this evil.
[HCWS1332]
Warm Home Discount Cost Recovery Consultation: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s response to the December 2025 consultation on warm home discount cost recovery. The response confirms our intention that the costs of the warm home discount should be recovered from the unit rate for electricity and gas from 1 April 2026, subject to changes to the price cap methodology that Ofgem has consulted on separately.
Since its inception in 2011, the warm home discount has delivered over £4.53 billion in support across Great Britain, primarily benefiting those in or at risk of fuel poverty. It remains a key policy in the Government’s programme to tackle fuel poverty and reduce energy costs for low-income households, primarily through the provision of £150 energy bill rebates each winter, funded through a levy on domestic gas and electricity customers.
This Government recognise the pressure on the cost of living. Tackling fuel poverty and reducing energy bills remain priorities. At the Budget, the Government announced measures expected to take an average of £150 off household energy bills from April 2026. Moving warm home discount cost recovery to the unit rate complements these wider steps to improve fairness and affordability as it means that those who use less energy pay less towards the policy costs. We have also published the warm homes plan and the fuel poverty strategy for England, which together set a pathway to lift up to 1 million households out of fuel poverty by 2030.
Between 8 December 2025 and 6 January 2026, we received 778 responses from individuals, consumer and advocacy groups, energy suppliers and other stakeholders. Overall, there was strong support for moving cost recovery away from the standing charge and on to the unit rate on fairness grounds for low-use households.
Having considered the evidence, the Government have decided that unit rate recovery will proceed from April 2026. This approach links contributions more closely to actual consumption and is fairer for lower-use customers. We recognise concerns about households with unavoidably high energy needs, such as those using electric heating or medical equipment. When taken together with wider bill changes announced at the Budget, the net impact on typical consumers is expected to be a reduction in costs. For example, modelling suggests that a typical high-usage, electrically heated household might save £395 annually when the switch to unit rates is combined with the measures announced at the Budget.
To support accurate and fair delivery, we will update energy supplier reconciliation arrangements so that their obligations are settled against energy volumes supplied. We will also introduce an industry-wide feedback mechanism so that any aggregate under or over-recovery arising from differences between forecast and actual demand in one scheme year is corrected in the following year. As with this scheme year, we also intend to continue with earlier interim reconciliation for the next scheme year and will keep the arrangements under review, working with Ofgem and engaging industry as needed.
The consultation also sought views on placing a greater share of warm home discount recovery on gas to support wider rebalancing between gas and electricity. We are not proceeding with this at this stage because of concerns about potential distributional impacts on low-income, gas-reliant households, particularly in colder or less efficient homes.
Subject to Ofgem’s related price cap methodology changes and parliamentary approval, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will lay the Warm Home Discount (Reconciliation) Regulations 2026 later this year. We will work with Ofgem and energy suppliers to support a smooth transition from 1 April 2026.
[HCWS1336]
NHS Agenda for Change Workforce
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today, I am announcing that from April 2026, over 1.4 million NHS staff on Agenda for Change terms and conditions will receive a 3.3% pay rise.
The uplift is above the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast inflation of 2.2% for 2026-27, delivering a real terms pay rise for NHS staff.
It will be in pay packets from April for the first time in six years. We have listened to the workforce and understand the difficulties they face when pay awards are not delivered on time. That’s why this Government committed to speeding up the pay review process, remitting the pay review bodies months earlier than previous years, and submitting written evidence earlier too.
In making this award, I am accepting in full the recommendation from the NHS Pay Review Body for 2026-27. Their report recognises the vital contribution that NHS staff make to our country.
This award is above the Government’s affordability position set out in their evidence to the NHSPRB. As we are delivering the pay round much earlier this year, announcing now in February, the business planning process for the Department of Health and Social Care and its arm’s length bodies is under way. The existing challenging productivity and efficiency commitments required by ICBs and providers to deliver breakeven positions are the foundations of the Government’s ability to fund this within the existing settlement. This additional pressure above affordability will be managed by DHSC and ALBs (including NHSE central budgets) but none of the pay increases will be paid for by cutting frontline services.
As part of the overall AfC pay package for 2026-27, we will progress talks with trade unions and employers at pace, through the NHS Staff Council, to agree and implement funded improvements to the AfC pay structure. These talks will build upon discussions held to date exploring the feasibility of multi-year arrangements, and separate funding will be made available for these reforms as committed to in response to the 2025-26 PRB recommendation on pay structure reform. Once agreed, the reforms will deliver additional pay increases for some staff that will be effective from, and backdated to, 1 April 2026. Our priorities will be to improve pay for those on the lowest pay bands in support of the Government’s commitment to “make work pay” and to improve pay for graduates across all professions. This will recognise and build on the work of the staff council to identify its priorities.
We will continue to implement commitments to improve the support NHS staff receive and their experience at work, as well as improving nursing career progression, investing in job evaluation to ensure that all staff are paid fairly for the work they are asked to do, and supporting newly qualified staff. Improving the experience of work for all staff, ensuring the NHS is a great place to work, is fundamental to improving the patient experience: from reducing the backlog in elective care, to ensuring timely access to GP appointments.
The NHSPRB report will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk
[HCWS1340]
Foundation Strategic Authorities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Over the last year, this Government have made clear the scale of its ambition on English devolution. We introduced the transformational English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. We launched the devolution priority programme—one of the largest ever packages of mayoral devolution in England, worth close to £200 million per year over 30 years, split across six areas. And today I am pleased to announce another significant step forward in our devolution agenda: an invitation to all areas in England that do not have devolution, to bring forward with their neighbours an expression of interest for a foundation strategic authority. The Government welcome such expressions of interest over the coming weeks, and we will begin reviewing responses from 20 March.
This new wave of foundation strategic authorities will ensure that more areas than ever before are able to access the benefits of devolution. The Government remain firmly committed to mayoral devolution and is forging ahead with it, including through the devolution priority programme, but we have been clear that this model works best when built on firm foundations. This includes the strong unitary structures we are creating through local government reorganisation, but we also see foundation strategic authorities as a crucial way to build local capacity and partnerships as a stepping stone towards mayoral devolution in the future. In areas undergoing reorganisation and interested in establishing a foundation strategic authority, we are keen to work with local partners to agree how best to manage the two processes.
As set out in the “English Devolution” White Paper and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, foundation strategic authorities will have devolved powers over transport and infrastructure, skills and employment support, housing and strategic planning, economic development and regeneration, environment and net zero, health, wellbeing and public service reform, and public safety. They will also receive devolved funding in areas such as local transport and skills, and the Government are currently consulting on giving foundation strategic authorities the power to raise an overnight visitor levy.
Separately, Minister Pennycook has also made an associated statement announcing the launch of a non-statutory consultation on the geographies for spatial development strategies. We strongly believe that strategic planning is most effective when done over devolution geographies. We will therefore work with local areas to ensure that geographies for foundation strategic authorities and spatial development strategies are aligned where possible. However, it will be for local areas to propose a devolution geography that can support strong partnership working across their local economy. The Government are committed to working with all areas to establish the right economic partnerships and to empower leaders across the country to deliver growth and prosperity for their communities.
[HCWS1335]
Sub-regional Strategic Planning
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government were clear in their manifesto that housing need in England cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale. That is why we committed to introducing effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning.
In the English devolution White Paper, “Power and partnership: Foundations for growth”, published in December 2024, we reaffirmed our intention to reintroduce mandatory strategic planning through the production of sub-regional spatial development strategies (SDSs) across England.
The Planning and Infrastructure Act, which received Royal Assent in December 2025, contains provisions that place a duty on combined authorities, combined county authorities, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities to prepare an SDS for their area. The Bill also enables the Government to establish “strategic planning boards" to prepare SDSs on behalf of specified groupings of these authorities. These provisions will be brought into force this summer.
The rollout of SDSs will reintroduce a strategic tier to the planning system in England. SDSs are intended to be high-level spatial frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment. They will ensure that sub-regional areas can effectively plan to meet their housing needs; co-ordinate the provision of strategic infrastructure; grow their economies; and improve the environment and climate resilience. They will set the context for local plans which will have to be in “general conformity” with the SDS once it has been adopted.
We remain committed to ensuring universal coverage of up-to-date local plans as quickly as possible. The production of SDSs should not be used as a reason to delay the preparation of local plans.
Mayoral strategic authorities will prepare the SDS for their area. In areas without mayoral strategic authorities, the responsibility for producing SDSs will sit with non-mayoral foundation strategic authorities. Where these do not exist, responsibility will sit with upper tier county councils and unitary authorities who will, in most cases, be required to work together to produce SDSs.
We set out in the English devolution White Paper that we will generally expect these authorities to work together to produce SDSs over “sensible geographies” as defined within it. The Planning and Infrastructure Act sets out a formal mechanism to enable such groups of authorities to work together, namely a strategic planning board. These will operate in a similar way to joint planning committees that have been established to co-ordinate the preparation of joint local plans in some parts of England.
Today, we are launching a consultation on the geography for SDSs. The consultation identifies a number of groupings where we understand that there is a degree of broad agreement about the principle of working together, and in these areas we propose an SDS geography. In other areas where such agreement is tenuous or lacking entirely, we are inviting proposals to help inform final decisions.
Where areas are able to quickly confirm their support for a particular grouping, my officials will look to work with those authorities to agree the terms for a strategic planning board. These will then be subject to statutory consultation. To support SDS production, the Government have identified a funding package. We expect to make some initial payments in March and to confirm the full package in the summer.
Separately, Minister Fahnbulleh has also made a statement to the House, announcing the next step forward in the Government’s English devolution agenda: an invitation from the Secretary of State for all areas in England without an existing devolution agreement to come forward with their neighbours with an expression of interest for a new foundation strategic authority (FSA). In the vast majority of cases, we would expect the geographies for SDSs to align with foundation strategic authorities.
[HCWS1337]
Youth Knife Possession
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), and I have published new Government guidance on child knife-possession offences.
This guidance, applying to all police forces and youth justice services throughout England and Wales, sets a clear expectation that children who break the law by carrying a knife should receive a swift, robust and evidence-based response, including tailored support and high-quality interventions delivered by youth justice services.
Knife crime has destroyed far too many lives, and this Government have set an ambitious but essential target to halve knife crime over this decade. We are already making tangible progress.
Since the start of this Parliament, knife crime has fallen by 8%, meaning 4,229 fewer offences. Knife homicides are down by 27% and hospital admissions for stabbings have fallen by 11%. We have banned dangerous weapons such as ninja swords and zombie-style machetes, and we have taken nearly 60,000 knives off our streets.
But for too long, children found in possession of knives have not faced swift and sufficiently robust consequences to prevent reoffending. Young knife carriers have been given empty warnings and, in some cases, simply have been required to write letters of apology to their victims. Our estimates suggest around 1,000 children who are currently caught in possession of a knife face no meaningful consequences or intervention. These are inadequate responses to child knife-possession offences, which do not result in a meaningful intervention to address the offending behaviour, or a penalty. We are changing this.
In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring that every child caught in possession of a knife would be referred to a youth justice service and receive a mandatory plan to prevent reoffending. This marks an important milestone in the Government’s mission to halve knife crime within a decade and to make our streets safer.
The guidance brings about greater clarity and consistency to operational partners and will require a step change in the way that the criminal justice system responds when a child is found in possession of a knife. This guidance makes clear our expectation that the response to knife possession should always be swift, robust, evidence-based and thorough. Police will swiftly refer every knife possession case to youth justice services— multi-agency, local authority-based teams working with children at risk of offending—who will then design a targeted action plan for each child.
Specialised plans will address the root causes of the child’s offence, whether that’s exploitation by criminal gangs or childhood trauma. Targeted action could include mentoring schemes or support to remain in education, giving children the foundations they need to turn their back on crime and keep our streets safe. Repeat offending or refusal to engage with a mandatory plan will be met with robust action, including criminal charges.
The guidance will be accompanied by more comprehensive data collection, which will provide a clearer picture of which interventions are most effective at preventing reoffending. In addition, local scrutiny and independent inspections by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation will ensure the guidance is being implemented.
We thank all partners across policing and youth justice services for their expert support in developing this guidance. This is an important step in strengthening the police and youth justice response to children who carry knives.
The guidance will be made available on gov.uk.
A copy of the guidance will also be deposited in the Library of the House.
[HCWS1330]
Youth Justice System
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Today I have published a policy statement setting out the first stages of the Government plan to modernise and reform the youth justice system so that it is fit for the future.
The youth justice system in England and Wales has seen considerable success in recent decades, with significant reductions in first-time entrants, proven offences, and the number of children in custody. This reflects the dedication of our frontline professionals and volunteers who make up that system.
However, the children who come into contact with the system today often present with increasingly complex needs and face significant barriers to rehabilitation. To continue protecting the public and prevent further victims, the system must evolve.
Our statement sets out the Government first phase of reforms to modernise how youth justice services are funded, governed and supported. It focuses on strengthening early intervention, reducing unnecessary use of custody, ensuring accountable and supportive governance, and providing frontline services with greater confidence in their funding, in return for stronger outcomes.
This publication lays the groundwork for further reforms, which we will set out the Government vision for a reformed youth justice system.
We are proud to be introducing more dependable funding arrangements for youth justice services. From this financial year, multi-year funding settlements will give frontline services the certainty they need to plan ahead and manage their resources more effectively. We will provide £281 million over three years for the youth justice core grant, alongside extended, multi-year investment for the successful turnaround programme—a further £46 million over three years—enabling youth justice services to continue their vital work diverting vulnerable children away from crime.
In the light of the evolving youth justice landscape, the statement also outlines reforms to oversight structures. These include refocusing the youth justice board towards supporting the frontline in a continuous improvement role, while transferring responsibility for the development, funding and monitoring of youth justice policy to direct ministerial oversight in the Ministry of Justice.
This Government are committed to a youth justice system that embraces the latest technology and data. As part of our wider plan for this, we will establish an expert advisory council to support the responsible use of analytics and artificial intelligence to strengthen early intervention and improve outcomes.
Ensuring custody is used only as a last resort for children remains a central priority of this Government. Too many children are detained in custody on remand but then receive a community sentence, an experience which can be damaging to the child’s life outcomes and at high financial cost to local authorities. To reduce unnecessary custodial remands, we will change the way annual youth remand funding is distributed, supporting local authorities to take a regional approach to develop stronger community remand and bail support options. We will invest a further £5 million through regional remand partnerships to create community remand placements, with particular focus on specialist fostering.
In addition, I have established a new departmental board to drive improvements to standards in youth custody. This statement outlines some of the initial steps we are taking to improve safety, education, time out of room and staffing in the youth estate.
This statement lays the foundations for further reforms that will be announced in the spring. These proposals, taken together, will offer the most significant reforms to the youth justice system in a generation, supporting this Government’s clear missions to make our streets safer and to break down barriers to opportunity for the most vulnerable children.
The full policy statement will be laid before the House and it will also be made available on gov.uk.
[HCWS1334]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
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.
Donations to Political Parties
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the law on donations to political parties.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, this week Transparency International published its global index on corruption. The UK has dropped to its lowest ever score and now is more corrupt than Estonia, Hong Kong, Uruguay, Japan, Ireland and Australia. The main reason is that political parties and too many legislators are available for hire to corporations and the super-rich. Of course, corporations and the super-rich do not donate; they invest and expect a return. The grateful politicians oblige by organising threatening issues off the political agenda, feather-duster regulatory systems, tax perks to the rich, crony contracts, VIP lanes, honours and even peerages. This skulduggery happens behind a wall of organised secrecy.
In the 2023 OECD Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index, the UK was ranked 25th. It is now less open and transparent than Colombia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Ireland, Korea, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden—what a state of affairs. In the year before the 2024 general election, companies handed £42 million to political parties and individual legislators. The Conservatives accepted £15 million from Phoenix Partnership, which is wholly owned by Frank Hester, even though he said that MP Diane Abbott made him “want to hate all black women” and that she “should be shot”. Since 2016, Hester’s company has received £591 million from public contracts. Labour received £4.7 million from Quadrature Capital, a company controlled from the Cayman Islands. Not so long ago, Elon Musk promised £100 million to Reform UK to secure his ideological objectives.
The Electoral Commission does not know the origins of money used as political donations. Any person on the electoral register can pass money, whether from Elon Musk or the Mafia, as political donations. No one knows where foreign-resident UK voters get their money from. Even if the Electoral Commission could investigate, it will not get access to foreign bank accounts and cannot follow the money trail, so there is no way of stopping any foreign money. Companies registered in the UK can hand money to parties, but this does not have to come from their trade or profits in the UK. Even if that requirement were introduced, it could not be effectively implemented. Profits can be manufactured through intragroup transactions and aggressive accounting. In any case, small companies that frequently front these donations on behalf of the rich do not publish meaningful accounts because of the obsession with deregulation.
Greater transparency is considered to be good, but that alone will not end political corruption because political parties remain for sale to the highest bidder. The biggest casualty of political donations and corruption is confidence in the institutions of government. In the 2024 general election, the voter turnout was 59.9%, and people say to me, “It doesn’t matter who we vote for. Corporations and the super-rich always win because they fund parties and legislators”. Policy-makers eagerly meeting donors rarely show the same enthusiasm for meeting the homeless, the hungry, the less fortunate and the poor, who seem to be written out of the system altogether.
Normal people cannot fund political parties or buy suits and glasses for Ministers and they are on the receiving end of some terrible policies. More than 120,000 people die every year from fuel poverty, but Governments do not curb profiteering or upset the interests of corporations and the rich. By design, the poorest 20% pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the richest 20%. Some 300,000 people die every year while awaiting a hospital appointment, sacrificed to the so-called fiscal rules.
Abraham Lincoln associated democracy with government of the people, by the people and for the people. Such an ideal cannot be achieved as long as big money can buy political parties and legislators and subvert public choices. We need to end the direct funding of political parties by corporations, trade unions and the rich. I have already argued that it is impossible to keep foreign money out of politics. Corporations can be used, and have been used, to circumvent constraints. Some want to put an upper limit on corporate and personal donations; of course, only corporations and the rich will still be able to fund parties and the corruption we suffer from will continue. Normal people cannot compete in this kind of arms race. In a country where 24 million people live below the minimum living standards, handing more of their income to political parties is simply not possible at all.
The press release issued last night on the Representation of the People Bill suggests that the Government will tweak the system, but that tweaking will not end the political corruption. It will not stop the rich and corporations buying the political system. We need a fundamental rethink. My proposal is this: no limits on political donations on any legal or natural person, but no political party may directly receive a penny from them. All the money should go into what I call a fund for democracy, then that money should be shared in accordance with political parties’ share of the vote and membership. Parties producing good policies will get a bigger share. On realising that they cannot buy the political system, corporations and the rich will inevitably stop political donations. At that point, we can discuss the alternatives, including possible state funding of parties.
Finally, we cannot not have government of and for the people without ending direct political donations. Will any party rise to the challenge and rid us of inbuilt political corruption?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, Members may have noticed that the clock is not working at the moment. I ask noble Lords to stick to their time limit of three minutes—I will wave when their time is up—because we need to make sure that we have time for the Minister’s response.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on obtaining this debate, although I am going to follow a substantially different tack. I should add that my first declaration in the register of interests in the House of Lords was a ticket to the rugby World Cup final in 2015 given to me by the referee.
I want to make two points. One is on—noble Lords will be aware that I have been pursuing this issue for a number of years—the funding of opinion polls, which are, in effect, campaigning. A few years ago, YouGov took on a poll and the Telegraph displayed it in full, but we were unable to establish who had actually funded it and the circumstances around it.
I have given notice to the Electoral Commission again that I intend to pursue it when we get to debate the legislation, which I understand has been tabled in the Commons in the past few minutes, but I could not get a copy of it before the debate started. That is one matter of concern, because effectively opinion polling is used as a substantial manner of campaigning.
The other item that I wish to raise is relevant in light of the events in politics this week. It is not in a general election but at least one potential candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party is supposed to have already a war chest of £1 million. Any campaign that relates to funding for a post in government or as Leader of the Opposition should be subject to the same requirements as election campaigning in general. At the last leadership election in the Tory Party, Robert Jenrick received £75,000 pounds from a tax haven abroad. I made it absolutely clear that I thought that that should be declared and treated in the same way as overseas funding, because it has a direct bearing on British politics. Those are the two items that I wished to raise.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, likewise, I should acknowledge the exceptionally impressive timing of this debate, coming just after the Government have published the Representation of the People Bill. It is fair to say, from all we know of the Bill so far—I have not had time to read it yet by any means in full—there is a welcome direction of travel on many issues in terms of trying to improve the transparency around donations to political parties. I fear, however, that it does not go far enough. Obviously, some of those issues are to do with foreign money and potential foreign government interference. Hopefully, the Rycroft review will, in due course, set out ways in which we can go further on that.
I therefore want to concentrate on a slightly different issue in my brief comments. They draw on the research that I published with Chris Butler last year on donations that are made directly to candidates and rightly declared on the candidates’ election expense forms when they submit them, which is all above board, legal and how the law is intended to operate. However, those donations then, in effect, disappear from view because donations made directly to candidates at the moment do not then appear on the Electoral Commission’s register of donations. So, if you are, for example, an inquisitive journalist or somebody doing the due diligence process and you look at the obvious public records, the donations do not appear there at all.
This is not a trivial amount of money. Chris Butler and I estimated that, for the 2019 general election, £3.4 million of donations came into our political system, potentially influencing people, but did not then appear in the Electoral Commission’s records. Moreover, although those election expense forms are kept locally by the relevant returning officers, they are not published and are destroyed after a period. Although the Electoral Commission gathers such forms in, it does not publish them. Indeed, as Chris and I discovered, the Electoral Commission is not terribly keen on releasing copies of that information. When it did release some information to us, much of it was redacted.
With that redacted information, we did our best to compare, for those elected as MPs, whether the donations then appeared on the MPs’ register of interests. We found that around one in 10 of the donations made did not appear on the register. One should caveat that—there may be innocent explanations—but it adds to the general picture that there is a problem, which I hope the Government will be keen to address, about the volume of money that flows in as direct donations to candidates that is not properly caught by our current transparency regimes.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this debate on donations to political parties. It is right that we examine how our political system is funded and that we do so with seriousness and transparency. I welcome the Government’s announcement today on the Representation of the People Bill and, in particular, measures to protect candidates, campaigners and staff from intimidation or abuse. At its heart, this debate is about strengthening our democracy and rebuilding public trust and about ensuring that participation in our democratic life is meaningful and fair. That is not only about money; it is about participation and franchise. It is in that spirit I slightly change tack from some of the focus around funding and speak in support of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds.
Young people today are growing up in a context markedly different from that which shaped many of us in this House. They face existential challenges that are not abstract or distant but immediate and personal. Climate change, housing insecurity and economic and global uncertainty threaten not only their prosperity but their sense of future. Yet many feel that they have little agency over the decisions taken here in Parliament that will define those futures. Extending the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds offers elected representatives a powerful incentive to engage seriously with this cohort. It encourages political parties, candidates and institutions to speak with young people, not merely about them. It creates space for dialogue, political education and a politics that listens as well as instructs.
The evidence supports this approach. Research by the Electoral Commission shows that nearly three-quarters of young people believe that politics should be taught more in schools and colleges. While many understandably encounter political content through social media, they are far more likely to trust the information that they learn about politics in an educational setting. Yet many young people still do not feel confident about voting; they want to understand how voting works, why it matters and how to make informed choices.
Crucially, the same research tells us that, when young people understand how politics works and why it is important, they are far more likely to get involved and perhaps tackle the issues that the debate has already raised. That is why I particularly welcome the focus on civic education throughout schooling. Extending the franchise alongside strengthened civic education is not a leap of faith; it is a coherent and evidence-based approach to democratic renewal.
Young people today are asking for the same recognition. They are not disengaged because they do not care; many are disengaged because they care deeply and do not see their concerns reflected in decision-making or accessibility to politics. Granting them the vote is not a cure-all, but it is a meaningful and practical step in affirming that their stake in society is real. As legislators, it is incumbent on us to strengthen, not narrow, the foundations of our democracy. Engaging young people fosters habits of participation, accountability and civic responsibility that endure across a lifetime. It reinforces the principle that democracy is not only something that we inherit but something that we must renew.
Extending the franchise is an act of confidence in our young people and in our democratic system to grow stronger through inclusion. In a debate rightly focused on trust and democratic integrity, I urge the House to see this measure as an opportunity that we should embrace.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for introducing the debate and for being so frank about the proposal. As he said right at the end, the alternative to private donations is state funding, which indeed is the lesson of everywhere where we have seen it happen.
There are two obvious objections to a state-funded system. First, we do not have the money. We already have taxes at a higher level than they have been since the end of the 1940s, when we were still coming back from full mobilisation. We are borrowing £150 billion a year and spending £110 billion of that fending off existing creditors and servicing—not paying off—the interest on existing debt. If only we were paying off some of it. The idea that, at this fiscal moment, we would make a new demand on the wallet of the taxpayers is eccentric—or brave, if I can put it more neutrally.
Secondly, once you put this power into the hands of the state, you necessarily open the door to arbitrary decisions as to which parties qualify or can be disqualified. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, this happened in Belgium. Private donations were more or less banned following the Agusta scandal. This then, in effect, put immense power in the hands of the majority of Belgian parties to defund political parties of which they disapproved—for example, because they were in favour of Flemish separatism. That is an extraordinarily powerful loaded gun to put in the hands of any Government. What is the alternative? If people cannot manage without state funding, maybe the parties should do less. Maybe they should trim their ambitions to their means, rather than having to spend all these gazillions on every election.
I am conscious of the time, so I will finish with two quotations. As the age becomes darker and more illiberal, I will cite two quotations from old Whig heroes, one from the end of the 18th century and another from the end of the 19th. I begin with Thomas Jefferson, who came out with a very powerful objection when he said,
“to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical”.
It is an extraordinary proposal. I am sure there would be people who would deeply resent funding me and I am sure other people would deeply resent funding the noble Lord, Lord Sikka—and others would dislike the idea of funding anyone in between us.
I will close with this, from JS Mill, who wrote that
“if the employees of all these different enterprises were paid by the government, and looked to the government for every rise in life; not all the freedom of the press and popular constitution of the legislature would make this or any other country free otherwise than in name”.
Amen.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate the panache and brio with which the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, delivers his speeches, but I have to say that I disagree with him on state funding. I will develop that in the time available to me. JS Mill and Thomas Jefferson lived some time ago, long before the days of what we would understand to be democracy.
I commend my noble friend Lord Sikka for getting this debate. He went on at some length about countries higher on the scale than the UK in terms of corruption measures. He mentioned various countries, but not Germany. I think Germany is the best example of support for political parties. In Germany’s system there is state funding, with three legs to its stool. The first is democratic legitimacy, because the money follows the votes that political parties gain. The second is transparency, with donations having to be declared fully—anything above €50,000 immediately and anything above €10,000 in the parties’ annual reports. That is important. There is also a prevention of undue influence, which I think we see in this country in terms of political donations.
The Conservative Party is funded by business. The Labour Party is funded to some extent by business but mainly by trade unions: I declare an interest as a member of Unite. That does not give us a level playing field. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Pack, will feel that the Liberal Democrats do not get a fair crack of the whip. If votes lead to the financial donations that the state makes to political parties, as in the German system, following an election, the people understand what they are paying and why they are paying it. The direct connection is important. Generally, I think voters would rather see a fair system and a level playing field, where things are open and transparent, and it is clear that any political party that gains sufficient votes gets support to go into future elections. I do not think that is a bad idea.
Incidentally, in Germany the state also matches donations that political parties get from membership fees and individual small donations, up to a capped limit. That is a good example that we could follow and I hope my noble friend will be able to say something about what the Government’s intentions are in the Bill that has just been published. I commend the German model. France, Italy, Spain and Canada also have a form of state funding. It works for them and it could work for us as well.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on securing this debate. I will highlight what I regard as an unacceptable anomaly in the current laws on donations to political parties seeking election throughout the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords will be aware of the list of permissible funding sources for political parties in Great Britain. However, not all your Lordships may know that there is an additional list of sources for political parties in Northern Ireland, and it is quite extensive. The list includes Irish citizens, most Irish-registered companies, trade unions, building societies, friendly societies and, most importantly, Irish-registered political parties.
The consequence of this means that, while foreign political donations are barred in Great Britain, foreign money can and does enter United Kingdom politics through Northern Ireland. This list of additional sources specifically for parties in Northern Ireland was, of course, compiled to satisfy the insatiable demands of Sinn Féin/IRA.
The republican movement has never been short of cash, regularly funded throughout the Troubles and since by protection rackets and bank robberies, including the Northern Bank raid in central Belfast, which added some £26.5 million to Sinn Féin/IRA coffers more than six and a half years after the signing of the Good Friday agreement. However, much of this funding has come from the United States of America, most notably from an organisation known as Friends of Sinn Féin.
According to a recent article in the Irish Times, in the six months to October last year, Friends of Sinn Féin recorded more than $57,000 in donations, including almost $19,000 from a trust set up by an Arizona woman who died in 2020. Since 2022, Friends of Sinn Féin has received more than $440,000 from this trust. Last year, the Belfast Telegraph reported that another front group, Friends of Sinn Féin (Canada), donated some $14,000. That matters, because I am sure no noble Lord believes that Sinn Féin/IRA records the cash it receives.
The current anomaly in party funding affects politics not only in Northern Ireland but in Westminster. There are currently seven Sinn Féin/IRA MPs entitled to take their seats in the other place, but they refuse to do so. However, their election prospects were undoubtedly boosted by foreign money supporting their campaign. I simply ask the Minister how and why it is acceptable that current UK law relating to funding includes a carve-up designated to assist one political party. There can be no justification for it and that anomaly should be removed.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on his very prescient timing, securing this debate just as the Representation of the People Bill is introduced today.
The Government are proposing to introduce “enhanced due diligence” measures in the forthcoming elections Bill. One has to ask why. If the intent of the legislation is to protect against foreign interference, the new regulatory regime should be targeted in that respect, rather than seeking to envelope genuinely domestic and permissible transactions in extra and excessive red tape. Political parties and regulated donees have a legal obligation to ensure that they receive donations only from permissible sources, which in the case of companies must be companies carrying out business in the UK. Foreign donations are already banned. There are criminal offences in relation to fraud declarations and funnelling unlawful donations via the back door.
However, parties could do with more information from government agencies. In the case of Christine Lee, who gave some £700,000 to Labour Party recipients, it would have been helpful if the security services had alerted Labour to the Chinese Communist Party involvement, for its benefit. Likewise, HMRC has recently declined to share information with national political parties because of so-called tax confidentiality. This fails to recognise an important fact: political parties are not banks or tax authorities. Their assessment of risks is otherwise limited to what is in the public domain. If there are particular risks from specific foreign threats, there should be mechanisms to inform parties of those risks.
The greatest risk of foreign influence lies in third parties, rather than highly regulated and very transparent political parties. That is why we see money flowing into Islamist causes and Gaza independence-style campaigns, which is very worrying. Certainly, the Conservative Party undertakes due diligence checks on its donors, in terms of, first, regulatory compliance and, secondly, political screening and reputational impact. Donations from shell companies are not allowed and not taken. In government, the Conservatives tightened the law against foreign interference and foreign spending; it is the Labour Government who are now dragging their feet by failing to implement properly the foreign influence registration scheme and by not adding China to the enhanced tier. Also, I add my name to those advocating banning cryptocurrency donations. I can see no reason to use them other than for nefarious purposes.
The Government need to recognise that donors are generally good citizens who want to help a political party and want it to succeed. Some do so by giving their time, some by giving financial resources. Over the years, Labour, Lib Dems and all parties have had many such folk, albeit that some may have now withdrawn, given the performance of their party. Of course, that has left Labour completely beholden to the unions. Is this healthy? The result has been the morally offensive Employment Rights Act, where Labour has been forced to allow unions to clip members’ fees into their political funds unless members object. This is the wrong direction of travel. Genuine donors need to be thanked and applauded, not demonised.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I rise with a profound sense of responsibility because the issue before us goes to the very heart of our constitutional settlement: the integrity of our democracy. At the moment there is a growing and deeply troubling perception that British democracy is simply on sale to the highest bidder. That perception alone should alarm us all. We are witnessing donations whose true origins are unclear and that are rooted through opaque structures, sometimes linked to foreign interests and are too often beyond the effective scrutiny of the regulator. This is not a theoretical concern; it is a present and pressing danger. The principle is simple: decisions about the future of the United Kingdom should be made by the British people, not shaped by unknown donors, overseas interests or hidden financial powers.
Democracy is about equality of voice, not inequality of wealth. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has recommended a cap of £10,000 on donations to political parties. Such a cap would not stifle political participation; it would protect it. It would ensure that political parties are funded by broad public support rather than a narrow group of wealthy benefactors.
The integrity of our democracy is at stake. The United Kingdom is respected around the world as a beacon of democratic governance, often described, rightly or wrongly, as the mother of all democracies. That reputation has been earned over the centuries through reform, restraint and a shared commitment to fairness and accountability. It must not be squandered now. Democracy cannot be treated as a commodity traded to the highest bidder. It is a trust handed down to us and held on behalf of future generations. Safeguarding requires courage, transparency and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. This House has a duty to act. If we fail to strengthen our law on political donations, we risk allowing money to speak louder than the citizen. We cannot and must not take that risk.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for securing this important debate. I will be positive. Legitimacy and transparency must be at the heart of political-party finance. I share the concerns about hostile foreign states trying to exert influence in this way, but these concerns must not lead us down the road of substantially increased public funding of political parties. Having to attract donations, big and small, is part of a competitive electoral landscape and one of the ways in which parties are challenged to remain relevant.
As updates to the law are made, we need to ensure that they are compatible with new technology. I disagree slightly with my noble friend Lord Leigh. We need safeguards around things such as crypto donations, but the system should work to facilitate them in a legitimate manner, not try to prevent them.
We are missing an important question in this debate. We should be asking: how do we make it more attractive for people to become donors to political parties? Legitimate UK voters and businesses donating to a political party is not a shameful act—far from it. In fact, it should be celebrated as a positive way for people to participate in political life, a fundamental enabler of our democratic system and an important way in which we can exercise our democratic rights.
To support this view, we should look to provide tax relief on political donations in a similar way to what we already do for charitable donations. This would not only make it more attractive for people to donate but send a clear signal that legitimately made and transparently declared donations are of benefit to our democracy and that political parties are essential institutions worthy of support, which must be led by people, not the state.
In designing such a system, I recognise that there may be a need for a limit to the amount of tax relief on offer, but I do not think such relief needs to go hand in hand with a cap on donations. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned, we should look to Germany, where there is no limit on how much someone can donate, but the first €3,300 attracts tax relief. Will the Minister commit to looking seriously at such a proposal as part of any update to the law on political donations?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I particularly welcome the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, made. The ideal way to fund political parties is a large number of donations from your voters and your members. That is what my party has largely relied on. We lack large donors, except under exceptional circumstances, and we have to work very hard to get those £20, £200 and £2,000 donations.
We are all watching what happens in the United States at the moment, where money dominates politics and where a small number of ultra-wealthy people—some of whom are explicitly anti-democratic, such as Peter Thiel —are influencing the way things are going. UK sovereignty means that we need to restrict the flow of funds from abroad so far as we can. This means funds not only from foreign states but foreign citizens, foreign companies and UK expatriates who moved abroad to avoid paying UK taxes but nevertheless want to interfere in the political life of the country they have left behind.
We now know a lot about Russian penetration of the Conservative Party and about Russian interference in the Brexit campaign. We do not know whether various Middle Eastern states put money into favoured parties, lobbies and think tanks to promote their own interests. We now have the extraordinary announcement from a US State Department Under Secretary that US federal funds will be channelled into right-wing groups across Europe, including in the UK, including the bodies which in many ways are threats to constitutional democracy and open society.
Restrictions on expatriate donations are a more difficult and delicate issue. One of the largest donations in recent British politics came from a long-term UK expatriate in Thailand. There are 100,000 UK citizens in Dubai, some extremely rich and some possibly willing to act as intermediaries for foreign state actors in putting money into British politics. We agree that corporate donations should be allowed only from companies that have declared substantial profits from operations within the UK. I suggest that it should also be a condition that donations above a modest limit can come only from people who have submitted a UK tax return for the previous year or more.
Current restrictions focus mainly on donations to political parties. However, political movements, such as Tommy Robinson’s, also play a large and active political role, as do think tanks, such as the Henry Jackson Society, the Global Warming Policy Foundation and the TaxPayers’ Alliance, and lobbies, such as the Free Speech Union and Labour Together, which has not declared its funding.
There is some evidence, and many more unconfirmed reports, that foreign money flows into some of these, both from foreign Governments and from wealthy individuals, foundations and corporations. That is also foreign interference. In some cases, it is clearly hostile foreign interference and should be made more transparent and limited. The elections Bill offers us the chance to tighten controls on all these, and I look forward to making it work.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for bringing forward this debate but I cannot, in any way, agree with his solutions, either the ideas for all-party use of a donations pot—I am not sure how big that pot would be—or the endgame of state funding.
The statutory framework governing donations, principally the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the Representation of the People Act 1983, were designed to prevent foreign money distorting British politics. Those principles remain sound. But the landscape has evolved: new financial vehicles, shell companies, unincorporated associations and cryptocurrencies present risks that were understandably not explicitly legislated for a generation ago. This is a fact that hostile actors increasingly seek to exploit.
We recognise that the Government’s July 2025 elections strategy acknowledged that the current framework is no longer sufficient. It proposed stronger checks on donations, greater transparency for gifts and limits on company donations etc. We also note the announcement the independent review into electoral resilience following troubling allegations of foreign interference, and the Secretary of State’s commitment to examine illicit funding streams, including cryptocurrencies. We support the objective of protecting our democracy from hostile actors.
The previous Conservative Government took steps in this direction, strengthening national security legislation and committing to improved information-sharing between agencies and political parties. This was precisely because of the real and evolving threat of foreign interference at the time.
However, strategies and reviews are not substitutes for legislation. The electoral strategy was published seven months ago, and the Representation of the People Bill is only just being laid before Parliament today. There has been little consultation with political parties as these things are starting to be put forward; I do not believe that that has ever happened before. At a time when state-backed interference, opaque funding routes and emerging financial technologies present genuine risks, delays here will have consequences. How will the Government ensure, in particular through the Bill, that parties are properly supported, including through proportionate and lawful information sharing if they are to undertake enhanced checks on donors? What specific safeguards will be introduced to ensure that foreign money, whether channelled through companies or digital assets, cannot penetrate our political system?
The safety and integrity of our democracy should never be partisan; nor can reform be endlessly deferred. If the Government believe that the existing framework is no longer robust, as they say they have done for nearly two years, it is now time to move from review to action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to respond to this QSD. As many Lords have said, it is timely indeed, as we are pleased to introduce the Representation of the People Bill today; I look forward to many further discussions as that Bill works its way through our House.
I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka for opening the debate, and other noble Lords for their contributions. My noble friend always brings an interesting approach to this subject. Although I do not quite share his conspiracy theory approach to matters, I would say, as a veteran of many elections, that the power of the vote is still as strong as ever. We all need to inspire confidence that the vote is mightier than the pound; I hope that we will all strive for that.
The speeches we have heard today illustrate a shared desire to protect our democracy from those who seek to disrupt it. We all know that this is a clear and present danger, which our Government are resolutely determined to tackle. The Government committed in their manifesto to strengthening the rules around donations to political parties, including enhanced safeguards against foreign donations. The threat of foreign interference is evolving and is becoming increasingly hostile and sophisticated, while the current rules are no longer sufficient to address these risks.
The Government take a zero-tolerance approach to foreign interference, and we cannot afford to wait. That is why the reforms set out today in the Representation of the People Bill put prevention first, reducing pressure on law enforcement, protecting parties from exploitation and delivering greater transparency and stronger safeguards against malign foreign actors. These reforms implement a number of recommendations made by stakeholders, including the Ethics and Integrity Commission, formerly the Committee on Standards in Public Life; the Electoral Commission; and the National Crime Agency.
I turn to the specific measures set out in the Bill. Current electoral law sets out who may donate and the basic checks that campaigners must make, but these rules no longer reflect modern anti-money laundering standards. So, we are strengthening the system by introducing new “know your donor” checks for donations over £11,180. I know that is a random amount: I did raise that. Recipients will now have to carry out a risk assessment, checking for signs of foreign or unlawful funding, before deciding whether to accept or return a donation.
Key stakeholders have warned that the current eligibility criteria for companies to donate are far too weak and expose political parties and other recipients to the risk of accepting foreign donations and proceeds of crime. This means that shell companies—companies that are registered today, owned by anyone and funded from anywhere, without a single day of trade—could donate to our political parties. That is why we are introducing new stringent eligibility criteria for companies wishing to make political donations. Companies will have to show sufficient revenue to cover their donation, be headquartered in the UK and be majority-owned or controlled by UK electors or citizens in order to be eligible to make a donation.
Stakeholders are also concerned that unincorporated associations could be used to funnel illegitimate foreign funding into our political system. Unincorporated associations can currently give large sums with limited transparency. This leaves clear vulnerability to foreign or illegitimate money, so we are tightening the rules. We are reducing the thresholds for when unincorporated associations must register with the Electoral Commission and for when unincorporated associations must report gifts to the Electoral Commission. We are also requiring unincorporated associations intending to make significant donations to check the permissibility of the political gifts they receive to ensure that they come from permitted UK sources. We are also reinforcing the principle that only permissible donors may fund UK politics.
Where illicit funds enter the system via impermissible donors, such as individuals not on the electoral register, they will be subject to full forfeiture, providing a clear deterrent and supporting compliance by political parties and campaigners. Beyond these measures, we will commence existing provisions in law, which will require anyone making contributions of more than £11,180 to declare any benefits linked to their donation. This will ensure that we can identify the true donor and prevent people acting as fronts for others. Forced declarations will be a criminal offence, supporting enforcement authorities to take action against illegal donations.
Robust regulation and enforcement of political finance rules are crucial for combating the threat of foreign interference. That is why we are addressing enforcement gaps by extending the Electoral Commission’s enforcement role and civil sanctioning powers. This will enable police resources to be directed towards the most serious criminal offences. We will also increase, via secondary legislation, the Electoral Commission’s maximum fine from £20,000 to £500,000 per offence, with safeguards to protect against disproportionate burdens on campaigners with fewer resources. This will create a more meaningful deterrent against serious breaches of the rules.
Finally, to ensure that we are leaving no stone unturned, we have launched an independent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics, which will make recommendations to government by the end of March. The Rycroft review will focus on the effectiveness of the UK’s political finance laws, as well as the safeguards in place to protect our democracy from illicit money from abroad, including crypto assets. The Government will carefully consider all recommendations made in that report.
I want to respond to a few of the points made. If I do not get to them all, I will reply in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked about polls. Transparency requirements under electoral law exist for third-party campaign spending, including market research and canvassing. They are all in scope of the spending rules. The imprint rules also apply to those market research issues. On leadership elections, I am afraid they are a matter for political parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked about donations and registers of interest. Parliament sets the rules around registers of interest, so that is a matter of parliamentary rule-making. I thank my noble friend Lady Shah for her points about voting for 16 year-olds. She hit on a crucial point. Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds means that we must make sure that they have trust in the system, and we are increasing civic education to provide that background to their voting.
On the question from my noble friend Lord Watson, I am sure the Rycroft review will be looking at international models to make sure we learn from them.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, Irish citizens remain permissible donors in Northern Ireland, and political parties there can also accept donations from Irish sources, such as Irish companies, that meet the prescribed conditions. That is consistent with the Good Friday agreement.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, the issue about China is a Home Office question. I will revert to colleagues in the Home Office and get back to him on that one.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Sahota, there is no intention from the Government to cap donations at the moment. The new Bill is all about transparency, so I hope I have covered some of those issues.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mott, political parties and other campaigners will remain able to raise sufficient funds to communicate their views to the electorate, while protecting our democracy against those who seek to covertly undermine it. We do not consider tax relief on political donations to be part of the solution, I am afraid.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I think I covered overseas interference in my speech. Overseas electors are subject to the same counter-fraud measures as domestic electors, including having their identity confirmed as part of the registration process.
I hope that I covered most of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in my speech. I will check Hansard, though, and respond further if I missed anything.
In closing, I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka for raising such an important debate and Members across the Committee for some very key contributions. I am sure we will have more of those as the Bill makes its way through the House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until at least 2 pm, in the hope that we can get the clocks fixed.
Counter-Extremism Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goodman of Wycombe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the introduction of a counter-extremism strategy.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this short debate on the consideration given to the introduction of a counterextremism strategy. The usual form on these occasions is to describe the issues and ask some questions. However, the issues I want to describe and the questions I want to ask were described and asked recently in the House, as the Minister knows. I will therefore be as brief as I can in order to allow other noble Lords to have their say; I am delighted to see so many colleagues present.
I turn first to the issues. In sum, my view is that non-violent extremism aims to, in the words of the previous Government’s definition,
“negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others … undermine, overturn or replace”
our
“system of liberal … democracy and democratic rights; or … intentionally create a permissive environment for others”.
At best, this non-violent extremism makes cohesion and integration impossible; at worst, it gives rise to harassment, public order offences, acts of terrorism and other breaches of the rule of law. Its three most prominent forms are far-right, far-left and Islamist extremism. The last of those is responsible for some 71% of terrorist incidents in Britain since the London Tube atrocities of 7 July 2005, as well as some 75% of the case load of Contest, the Government’s counterterror strategy. This is not—I repeat, not—to conflate Islam, the ancient religion, with Islamism, the political ideology, any more than it is to conflate the far left and socialism or the far right and patriotism.
Having set out the issues, I turn next to the Government’s response. When asked recently in the House whether the Government uphold the definition of non-violent extremism that I quoted earlier or have one of their own, the Minister said that it,
“is a deeply challenging and complex area”,
and that,
“there is no statutory definition of or consensus on what would include extremism”.
When he was asked whether a counterextremism commissioner will be appointed to replace Robin Simcox, the Minister repeated:
“We are reviewing the roles and remits of various bodies to ensure our resources are best placed to meet current challenges”.
When he was asked whether the Government will publish the rapid analytical sprint review of non-violent extremism, commissioned after the general election, he said that publication,
“could, for example, undermine policy development”.—[Official Report, 27/1/26; cols. 804-06.]
and sent a file of support for terror, antisemitism, denial and conspiracy theory gleaned from mosques. I then asked how many prosecutions have arisen, and the Minister replied that no figures are available.
It is not hard to see what is happening here. There is a repeated cycle. First, there is an incident. It could be the conviction of a left-wing anarchist in 2024 on multiple terror charges. It could be the attack on the Heaton Park synagogue last year, which saw the first murder of Jews simply for being Jews in Britain in modern times. It could be the conviction of a far-right racist for the 2017 attack on Finsbury Park mosque. Then there is a wave of public alarm. Ministers promise action, time passes, media attention moves on and inertia sets in as the Government, the Opposition, the security services, the police, advisers and academics retreat into their siloes and disagree about solutions. Ministers are then reshuffled or a general election takes place, and we go back to square one until the next time.
Only two recent Prime Ministers seriously attempted to break the cycle: Tony Blair and my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. Both understood that in our centralised system, only a cross-government counterextremism strategy driven from Downing Street will produce results. Such a strategy would ensure that the Government themselves do not patronise, give platforms to, fund or engage with extremists; that prisons are run by governors and staff, not by gangs; that extremist mobs do not dictate terms to the police, as happened recently in Birmingham; that hospitals and surgeries are neutral spaces; that posters on walls and lanyards worn by staff do not advertise political causes; that demonstrators and marchers do not incite violence by calling, for example, for the intifada to be globalised; and that funds raised for charities do not end up funding terror.
I pay tribute to two all-party initiatives that have the potential to develop such a policy. The first is the All-Party Parliamentary Group on defending democracy, led by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, who I am pleased to see will speak today. The second is the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Counter Extremism, chaired by Damien Egan, which has already produced a useful report, Time to Act.
I described the pattern of events in counterextremism policy as a cycle, but perhaps it would be more accurate to describe it as a spiral, one which is descending steadily downwards. I have assumed for the whole of my adult life that our multifaith and multiracial democracy will continue to progress for the better, and, on balance, I still believe that it will, but I also believe that we can no longer be sure. The 2022 disturbances in Leicester, the Aston Villa game scandal in Birmingham, the Manchester synagogue attack, the firebomb attack on the Peacehaven mosque, the outbreak of Palestinian and St George’s Cross flag flying, the rise of the Gaza independents and the push for an “Islamophobia” definition, plus the Sikh and Hindu reaction to it, are signs that our towns and cities are in danger of dividing, at least in part, into ethnic and religious enclaves. It is hard to see how such a future could square with the Disraelian “one nation” ideal or, indeed, with a coherent nation at all.
The Government currently seem too battered, disorientated and bewildered by events to rise to the challenge. The opposition parties are only beginning, at this stage of the electoral cycle, to grapple with it, and Parliament as an institution is running to catch up with the pace of events. I would not claim that this debate is the start of further discussion to come, but I hope it can be an important step along the road, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, on introducing this debate. A serious discussion on this is long overdue, and I thank him for all his work and leadership on this and the many colleagues who I am looking forward to hearing who have been very involved in it as well. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Hofenung Foundation and as someone who has been deeply concerned about the growing extremism crisis in our country. We face a rapidly accelerating threat. We see this in the historic levels of antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate, the surge of Prevent referrals, the unprecedented normalisation of conspiracy theories and the rising tolerance, particularly among younger groups, of political violence. These are not isolated indicators; they are symptoms of a weakening social fabric and declining democratic resilience.
The most disturbing thing is that we are flying blind. We are confronting a fast-evolving, increasingly organised and sometimes foreign-backed extremism ecosystem without a national counterextremism strategy of any kind. We make a profound mistake when we conflate extremism with terrorism. Terrorism is the violent end point, but extremism is the infrastructure, the ideology, the recruitment ecosystem, the conspiracy culture, the dehumanisation and the democratic erosion that makes violence possible. Contest is an excellent counterterrorism strategy, but it was never designed to address the harms that sit below the terrorism threshold, where extremist groups currently operate with impunity. We have reached a point where extremist organisations—far left, far right, Islamicist—can radicalise children, spread dangerous ideological propaganda and mainstream hate on the streets and online without breaking any law because the law does not yet capture hateful extremism as a category. This is untenable.
What do we need to do? First, we need a clear operational definition of extremism, and I hope the Minister can confirm that the existing one announced by the previous Government still stands. It will be important to have his reflections on whether the Government will accept that it should include reference to hateful extremism. Secondly, the Government must close the legislative gaps. As set out in the report Operating With Impunity, we need hateful extremism proscription orders for extremist groups that sit below the terrorism threshold but whose actions are demonstrably harmful. Other democracies such as Canada and Germany already do this. Following the horrendous Islamicist terrorist attack in Australia, its Government are taking steps to list proscribed groups in regulations, where this can be applied. We cannot allow extremists to operate freely simply because the law has failed to keep pace.
Thirdly, the Government must fund ideological challenge programmes. When asked about what kinds of counterextremism programmes the Home Office funds outside Prevent, Jonathan Emmett mentioned at the Home Affairs Select Committee that the Government had made a significant sum available for protective security at places of worship. I welcome such funding—although not that much, as it is a sign of real failure that we must produce money for security in those places; it would be nice if it went down, rather than kept going up—but it is a mistake to equate protective security with counterextremism programmes. We must challenge extremist narratives, online and offline, support vulnerable individuals and build resilience against conspiracy theories, dehumanisation and hate.
The data shows a country fragmenting with extremism metastasising into the cracks, online in civic spaces, on our streets and in community relations. If we fail to act now, the social, political and security-related costs will only deepen. This debate is about safeguarding the integrity of our democracy and the safety of our communities in the kind of country we aspire to be. I hope that the Minister will agree that we need a muscular and values-driven counterextremism strategy. It is not optional; we must do it, and now.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, extremism is not what it used to be. In October 2024, MI5’s director Ken McCallum said:
“Straightforward labels like ‘Islamist terrorism’ or ‘extreme right wing’ don’t fully reflect the dizzying range of beliefs and ideologies we see”.
My current experience as Independent Prevent Commissioner confirms his analysis. Young people, often disturbed by family trauma or personal grievances, seek comfort in the rigid hatreds of their offline or online tribe, often with added misogyny or antisemitism. Their minds are inflamed by geopolitical events, dehumanising computer games and the malign algorithms of social media into an unpredictable mash-up of resentment, rage and normalised violence.
Conspiracy theories are promoted by hostile states. Fragments of ideology are packaged as video clips. The boy drawing Nazi symbols on his arm may, the next week, be seen shouting sectarian slogans, refusing to interact with female teachers or posing as a suicide bomber. The terrorism statistics record violent offences that were motivated by a single, consistent ideology, most commonly—as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has rightly said—a perverted version of Islam.
Extremism in its broader sense, however, motivates many attacks of equivalent seriousness, including those perpetrated by the multiple killers Danyal Hussein, Jake Davison and, in Southport, Axel Rudakubana. These violent expressions of extremism represent, of course, only a small part of the social problems caused by its non-violent outworkings.
The single point I want to make today is that while the word extremism is a convenient label for drawing attention to a vast bundle of problems, it is not a satisfactory key to solving them. The normal meaning of the word is dauntingly broad. In the libel case Shakeel Begg v BBC, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave said:
“What is ‘extreme’ is, by definition, something which is not ‘moderate’”.
Attempts by successive Governments to narrow it down have been inconsistent and hard to translate into consistent policy. Phrases such as “opposition to British values” and “creating a permissive environment” are too wide to form a reliable basis for rules or coercive action.
Confronted with so large a target, counterextremism strategies have been diffuse and ineffective. The 2015 Counter-Extremism Strategy was diagnosed by Professor Clive Walker, our greatest academic authority on terrorism, as suffering from
“inexact and contested meanings, objectives, and mechanisms which generate dynamics of suspicion as much as persuasion”.
The rapid analytical sprint leaked last January was said by Policy Exchange to have confused extremism with
“any shocking crime, bad belief or nasty social phenomenon about which we are worried”.
Overbreadth is particularly dangerous when accompanied by harsh sanctions. The counterextremism Bill of 2016, which I was privileged to see, would have allowed the penalisation of “extremist activity”, defined to include huge swathes of otherwise perfectly legitimate political and religious speech. It was, at least to me, a relief when, after being announced in two successive Queen’s Speeches, it blew up on the launch pad.
Parliament and the courts have calibrated our laws over the centuries with extraordinary and rather impressive care. It would be a lazy and illiberal error to overlay those laws with vague and contested notions such as extremism or—I agree—Islamophobia. Let us promote integration, critical thinking, social media literacy and awareness of our civic rights and duties. Let us research harmful belief systems and challenge divisive or intolerant narratives wherever we find them. If our laws on online safety, public order, hate crime, counterterrorism, hostile state activity—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, it has been four minutes.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I have one and a half sentences left. If our laws on online safety, public order, hate crime, counterterrorism, hostile state activity or proscription are insufficient, let us revisit, amend and supplement them. But the trick is to excise the tumours without undue harm to the healthy tissue of free speech, which requires a scalpel, not the suffocating blanket labelled “extremism”.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, for this crucial debate. I want to focus on the normalisation of Islamism and virulent antisemitism but first I need to negotiate the obstacle course of counterextremism. I am not the first to note that official definitions of extremism can be unhelpful: too vague, ambiguous and broad, and a distraction from real threats. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, about the problem of extremism as a legal concept. Also, in a democratic, pluralist society of citizens with diverse views, how can you establish a robust legal definition without being partisan or censorious?
I am worried about a blank cheque. Official signs of extremism include everything from spreading misinformation to involvement in the manosphere—think “Adolescence”, a drama, not a documentary, yet the Government vowed to show it in every school to counter online extremism. Such a shallow lack of specificity means that state agencies acquire huge power to police legitimate, if unpleasant or dissenting, views. Recently, a Home Office-funded interactive computer game hit the headlines. “Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism” takes 13 to 18 year-olds on a journey. As game characters, they must make decisions to avoid being reported for extreme right-wing ideology. If they wrongly answer multiple-choice questions on, for example, migration, or if their avatar chooses to attend a protest against the “erosion in British values”, they are branded.
This superficial approach begs questions. In January, the director of counterterrorism at the Homeland Security Group claimed that 68 civil society groups are being funded by Prevent. Can the Minister outline who these groups are, what kind of programmes they are delivering and, crucially, how the Home Office is assessing their effectiveness? I ask because the “Pathways” computer game backfired spectacularly. The developers created a purple-haired goth girl, Amelia, as the far-right baddie, but rather than being viewed as a dangerous extremist, Amelia has been embraced as an ironic heroine and has become a union jack-waving viral meme.
This backlash reveals how tone deaf anti-extremist initiatives can be. For example, framing patriotic sentiment as extremism risks radicalising those moderate youth who resent their scepticism of progressive orthodoxies being criminalised, especially while the elephant in the room, radical Islamism, is allowed free rein. They have a point. Official interventions using vague and non-exhaustive definitions of extremism, applied with little discrimination to an expanding number of targets, often avoid tackling Islamist extremism. One reason is that people are afraid of upsetting radical Islamists but are not afraid of upsetting critics of multiculturalism, real-life Amelias, the Pink Ladies, Reform UK supporters or whoever.
A year ago, the Speaker in the other place overrode centuries of parliamentary procedure to protect Labour MPs scared by threats from extremists over a Gaza vote. This morning, at Questions, we were reminded of the unprecedented harassment and intimidation of candidates, MPs and even voters at and since the general election. The Maccabi Tel Aviv scandal exposed police capitulation to fundamentalist threats to Israeli fans. All that is just a taste of a growing Islamist veto over public life. Then there is the fear of being labelled an Islamophobic extremist if you raise such concern. The Government’s push to define anti-Muslim hatred threatens to institutionalise that chilling effect. They say, “See it. Say it. Sorted”, but if we see it and cannot say it, it will not get sorted. We must stop wasting time on fictitious Amelias and target the real-life problem hiding in plain sight.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate. He has been consistent and persistent in his arguments, which he was also able to spell out in his Times article on Tuesday. The thousand comments, almost all in support, were striking, expressing anxiety and concern about the rise of terrorism and antisemitism, as well as fear, however unjustified, that they—we—no longer feel safe in our streets. This is particularly true for women who worry about their safety walking home at night or even, now, in broad daylight. They fear for their daughters and even their sons, as exemplified by this week’s school knife attack. People are afraid of masked men, crowded tubes, buses. I feel it myself. It is in large part because they—we—do not feel that the Government have a grip and that they have no sense of urgency. Of course, none of us underestimates the challenges faced by government and the security services, but there is a strong sense that as a country we are behind the curve rather than fully aware of and dealing with not only the current challenges but those coming down the track.
More and more people, especially younger friends and acquaintances, spontaneously raise these issues with me. They are concerned about radicalisation, cohesion and integration. They have a strong feeling that they cannot, or generally should not, talk publicly about their worries and fear that they will be judged for doing so, which is why I am speaking today.
My noble friend Lord Goodman and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned the director of MI5, who confirmed in his threat updates both last October and in 2024 that Islamist extremism remains the most significant terrorism threat to the UK and accounts for 75% of MI5’s case load. I, for one, am very grateful to the security services for holding the line in the most complex and interconnected threat environment ever seen, but there are concerns about whether they have the resources that they need and are collecting the relevant data. This debate is an opportunity for the Government to clarify what they know, what they monitor and where the gaps remain. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the many questions raised today.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government still assess Islamist extremism as the predominant terrorism threat to the UK? The Government’s 2015 review of the Muslim Brotherhood concluded that aspects of its ideology and activities were
“contrary to our values and … national interests”,
and noted expressions of support for terrorist violence by individuals linked to Muslim Brotherhood-influenced organisations. More than a decade later, the Muslim Brotherhood remains legal in the United Kingdom but, since that review, numerous allied states have banned or designated the Muslim Brotherhood or its branches. Hamas, which identifies itself as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing, has shown intent to operate internationally, including in Europe. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s current thinking about the Muslim Brotherhood and on whether the Home Office or MI5 currently monitors Muslim Brotherhood-linked organisations operating in the UK and, if so, on what basis? There is also a big issue around data. Do the Government feel that they have sufficient data on extremism in the UK? Specifically, do they monitor non-terrorist Islamist activities that may nevertheless contribute to radicalisation and intimidation?
Other noble Lords today speak from personal and community experience about antisemitism, but I watch its growth on social media and elsewhere with dismay. My noble friend Lord Finkelstein’s Times article earlier this week spelled out in detail the horrific abuse he has experienced when taking on Nick Fuentes. The viral hate that poured in and continues today—I looked again online this morning—is beyond horrible. Something in this country has changed, is changing, and not for the better.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for securing this debate. Like him, I want to refer to the APPG’s report, Time to Act: Addressing the UK’s Accelerating Extremism Threat, a copy of which I have handily placed in front of me on the desk. I will come to that in a minute.
I start by pointing out that only two days ago the Community Security Trust, another great organisation that we should probably refer to more often in these debates, recorded that 3,700 antisemitic incidents were recorded in 2025. That is the second-highest on record, the highest being in 2023, which was, of course, the year of the appalling attacks in southern Israel. In that year, there were 4,298 incidents.
It is also worth pointing out that, as noted in the APPG report, anti-Muslim hate has doubled over the past decade. Tell Mama recorded that anti-Muslim hate incidents rose from 500 per annum in 2012 to 2,500 per annum in 2021, which is going some. As the APPG has also pointed out, the explosion in the online world—this is stating the obvious—has gone hand in hand with an equally virulent explosion in conspiracy theories and the two have created a toxic mix.
I am pleased that the Government are taking certain steps against the hate marches in the form of the Crime and Policing Bill. It remains to be seen when that Bill reaches the statute book how effective the new measures will be, but I hope that we will leave the door open to going further with those measures, if necessary. I am also pleased that HMG has created criminal sanctions for those who have undeclared links to Tehran, whose proxies operate in the UK and elsewhere.
On that subject, I have two questions for the Minister. The first—he is probably getting tired of listening to me raise this, because I do so probably every couple of weeks—is that we need to look at the question of proscribing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. This is an issue that came up under the previous Government. It has come up persistently under this Government. I have never heard a convincing explanation as to why we do not proscribe the IRGC. Let us for a minute reflect on what the IRGC is. It is a group of homicidal maniacs who answer to a bunch of clerical fascists in Tehran. The important thing as far as proscription in the UK is concerned is that the IRGC persistently uses proxies. They use front organisations in the UK and elsewhere across the globe in order to carry out their vile activities.
Many of us are worried that we are not perhaps tracking the extremist landscape as effectively as we should be, so my second question for my noble friend is: what assessment have the Government made of who the most prominent domestic extremists are, what is their scale and influence and what is the level of harm that they are causing to British society? I will leave it at that for the time being.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
This is an excellent time to be debating this vital issue and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe on initiating this debate and on his recent comments on this important and complex subject. The Government have commissioned a rapid analytical sprint review but have not yet accepted its findings. But the review, as we know, has been the subject of a Policy Exchange document and identifies a broad range of extremist threats from the far right, the manosphere, left-wing and climate-change protests and many other areas. However, it does not seem to prioritise what is evidently the single biggest threat to the UK, which is, of course, Islamism, as my noble friend and many others have mentioned.
The leaked report is interesting because it reveals the Civil Service’s approach to this issue. It seeks to focus on behaviour and conducts, not ideologies that pose enormous threats to this country. These threats include not just terrorist activities and persistent violent protests but dangerous, non-violent activities below the radar by organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, as my noble friend Lady Jenkin mentioned, and Iranian cells. It should be a matter of great concern that certain moderate Muslim countries recognise these risks more than we do.
The clue to the approach in the leaked document can be found in the title: “Understand”. This is in contrast to the title of the APPG’s counterterrorism document, Time to Act. I know which approach I prefer. The core of our problem today is that there has been too much understanding and not enough action. A tolerance has built up of despicable actions by certain segments of our society. Jonathan Hall KC recently referred to this as the normalisation of extremism, where hateful and divisive views, once occupying the fringe, are now widely expressed with impunity.
This is happening because a great deal of hateful extremism operates just below the legal threshold. I would be interested in the Government’s assessment of the report by the commission led by Sir Mark Rowley and Dame Sara Khan in 2021, Operating with Impunity, as it seems very relevant to any strategy formulation today. Sir Mark reiterated his findings as recently as December 2025.
Just 7% of those arrested in pro-Palestinian marches have been charged. When so-called protestors break a police officer’s back with a sledgehammer, a jury is unable to convict them. Is it any wonder that they operate with complete impunity? Terrorist incidents do not occur in a vacuum. The fact that incidents of antisemitism actually increased in the aftermath of the Manchester attack, just as they did in the aftermath of the massacre of 7 October, shows that extremism needs to be addressed early and decisively.
Part of the problem, as has been mentioned, is the fear of appearing discriminatory. Dame Sara Khan put the problem well in her recent review on social cohesion and democratic resilience. She says:
“It is vital that police forces do not inadvertently support hate preachers and extremist actors in the misguided belief that such activity supports social cohesion or diversity and inclusion principles”.
These comments could apply to important cases in Rotherham and Batley, and most recently with the West Midlands Police Force. As the Government finalise their review, I ask the Minister to ensure that there will be a well-resourced unit to centre on the Islamist threat to this country, especially on the organised—and organised is a key word—funded and planned aspect of this threat. Yes, we need understanding, but it really is time to act.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for arranging this debate and congratulate him on his excellent speech. I also thank my friends the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Walney, for all the work that they are doing to counter extremism. Indeed, I thank all noble friends—I consider everybody in this Room a noble friend—for all the work that they have been doing. I declare my interest as a member of the APPG on Counter Extremism.
I recognise, as others have done, that this is a very challenging and complex issue. We need to consider the issue of extremism as a system-wide problem. It is pervading, in more or less dangerous forms, early education, local and national politics, universities, prisons and even police services, as has been pointed out in terms of bowing to demands and threats from partisan groups in the case of the Maccabi Tel Aviv football match. What will and can the Government do to protect ordinary members of the public from the rising intolerance of absolutist, extremist and uncompromising positions, masquerading as free speech, that have so crept into the national discourse?
I would also ask the Minister about this. From record high antisemitic and anti-Muslim hate incidents to historically high Prevent referrals, all the metrics of assessing this extremist ideology suggest that we are in the grip of an extremism crisis. Can we hear from my noble friend the Government’s explanation of steps they will take to develop their counterextremism strategy and the timetable for that?
One can cite so many examples—we have heard many this afternoon—of ways in which it seems that extremism pervades our society more and more with impunity. One has to ask: when will the CPS act in cases such as that of Dr Aladwan, who has been arrested several times for inciting racial hatred? She has supported Hamas and broken the terms of her bail. Even more alarmingly, I would argue, she has openly involved herself with the Anti-Zionist Movement, a new group which declares that it is intent on
“Pro Armed Resistance … against Jewish supremacy”.
What can and will the Government and the police do to monitor this type of group?
I understand that it is not easy to draw the line or understand where to draw the line, even in cases such as the polarisation of politics, but I would argue that, if we start from a position of zero tolerance as soon as we see constant protests, we may be able to start getting a grip. I quote Rabbi Sacks:
“There is nothing inevitable about the division, fragmentation, extremism, isolation … or the politics of anger that have been the mood of Britain … in recent years”.
We must have the courage to speak out and act against this.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I add my gratitude and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on not only securing this debate but on his continued leadership on this issue. I shall conclude the Back-Bench contributions to this debate with two key questions for the Minister.
The first stems from the confusion, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, set out so eloquently, over the Government’s position on a definition of counterextremism. Can the Minister confirm that the focus on attacking democratic institutions and democratic values, which was written into the last definition produced by the previous Government, is still in this Government’s remit on tackling counterextremism? Following on from that, do the Government believe that we should be seeking a legal way to bar public funding to any organisation that demonstrates or promotes extremism or seeks to systematically undermine our democratic values and institutions?
Secondly, related to that, will the Government—the Minister can speak for the Labour Party—set a political lead by pledging not to engage with institutions that seek to systematically undermine our representative democracy rather than to engage with it? This second question echoes much of the concern expressed today around whether the Government will adequately acknowledge and lead in countering Islamist extremism as part of a wider extremist strategy.
I draw the attention of the Minister and noble Lords to the document released by the Government in December last year, entitled Antisemitism: Recent Government Actions and Next Steps. In that document, the Government say that we must be bolder in “calling out … hateful ideologies”. That is absolutely the case, but I think noble Lords might be able to guess the number of times Islamist extremism is mentioned in that entire document. It is zero. So many parts of our society, not only the Jewish community but across society, are looking at the Government to make tackling Islamist extremism, the biggest driver of extremism in our country, in my view, publicly central to a cross-government, cross-departmental effort to keep our citizens safe.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for tabling this Question for Short Debate, which, given the current political environment, is incredibly timely. Ever since the horrific attack on Israel by Hamas on 7 October, which was referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, we have witnessed weekly marches and protests where those involved have chanted antisemitic slogans. The Jewish community has been not only intimidated but attacked. Even before the horrors of 2023, we saw a worrying rise in extremism across the United Kingdom, Palestine Action and Bash Back being prime examples.
The noble Lord, Lord Massey, was entirely correct when he said that Palestine Action attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. I ask noble Lords to briefly ponder this: a female police officer, a symbol of law and order, who puts herself on the front line to protect innocent members of the community, was attacked with a sledgehammer. The chair of Avon and Somerset Police Federation was entirely right when he said:
“When an officer is assaulted while simply doing their job, the impact is felt across the policing family”.
While His Majesty’s loyal Opposition know that all noble Lords support constructive challenge—it is incredibly important to have an effective balancing view—in the same vein, the Government surely cannot allow a situation, which was referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, where violence is normalised to further a cause that a group of individuals believes in.
Bash Back has engaged in a campaign of systematic intimidation. It hacked the Free Speech Union and vandalised the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, told us during Oral Questions about the impact its illegal actions had not just on employees at the Equality and Human Rights Commission but on other completely innocent bystanders in the building. The effects are far-reaching, mentally and psychologically. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, mentioned social media and online activity. Bash Back published a manual on its website which advised people how to commit serious criminal offences and avoid prosecution. I simply ask the Minister: how can that be possible?
The noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Walney, flagged that a comprehensive definition of extremism does exist. It was drafted by the previous Conservative Government and, in answer to a Written Question on 18 June last year, the Minister confirmed that the Government were also using that definition. While this is, of course, positive movement, law-abiding citizens are clamouring to ask how the Government intend to operationalise that definition across the country. How exactly will local authorities, regulators, schools, prisons, online platforms and others be trained to utilise the definition?
So we welcome the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to drive forward a counterextremism strategy. There is a developing tranche of organisations which, while not meeting the threshold for terrorism, pose serious threats to public safety, law-abiding citizens and democracy. It has to be the case that an appropriate and relevant legislative response is put in place at pace by this Government to deal with the ever-increasing threat to society of extremist groups. Delay is simply not an option.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords today. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, who is persistent in raising this issue—rightly so, dare I say? He framed the debate, if I may say so, in terms of government action on examining non-violent extremism, but in the context of far-right, far-left and Islamist extremism. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who obviously has a great and deep interest in this, added the question of lone wolf independent radicalisation, which again is a common thread. I shall respond to the debate not only by addressing the points that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, raised, but also in relation to high-harm extremism, where we have a very high threshold and take action upon it.
I will start with the point the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, mentioned: the statutory definition of extremism. My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn also touched on this point. I confirm to the Committee that there are no plans to change the definition of extremism that was set out by the previous Government in March 2024. This existing definition is based on behaviours and does not look at specific ideologies, although the points that have been raised today are obviously important. The definition is a useful tool for government departments and others to look at when considering public engagement and when reaching out to stakeholders.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. He described it as a “statutory definition of extremism”. I am not encouraging him, but is there an intention to put it into statute?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It was a slip of the tongue if I used the word “statutory” in reference to the definition of extremism. If that was the case, I apologise to the Committee. In essence, the 2024 definition of extremism that the noble Earl mentioned is correct.
In the gentlest of ways, I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, who said that there is government inertia on this matter. There is no government inertia on this matter. We have to protect our citizens against high-harm extremism. We have to ensure that the extremism that fuels polarisation, erodes social cohesion and undermines trust between communities is challenged. Those individuals in our communities who raise antisemitism, Islamophobia and far-right or far-left terrorism and extremism have to be challenged.
The Government must be able to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred. In doing so, we must have a balance between allowing freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities. There are fundamental values in our community, such as freedom of speech, freedom of worship and the freedom of democracy, which define us as a society and which the Government will continue to uphold and promote as values. Where they are challenged by individuals, groups or environments that foster or enable hatred, we will take action against them.
I say to noble Lords and Baronesses that there is a really serious issue here that the Government will try to deal with. We have a government response, which includes, for example, the Online Safety Act, which sets out that platforms, including those that are now likely to be accessed by children, must employ highly effective methods to protect children from content that is harmful or age inappropriate. We can now, through the Ofcom independent regulator, take enforcement action on those duties. Where extremists often deliberately operate below legal thresholds, we want to ensure, rightly, that they can be prosecuted and investigated and that we can take action.
Home Office efforts to counter extremism have certainly focused on high-harm threats. I understand that the noble Lord did not frame his argument around that, but we do have to focus on high-harm threats. We stop foreign individuals of extremist concern, including hate preachers and influencers, travelling to the UK through our visa watchlist programme. We advise and support public authorities and local partners to reduce permissive environments by disrupting extremist hate events, such as speaking tours featuring hate preachers. We have invested in capabilities to stop charities being exploited by extremists. We support communities targeted by extremists to ensure that there is protective security at places of worship—a point that my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn mentioned.
We have also put in place very strong mechanisms through the Prevent programme. At the very start of our term of office, we had the sprint to look at what we needed to do, and there are lessons to be learned from that. We commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to look at an independent review of Prevent. He brought forward 34 recommendations, which I note answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Lessons were learned from the Prevent programme—not just from the appalling cases of Southport and the murder of my former colleague Sir David Amess but also positive impacts—to ensure that we deal with some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, mentioned on how we stop radicalisation in the first place.
On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned, I can say that the funding of Prevent is stable. We had £34.5 million of funding in 2023-24, and in the current financial year, the Government have committed £38.7 million to the programme. The noble Baroness asked what that does and what that achieves—I paraphrase, but that was broadly the tenor of her input. It is important, because we believe it makes a difference to people who are being radicalised by turning their lives around, pointing them in the right direction and stopping them from being influenced by far-left, far-right or, in particular, Islamist radicalisation. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, whom I thank for his work, brought forward recommendations, and we have implemented 33 of the 34 of them.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I hate to stand up again, but I want to put on the record that I made 10 recommendations. Sir William Shawcross had already made 34, and I felt that that was about as much as the system could stand.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord’s recommendations and the independent review of Prevent have been accepted by the Government. We have implemented the vast majority of the recommendations, and we will continue to learn. If there are lessons from today’s debate, we will continue to look at them.
I listened to, understood and accepted the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington. She will understand that I cannot comment on individual organisations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood that she mentioned. We keep all organisations under review. That same principle applies to my noble friend Lord Cryer—I know he has heard this before—in relation to Iran’s revolutionary guards. We keep proscription under review because we do not announce what we will do ahead of doing it.
We consider whether there is sufficient evidence to proscribe an organisation, such as Palestine Action, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords in the debate. I cannot comment on the court case in which the sledgehammer was involved, because potential further action will be taken on that. People have been remanded in custody, but I cannot comment on that. However, I assure both the noble Baroness and my noble friend that, if proscription is required against any organisation at any time, we will make that proscription.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said that many of the people she speaks to feel unsafe, particularly women—I understand that. We now have a violence against women and girls strategy in place. Knife crime, which she discussed in particular, has fallen by 8% in the past 18 months. Knife homicides are down by 27% in the past 18 months. We have banned dangerous weapons, such as ninja swords and zombie-style knives, and have taken 60,000 knives off the street. I understand her concerns. We will look at organisations as and when, but, through neighbourhood policing and other things, we are trying—I hope—to make our communities much safer.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Massey of Hampstead, I do not want to see the normalisation of extremism; it should not be tolerated. We have a basic set of values in this society, and we need to uphold those societal values. There is freedom of speech, but we cannot normalise extremism as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Walney, made a number of key points. On the extremism definition that he mentioned—which I have spoken to—we keep all matters under review. On the counterterrorism review—which I know is of interest to him; he has done tremendous work in that field—we are looking at that as part of the arm’s-length body review. It does not take away from the principle that we want to ensure that we handle high levels of extremism and also deal with the issues that noble Lords have mentioned today.
I put on record—because this goes to the heart of the question of whether the Government are doing things in this area—that we are upholding the Public Order Act 1986, which imposes conditions on public processions. In the Crime and Policing Bill, currently going through the House, we have put forward a range of measures to ensure that persistent harassment on parades and demonstrations does not happen—that will be law very shortly. We put in place a range of measures through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which we still support; it allows civil injunctions to be put in place.
We have legislation, such as the Immigration Act, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the Communications Act 2003 and the Education Act 2002, which was passed by Governments of both my political party and the Conservative Party to ensure that we put in place basic standards so that Governments can take action. We want to ensure that we look at all these matters.
On extremism, we have a number of other potential issues. We set out a clear response to terrorism in the UK’s counterterrorism strategy, Contest—an overarching strategy, of which Prevent is a key part, that directs our work in this area and provides a framework for us to operate in. As part of the Contest strategy, the Prevent programme has helped nearly 6,000 people at risk of being drawn into terrorism to turn their lives around. There are always lessons that we can learn, but it is important that we have that information before us today.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for bringing this important subject to the Grand Committee. I am grateful to him and to everybody who has spoken for their contributions; I hope I have referred to them all. Whatever form it takes and whatever form of bad ideology it espouses, extremism is a toxic force that has no place in our society. We have a high-level strategy to deal with high-harm extremism, but I will always look at, and work with colleagues to look at, what we do about the types of extremism that the noble Lord introduced in his opening contribution. That level of extremism remains unacceptable; the Government will not tolerate it. As I have set out, we are taking a range of actions to quell this threat and to prevent young and vulnerable minds being polluted. Counterterrorism remains a complex and multifaceted issue, but I assure noble Lords that we are unwavering in our commitment to tackle this crucial task.
My door will remain open, as will that of my honourable friend Minister Jarvis in the House of Commons. If noble Lords wish to raise issues, I am open to listening, debating and learning. The threat continues to change, as does the online approach, and so we as a society in this country need to make sure that we allow our fundamental values to remain operational, so that people do not feel harassment for their religion or beliefs or for things they cannot change. We support freedom of speech, but we also support the freedom to live life free from extremism.
Flour Milling Sector
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the economic impact of the UK flour milling sector.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, it is usual for our one-off debates to highlight a problem or defect that requires attention. That is not the case with this issue. I simply want to celebrate a small, specialist, highly productive sector of the economy, namely the flour milling sector. I have a minor technical interest, which I will come to in a moment.
The UK is self-sufficient in flour. More than 99% of households use food products that contain wheat flour, which is more than use toothpaste, by the way. Flour provides the biggest intake of iron in the diet, more than red meat. Since World War II, flour in this country has been fortified by law on health grounds with iron, calcium, niacin and thiamine. This is checked about once every 10 years to make sure it is still needed on health grounds. I should declare that the current regulations, the Bread and Flour Regulations 1998, have my signature on them as the English Minister at the time—there were four Ministers, as it is a devolved area. Food is devolved, but the industry is UK-wide due to the location of the mills—for example, there are none in Wales—so you cannot ask questions about the UK. I have therefore gone to the UK Flour Millers.
From 2013, when I left the Food Standards Agency, until last year, I campaigned for the addition of folic acid to flour on health grounds. It had been recommended by scientists for many years. The Medical Research Council report of 1991 found that a lack of folic acid was the prime cause of neural tube defects leading to brain and spine defects in newborn babies. The new Government in 2024 adopted the plan announced by the previous Government to change the regulations and in November 2024, they did so to add folic acid to the other four fortifications. So effective from 9 January 2025, the industry has two years to fortify wheat flour with folic acid to the level set in the regulations. The UK will then join more than 80 countries in fortifying flour with folic acid on health grounds, following UK research. As usual, the UK is late to the table. We did the research, published it in 1991 and the world followed it, but we did not.
A report on the flour milling industry by Policy Points in 2024 stated that 9,000 people are directly and indirectly employed in it, the annual turnover is £2 billion and the added value to the economy £700 million. The gross added value per employee is £141,000, which is greater than all other sectors, except finance and insurance. It is greater than real estate, manufacturing or construction, for example. Millers buy more than £800 million-worth of milling wheat from UK farmers. There has been capital investment of more than £250 million in the past decade. Bakers use flour for the obvious things, such as bread, cakes and biscuits. Some 12 million loaves, 10 million cakes and 2 million pizzas are made every day.
Flour milling supports food security. In a normal year for weather—a bit tricky these days, of course—that gives an average harvest, more than 80% of the wheat that millers use, or 3.8 million tonnes, was bought from UK farmers. It is not simple: there are over 40 variations of milling specification wheats to grow. Continuous testing and traceability are the norm in this industry. The sector also has zero waste. For every 100 tonnes of wheat, we get 75 to 78 tonnes of flour and 22 tonnes of by-products for animal feed. Flour millers are a cornerstone of national food security, providing an essential ingredient to UK food manufacturers; the wheat goes into a lot more than just making bread. In short, flour milling is one of the most productive sectors of the economy. It is a fairly small sector, but I am not arguing about its size. That is not the point; I just want to celebrate a small sector of the economy.
Last June, I had an update from UK Flour Millers, the trade body that knows what happens UK-wide. It confirmed to me this week that 85% to 90% of UK flour is now fortified with folic acid. This is a year in advance of the requirement by law; an excellent amount of work has been done. However—this is my bit of a moan, in a way, but I want to put it on the record—the Department of Health needs to accept that key scientists do not believe that the level of fortification is as high as it should be. The neural tube, which forms the spine and the brain, closes at 27 days after conception, before many women know that they are pregnant. For this reason, the advice to women planning a pregnancy is to take folic supplements; in fact that advice continues, even with the new regs.
The fact of the matter, though, is that the advice to take supplements has been a spectacular policy failure—otherwise, we would not have gone for fortification of our flour. Half of our pregnancies are unplanned, so it is no good talking to the half of the population who are not affected. We have a new fortification policy because the previous policy failed. That is a good thing. We have gone modern, which will save some distress.
Over the years—I was a scientist as well as a parliamentarian—my role has been exclusively to try to get the regs changed, after I became convinced that was required when I was at the Food Standards Agency, and previously at MAFF, but I have never got involved in the level of fortification. I do not intend to do so now, but scientists such as Sir Nicholas Wald, who is currently an honorary professor of preventive medicine at UCL and was the leader of the Medical Research Council’s 1991 study, wish that the level were higher. Others, such as Dr Jonathan Sher, who is a former deputy director of the Queen’s Nursing Institute Scotland, have called for “full fortification”.
We commend UK Flour Millers on its speedy action on fortification. It has done a fantastic job, showing what a well-run and well-managed industry this is. However, it would be useful if the Minister could confirm the monitoring process for the new fortification regs. I have never heard a Minister make a speech on health prevention that includes this area of policy; that applies to both parties, by the way. Nobody speaks about preventive health as a major policy issue and, if it has been touched, this issue has never been raised.
Currently, on average, 200 babies are born per annum with long-term disability due to neural tube defects and 800 pregnancies are terminated at the 20-week scan, so about 1,000 pregnancies are involved. Over the years, Ministers have told me, “Jeff, the numbers are so low that we’re not going to bother to do any work on it”, but think of those 200 babies. Over 10 years, that is 2,000 babies with lifelong disabilities—and because of the American medical system, we know what the cost is. We do not do costing like the Americans, but we know that they have saved $600 million a year since they fortified in 1998. So there are some big figures to save, besides lessening the distress of those families who have gone through terminations and those who have allowed births to continue.
Full fortification could cut these figures by 80%. The current level will not cut it that much, but it has to be monitored. Once we know the fortification is in, I expect the monitoring system to check the policy effects. The regulations talk about the monitoring system, and that is important.
Finally, I have one question I should like to put on the record because it is nothing to do with this. I was contacted by the Nature Friendly Farming Network as a result of the debate. It asked whether anybody is looking at the possibility of a technical change to growing wheat to make it even more productive. I understand that if the protein requirement was reduced even from 13% to 12.5% without affecting the benefits, it would make a tremendous difference to the amount of nitrogen that enters the soil.
I congratulate the industry, which has done a fantastic job and will have saved distress in the health field for many years to come. I wanted to celebrate its success, and that is why I have this debate today.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in today’s debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to whom I offer my profound thanks for putting the UK flour-milling sector on the agenda of the House of Lords. As he well knows, I always try to take part in his debates because we share a birthday, 5 June, and I know this because for years his birthday appeared in the Times and mine did not. The other person with whom I share a birthday is my noble friend Lord Dundee, who I regret cannot be with us today. This is a debate where 50% of the Peers taking part share the same birthday, which is fairly unique. I turn to the subject at hand.
I know a bit about flour mills and what they mean to the communities they serve because for 14 years I was lucky enough to be the Member of Parliament for Wantage, which has a flour mill. It was called Wessex Mill and sat on, amazingly enough, Mill Street, barely 200 metres from the market square. It was owned by the Munsey family who had been milling grain there for more than a century, five generations in all, using local wheat from neighbouring farms. It printed the names of its supplying farmers on the back of every bag of flour, which I always thought was a lovely touch. In 2022, Wessex Mill sadly closed. The flour had not got worse, and demand had not fallen. In fact, it had won Great Taste awards. What happened, of course, was that energy prices increased five-fold almost overnight, wheat costs were soaring, and the capital required to upgrade ageing machinery was simply beyond reach.
Happily, the story has more than one chapter. The Wessex Mill brand was taken on by Michael and Clare Marriage, and relocated to Hungerford in Berkshire, where it now employs around 130 people drawn from local communities of the North Wessex Downs. It still sources its grain from local farmers, many of them long-standing suppliers, and still prints the farmers’ names and the grain variety on every bag. The flour reaches customers across the country, including through local food networks such as Shropshire’s Own, a delivery service connecting rural communities in the Marches with quality British produce.
I am pleased to tell noble Lords that at the old Mill Street site a new enterprise has sprung up, the Oxford Flour Mill. It was incorporated in January 2023, just weeks after the Wessex operation ceased, and is once again milling locally sourced wheat from the same premises. So, the site in the town where King Alfred was born is where grain has been ground for more than 900 years, and it is milling again. The building has outlasted its trouble, even if the original business could not. I mention all this because the Wantage story illustrates something important about the flour milling sector as a whole, that it is resilient, resourceful and woven into the life of the communities it serves, but it illustrates that there is some fragility. One sharp rise in energy costs was enough to close a mill that had survived two world wars.
The figures for the national industry are genuinely impressive. According to UK Flour Millers’ economic impact report published last January, this is a sector that generates £2.2 billion in annual turnover, contributes some £770 million in total value added to the economy, supports more than 9,000 jobs and pays taxes, directly and indirectly, of roughly £270 million a year—all of that from just 51 mills. The productivity numbers are worth dwelling on. At £141,000 of gross value added per employee, flour milling outperforms manufacturing, construction and the economy as a whole.
The milling industry has invested £250 million in the past decade, including in eight brand new mills. These are serious, modern and capital-intensive operations. An important point is that 80% to 85% of the wheat that British millers use is grown domestically, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out. In a good harvest year, that amounts to some 4 million tonnes, roughly one-third of the entire arable crop. The result, as the noble Lord pointed out, is that we are essentially self-sufficient in flour. Some 12 million loaves of bread reach British consumers every day, and flour goes into roughly one-third of all supermarket products beyond that. More British households buy bread than use the internet, which, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Katz, is a statistic I confess I was not expecting to find.
Flour is the single largest contributor, as again the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, to the nation’s iron intake. It beats red meat and provides about one-third of our daily fibre and calcium. It is also highly sustainable. For every tonne of wheat, 78% becomes flour and 22% becomes animal feed. In a world where supply chains from the Black Sea to the Suez Canal can be disrupted overnight, a domestic industry that feeds virtually every household in the country is worth paying attention to.
The Question by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asks what assessment the Government have made of the economic impact of this sector. Let me suggest to the Minister six areas where the Government could make a difference. The good news for the Minister is that they will not cost him a penny.
First, there is the issue of land use. The single greatest long-term threat to domestic flour production is the loss of productive agricultural land. Millers depend on British wheat farmers. These farmers face competition from alternative uses of their land: solar farms, housing and biodiversity schemes. All are of course perfectly worthy in their own right, but if too much of our best arable land goes under solar panels, we shall find ourselves importing the wheat that we currently grow. This is particularly acute for organic millers. Wessex Mill, which I mentioned a moment ago, is a certified organic processor. It tells me that Britain currently imports a significant proportion of its organic grain, which seems absurd when we have the land and expertise to grow it here. Greater government encouragement for organic arable production would reduce those imports and strengthen the domestic supply chain.
There is a point here, by the way, on transparency. Organic grain must, by law, be free of genetically modified organisms. As precision-bred organisms enter the wheat supply, organic millers will need to be able to identify which grain is which. If the Government do not require clear labelling of all PBO wheat, millers face a considerable burden of additional testing, the cost of which will inevitably be passed on to consumers. Clarity on labelling would be a simple and inexpensive step. More broadly, the Government’s food strategy for England, published last July, sets out high-level outcomes, but does not, as far as I can tell, contain a clear commitment to protecting the most productive arable land for food production. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether the forthcoming implementation plan will address this issue.
Secondly, on trade, Turkey is the world’s largest flour exporter, accounting for roughly one-fifth of global trade. Its milling industry is heavily subsidised, and 76% of the wheat it mills for export is sourced from Russia. I will let noble Lords reflect on the implications of that. Any change to tariff arrangements in a new free-trade agreement with Turkey could potentially have serious consequences for British millers. All the industry asks is that its interests are properly considered at the negotiating table, and that flour is not quietly sacrificed as a concession in pursuit of other objectives.
Thirdly, there is the issue of energy. This is what forced the closure of the Wantage mill, and it worries every miller in the country. Mills operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The industry has reduced its energy consumption by nearly 10% over the past 15 years, and that is commendable, but it is exposed to energy price volatility. The existing support through the energy intensive industries scheme and the climate change levy discount is welcome and must continue. Withdrawing it as the energy transition proceeds would simply make Britain more dependent on imported flour milled in countries with considerably less impressive environmental standards.
Fourthly, on research, the flour milling industry has invested collectively in R&D since the 1920s. I suspect that is longer than most government departments can claim. It works with plant breeders, farmers, and research institutions on everything from new wheat varieties to food safety, but the tax environment for R&D has become, to put it charitably, complex. If the Government are serious about growth, the R&D tax regime needs to be stable, accessible and designed for industries that actually do applied research. I appreciate that many of the points I am making apply to many different industries, but I want to highlight the impact of policy on the flour milling industry.
Fifthly, there is the apprenticeship levy. Flour millers pay into it, but they cannot use those funds to support the specialist training their workforce requires. UK Flour Millers runs an advanced milling diploma and examination system, exactly the sort of high-quality, industry-specific training we should be encouraging, yet the levy system does not recognise it. There are 30 apprentices currently in training across milling businesses. That number should be higher, and it would be higher if the rules could accommodate it. I look forward to the Minister commenting on that.
Sixthly and—I know the Minister will appreciate the following word—finally, I will just raise the issue of inheritance tax. I know it is a vexed issue, but a large proportion of flour mills in this country are family-owned businesses. The recent changes to agricultural property relief will directly affect their capacity to invest for the long term. A family miller contemplating a multi-million pound investment in new plant needs to plan across generations. If the tax treatment of the business makes that planning uncertain, the investment will go elsewhere, or it will simply not happen. I appreciate that this is a broader issue than flour milling alone, but it is keenly felt in a sector where family ownership is often the norm.
I am conscious that a debate about flour milling may not set the pulses racing like one on artificial intelligence or social media, but I gently point out that artificial intelligence cannot as yet make a loaf of bread and social media has never provided 20% of the nation’s daily energy and protein intake. Flour milling does both, every single day. The Government do not need to do anything dramatic: they just need to protect productive farmland, take care of the trade deals, keep maintaining energy support, make the R&D tax credits stable, tweak the apprenticeship levy and think carefully about the impact of inheritance tax changes on family businesses. I hope the Minister takes these recommendations in the spirit in which they are made. They are six practical steps for an industry that has nourished this country for centuries and deserves government support to continue to do so.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for tabling this Question for Short Debate. It is of particular interest to me as one of my acquaintances in Oxfordshire mills heritage and ancient grains, and I understand the huge benefits of a strong and stable UK flour milling sector. As my noble friend Lord Vaizey rightly flagged, almost one-third of the food products on our supermarket shelves contain flour as a primary or secondary ingredient. To help put that into perspective, more families eat flour-based products than have access to the internet. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for flagging toothpaste as well, which I did not realise. Flour’s ability to go everywhere is truly amazing.
It is clear that the 51 flour mills across the country contribute strongly towards our food security in an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment that contributes to fragile global supply chains. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and my noble friend Lord Vaizey flagged that with more than £2 billion in annual turnover, flour mills generate £770 million in value added to the economy and are one of the UK’s most productive sectors. We also touched on the fact that flour milling is a near zero-waste process, since the by-product can be used by the animal feed industry. Millers rely heavily on UK farmers of wheat, who keep traceability records and are independently audited. It is clear that the industry is well integrated with our agricultural sectors and critical to our food security.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, with his extensive business experience, will agree that we owe it to the 9,000 employees that the sector employs, directly and indirectly, to back them with a supportive policy environment. The industry faces challenges and it is the responsibility of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and other noble Lords to highlight the obstacles to growth that the Government have inflicted, unintentionally, on farmers and the flour milling sector. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, correctly highlighted that many flour milling businesses are family owned and are therefore especially vulnerable to reductions in business property relief for inheritance tax.
Furthermore, the Government’s trade deal with the US caused significant harm to our bioethanol industry. This, in turn, removed a crucial market for British wheat farmers. Flour millers and farmers have to compete with international producers, suppliers and importers. Of course, we encourage competition, but we must not continually disadvantage British producers by imposing ever more regulation while importing products from abroad that might be produced to lower food safety and quality standards.
During Oral Questions today, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly highlighted that pigs and chickens abroad must experience the same standards as our pigs and chickens in the UK. We must have a fair and level playing field, so will the Minister please clarify whether any further regulatory changes to food standards are planned? We should be proud that in Britain we hold ourselves to such high account, but it is clearly not reasonable or fair on our own UK businesses for the Government to allow double standards to be implemented. Therefore, although many of the Government’s strategies and environmental targets are no doubt well intentioned, new challenges are arising which mean that the Government must prioritise increasing our own domestic production capacity.
I turn to the consequences of the ongoing energy transition. I must be clear that we on these Benches do not wish to carpet the countryside with large-scale solar farms, nor do we want to sacrifice high-quality agricultural land for the benefit of a flawed net-zero policy. However, in some cases, solar energy generation is now seen as more profitable for landowners than wheat production. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, highlighted that challenges for wheat producers then become challenges for flour millers, forcing them to rely on imports and putting further pressure on supply chains. We urge the Government to undertake a risk assessment of this impact. If more people eat flour-based products than have the internet, the Government should surely desire to protect this industry and not harm it.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, mentioned energy costs. As we know, flour milling is energy intensive and businesses are especially sensitive to higher energy costs. We have been clear on this issue: we need to bring energy costs down and we must therefore ensure that the Government’s pursuit of an energy transition does not price out flour millers or displace domestic wheat production. In fact, a more supportive policy environment would encourage lowering the industry’s carbon intensity. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, highlighted, the flour milling industry has a long history of research and development investment. In the past decade, over £250 million has been invested by millers. Further enabling research and development will help businesses to innovate and modernise their practices, while at the same time lowering their carbon intensity.
It would be economically disastrous and environmentally irresponsible for the Government to simply outsource this industry to other countries. At a time when young people are struggling to find jobs, the Government could make more of this economic asset by, for example, allowing apprenticeship levy contributions to fund training and develop opportunities in the milling industry. Will the Government consider that as an option, as was so eloquently asked by my noble friend Lord Vaizey? We really must try to do everything in our power to protect this sector, for a multitude of different reasons, and rural communities are looking to the Government to act at pace with a clear vision for the future.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for securing it, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for their contributions. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Rooker for all his invaluable work and interest in food safety; he has long been a champion in this area and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that.
I declare an interest in that my family have constantly used Wessex Mill flour for our baking; we love baking bread using that flour. I am well aware of Wantage town square and the King Alfred’s Head pub which is there. Wessex Mill flour is sold in most of the farm shops in Wantage and Woodstock, so I am very familiar with it. I thank my noble friend for bringing this up today.
I pay tribute to UK flour millers nationwide who work every day to produce high-quality flour and help feed the nation. Flour may not always attract attention, but it is fundamental to our daily lives. Flour is a key component of the UK diet, essential not only for industrial bread production and home baking but for a wide range of supermarket foods, as several noble Lords mentioned.
Together, the farming, milling and baking supply chains are critical to national food security. The scale of that contribution is striking. The Federation of Bakers reports that around 12 million loaves of bread—I think it is 12 million, rather than 10 million—are supplied to consumers every day in the UK. That does not happen by accident; it relies on a dependable, resilient milling sector that can operate day in, day out.
The UK flour milling sector processes around 6 million tonnes of wheat each year, and about 85% of that wheat is grown here at home. This means that the sector is near self-sufficiency and provides a stable, reliable market for British farmers. That matters economically and strategically: it supports farm incomes, strengthens rural economies and reduces our exposure to global market volatility. In economic terms, the flour milling sector contributes several hundred million pounds in gross value added each year and supports thousands of skilled jobs. These jobs in not only in the mills: they span farming, transport, storage, engineering, packaging and food manufacturing. Many are located outside major cities, sustaining local economies where alternative employment opportunities can be limited. The sector is also capital intensive and long term in outlook.
Mills require substantial investment, high technical expertise and decades of operation. In recent years, millers have invested heavily in modernisation, improving energy efficiency, reducing waste and upholding high standards of food safety and quality. That investment boosts productivity and supports the wider food and drink manufacturing sector, the UK’s largest manufacturing industry, which generates £129 billion in turnover and over £22 billion in exports, and supports more than 4 million jobs.
The Government’s assessment of economic impact also accounts for resilience. Recent years have tested global supply chains through conflict, extreme weather and sharp movements in energy costs. Through it all, the UK flour milling sector continued to operate. That resilience has real economic value, even if it does not always show up neatly in headline figures.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, a highly resilient energy network is fundamental to support this. We acknowledge this and are confident that the system operators have the tools they need to effectively balance supply and demand in a wide range of scenarios. Our millers rely on high-quality British wheat, so the future strength of milling is closely tied to the future of farming. That is why this Government have made a cast-iron commitment to the security of our farming and food sectors.
Food security is national security, and it depends on a balance of strong domestic production and reliable global supply chains. It also requires a clear vision for the future of farming. To that end, Defra is developing a land use framework, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, will welcome and which will be published early this year. It will set out a long-term vision for land use policy and guide how decision-makers make better land use decisions on the ground.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, I say that the 25-year farming road map will bring together regulation, innovation, skills and investment to show how we will sustain food production, meet environmental goals and deliver a profitable, resilient farming sector. This matters directly to millers, as productivity, quality and sustainability in wheat production underpin the success of the entire supply chain.
Alongside this, Defra continues to invest in farming and innovation. The farmer collaboration fund will provide up to £30 million over the next three years to support farmer groups with expert advice and partnerships that drive growth and deliver environmental outcomes. A new farming and food partnership board, chaired by the Secretary of State, will work across the supply chain to remove investment barriers and improve operations. Through the farming innovation programme, we are supporting projects in key areas, including pest and disease control and alternative fertiliser use, and are committed to investing at least £200 million by 2030.
Defra also supports the crop genetic improvement network, which is a £15 million research platform focused on improving key arable crops. This work is already delivering results, including wheat varieties with improved resistance to diseases such as take-all and orange blossom midge, and progress towards more drought-tolerant, climate-resilient wheat.
In addition, Defra continues to fund the long-standing survey of crop pests and diseases, which provides vital data to support alternative control strategies and to reduce reliance on chemical inputs. These investments support farmers and strengthen the raw material base on which flour millers depend. The milling supply chain has robust traceability standards. Millers buy wheat only from assured suppliers, with farms adhering to best practices and maintaining audited records. This traceability supports consumer confidence and underpins the UK’s reputation for high food standards.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I say that organic farming offers many benefits to the wider environment, and Defra is committed to supporting producers to grow organic crops. We recognise that transparency is essential to maintaining trust in the organic label. Organic grain must, by law, be free from genetically modified material, and Defra recognises that the development of precision-bred products raises concerns for the sector. Defra will work with the sector on retaining confidence in the organic label.
We are also taking action to ensure that supply chains operate fairly. Last year, Defra launched a public consultation on contractual practices in the combinable crops sector, giving farmers and stakeholders the opportunity to share their experiences and to help the Government build a clear picture of how the system operates.
I also welcome the strong commitment from the milling sector to include folic acid in non-wholemeal flour by the end of 2026. The cost of this fortification is low—adding folic acid to flour costs under 1p per loaf of bread—so it is easily affordable for manufacturers. This is a clear example of industry and government working together to deliver public health benefits.
International trade remains important; the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, touched on this point. Arable commodities are traded globally, and food security depends on domestic production and imports, supported by robust global supply chains. Trade can help businesses grow and open new markets, but we are clear that trade deals must not—I stress “must not”—undermine UK producers. As noble Lords know, negotiations with Turkey are ongoing, but we have always been clear that this Government will protect British farmers, secure our food security, and uphold our high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals; that is exactly what we have done and will continue to do.
On my noble friend Lord Rooker’s point about monitoring, the UK Government and the devolved Governments are putting plans in place to monitor the impact of such changes. The level of folic acid fortification will be kept under constant review. I hope that my noble friend will continue to engage with the department to ensure that this monitoring happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, asked about the skills levy. This Government are transforming the apprenticeship offer into a new growth and skills offer, which will offer greater flexibility to employers and learners and support the industrial strategy. The growth and skills levy provides a more flexible offer; I think the noble Lord mentioned various other short-term courses, so I hope that this will give him some comfort.
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, we recently announced changes to inheritance tax. More family farms are now protected from inheritance tax. The Government have increased the agricultural and business property relief threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, and couples are now able to pass on up to £5 million tax free, meaning that 85% of farming estates will pay absolutely no inheritance tax. This is where the Government are supporting small family farms.
I will have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on R&D tax credits, because that are is more for the Treasury. I will speak to my colleagues and ensure that I write to him, with a copy of that letter being placed in the Library.
In closing, I again thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for enabling this debate. The Government recognise the essential role that the UK flour milling sector plays in supporting British agriculture, underpinning food manufacturing, sustaining skilled employment and strengthening national resilience. Although it is largely out of sight, this economic value is felt across the food system. We will continue to work closely with the sector to ensure that it remains competitive, resilient and able to play its full part in a secure and prosperous food economy.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting, if short, debate. I hope that the Committee will join me in wishing the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Vaizey of Didcot, a happy joint birthday on 5 June; I wish everyone else a good February Recess. In the meantime, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) (Lab)
Noble Lords will be aware that the clock is not working. We are reliant on Back-Bench speakers sticking to their six minutes, and we also expect the Front Benchers to keep to their allotted time. The Whip will, if she needs to, do her best to indicate if people go further than their allotted time.
Environment Agency: Waste Crime
Baroness Sheehan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the performance of the Environment Agency in addressing waste crime.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, as chair of the Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee I am delighted to have an opportunity to debate our inquiry into waste crime. I begin by thanking all noble Lords who will be contributing to this debate, particularly as it is the last business before our February Recess.
The committee’s inquiry painted a profoundly disturbing picture. The scale of waste crime is staggering: some 38 million tonnes every year is dumped illegally, enough to fill Wembley Stadium 35 times over and estimated to cost the taxpayer £1 billion annually. Worse still, more than one-third of that illegal activity passes through the hands of serious organised crime groups. These are not opportunistic fly-tippers, but organised criminal networks—people who engage in drug trafficking, firearms, money laundering and modern slavery.
Local residents report waste dumping to all the right authorities, such as the local council, the Environment Agency and the police. In every single case we encountered, residents’ repeated reports were ignored. They were passed from pillar to post and left to confront these criminals themselves, frequently with the result that they live in fear of reprisals. Residents chose to write to the committee anonymously rather than appear in front of cameras, either to give oral evidence to the committee or to speak to TV crews. The committee recommended a dedicated waste hotline for the public, so that local teams on the ground can respond immediately. Will the Minister take this suggestion to the Government?
Members of the committee were shocked to learn of the brazenness with which these criminals operate. They know that the chances of being caught are slim and that, even if they are caught, they will get away with it, receiving at the most a paltry penalty charge notice of a few hundred pounds. Given that we heard that the payload on a single lorry is £2,500, that is a good deal. It is profitable for criminals, and it is a scandal that they are getting away with it.
The committee wrote to the Secretary of State for Defra last October, outlining our deep concerns about the demonstrable inadequacy of the current approach to tackling waste crime and identifying multiple failures by the Environment Agency. For example, it has ignored repeated calls by local residents, it has the power to issue stop notices but has too often not done so in time, and it has sanctions of unlimited fines and prison sentences of up to five years available to it, yet its record of using these powers effectively is woeful. Our letter also highlighted the lack of interest shown by the police. Neither the National Crime Agency nor the National Police Chiefs’ Council would give oral evidence to the committee. The NCA in written evidence stated that it did not have anyone with sufficient knowledge of the issues to appear before the committee, and we are talking about serious organised criminal gangs here.
I shall say a few words about the illegal waste super-sites that are being discovered on a regular basis around the country since our inquiry report was published. Recent examples are the 25,000 tonnes dumped along the A34 in Kidlington, Oxfordshire, and the Bickershaw site in Wigan. These mixed-waste sites are similar in nature to the egregious Hoads Wood site, which featured in our inquiry. Mixed-waste sites are dangerous because they combine many different hazards in one place, often at a huge scale, making pollution, fires and health risks much harder to control.
I visited both the Kidlington and Bickershaw sites. The Environment Agency is cleaning up the Kidlington site, and rightly so, as it is obviously polluting the River Cherwell and poses a serious fire risk. However, I put it to the Minister that it is unjust to treat the Bickershaw site differently from the Kidlington site. The Bickershaw site is close to houses and the local primary school. My real fear is that if it is still there when the weather warms up, there will be a repeat of last year’s fires, one of which burned for 10 days, forcing the primary school to close because of the noxious fumes. Will the Minister undertake to do all he can to help the people and the schoolchildren who are suffering due to the risks of the Bickershaw site? They should not have to live with this toxic nightmare on their doorstep while waiting for lengthy proceedings about ownership and culpability to be resolved, which could take years. I repeat my request for the Government to share the risk assessment of both sites with my committee. I also understand that the BBC has submitted a freedom of information request about the risks posed by the Kidlington site, which I hope will produce a response from the Government.
The committee was deeply disappointed by the Government’s response to our findings. They cited instead reassurances by Philip Duffy, chief executive of the Environment Agency, who in essence asserted that the problem was under control and rejected our recommendations. However, the committee’s call for an urgent independent root-and-branch review of the Government’s response to waste crime stemmed from compelling evidence of a systemically broken process rather than mere isolated issues.
The Environment Agency said in its response that it was,
“doing everything within our power to ensure that the perpetrators pay the price to clean up the site, rather than taxpayers”.
It would be more reassuring if the Environment Agency had said that it was reviewing its processes and why these sites grow so large from small beginnings, why its considerable powers are not exercised at an early enough stage to nip the problem in the bud, why it is unable to prosecute the criminals and impose penalties that would be seen as a deterrence and why the JUWC, the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, which was set up after the recommendations in the 2018 waste strategy review, has been ineffective.
We heard that Treasury rules force the Environment Agency’s efforts to be focused on the regulated waste sector, whose transgressions, sometimes minor, are pursued with zeal. In addition, we heard that the law forces the Environment Agency to pursue private landowners to clean up waste dumped on their land, even those who are the victims of such crimes. Does the Minister agree that a root-and-branch review of the waste system would allow the Government to assess whether such rules are helpful? Can the Minister update the Grand Committee on when we may expect to see long overdue reforms, such as the waste crime levy, a digital waste tracking system, and carrier, broker and dealer reforms? If urgently and properly enacted, they will help to grip this scourge of waste crime that is blighting local communities and damaging precious environments.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I have been talking rubbish for many years; more accurately, I have been talking about waste crime and disposal for many years. I first got interested when I was the chair of public health in Newcastle in the 1990s. As the Member of Parliament for North Durham, I took a particular interest in this because of the actions of a company called Niramax in the north-east of England. The people running it would not have passed a “fit and proper person” test. After a lot of lobbying with fellow MPs, such as David Davis MP, there was an investigation into Niramax; it was called Operation Nosedive. Somebody had a bit of a sense of humour when they named it Nosedive because it went nowhere and spent £3.5 million of public money with no prosecutions, even though there was clear evidence of widespread landfill tax fraud and environmental crime.
David Davis and I persuaded the NAO to look into the issue. It produced an excellent report in 2022, which people may not have read; it mirrors many of the issues covered in the report that has just been referred to. It shocked me a bit that the National Crime Agency would not appear before the committee because David Davis MP and I went to see it throughout this process to raise this directly with it. The 2022 report said that there was no data—there is still no data—a problem with exporting waste abroad, permit abuse, which is still going on, and an increase in fly-tipping, which, again, is still going on. Increases in landfill tax had made the issue more lucrative for criminals. It estimated that something like £200 million a year was lost through landfill tax fraud; it plucked that figure out of thin air because it does not actually know what the issue is. More disturbingly, it said in black and white that 41 of the 60 major organised crime groups in this country are involved in waste crime. The most common sanction from the Environment Agency, to which the noble Baroness just referred, is either a warning letter or advice.
The report also said—it was quite clear—that the number of prosecutions had dropped from some 800 a year in 2007 to 60 in 2017-18. The response of the previous Government was to set up the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. I asked a Question a few months ago on how many prosecutions it had pursued, and the answer was none at all, which begs the question of what that unit is doing. I also asked whether there had been any prosecutions for landfill tax fraud. Remember that landfill tax goes back to 1996. The answer was that there has not been a single one, so I do not know how we can come up with this figure of £1 billion a year—I think it is a lot worse than that. The industry reckons that 18% of the waste stream is going into illegal waste across the country. The noble Baroness mentioned the issue raised by farmers and others of dumping on their land; if you look at the Times this morning, there is an example from Hertfordshire.
It seems to me that the problem is that there is the number of different agencies: the Environment Agency, the police, HMRC, local councils, and, I would strongly argue, the National Crime Agency. The responsibility is falling between the cracks, even though the evidence is there. The 2022 report states what the problem is. On one occasion, I referred to the Environment Agency as newt lovers and tree huggers. I am sorry, but that is their approach here. It is not about enforcement. What is needed in this area more than anything is not jointed-up working between these agencies but an enforcement culture—a culture that means they are going to go after these people.
I share the noble Baroness’s frustration on behalf of individual constituents. If there is an example of where the state is failing, this is it, and we need to address it. On the point about talking to industry, the industry is aware and is prepared to work with the Government to try to sort this out, but the problem is that the Environment Agency is spending most of its time regulating the industry. The industry is not the problem; these illegal issues are.
I say in closing that we need an enforcement culture. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, we do not need any more reviews. The evidence is there; we know what the problem is. We need the political will to do something about it. The Joint Unit for Waste Crime might have been a movement forward, but it does not have teeth. It needs to be politically driven to say, “Right, we’re going to take on these individuals and make sure that the law is enforced and that the penalties are there”. The noble Baroness is right: frankly, the penalties against these individuals are just operating costs for them. This is a multi-million-pound business for these individuals, and that money is going directly into other areas of crime. I urge the Minister to take this away and say that we need action, not more reviews or words.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, on securing this debate and thank her both for her excellent leadership as the chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, of which I have the privilege to be a member, and for her comprehensive introduction to this topic. I also acknowledge the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for urging the committee to investigate waste crime.
The headline item on “Channel 4 News” on 26 January was the illegal dumping of an estimated 25,000 tonnes of waste on Bolton House Road, Bickershaw—it is near Wigan in Lancashire—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, has already referred. A local resident described living near the dump as a “living hell”. Residents had asked for it to be cleared up for over a year, but no one had accepted responsibility—not the local authority, the Environment Agency or the landowner, the Duchy of Lancaster.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, residents on the whole fear to speak out because they are afraid of reprisals. However, one brave resident, Nicha Rowson, talked to “Channel 4 News” about the rats and flies in her house, as well as the foul stench emanating from the dump nearby. One of her children, who has special needs, has had to move out of the house because of the impact of the dump. As we have already heard, last year, the dump caught fire, causing a local primary school to close for over a week. Yet the Environment Agency has said that the site does not pose a sufficient level of risk to require urgent clean-up. Does the Minister agree with the Environment Agency?
On top of the human misery caused by waste crime, there are important impacts on the environment, including water pollution, air pollution and the destruction of habitats. We have already heard that waste crime costs the economy £1 billion per year, but that is an estimate—just an estimate—of the cost of clean-up, enforcement and lost revenue to legitimate businesses and the Exchequer; it does not include the cost to people or to nature. I therefore ask the Minister: does Defra have an estimate of the total cost of waste crime, including the impacts on human well-being and the environment?
I turn to the question of how much waste crime there is. We have heard that there are an estimated 38 million tonnes a year of waste crime, but we were also told that only 27% of waste crime is reported. I suspect that this may be one of Donald Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns: if it is not reported, how do we know how much there is? Nevertheless, the Environment Agency told the BBC that 517 known dumps were still active at the end of last year, including 11 of the so-called super sites, such as the Kidlington site that we have heard about. However, if only around a quarter of sites are reported and known, there could be as many as 2,000 dumps in England, or one for every 25 square miles. Given these uncertainties, can the Minister tell us the Government’s estimate of the total number of sites and the level of uncertainty in that estimate?
If I were a careers adviser for an aspiring and ambitious young criminal, I would recommend waste crime as a career option worth serious consideration. I would point to the attractive features of waste crime. There is plenty of money to be made and there is a very low chance of getting caught. The Environment Agency received 24,000 reports of waste crime in the three years up to March 2025. Criminal investigations were opened for 1.3% of them, and there was a prosecution in 0.65% of cases. Even if you are caught, the penalties are generally light and can simply be priced into your business model. What is more, if you make a success of it, you might be able to graduate to become involved in international criminal gangs, with career openings in areas such as people trafficking, drugs and money laundering.
Sir James Bevan, the then CEO of the Environment Agency, said that one of the best ways to prevent waste crime was
“to change how criminals calculate the odds, by imposing much tougher penalties on them if caught. We would like to see much bigger fines (at present many serious criminals treat these as business expenses) and more use of confiscation of criminals’ assets. But in particular we would like to see more and longer prison sentences, which really concentrate the criminal mind”.
Does the Minister agree with Sir James Bevan’s assertion that this is simply too easy and profitable for criminals? As things stand, the deterrents for waste crime are inadequate and are not being properly enforced.
Lord Redesdale (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sheehan for initiating this debate and for the work she did on the committee.
I will speak first as an amateur archaeologist. That seems a bit random, but I say that because our job as archaeologists is to find things such as middens: waste sites from the past. I can see archaeologists of the future specialising in these sorts of things, although I would hate to be the archaeologist who digs up the sort of stuff that we are seeing in these waste tips. That is a joke in one respect, but it is not in another, because most of these sites will never be cleared up and therefore will be part of the archaeological record of the future.
We have just had a briefing from the City of London Corporation about Epping Forest. It has two fly-tipping incidents a day, which is eating up a percentage of its budget as a charity. When I was on the train to Newcastle the other day, I counted 16 dumping sites just by looking out of the window.
I also speak as a landowner, and obviously many people would say to me, “Well, you’re a landowner, you can afford to deal with this”—but it is a real issue. Luckily, my estate is in the middle of nowhere, but even we had a lorry turn up and dump a load of rubble just in a farm entrance. Luckily, we could deal with it by laying a new roadbed, but the cost of that is frightening. It goes to a very basic rule: if it comes from the highways and over your wall, you have to pay for it; if it stays on the highway, they seem just to leave it there. That is just a personal point.
Something I find really surprising is that, if you want to get involved in this, it is an easy area to get into, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said in his erudite speech. In the time it took him to make his speech—I timed this yesterday—I could apply for a waste licence. It is a hundred quid a year if you do a three-year licence, and I could then have a waste licence to drive an articulated lorry full of waste. I do not see how it is even possible that someone can just go on a website, get that licence and suddenly legally drive around waste, without any real question about what they are doing. I understand how difficult this is, because of the amount of waste that has to be moved around the country, but, if it is that easy to get a licence, it is hardly surprising that so much of it ends up in gateways, down the back of embankments or wherever it is found.
The origins of this go back to recycling centres. You see somebody turn up with a van. Lots of jobbing builders turn up. People have to book in a van, and they can only do two trips a week, but, looking at what comes out of the van, I wonder: how much easier is it just to turn up somewhere and dump it on the side of the road? That is of course the origin of this, and the issue has grown larger and larger as we have moved forward.
I was looking it up and I was at the debate in 1996 on the Finance Bill where this was introduced. The fabulous Earl Ferrers, for those who remember him, was very positive about how it was going to work and how it would raise a great deal of money. Another issue at the time was that we had to meet the European directive and we still had the problem of closing down landfill sites, because most of them were full. We were diverting waste, and this was a way of acting as “polluter pays” and it was going to move things forward.
When I set up and ran the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association, we worked incredibly hard to build up anaerobic digestion to take food waste out of the waste stream. We have been incredibly successful in certain areas. I think councils around the country should take the positive nature of that, but the fault lies with the Government. We have actually changed landfill tax into being just a tax. It has no bearing in the Treasury’s eyes on what happens going forward.
If we take landfill tax, which the TaxPayers’ Alliance says is now raising £600 million a year—I do not usually use the TaxPayers’ Alliance as a source of reference—we could then direct that into enforcement, which would solve the problem. The Government are not taking this seriously enough, but I think they will. The reason is that we just have to go back a few months to when the water companies were constantly lambasted over combined sewer overflows—CSOs. In fact, Liberal Democrats would stand next to any pipe for a photo opportunity, because it is such a good issue. I have a feeling that my friend the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will be doing exactly the same when he starts to track down the vast numbers of large sites which have not been reported on, but which are going to cause a national outrage in the not-too-distant future.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, the chair of the environment committee, on securing this timely debate and raising the issue in Committee this afternoon. I have only recently joined her committee, but I am delighted to join such an excellent scheme under her skilful leadership. On this occasion I will limit my remarks, as I was not privy to the evidence, though I entirely support the conclusions reached: in particular, the need for greater resources and for a review, which I will come to in a while.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, I have followed this issue closely both as a constituency MP for the Vale of York, and subsequently for Thirsk and Malton, but also in my privileged position of chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, where we also learned of the issues from landfill sites being full to busting.
For the Environment Agency to tackle waste crimes in rural areas successfully will require resources on a huge scale. The agency already uses the tools at its disposal—cameras, drones, radar and light detection—but its resources are limited and severely stretched. I would like to raise two issues this afternoon: first, how the Environment Agency can hope to address widespread rural crime and the particular offence of waste crime, given its limited resources, without support from police forces, HMRC and local authorities; and, secondly, how and why waste crime is treated differently, depending on whether it is perpetrated on public or private land.
In terms of the scale of the crime, the evidence submitted by the Environment Agency to the short inquiry demonstrated that 24,625 crimes were committed between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2025, ranging from the burning of waste, illegal waste sites and fly-tipping through to waste carriers and unauthorised waste management activity. The enforcement actions taken were varied, ranging from 1,037 advice and guidance letters through to 685 warning letters and 156 prosecutions.
Early intervention is probably the most effective response to waste crime, and acting promptly to warnings from residents, councils and others. However, the sheer size of the crime and the area to be policed, especially across open countryside, makes it a nigh-on impossible task. Differentiating between where the crime is perpetrated, especially in relation to fly-tipping and the dumping of highly toxic waste, often building materials left by serial criminal offenders, I can see no logical argument for treating the crime differently depending on whether it is conducted on public or private land. Are the Government prepared to review this and equate the offences of and sanctions for waste crime, regardless of where it takes place, on either public or private land?
I am grateful to the City of London Corporation, which states in its briefing for today’s debate that the strategic implication is clear: without stronger alignment between police activity, local authority enforcement and the Environment Agency, organised waste crime will continue to flourish. In a Times article yesterday, it was reported that an elderly farmer in his 80s “simply cannot afford” the £40,000 bill to remove 200 tonnes of rubbish fly-tipped on his land, close to a busy main road. It is not as though farmers do not have enough to worry about at the moment without this additional expense.
There are many other examples of this; I put it to the Minister that, behind each one, there is very human distress and suffering. I hope that, in summing up the debate, the Minister will address these anomalies. I hope in particular that he will implement the very first recommendation of the report, for a root-and-branch review and more integrated working between the Environment Agency, HMRC, the National Crime Agency, policing and local authorities in order to address this scourge of the offence of waste crime, particularly in rural areas.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I speak as a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee of your Lordships’ House. I have to say that, until we started our inquiry, I had been unaware of the scale or the seriousness of waste crime. Now, thanks largely to the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as well as the growing interest of the press, both national and local, we are all too aware of Hoad’s Wood; Kidlington; Bickershaw, near Wigan; and, this week, Stockton in Norfolk and Knowsley on Merseyside.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg—I suppose I should say “the tip of the tip”. In their letter of 16 December to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, Alan Lovell and Philip Duffy of the Environment Agency said that, in 2024-25, 749 new illegal waste sites had been found, up from 427 the previous year. This is a huge nationwide problem. Not only are these sites illegal, they cost farmers huge sums to clean up, they present a serious fire risk, they pollute streams and rivers and blight the environment and they can, as in Wigan, cause serious health problems to those living nearby and blight their everyday life.
The Environment Agency is front and centre in responding to all this, and there are questions for it to answer. For example, why did it not act sooner at Hoads Wood? Where is the sense of urgency, given the scale of the problem and its environmental and human damage? Why can concrete bollards not be put in place much more quickly than they have been up to now? But this is not the responsibility of one agency; it is a bigger problem than that. Responsibility also lies with the Government, the police, HMRC and local authorities. Some of the action already taken is sensible, such as the establishment of the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. It is absolutely right to bring the various actors together and to inject coherence into an otherwise anarchic scene. However—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, on this—the joint unit should surely get more of a grip than we have seen so far.
What else can be done? Our report lists a number of recommendations. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, has mentioned some of them. I want to mention just three. First, the Government and local authorities should be doing all they can to encourage the use of legal landfill sites but, if anything, the trend is in the other direction. Fees are going up and appointments often have to be made. This is all an encouragement to criminal gangs. I hope that the Minister can say what more the Government are doing to favour legal tips.
Secondly, there needs to be stronger enforcement, more arrests and tougher penalties. Penalties need to fit the crime and be strong enough to deter the crime. That means larger fines and longer jail sentences. What more can the Government do to tip the balance in favour of the law and not the criminals? I hope that the Minister can tell us that.
Thirdly, we need to move into the 21st century. Mandatory digital waste tracking to replace the present cumbersome paper system must be right and would put more pressure on criminal groups. Why cannot drones be used more regularly to spot criminal waste sites when they are formed, rather than leaving it until much later? I look forward also to hearing the Minister’s views on that.
Much is being done. Much more can and must be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said in a letter to the Secretary of State that
“waste crime is a profitable and low risk business for”
an organised crime group. We have to change that, and we have to change it fast.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for bringing it, and all noble Lords who have spoken. We have had some interesting contributions that have ranged from careers advice to archaeology. I think everybody agrees that waste crime is out of control and that it is low risk and high reward. The Government’s own national waste crime survey suggests that one-fifth of all our waste ends up in the hands of criminals at one point or another. The costs are hard to quantify, as the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has pointed out, but every year it costs the UK economy somewhere between £1 and £4 billion. The returns are great: up to £2,500 per lorry.
To answer the question of this debate, my personal view is that the systems for preventing and dealing with waste crime are fundamentally broken. It is the broken systems that are creating broken outcomes. I have no wish to criticise individuals, many of whom work extremely hard, but it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the way we currently organise the resources for the Environment Agency is not working and not properly fit for purpose.
The Minister responded to a question on this that I asked the other day by saying that it was a new problem. I beg to disagree. My view is that it is a long-standing problem that has been largely hidden away from the public’s view and public consciousness. The systems themselves have, in effect, operated to avoid the true scale of the problem. It has been a fear of finding out that has predominated; a fear of the cost involved in recognising the true scale of the problem.
I first became involved in this with the Hoad’s Wood campaign. I asked an Oral Question on it—I spoke to the then Minister in private first—which led to a ministerial direction. After that, I foolishly promised that I would try to change the systems. I am very pleased that the Environment and Climate Change Committee, of which I am a member, did its report. That report genuinely sought co-operation and solutions to these problems. We asked the Environment Agency how many illegal waste sites the size of Hoad’s Wood were known to it; the answer that came back was six. That report has been a turning point. We had over a thousand pieces of press generated before Christmas as a result and the more we look, the more we find. The more we understand, the greater the problem appears to be.
More sites have come to light since the publication of the House of Lords report than were known in their totality to the Environment Agency beforehand. That is both alarming and extraordinary in equal measure. The Government have chosen largely to ignore the report that we published, and while we welcome brokers, dealers, carriers and digital waste-tracking reforms, they were in the pipeline before our report. Beyond that, there have been no new measures in the response from the Government. I guess there are two options for us: either we can take a less optimistic view that the Government are on the track that they are on and things will not change; or we can take a more optimistic view. My hope is that the Government are listening. I know that Ministers are concerned about this and that they are formulating policies to take this forward.
For me, the starting point is that the body set up as a regulator is fundamentally not the right body for dealing with organised crime—this is an organised crime problem, and it needs to be dealt with as organised crime. The recent police White Paper offers the ideal vehicle and place for dealing with organised waste crime, should this Government choose to take that course of action. I hope they will do so, because that is where the answer lies.
The Government need to acknowledge the true scale and vast number of illegal sites, most of which are simply not cleared; they are devastating to our communities and the environment. I will refer the Minister to some specific points. First, I am pleased that Hoad’s Wood is being cleared up, but the Hoad’s Wood campaign is concerned that there is no plan—that it can see—to secure that site, once it has been cleared. We do not want to go back to where we started.
Secondly, I want the Treasury to stop charging the Environment Agency landfill tax on the sites it clears. That is just silliness.
Thirdly, the Government should allow the Environment Agency to use more of its income from permitted sites to deal with illegal waste problems. I am pleased that Kidlington is being cleared up too, but I do not want the Environment Agency to bankrupt itself and become unable to do all the other important stuff it needs to do because of the cost of clearing up these sites.
Fifthly, I want Ministers to acknowledge the true scale of the problem. I would like them to use remote monitoring to come up with a plan for clearing these historic sites and hypothecate landfill tax for a period for clearing up these sites that have been mentioned, such as Wigan.
Finally, I would like the Minister to give a clear commitment to us that the Government do indeed take this issue seriously and that they are planning to bring forward, as a matter of urgency, a concrete plan to deal with this as a national priority and to bring forward some real solutions so that we can all move forward.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for tabling this important Question for Short Debate and for her work as chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee.
Waste crime costs our economy approximately £1 billion every year, but, as the noble Lords, Lord Beamish and Lord Krebs, rightly highlighted, the figure is probably a lot more. But the costs are not only financial: it is a scourge of the countryside and is particularly painful for those communities who live in the area. My noble friend Lady McIntosh referred to the Times, which states today that fly-tippers have dumped a £40,000 bill on a farmer. The clean-up is often left unfairly to landowners and local authorities. Saturday morning community pickup sessions are now regrettably a regular feature of country life. Some 57% of landowners and farmers have been impacted, many of whom do not necessarily have the resources or training to address the consequences.
It is totally fair to ask the Minister: what support is available to victims of this relentless crime and what exactly are the Government planning to do to increase awareness? The Government have highlighted that understanding the true extent of criminal activity is inherently difficult. That said, it is estimated that only one in four waste crimes are being reported. Moreover, the reports available indicate that waste crime is on the rise. The Environment Agency found 749 new illegal waste sites in 2024-25, compared with 427 in the previous year—that is a substantial increase. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly asked, how many actually are there? The real number is probably significantly more.
The Environment and Climate Change Committee’s inquiry found serious failings in the agency’s performance. Repeated reports of serious waste crime were not investigated. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, observed in her letter that it was,
“difficult to conclude that incompetence at the Environment Agency has not been a factor”.
The Government have pledged reforms, but we note that the committee felt deeply disappointed by their response. While reforms are evidently needed and welcome, can the Minister specify what reforms they are pursuing and give timelines for the delivery of those reforms? If this is a priority, this must be reflected in the legislative programme.
Enforcement needs reform. As was emphasised by the committee, the lack of effective deterrence means that waste crime remains profitable and low-risk for organised crime gangs. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, summarised it perfectly: this is a business. The fines are just operating costs, and these are criminal enterprises. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was right when he said that it is easy money. Criminal gangs talk about it like this: “Come along, it’s free money”. As the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, mentioned, 41 out of the 60 major organised crime groups are involved. This is simply a no-brainer for criminal gangs, so when will the Government take steps to ensure that the fines match the profits obtained and contribute to the clean-up costs, as per the entirely sensible suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Jay? His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill that would put the onus of the clean-up back on the offenders of fly-tipping, which seems entirely proportionate.
The committee also recommended establishing a single point of contact for reporting waste crime. Victims should surely be able to report an incident once without navigating a maze of bodies with unclear responsibilities. Improving the Environment Agency is clearly vital, but we must remember that it is only one of 13 organisations in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime launched under the previous Government. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has previously proposed giving lead responsibility to the National Crime Agency. At the time, the relevant Minister said that all options will be considered, so I hope that today’s Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, will understand that it is totally fair and reasonable to ask what assessment has been made since then. When can we have an answer to the entirely sensible proposal from my noble friend?
Finally, can the Minister clarify what responsibilities the new integrated water regulator will take on from the Environment Agency regarding waste crime? I have had time to touch on only a handful of the committee’s recommendations, but we thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for her dedication to this issue and wish her well for the future relentless focus that will clearly be required to fix this issue once and for all.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address this important question on what assessment His Majesty’s Government have made of the performance of the Environment Agency in addressing waste crime. In doing so, I am pleased to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and all members of her committee for the hard, diligent and challenging—but rightly so—work that they have done on this important issue.
Let us be without doubt, as we have all spoken with one voice this afternoon: waste crime blights our local communities. It damages the environment and, in the worst cases, it directly threatens our health. It also undermines legitimate businesses and deprives the public purse of tax income. Serious and organised crime in the waste sector is on the rise, and the Environment Agency is regularly alerted to new illegal waste sites.
The EA is a place-based organisation, tackling local problems through local area teams that operate in both urban and rural locations. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, expressed concern that rural areas were losing out. The way in which the Environment Agency operates ensures that it is a local and needs-based agency, rather than resource being hoarded in a particular geography at the top of the organisation. I hope that that is helpful regarding the question she asked.
This Government are committed to tackling waste crime and are helping the Environment Agency to build future capability. It has a wide range of powers, which it uses in its enforcement work against organised crime in waste and other environmental areas. Indeed, in the past couple of weeks, several arrests have been made in relation to the waste site near Kidlington, and waste sites have been shut down in Yorkshire and Minster in Kent. In Liverpool, an arrest was made and the Environment Agency seized a vehicle as part of a multi-agency operation.
In her opening contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked a question comparing Kidlington and Bickershaw. First, the scale of the fire risk at the Kidlington site sets the case apart from other illegal waste dumps in England and provides an overriding public imperative. We are clear that it is not the Environment Agency’s normal responsibility to clear illegal waste sites, and it is not funded to do so. It has the power to clear waste only in exceptional circumstances such as these, if there is a significant risk to the environment.
On Bickershaw in Wigan, the illegal dumping there is absolutely disgraceful. I know how strongly the local community rightly feels about it. My colleague in the other place, Josh Simons MP, has been complaining and campaigning long and hard on this, and I pay tribute to his work with the local community on it. The Environment Agency is working with Wigan Council and the UK Health Security Agency to help the local partnership consider the implications of the council’s waste initial sampling results and to advise on potential permitted disposal sites.
The current risk of fire is assessed as low, but the Environment Agency is reassessing any pollution risk posed by the illegal waste in the light of an updated fire risk assessment to determine whether, in principle, the level of risk meets the threshold for the use of its discretionary powers, such as those it has already used in Kidlington. In short, without going into too much detail on this site, important though it is, I want to reassure your Lordships’ Committee that if the Environment Agency considers that a risk of pollution exists, it may use its powers to arrange actions to remove or reduce that risk. Additionally, partner agencies through the local resilience forum will need to consider the risk to surrounding infrastructure.
We want to ensure that the Environment Agency is making the best use of its extensive powers to prevent waste crime. As I said, the Environment Agency has no duty to clear illegally dumped waste, and it is not funded to do so. In response to the other question that was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, this is the case for both public and private land. The landlord is responsible for keeping their land secure and free of waste that should not be there, rather than letting dumped waste persist and grow into larger sites, which could in turn attract further dumping. It might be considered as equivalent to the broken windows paradigm that one sees in community policing.
However, while we must uphold the polluter pays principle and avoid creating perverse incentives for waste criminals, the Environment Agency will decide to clear illegally dumped waste where that waste presents an untenable risk to the public and the environment, as it has done in the case of Kidlington. We also encourage local authorities to investigate all incidents of fly-tipping, including those on private land, and make good use of those enforcement powers.
Furthermore, Defra regularly assesses the Environment Agency’s performance in discussion with the Environment Agency’s chair and chief executive. The aim is to establish a clear line of sight for Ministers through to front-line delivery, transparent performance data and honest conversations about progress and barriers to delivery.
The Environment Agency reports its performance every quarter through its published corporate scorecard. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked some questions on statistics. I contend that waste crime is estimated to cost the UK £1 billion a year, with an estimated 20% of waste, 34 million tonnes per year, handled illegally at some point through the supply chain. There are more than 500 active illegal waste sites known to the Environment Agency, and it is monitoring the 33 highest risk illegal waste sites according to specific risk criteria.
However, waste crime, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is deliberately hidden and therefore inherently difficult to measure, including the total costs to the environment, local communities and individuals. We know that the Environment Agency’s current corporate scorecard measure on illegal waste sites does not reflect the true nature or scale of waste crime and likely provides only a narrow view. So, we are working with the Environment Agency to develop better indicators and metrics.
In addition to helping the Environment Agency to improve assessment capabilities, Defra has already taken steps to ensure that it is equipped to carry out its functions effectively. Its total budget for 2025-26 has increased and includes £15.6 million for waste crime enforcement, a more than 50% rise from 2024-25, representing a £5.6 million increase. That demonstrates the Government’s commitment to tackling environmental waste crime.
This has enabled the agency to increase its front-line criminal enforcement resource in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime and other environmental crime teams by 43 full-time staff, helping to deliver successful major criminal investigations and to enforce new duties introduced this year, including the new packaging extended producer responsibility requirements. Since 2020, the JUWC has worked with over 130 partner organisations and led or attended over 300 multi-agency days of action, resulting in over 170 associated arrests. So, it is fair to argue that a multi-agency approach is being taken and led by the JUWC and the EA. Indeed, in the last year, 2024-25, the Joint Unit for Waste Crime organised 70 days of action, 13 arrests were made by partners as a result of those days of action and 47 disruptions were delivered. That is some more detail about the activity that the JUWC has been undertaking.
Alongside that work, the agency is looking at technology-based opportunities to track and measure waste crime, such as combining satellite imaging and machine learning to provide early-warning mechanisms. Indeed, to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, drones are used by the agency when investigating and gathering evidence. This capability will improve the agency’s insights and business intelligence, which will inform its overall strategic approach and how it prioritises its resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked why there were so few prosecutions from the JUWC’s work. I should say that prosecutions take time to work through the legal and court system but numbers are in line with other law enforcement agencies when compared to the number of interventions. Prosecutions are, of course, only one part of the picture: prevention and disruption work are at least as important.
We are building on these developments to make further policy and regulatory reforms to close loopholes exploited by criminals: fundamentally reforming the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime; tightening waste permit exemptions; and introducing digital waste tracking, to answer the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. She also asked about a single contact point for reporting waste crime. The GOV.UK site has a page entitled “Reporting fly tipping or illegal waste dumping”, which directs people either to the relevant local authority, via a postcode search, or indeed to Crimestoppers, which has a hotline, depending on the scale of what is being reported.
Waste criminals often work within the legitimate system, and most waste at the largest illegal sites today was originally consigned legally. The new digital waste-tracking system and reforms to waste-permitting exemptions and the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime will mean that criminals will have to work a lot harder to source the waste to dump in the first place. It will make it much harder for criminal businesses to undercut legitimate ones. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about applying online. It is a good way to use some spare time during a debate on a Thursday afternoon, but it will be much harder to undertake a similar activity under this new system.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referred to the case that was reported of the 80 year-old farmer. That is a very distressing case, where the cost of clearance was beyond the farmer. To help individual landowners blighted by waste crime, the Government will speak with insurers to determine the necessary market conditions for a viable waste crime insurance market to form as quickly as possible, which seems a fair approach to helping landowners.
I am tight on time but I will try to address a couple more questions from noble Lords. We talked already about reform of the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime, but I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. On Hoad’s Wood in Kent, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, but there is certainly work happening there.
To finish, the Government have committed to tackling waste crime, not only to prevent environmental harm but to ensure resources are being properly recycled or recovered and fed back into the economy. We are not resting on our laurels. We are working at pace to develop further reforms and make sure that we tackle this problem. With that, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate and the noble Baroness and her committee for its work, and I take the opportunity to wish everyone a very happy February Recess.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Dixon of Jericho
Royal Assent
Animal Welfare Strategy: Rural Communities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they intend to give to the interests of rural communities in any forthcoming legislation on cruelty to animals arising from its Animal Welfare Strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the animal welfare strategy sets out a comprehensive package of reforms which will improve the lives of millions of animals across England, at home, on farm, and in the wild. In developing any legislation, we will of course take into consideration the viewpoints of all those with an interest in or who are impacted by the proposals and consider the costs and the benefits to a range of stakeholders, including those in rural communities.
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Lab)
My Lords, Hunter by name, but not by nature. I am from the countryside and remain so. I startled my community by giving up meat decades ago, having read an early, in-depth investigation into food production. Standards have been greatly raised since then, and I applaud the Government in taking these further steps. What plans do the Government have in these considerations to avoid being distracted from their priorities, and not repeating Sir Tony Blair’s admission, despite my best efforts, of being insensitive to countryside interests? What plans do they have to ensure swift consultation with the rural community on the economic impact on their livelihoods and what support can be provided in any transition?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are obviously very aware of any potential impact of a ban on rural communities, including rural businesses. I can confirm that Defra will be starting a consultation which will look for views on how to deliver a ban—the ban is our manifesto commitment. That will enable people to give their opinion on any impacts, including on rural communities and businesses. We welcome all points of view, and we will consider them very carefully. Stakeholder engagement will, of course, be an important element of the consultation process and will ensure that everyone can give their view and present their evidence.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, has the Minister considered the future of foxhounds if trail hunting is to be banned? This a very real concern of those who live in the countryside.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am aware of the concerns around foxhounds. To reiterate, the consultation will look at all views and concerns. I urge people who have concerns around the future of foxhounds to take part in the consultation, so that point can be properly considered and discussed as we move forward on the manifesto commitment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, our rural areas are defined by their communities, of which farmers are undoubtedly a very important part, both economically and socially. However, imported meat products, often produced at lower animal welfare standards, are threatening their ability to make a living. Will the Government therefore look at ensuring that imported meat products are clearly labelled so that consumers can make informed choices to support British farmers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
On the issues the noble Earl raised, I point him to two parts of the animal welfare strategy. First, we reference labelling. It is something that we will be looking at, not just on the issue he talked about but more broadly. There is a section on labelling. Secondly, we have a section on international impacts around animal welfare, which include trade. In the strategy, we recognise that animal welfare is a global issue, and we will continue to work internationally to champion high standards of animal welfare. That includes looking at how we manage our trade, because we have said quite publicly that we will not allow poor animal welfare standards to undermine our own standards here that our farmers meet.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government have neither plans nor intentions to ban hound trailing?
Lord Deben (Con)
Does the Minister accept that although we respect her position, the present Government are extremely unpopular in the countryside and that she is going to have to work extremely hard to make sure that rural people believe that this consultation is serious? So far, they do not, and she will have to work very hard indeed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I do not think that the ban on trail hunting is the major concern of most rural communities. Most rural communities, including the one I live in, are more concerned about the fact that they may not have a GP, that may not be able to access a dentist, that their digital connectivity is poor and they cannot get a mobile signal, and that the economy is struggling—we know that rural productivity is less than urban productivity. There are many issues that impact rural communities. To reiterate, anyone who has an interest in or concerns around the ban should take part in the consultation.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, we would all like to see the minimising of pain and distress to animals prior to slaughter, yet currently a substantial number of animals are slaughtered without prior stunning due to a derogation within domestic legislation, even though, as I understand it from speaking to a large halal slaughter house in my diocese, such stunning is acceptable within Islam. Will His Majesty’s Government work actively with our Jewish and Muslim friends to understand their religious needs and support the development of acceptable stunning methods and improve their uptake within those communities?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important issue. I have previously met representatives from both Jewish and Muslim communities on religious slaughter. There is some acceptance of pre-stun slaughter for halal meat, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out. We are discussing that within the department. I will continue to do so, because animal welfare has to be at the forefront when we look at slaughter.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the animal welfare strategy seeks to regulate British farming even further and suggests unilateral action on the use of pig crates and hen cages. Can we have a cast-iron guarantee from the Minister that the same welfare standards will be applied to all imported food, including bacon and eggs, so that our farmers are not unfairly disadvantaged? Also, if any hunt members have broken the law on hunting, prosecute them fully, but trail hunting has nothing to do with animal welfare and would penalise all legitimate hound trailing, which has been done in this country for over 200 years, including Cumbrian footpacks such as the Melbreak in the Minister’s old constituency and the famous Blencathra in mine.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I may have to disagree with the noble Lord around some of our opinions on hunting. However, on the issues that he raised about trade, which are really important, the UK’s trade strategy has set out that we will not lower food standards and that we will uphold our high animal welfare standards. All agri-food products have to comply with our existing import requirements in order to be placed on the UK market, which includes ensuring that imported meat products have been slaughtered to animal welfare standards equivalent to our domestic standards. We also recognise concerns around methods of production which are not permitted in the UK, and we will always look at whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage and any impacts that may have.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer, president of the Countryside Alliance and long-standing member of the RSPCA. In my rural community and many others, if you have dead stock on your farm or a badly injured animal which needs to be put down, you ring the hunt kennels, which operate the national fallen stock scheme and, 24/7, they send a trained and efficient member of staff to end the animal’s suffering and remove the body. If the Government were to persist with their ill-advised commitment to ban lawful trail hunting, which is not about animal welfare but about dislike of people, what are their proposals to replace the system for relief of animal suffering? It is currently carried out by the hunts, and I think none of those who are pressing for the ban have volunteered to do it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very aware that fallen stock is managed in that way. I am so sorry, but I am going to sound really boring today. A consultation will be starting shortly where all these issues can be fed in. I am very serious about this, and I want to do it properly, so I want to hear all concerns from all quarters.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is definitely the turn of the Cross Benches. Can they please make their minds up on who is asking the question?
Lord Trees (CB)
Given its mention in the animal welfare strategy, what progress have His Majesty’s Government made towards introducing a close season for the brown hare in England?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is a really important question, because this is an incredibly important issue, and I am personally very committed to doing that. We are looking for the best and earliest legislative opportunity to bring in a close season for the brown hare, and I am keen that we get that done as soon as practically possible.
Security of Candidates, MPs and Elections
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to implement the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
The Government thank the Speaker’s Conference for its recommendations. A response was provided last year, which we understand will be published after the Recess. I hope it goes without saying that the UK remains a strong and resilient democracy. The Government are determined to keep it that way and are acting with urgency to implement the measures addressing the conference’s recommendations. This includes working with the College of Policing on guidance for front-line officers and introducing legislation to restrict protests outside public officeholders’ homes.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the imminent publication of the representation of the people Bill and I trust that it is radical and will include recommendations, as my noble friend said, from the Speaker’s Conference. The Jo Cox Foundation, which I chair, called for the Bill to embed standards of conduct, make personal addresses private by default, address online harms, disseminate candidate safety resources and promote political, digital and media literacy. Can my noble friend assure me that those elements will be addressed in the Bill? Violence, abuse and intimidation threaten trust in politics and the functioning of our democracy. We are in desperate need of a political culture in which everyone can safely participate in respectful, robust debate in the spirit of Jo Cox’s message that we have more in common than that which divides us.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, the murders of our colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess weigh very heavily on the minds of all in this House and in the other place, and even more heavily, if I may say so, in the minds and hearts of their families. I thank my noble friend and her colleagues for their tireless and admirable work at the Jo Cox Foundation. The representation of the people Bill is introduced today—so this is breaking news, as it were—and it includes measures which directly tackle the unacceptable issues of harassment and intimidation, ensuring that people are not put off from campaigning or standing for public office. I am sure that our noble friend Lady Taylor will want to talk extensively with my noble friend about it.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, may I raise a specific point in relation to Tower Hamlets, where the Metropolitan Police has provided cover at every polling station, at every election, since 2014? The returning officer in Tower Hamlets cannot get that guarantee that every polling station will be covered by police for the upcoming elections, because intimidation applies in such a broad range, and in this case, the police force has been provided to protect the people going to the polls.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The secure delivery of local elections in May 2025, with all the support that the noble Lord refers to, was supported by the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which highlighted many strengths of our democracy. However, I understand and take the point that the noble Lord is making about the situation in Tower Hamlets. The Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit is now taking forward security planning for the elections in May 2026, and I am sure that it will bear in mind some of the comments that he and I have made.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, can we be assured that the police are now fully supportive of preventing intimidation? I do my politics in Bradford where there has been quite active intimidation of candidates. I recall a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in a previous election campaign precisely about the reluctance of the Bradford police to intervene. Have we now had absolute assurance that the police will regard this as one of their important functions during election campaigns?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
There are two important responses to that question. We are taking forward legislation to extend disqualification orders to protect electoral staff and ensure that those who abuse them can be disqualified from standing for or holding elected office, and we are empowering courts to hand out tougher sentences to people who abuse. As I have said, the Government have also introduced legislation to restrict protests outside the homes of public officeholders. So we are strengthening the law in this regard. With regard to the police, the concern that emerged from the Speaker’s Conference, which we will address in our response, is the consistency of responses between different police forces, and that will be a very important priority as this work unfolds.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, total security of candidates and MPs can never be achieved, no matter how many new laws the Government introduce. Most concerning is the recommendation, in the report of the Speaker’s Conference, that the police should investigate non-crime incidents towards MPs and candidates. We have been here before with non-crime hate incidents. We know what a terrible idea they were. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not move forward with plans for the recording of non-crime incidents, no matter who they are directed towards?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The important message that I have for your Lordships is that we too have a role in dealing with this problem. An important aspect of our role is to make sure that incidents which might seem trivial or short-lived at the time are properly reported. We should all be aware of our responsibilities. The police cannot form a proper picture of the extent or nature of the problem without that level of intelligence gathering. Therefore, I cannot entirely agree with the noble Lord. We will not exclude certain types of information being reported to the police; on the contrary, it is the duty of all of us to ensure that all incidents are reported to the police in the proper way.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is further to go to ensure that our democracy can be strong and resilient in the political leadership of the Government and others in showing where the line is between legitimate protest and illegitimate intimidation? The measures on protecting the homes of parliamentarians are welcome, but we have a situation where parliamentarians are sometimes having to wade through highly aggressive and intimidating so-called anti-Zionist protests outside, as are Jewish staff members, to get to work, and council chambers are regularly being hijacked by aggressive protesters. The Government must send a signal that this is completely unacceptable.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The right to peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy. It is a long-standing tradition in the UK, of which we are justifiably proud, that people should be free to gather and express their views, provided that they do so within the law. Peaceful protest does not extend to unlawful behaviour. This includes actions that are violent or which cause harassment, alarm or distress to others. With regard to the noble Lord’s comments about antisemitism, we on these Benches and noble Lords across the House entirely denounce antisemitism and all its consequences. We believe that there is a leadership responsibility, not just for the Government but for all involved in politics, to conduct our discourse in a respectful and responsible way. Surely that is not beyond our rhetorical abilities.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister share my concern about the rising tide of abuse in our politics being detrimental to the broadest range of candidates putting themselves forward? Does he share my concern that women in particular are severely disadvantaged by this and are put off our politics? Will he join with me in calling for a comprehensive approach to the Speaker’s Conference which enables people of all aspects of our public life to stand for public office? Not to do so is an affront to our democracy and damages its accountability and validity.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Of course I agree with that. The Electoral Commission has noted that some of these problems are experienced to a greater extent by women but also by candidates from Black and minority ethnic communities. We do have to be especially vigilant but also consistent regarding all these types of incidents. We are very committed to this and take it very seriously, but I do not want to give false hope. This is something that we will have to continue to work on. My noble friend is right to draw our attention to that.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the work that she does on this commission. This is also a reminder of those MPs who have been murdered: Airey Neave, who was murdered on the Parliamentary Estate by the IRA, which also murdered Ian Gow; and, more recently, my friends David Amess and Jo Cox. As Jo Cox reminded us all, more unites us than puts us against each other. With that thought in mind, does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on us to disagree agreeably and not to descend into personal attacks and slurs?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I entirely agree. We have to continue to strive for a respectful discourse. I am all in favour of disagreement—it is one of my favourite pastimes; I think that is what got me here—but we have to conduct our business in a way that does respect not only to this House but to the whole political class. We cannot be responsible for a continued decline in the trust and the respect that the nation holds in us.
Post Office Capture and Horizon Scandals
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sahota
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will provide an update on the Post Office Capture and Horizon scandals.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
My Lords, as of 31 January 2026, over £1.4 billion has been paid to more than 11,300 victims of the Horizon scandal. The Government are also making strong progress in implementing recommendations from volume 1 of the Horizon inquiry, strengthening the operation of the schemes and accelerating the delivery of redress. As of the same date, DBT had received 153 complete applications under the Capture redress scheme. Of these, 30 have been deemed eligible, with the remaining 123 undergoing eligibility assessment. Five individuals have received their full payment.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. My friend, Kuldip Gill, ran a post office in 1995 in my neighbourhood. He was accused by the Post Office of stealing £5,000. He protested but had to pay. A few months later, his contract was terminated by the Post Office. Without a job, and with financial pressure and shame in the community, he started to drink and became an alcoholic. Within a year, he died of a brain haemorrhage induced by alcohol. He was only 53.
When, 30 years later, his wife was in a care home, I asked her whether she had put in a claim for compensation. She said that she had been told that she was not entitled to any. I told her that the Capture system was as faulty as the previous one, and she put in a claim and last year received her compensation. How many more postmasters and their families have died or left the country and have not put in their claim, or are simply not aware of their rights? Do the Government have any plan or policy to find them so that they can put in their claims?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question and am truly sorry to hear about the terrible ordeal faced by Mr Gill and his wife. We remain firmly committed to ensuring that those affected by the Capture and Horizon systems receive the redress they fully deserve. The Government and the Post Office have proactively contacted postmasters to confirm their eligibility and to encourage them to come forward.
On the Horizon convictions redress scheme, for example, DBT has written to 142 people who have had a conviction quashed but may not have yet applied to the scheme, encouraging them to apply. This has led to 29 new HCRS registrations. On Capture, I am happy to hear that redress has now at least reached the family referred to by my noble friend. The scheme has been designed precisely to ensure that others in similar circumstances are not missed.
The long time that has passed since the software was in use means that the full cohort of users is not known. That is why we continue strongly to encourage anyone who believes that they used Capture and experienced a shortfall to come forward. This includes family members applying on behalf of postmasters who have sadly passed away and cannot apply themselves.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, the Capture system was the predecessor of the Horizon system. The Government are paying compensation to all the Capture sub-postmasters—except those who have convictions. Given that the Post Office’s behaviour towards the Capture sub-postmasters was every bit as bad as that towards the Horizon sub-postmasters, and that we cannot expect Capture sub-postmasters to have retained documents for over 25 years to present to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, will the Minister acknowledge that for us to fail to overturn the Capture convictions perpetuates the most ghastly injustice?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot—and the noble Lord, Lord Beamish—for supporting the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board; it is very much appreciated and important work. The noble Lord will know that the legislation followed over 100 successful Horizon conviction appeals through the existing processes. However, as he mentions, no convictions related to Capture have been overturned to date. However, we must therefore allow the independent judiciary to consider safety of convictions through the established process, and we continue to support the work of the CCRC. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further, as that process needs to be independent and run its full course.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response, but noble Lords in yesterday’s Committee stage of the Victims and Courts Bill debated the urgent need to change the courts’ presumption that computer system evidence is always reliable. Everyone in that debate, including the Minister, agreed that this must be changed, not least following the Horizon scandal. Despite what the Minister said, will he and the Minister in yesterday’s Committee please work together to ensure that this change happens as soon as possible?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the department will work to try to ensure that that comes to its logical conclusion.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, as the person who first exposed the Capture system, I welcome the fact that victims are now being paid. That was in spite, for example, of the Post Office, which, with all the publicity around Horizon, never publicly pointed out that the Capture system existed. There are 29 cases of individuals who were prosecuted. The Government’s stance has been to refer them to the CCRC, which I do not think is the appropriate way of doing it. Can the Minister tell me why, in the one case that has now been referred to the Court of Appeal, which is Patricia Owen’s case, the Post Office is going to defend against it? Given the fact that, when I first exposed it, I and the campaigners had more information about the system than the Post Office, I would like to understand on what grounds the Post Office is going to resist that case. Also, how much money—public money, we should remember, at the end of the day—will be spent defending the indefensible?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Again, I thank the noble Lord for his work overall on the Horizon and Capture scandals. While, again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a specific case, I can say that the Post Office was the original prosecutor in the criminal case on this specific Capture conviction—not this department, obviously. Therefore, the Post Office has responsibility for responding, and for conducting the case and the appeal. Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the ongoing case.
Lord Magan of Castletown (Con)
My Lords, I ask the Minister whether Fujitsu has yet paid a single penny to the sufferers in this terrible saga. If it has not, why not? Secondly, has Fujitsu been awarded further government contracts since that time, and if so, why? This is a national scandal that has lasted far too long. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot are the two people who have really tried to find justice for these very unfortunate people who have suffered, as we heard in the introductory remarks.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I share and acknowledge the noble Lord’s passion for the subject. Accountability for Fujitsu will be rooted in evidence and due process. Wyn Williams’ inquiry is the proper mechanism for establishing what went wrong and who is responsible, and for the financial commitment. Fujitsu has acknowledged a moral responsibility to contribute to the costs of that redress, and Minister McDougall met with the European CEO in December last year and, in the recent Select Committee, the CEO confirmed the commitment to follow that moral responsibility with financial responsibility.
To the secondary question about government contracts, Fujitsu rightly said that it will not be applying for new government contracts unless the Government ask it to, where those services are necessary. In researching this question, I imagined this would come up: the Government have 68 live contracts with Fujitsu in some critical services, which include HMRC’s self-assessment tool and the Home Office’s border control systems. Walking away from these contracts instantly would do serious damage to important public services, so this is not a viable option. However, it has committed to the new software for the Post Office being completed in the middle of next year. If we were to stop that software service today, all postmasters would have to close. That is not pragmatic, unfortunately.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will already be aware that there is considerable concern in this House, on all sides, that there are still victims who have not received financial compensation. Beyond that, what specific non-financial support is being provided to those victims who have suffered significant mental health harm, and how are the Government ensuring that appropriate psychological and restorative support will remain available?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
The noble Lord reminds us all that, behind each of these numbers, there is an individual family that has suffered, as my noble friend so rightly highlighted today. The process that has been set out is careful to ensure that we are not retraumatising people going through the redress system. A new scheme called the family members redress scheme is currently in consultation with the Lost Chances group. We expect announcements shortly to ensure that the noble Lord’s question is fully answered.
Changing Weather Patterns and Floods
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of changing weather patterns in the occurrence of recent floods and flood warnings; and what steps they are taking to mitigate the impact of, and adapt to, heavy rainfall, including improved water storage and management.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the latest national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk was published in December 2024. This shows that climate-driven sea level rise and extreme rainfall will place a growing number of people at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. That is why the Government are investing at least £10.5 billion in England until 2036 to construct new flood schemes and repair existing defences, to protect communities from the devastating impacts of climate change.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer, which clearly illustrates that the Government see the urgent nature of climate change mitigations. On changing weather patterns, which are characterised by persistent rain during the winter period and drought during the summer period, what will the Government do to encourage farms to store water on their land, perhaps incentivising it through the ELM scheme, which, if done right, could improve soil health and retention and promote food security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are committing the largest amount to ELM schemes in our country’s history. That is going to rise to £2 billion by 2028-29. Some of this funding will be used to invest in flood protection and to support farmers in tackling agricultural pollution. We want to focus our efforts on actions that have multiple benefits—for example, improving soil health, as my noble friend mentioned, so that soil can hold more water, which reduces flood risk, prevents pollutants entering watercourses from field run-off and improves crop health during drought. Natural flood management techniques provide multiple co-benefits. For example, near where I live, there has been activity around the River Cocker and Loweswater. There, the West Cumbria Rivers Trust and its partners have been involving local farmers to re-naturalise the river, create wetlands, and implement other measures that provide flood protection alongside improving water quality and enhancing the environment. I have seen with my own eyes, in my own community, how this can help.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, it is not just the question of flooding. The increased rainfall will lead to increased run-offs and will put increased pressure on combined sewage systems, which will lead to excess pollution being poured into our seas and rivers, which is already at an unacceptably high level. This is a problem that is in-built to our infrastructure. What are the Government’s plans to address it in the long term?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important that we invest through the water companies in improved infrastructure. One problem in this area is that so much of our infrastructure is old and has not been updated, which is why we have so many issues with our sewerage system and run-off into our watercourses. The Government are committed to improving investment in that infrastructure in order to tackle some of the issues that the noble and gallant Lord rightly raises.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is an issue with storing water on farmland as it breaches the de minimis rule of the Reservoirs Act 1975. When does she plan to revisit that Act? Will she learn from Pickering’s Slowing the Flow and the work in Hull to use sustainable drains to store the water at source and save it for use in times of drought?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises some important issues. I am sure that, in referring to Hull, she is aware that the Minister for Water is a Hull MP and so is very aware of these issues. We are currently looking at our reservoir policy, because we need to consider how best to make use of the water that we have, future water storage needs and so on.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we have 89 flood warnings and 150 flood alerts in place today, and we extend our sympathies to all those impacted. The five wettest winters have all been since 1990. For every one-degree rise in temperature, the air can hold 7% more moisture. Climate change is a key driver of warmer, wetter winters. Is the key solution to this not an urgent return to the cross-party consensus on climate change and urgent action on adaptation, so that we can adequately address the climate emergency together?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As someone who spent four hours baling to try to stop her house being flooded last November, I am completely in support of much of what the noble Earl is talking about. We have to take climate change seriously. We know, as I mentioned in the Answer to the first Question, that the report has indicated clearly that these issues are only going to increase. We in the department are working with other departments—this is not just a Defra issue—on how we can better tackle climate change so that future generations are safe.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I have two questions. One is about new-build housing. As I understand it from the Planning Act, we have not enforced that new-build housing—especially that being built on flood plains, which is happening—must have flood defences. Responsibility for this is being handed back to the homeowner, and it is expensive: look it up online and you will see it is between £3,000 and £20,000.
Secondly, I know of many people who are finding insurance either hard to get or increasingly expensive because they are living in homes that are flooded almost annually. Are the Government dealing with this? Are they proposing anything like what happened in California, where the state more or less had to take over the insurance system in areas that regularly get burned?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
First, regarding development on flood plains, MHCLG is consulting on the new National Planning Policy Framework, which will introduce a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change to help ensure that local plans are informed by the latest evidence and that planning decisions support long-term climate adaptation and coastal management goals. That is part of those planning reforms.
Regarding flooding, as I mentioned, I have a house that is on a river. We have to use the Flood Re scheme, as other people do with insurance. That really is the most effective way to ensure that you can get affordable insurance if you live in a house that is designated to be at risk of flooding.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
For the first time ever in this House, I think, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Agricultural land covers 70% of the UK’s land area, meaning that the countryside is where most of our national capacity for holding water rests. With heavier rainfall becoming more frequent, small-scale on-farm reservoirs, attenuation ponds, leaky dams and other natural flood-management measures can slow the flow, reduce downstream flooding and improve resilience. As has been said many times, farmers are willing to do that work, but they need clear incentives and a stable funding framework. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, I too love a good argument, but on this occasion I am certain that the Minister and I will be in complete agreement that the Government will give farmers a key role to support on-farm water storage and flood management infrastructure.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In my response earlier to my noble friend I talked about ELMS, the environmental land management scheme, and I will provide a bit more detail about that. The Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme provides a number of ongoing actions to help create water storage and prevent flooding, including actions on arable land and grassland to mitigate flooding and create flood-plain storage. Capital grants are available to support natural flood management, which can improve soil health, as I mentioned previously. Together, the Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme, the sustainable farming incentive and the ELMS capital grant schemes provide support to help plan, plant and manage agroforestry systems, wood pasture and so on, which also helps to hold water.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, given that we should hold the water companies to account for the problems they cause, is it not time that we froze pay and dividends to water companies until they fix the infrastructure that they created, ending up with the problem that we have now?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure my noble friend is aware that the Government are keen to stop any inappropriate payments to senior members of water companies where they have been seen to pollute indiscriminately.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, Flood Re is a temporary system that will run out in 2039 and is aimed only at domestic dwellings, which is a great disadvantage to owners of microbusinesses and small businesses in affected areas. It would be hugely helpful if Flood Re could be extended to those things. Could the Minister tell us what the prospects are for that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Earl is right. Flood Re has been very successful regarding residential properties but there has always been an issue around the fact that it does not extend to businesses or to multiple-occupancy dwellings over a certain number. I have in the past spent some time working with insurance representatives on what can be done to better support businesses. It would be complex to extend Flood Re to businesses, but that does not mean there is not a problem. As someone who lives in Cockermouth, where we regularly have problems like this, I am aware that we need to do more to consider how best to support businesses through flooding. I do not think Flood Re is the answer, but we need to explore what else is out there.
Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 18 December 2025 be approved.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February.
Better Prisons: Less Crime (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
That this House takes note of the Report from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee Better prisons: less crime (1st Report, HL Paper 153).
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, as the chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, it is a pleasure to lead this debate. I look forward to the five maiden speeches from new Members; I welcome them all. I am delighted that they have chosen the committee’s report on prisons, Better Prisons: Less Crime, for their first outings.
I thank all members of the committee for their contributions to the report, and I am pleased to see so many of them here. We were splendidly supported by our specialist adviser, Alex South, a former prison officer and author, and by our office team: clerk David Shiels, policy analysts Rhouda Elalfy and Olek Hola-Peryer, media officer Aneela Mahmood, and operations officer Amanda McGrath.
During our inquiry we visited two prisons, Belmarsh and Isis. I pay tribute to the work of the dedicated prison staff and those in the third sector who work in incredibly difficult circumstances doing difficult, life-changing work. I am delighted that the Government plan to act on our recommendation for a Prison Service medal for exceptional service. I am grateful to all who contributed evidence, especially the many prisoners who sent us handwritten letters sharing their invaluable experiences and insights.
Sadly, most witnesses painted a depressing picture: the prison system is
“operating either in or at the verge of crisis most of the time”,
it is “disheartening and saddening”, and worrying to the extreme—all flavour of what we heard during the inquiry. I know that the Minister is working tirelessly to improve the state of our prisons, and I applaud him for it, but six months on from the publication of our report, the situation facing prisoners and prison staff remains grim. Most worrying is the very high level of reoffending by those who leave prison—40% of ex-prisoners reoffend within a year; for those in prison for less than a year, it is over 65%. Shockingly, in the year to June 2025, a staggering 40,000 former prisoners were recalled to prison—a 32% rise on the previous year.
We concluded that the purpose of prison should be much clearer and recommended that the Minister’s own words should be used—that is, that the purpose of prison should be
“to punish people, to protect the public and to reduce reoffending”.
But at present our prisons are failing to reduce reoffending and so failing to protect the public. We argued, therefore, that the punishment for a prisoner is the loss of liberty and that the main focus of the work in prisons should be to reduce reoffending through what is sometimes called rehabilitation or purposeful activity, of which currently there is far too little.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons uses purposeful activity as one of its four healthy establishment tests, yet it continues to be the worst performing metric. The chief inspector found that almost three-quarters of prisons inspected were poor or not sufficiently good at providing purposeful activity. Some of our other findings gave pointers as to why that is. In addition to overcrowding and lack of clarity about the purpose of prisons, our report found limited autonomy for prison governors, who were stifled by bureaucracy; a wholly inadequate staff recruitment and vetting procedure, and subsequent inadequate prisoner officer assessment and training arrangements; a huge backlog of much-needed repair and renovation; and a sense of complacency within the MoJ and HMPPS, and inadequate accountability arrangements.
No wonder there is little focus on purposeful activity. After all, measures such as education and skills training, or measures to help prisoners with their mental health, or with drug, alcohol or gambling addictions, are hard to provide in overcrowded, understaffed, dilapidated and underresourced prisons where governors have inadequate freedom to govern. Too often, prisoners can spend up to 23 hours a day in cramped cells, with little to help them lead constructive, crime-free lives when they leave. It is these conditions which also lead to boredom, self-harm, frustration and increased violence in our prisons. All this costs the taxpayer £54,000 per year per prisoner, with seemingly little benefit.
We considered each of the barriers and made recommendations to reduce them. On overcrowding, we largely welcome the Gauke review and the measures that flowed into the Sentencing Act from it. However, some measures will place increased strain on an already overstretched Probation Service, and we remain sceptical about whether the planned £700 million over four years for the Probation Service will be sufficient. Last week’s PAC report suggests that it agrees. It said the service was under “significant strain”, seriously impeding its ability to protect the public and reduce reoffending.
Nevertheless, we especially welcome plans to introduce community sentences instead of most prison sentences of under 12 months. We made just this proposal in one of our earlier reports, where we pointed out that well-run, probation-led community sentences have lower levels of reoffending and cost significantly less. Under the structure of HMPPS, the Prison Service and the Probation Service are linked. If, with increased resources and staffing, the Probation Service can successfully keep more people out of prison, the Prison Service can then more easily improve purposeful activity for those still sent to prison.
But the Sentencing Act measures alone are insufficient. It is estimated that, over time, they will reduce the prison population demand by 7,500, and the new prison building programme will deliver 14,000 new places by 2031. But despite all that, it is still estimated that, by 2029, the prison population will have increased by 2,000. That is why some of our other recommendations are so important and why the committee was so disappointed by the Government’s rather complacent response.
The Government accepted or partially accepted 34 of our 35 recommendations. That might seem like a job well done but, alas, that is far from the truth. The Government claim that many of the recommendations are already work in progress. Yet, in the majority of these cases, we fail to see either the work or the progress. For example, the Government accepted our recommendation to implement women’s leadership groups and support for female staff but then bizarrely, implying nothing further was actually needed, went on to say:
“HMPPS have reviewed our policies and are content that they are sufficient to address the needs of women”.
Our recommendations regarding prison governors also illustrate the point. Just as a good head teacher, with the right support, can transform a school, so too can a prison governor, with the right support, transform a prison. But prison governors need the freedom to act, so we called for increased governor autonomy so that those running prisons, who best understand the needs of their staff, prisoners and community, can implement desperately needed changes. In this case, the work in progress was a report on previous efforts that had not gone anywhere near what the committee or many governors were calling for. To ensure that the governor’s vision can be clearly communicated to staff, we argued for measures that would enable greater visibility of governors around the prison. The Government agreed, but offered nothing concrete. Surely the move to build mega-prisons, such as the 1,700 place HMP Welland Oaks, will serve only to exacerbate the problem.
I hope the Minister, when he winds up, will assure us that the committee’s pessimism is misplaced. But our pessimism is not just that of a discontented suitor who has been rejected; others share it. In the other place, the Justice Committee, referencing the Government’s response to our report, noted:
“It is promising to hear that the Government recognises the value of Governor autonomy, but it is unclear what specific action it will be taking to improve it”.
Benjamin Franklin once said:
“Well done is better than well said”.
When he winds up, can the Minister say what actions in relation to governor autonomy we can look out for?
The responses to other recommendations have been equally disappointing. Clearly, having sufficient well-trained, motivated and supportive staff working in our prisons is vital. But with the prison population rising, it is extremely concerning—but, frankly, not surprising—that so many prison officers are leaving, some after less than a year in service, and that there has been a significant fall in the number of people joining. For example, in the past year there has been a loss of 1,000 band 3 to band 5 prison officers—the ones walking the wings and interacting with prisoners every day. In short, there are more prisoners but fewer staff, and the remaining staff are often disillusioned and demoralised, as evidenced by the very high levels of absence through sickness. An average of two and a half weeks is lost in sickness—often mental health issues—per officer each year. That is simply unsustainable.
The MoJ has at least now resurrected an earlier recruitment campaign that promotes a career in the Prison Service. It says:
“An extraordinary job. Done by someone like you”.
The reality, however, is that a career in the Prison Service is not for everyone, and the recruitment process should reflect that. After all, our report was clear that the current role of prison officers is defined by firefighting and crisis management—asking them to do more with less. No wonder, then, that the number of prisoners released in error has sky-rocketed by 128% this year, from 115 to 262. I hope the Minister will tell us what progress is being made to introduce a digital solution to the problem.
More significantly, we call for a drastic overhaul of officer recruitment and vetting. We were horrified to discover that there are no face-to-face interviews. It is all done online. Very few of those being interviewed had ever been inside a prison, and prison leaders have almost no say about who works in their prison. Despite the high drop-out rate, and all the other evidence pointing to its failings, we were nevertheless told by HMPPS that the process is “robust”. Some noble Lords may have seen reports of a 17 year-old child who, despite being underage, got through the recruitment and vetting procedures, and then was given the task of looking after murderers and terrorists in HMP Erlestoke. That is hardly evidence of a robust system. Does the Minister think that it is robust, and can he tell us what is being done to ensure that staff are properly vetted, that they are aware of the unique challenges of life on the wings and are ready to work?
We also made recommendations about training and support for prison officers. It surely cannot be right, for example, that almost all formal assessment of prison officers’ work has been abandoned. Again, the Government response was muted, and that is a polite way of putting it. Can the Minister be more positive and tell us what changes in training and support are being planned?
One final concern is on the response to our several recommendations about activities to reduce reoffending. Given the Minister’s previous work in this area, there was an enthusiastic response in words but, unfortunately, actions contradicted them. No sooner was the ink dry on the Government’s response than we started to hear about cutbacks in the education provision in many prisons; this provision has been shown to significantly help to reduce reoffending.
Writing about the new prison education contracts in October last year, the chief inspector reported that he had been told that—due to inflationary increases, and some of the funds being used for a new IT system—there would be effective average cuts of 25%. In fact, some prison leaders had told him that cuts in their prison had reached 60%. We now know that around 300 prison education staff have been made redundant. It is one thing to ignore a committee’s recommendation, but it seems perverse that the Government are ignoring their own research; this research shows how important education is to reducing reoffending, and yet they are ploughing ahead with cuts to it. This is not the only failing in providing appropriate purposeful activities: support for inmates with mental health or addiction problems is woeful, and skills training is patchy, doing little to prepare inmates for employment outside. It is prisoners and the public who will suffer the consequences. We need more purposeful activity, not less, and I hope that the Minister can give us some good news about the future situation. We have waited far too long for it.
Since its founding in 1982, the inspectorate has been highly critical of the lack of purposeful activity in prison. In the first ever inspector’s report the chief inspector, Sir James Hennessy, wrote:
“We believe there are powerful reasons why the Prison Department must ensure that an inmate does not spend day after day in blank inactivity; he should be kept occupied for a normal working day at work, education, or some other constructive activity”.
It was not happening 43 years ago and, sadly, is still not happening. It shows why inspectors’ reports should be acted upon more often.
The evidence we receive points to a system beset with problems. Piecemeal and gradual change will not suffice to fix them. HMPPS needs to go further and faster, but the Government’s response to our report was disappointing. It illustrated our concern that the MoJ and HMPPS are far too complacent about what is happening in our prison estate. This is in marked contrast to the Minister. I welcome his zeal and practicality in addressing the many issues in our prisons. I just hope that, in time, his department starts to have the same approach and puts its energies into ensuring the wide-scale provision of measures to reduce reoffending. Only then can we truly have better prisons and less crime. I beg to move.
Baroness Bi (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I feel deeply honoured to be making my maiden speech today. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House, as well as Black Rod and his team, the doorkeepers, police officers and all the other amazing staff for their warm welcome—not least in being so patient with me as I try to find my way around. As a former chair of the Barbican Centre Trust, I have been wondering whether we need yellow lines on the floor to help those of us who lack a sense of direction.
I thank my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon for her support, and my noble friend Lord McNicol and my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer, who introduced me to the House three weeks ago today, and I look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of my fellow new Peers.
I welcome the report of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, and the Government’s acceptance of many of its recommendations. The report reflects a compassionate approach to balancing the needs of the public, prisoners and staff. This is a welcome change to the rhetoric of ever-longer sentences and harsher conditions that has resulted in us having the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe. We seem to have forgotten Portia’s advice in “The Merchant of Venice” to season justice with mercy.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Timpson, the Minister, for meeting with me to discuss his department’s response to this important report. I would also like to thank him for his and his family’s long-standing leadership in providing employment to former prisoners, which is so important to reducing reoffending.
I decided to become a lawyer at the age of 14 because I cared passionately about human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law; I still do. However, when I finished university, I knew I could not support myself as a human rights lawyer without borrowing what seemed to me at the time to be an unimaginably large sum. I discovered that City law firms paid to train their lawyers, and so that is the route I took. I specialised in international debt capital markets and have had a wonderful career, working with clients and colleagues across the world. This has given me a valuable insight into the needs of investors and our position in an increasingly competitive world. I also advise on ethical finance, including green and social bonds, which are a growing segment of the market, and combine my focus on finance with making a difference. I note, in the context of this debate, that the world’s first social bond was issued to reduce reoffending rates at HMP Peterborough.
The last time I felt almost as proud as I do today was in 2018, when I was elected by my partners to be the chair of our law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright, as the first woman and ethnic minority person to hold that role since the firm was established in 1794. My election reflected the huge changes that have taken place in the City since I arrived in 1990, when there were very few people who looked like me or who came from my background. It has been a privilege to be a part of the City for over 35 years. I am keen to ensure that it remains competitive and retains its position as the leading international financial centre, providing a home for talented people of all kinds. That requires us to be an outward-looking, confident society that abides by the rule of law.
I grew up in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s, and had assumed that we had moved past the racism and bigotry that I experienced then. In recent years I have seen, with increasing concern, the cynical manipulation of legitimate concerns about declining living standards, inadequate infrastructure and poorly funded public services into a targeting of minority groups who are blamed for wider societal failings.
Those of us who believe in equal rights, a globally connected world and the rules-based order have to accept that the argument is not won, and we must fight harder and better for our values. Yet there are so many things for us all to be proud of. I have the privilege of being vice-chair of the Disasters Emergency Committee, and I am humbled by the generosity and compassion of the British public, who in the last four years have donated over £700 million to its appeals—and that in the midst of a cost of living crisis.
Until very recently, I was chair of the Patchwork Foundation, which supports young people interested in civic society. Each year, as a new cohort of patchworkers arrive, I am deeply encouraged by the passion and principles of our young people who are determined to make the world a better place. I hope that by working with noble Lords across the House I can play my part in helping the patchworkers to achieve that better world and, along the way, satisfy the spirit of the 14 year-old who wanted to be a lawyer so that she could help people.
Lord Moraes (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Bi. We are being joined in this House by a gifted lawyer from the private sector with a strong sense of public service—someone who is knowledgeable and passionate about many of the difficult issues we will have to deal with on the Floor of this House, as noble Lords have just heard.
My noble friend mentioned that she is the chair of Norton Rose Fulbright, one of the five “Magic Circle” law firms, I think—anyway, it is definitely a firm I would not have got into—and the first UK woman to chair the global law firm since it was founded in 1794. After Cambridge University, she worked in a range of major law firms. She is internationally qualified and made a stellar career. Last year, the FT listed her as one of the 50 most influential lawyers in the UK. I am not going to embarrass her with any more plaudits, but I think noble Lords get the message.
When you follow a maiden speech, you look for things that you have in common. My noble friend and I have some things in common: we both came to this country as children, we are of a similar generation, and we both have law degrees. But my first thought was that my parents would have wished that I had her career following my law degree, rather than what I actually did with it; that was my abiding thought. Anyway, it worked out in the end.
My noble friend has combined her legal career with a strong public service ethic, including extensive pro bono work, vice-chairing the Disasters Emergency Committee and chairing the Patchwork Foundation, which helps with integration of vulnerable communities. These are just some examples that speak to her values and who she is. We all know that the real strength of this House is when Members who have hugely significant experience in their chosen fields use it here to really good, positive effect. I am sure that my noble friend is firmly in that category. I look forward to her contributions in the months and years ahead, and I am sure the whole House will welcome her to her place.
I turn briefly to two of the critical issues in the Select Committee report. I should mention that, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, I joined the committee only in January, so I was not involved with my colleagues in the interviews and the hard work last year that produced the report that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has so eloquently described. But, as a member of the committee, I felt that this is such an important issue that I should raise a couple of critical issues from the report.
I should mention that last year I whipped, very briefly, for the Minister and for the MoJ. I mention that only because it gave me an insight into the work that he, the department and the team are doing. I learned that this is an acutely difficult issue. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, really spelled that out. It is acute, but it also consists of much deeper systemic problems. The report and my colleagues who put it together have adequately explained that.
I want to pick up on two issues. The first is the issue of the prison population and capacity. The second is the critical issue of the number of prison officers, their level of experience, the persistent recruitment and retention challenges, and the consequent effect on the morale of the service. Some of the deeper issues are consequent on that, which our chair mentioned.
The report talks about how deeply rooted the recruitment, retention and experience problems are and how they peaked as this Government took office. That is where we get the idea of crisis. That crisis is still being dealt with, as I learned last year. On prison officer training, I know the Minister was well placed—it has been said—to take on this challenge. Before he took office he conducted a review of prison officer training. I would be interested to know how he feels that that review is informing the work of the department now. Are we making progress on many of the serious issues that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, raised? Obviously, this speaks to the experience of officers, the challenges identified in the report and what the MoJ is trying to do. I am genuinely interested to know where we are going on that.
On staffing generally, can the Minister update the House on the current status of and any improvements or recovery he has seen in the staffing levels and retention of officers? We are now in 2026, and we have had Royal Assent to the other aspect of dealing with this crisis, sentencing, and creating more capacity. How that is all working is really interesting to me and the committee. It may be a bit too soon to understand how the Sentencing Act and the Gauke review are now affecting the critical issue of capacity and prison places. But it would be interesting to hear what the Minister’s hopes are for that. In my opinion, the report was built around not just criticising what is happening but genuinely looking for solutions to this crisis and to the deeper systemic issues. The Gauke report was an honest way of trying to manage the prison population, but if it is too early to look at the effects of it, I would also be interested to know what other new routes the Minister feels might be taken to address some of the critical acute and systemic problems.
I will leave my remarks at that, knowing that many of my colleagues were involved last year in the hard work of putting the report together.
Lord Redwood (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am very conscious of the enormous privilege to be able to speak from these Benches in this magnificent room, in a Palace which represents the history and traditions of our great nation. I am suitably humbled, and I am very grateful to all the staff who have helped me already to acclimatise to the different mood and traditions of this noble House. I pay special tribute and give thanks to my two noble friends, one present in front of me today, who introduced me kindly as long ago as Tuesday.
I would like to reassure all assembled here that I speak in a debate on prisons not from any personal experience. I managed to survive 37 years in elected politics when allegations of law-breaking became all too common surrounding all too many MPs, but here I am, free of all such charges—but interested in the question of the quality, productivity and efficiency of public services. It was my good fortune to be offered a platform last night at the Centre for Policy Studies and to be given rather more time to expand on research I have been doing into why productivity has failed us so badly in the public services over the last 25 years under many different Governments. Why is quality not all it should be?
I welcome the report we are debating, and I welcome its aims and themes. “Better prisons”—who could possibly disagree with that? “Less crime”—that is exactly what we want. There are good comments in the report and there were good remarks from the noble Lord who introduced the committee’s findings.
We need to get back to the questions of what the Prison Service is for and how Ministers and the executive leaders of that service can do a better job in future. The first vital task is to ensure that those who have committed crimes of violence, and who could go on to damage individuals and societies further, are locked away to protect the rest of us. We, the law-abiding public, are the prime customers of the Prison Service, and we expect that manifestation—protection from those who would harm us—to be top of its priorities. Under the recent Government, and under the current Government, there have been too many cases of the Prison Service even letting out those who could harm us well before time and due date. Hitting the target of not letting out people we should not be letting out must surely be an urgent priority for Ministers to address.
The second important thing is to create safe spaces throughout those prisons, both to make them a bit more of a pleasant working environment for the security of the staff and for all those many prisoners who can be persuaded to return to a legal life, get a job and make a proper contribution to society when they have completed their term in prison. However, we read in prison reports of all too many cases where prisons are schools for scandal and colleges for crime; they are places where there are thriving entrepreneurial businesses, but for all the wrong things, such as supplying drugs. Surely it must be a priority to get all prisoners off drugs and to manage and provide treatment programmes for those who need drugs. They must not be fuelled and fed by illegitimate businesses within the prison framework.
The third thing that we want, which is touched on at rather greater length in the report, is for more people who leave prison to not want to go back there. They should be given support and help so that they are given training and find it easier to get a job; they should be able to get a bank account and re-establish themselves in normal life, because we do not want to see them in the Prison Service again.
On my wider work on public sector quality and productivity, I believe that quality and efficiency are two sides of the same coin. Get it right first time and you do not need a complaints department; get it right first time and you do not waste so much money. In my experiences as an executive councillor in my youth, as a Minister, as a participant in Cabinet and shadow Cabinet debates, and as a Back Bench MP who was very attentive to the public services in my area, I saw all too many examples of poor management, mistakes and error. Time does not permit me to go through my toolkit for mending quality and productivity issues. I look forward to further debates, because it is surely a vital, national, cross-party cause that we should manage better and achieve better results.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Redwood. I welcome him to your Lordships’ House and congratulate him on his excellent and, may I say, pithy maiden speech. My noble friend brings a wealth of in-depth and current political and business experience, coupled with a record of long and lasting commitment to his constituents and his country. He is renowned for his razor-sharp mind and ability to cut to the quick, together with standing up for his beliefs and being resolutely unafraid to speak to truth. His arrival with us is timely, particularly given his economic and business expertise and, as we have already heard, his in-depth knowledge of how we might achieve effective productivity. Because of our need to focus on economic growth, we look forward to his many contributions. I also look forward to listening to all the other maiden speeches today.
As a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I support all that we stated in our report. Therefore, to avoid repeating the speech by our excellent chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, I decided to check our report against a speech I once made in your Lordships’ House on education and health in prisons as shadow Education Minister—and previously a shadow Home Office Minister and a barrister—to see if there had been any progress over 20 years. I will read some extracts from that speech:
“The primary roles of prisons in the criminal justice system are punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and the protection of the public, but this must incorporate the development of learning and skills. … We must not underestimate the potential role that good prison education can provide to prevent reoffending. … I recently visited Brixton Prison and saw first-hand the excellent work being carried out by the governor and the head of learning and skills. There is real commitment among the staff I spoke to. They want to get results and see the system actually enhance progress, not hinder it”.
In addition, I stated:
“There is a high turnover of staff across the prison system. Governors are moved from prison to prison. This is massively disruptive. … Will the Government seriously consider developing a solid career structure allowing progression within the Prison Service and imposing a fixed minimum term for a prison governor to remain in each post? Heads of learning and skills must be integrated into the system. … They must be given the opportunity to plan for the long term, and not to meet the latest Whitehall target. … We must focus on outcomes rather than outputs if we are to see less reoffending. … The layers of bureaucracy that exist are seriously hindering innovative development in offender education”.
I will read a couple more relevant extracts:
“Even providing an individual with qualifications alone is not enough in the fight to reduce reoffending. This must be coupled with structured learning so that prisoners can develop their ability to communicate and interact. … Like governors, prisoners are moved from prison to prison. … There is a severe knock-on effect from this disruptive approach for the prisoners and the community. … Support and provision must be provided in the community. Forging links with local employers is difficult, but essential. … Offenders need to be equipped with skill trades … in which they can make an honest living with a salary which stands a chance of rivalling an income from drug crime”.
Finally,
“prison education … must start at the beginning. It must deal with the emotional and social problems facing offenders and then move on to qualifications and employable skills”.—[Official Report, 8/12/05; cols. 835-38.]
I made that speech in December 2005, eight years into a Labour Government. The most damning fact was exposed in a reply to a Written Question I had asked Her Majesty’s Government that same week on how many civil servants from the Home Office, broken down by grade, had visited prisons in the last eight years. The answer was none. Since then, the challenges have grown; there is violence and religious extremism in our prisons, with young men—I know some—told to convert to Islam for an easier life behind bars. And how can prison staff be recruited online? This is insanity writ large. In addition, I now have Written Answers confirming that some foreign criminals, who are to be deported at the end of their prison term, are being released from HMP Huntercombe in Oxfordshire because the Home Office paperwork does not keep up with the prisoner release system.
One of the most revealing evidence sessions during our inquiry was with two former Members of the other place: former Home Secretary Charles Clarke and former Justice Secretary Michael Gove, now my noble friend Lord Gove. I was struck—indeed, I think the whole committee was struck—by the degree to which they were in tune with their collective paths and desire to achieve lasting and demonstrably better outcomes for prisoners and prisons to reduce reoffending. As usual, both efforts were cut short by our frankly broken political system shuffling the cards.
Rereading the speech that I made all those years ago, or extracts from it, has been for me quite depressing. I often think of the noble and late Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He would be making the same speech today, I fear, that he made time and again years and years ago. However, I look to the Minister, who I know will understand more than most that the key solutions are, in principle, quite simple—as he set out to teach shoe-repairing following a visit to HMP Thorn Cross in Warrington in 2002. The Minister must be, as I am, an optimist, as he is determined to find and implement solutions to give a real and practical lifeline to prisoners to reduce reoffending.
We recognise this in our committee, and as some of us have been Ministers, we are very aware of how incredibly difficult it is to get things done within our current Civil Service system. It is uphill in treacle, and the pressures are relentless and immense. What we need now is a Government who have the courage to change that system, root out obfuscation—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
May I ask the noble Baroness to draw her remarks to a close?
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
They need to root out obfuscation and denial, fear of making decisions and preferment to work from home, and understand just how vital it is to make the Home Office and Ministry of Justice fit for purpose, so that better prisons really will lead to less crime.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for introducing this debate so admirably and highly commend his chairmanship of the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I was a member until the end of January. The noble Lord steered the Select Committee with deep commitment and skill, and it was a pleasure to work with him and other members of the Select Committee. I also want to thank the clerk of the committee, his team and the special advisers for this support. I congratulate those who have made the two maiden speeches, and I look forward to three more.
As we heard, our prisons are in a state of crisis, and there is urgent need for a strategic and focused reform of the system if we want to reduce re-offending and protect the public. The Government are attempting to address some of the most urgent problems. Some steps have been taken to reduce overcrowding in prisons, bolster the Probation Service and reform the sentencing regime, all of which I welcome. As I have said before, the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, as the Minister responsible for prisons, probation and reducing re-offending was an inspired choice, and it is reassuring to have a Minister who understands what is required—within, if I may say so, the constraints of the current system. I know that he is working tirelessly to make a difference.
Reducing the prison population is essential to ensure a well-functioning and effective service. Systemic change and culture shifts require time, but urgent and meaningful action should be taken now if we are to avert the crisis facing our prisons. These actions are not just about resources and capacity. Our report focused on practical changes that can be adopted now to make a difference, and highlighted the inadequacy of some of the changes, given the scale of the problem.
Regrettably, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the Government’s response to our report does not appear to grasp the essence of our recommendations. The response, if I may say so, is rather too official, as the noble Lord spelt out. The assurances given in the response sound hollow, given that education provision in prisons will be cut by 50%, and the impact of these cuts has been graphically described by the Prisoners’ Education Trust. Our report focused on leadership, governance, management and staffing of prisons. However, leadership qualities, style of leadership, governance arrangements, management, levels and types of staffing, and training and recruitment would become self-evident if there was clarity about the purpose of prison, and if that purpose was backed by policies and practices and effective communication aligned to that purpose.
The purpose of prisons is not clear. There is confusion within government and the HMPPS about the purpose of prisons, because policy and practice are fundamentally misaligned. Prison sentences, incarceration and loss of liberty are the punishment, and the purpose of prisons is to prepare those in custody for life after prison in order to reduce reoffending and help them integrate back into the community, and, ultimately, to protect the public. The first priority, therefore, in my view, is to have absolute clarity on and understanding of the purpose of prisons. If that is properly understood, it would clarify what qualities, skills and experience are needed for those running prisons, be they prison governors or prison officers. What level of autonomy should be given to prisons, and what should be the balance of responsibility between the centre and local prisons?
What relationship should there be between prison and probation services, and the third sector and employers? The relationship between the prison and probation services needs to be clarified and understood. Very poorly thought-through reforms over several years have demoralised the Probation Service and confused its identity. There is, in my view, a shared purpose between the prison and probation services, which is to reduce reoffending and prepare people for life outside the criminal justice system. This needs to be reinforced, and it is encouraging that the Minister is giving support to the Probation Service, although the investment to bring the service up to speed is not adequate.
Secondly, there is a need for clear and effective communication to explain to the public the purpose of prisons. Government has a duty to ensure that public discourse about crime and punishment is based on an understanding of the role of prisons, and an appreciation that those in custody eventually have to be integrated into the community.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
I know that I am running over time, but it is an advisory time limit and I will finish in two minutes.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
No, I am sorry, that will not be fair to all the other speakers. It is an advisory time limit, but I must invite the noble Baroness—
Baroness Prashar (CB)
I have another couple of minutes—this is advisory.
The Government have a duty to ensure that public discourse about crime and punishment is based on an understanding of the role of prisons and an appreciation that those in custody will eventually have to be integrated into the community. We cannot defend what is not understood.
My third point is about much more focused and tailored opportunities for purposeful activity—that is, educational opportunities for prisoners to learn skills which equip them to lead a purposeful life when released. I will make two points here. First, the Open University provides very good digital learning, which needs to be extended. The other point about education is having some joined-up thinking to make sure that employers actually work with prisons—
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am sorry to get to my feet again, but I think the House is on my side and the noble Baroness should now conclude her remarks.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, as Anglican Bishop for prisons, I wholeheartedly welcome this debate and this excellent report. It is also a privilege to follow two excellent maiden speeches.
I submitted evidence to the committee, and I will continue to bang the drum for reform. Better prisons will play a vital role, but they are not the end point or the complete answer to reducing reoffending. I agree with the reframing of this from rehabilitation, as rehabilitation implies that people were once at an acceptable place in life to which they can be rehabilitated, whereas for the majority of people in prison, this was never true in the first place.
The Minister has my support for measures being taken in the Sentencing Act, but these are not enough. We need an honest realignment of how to address crime and punishment in a vision for a society in which all people can flourish—victims, ex-offenders, families and communities.
I congratulate the report, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in pushing for a definition of the purpose of prison, as others have said. In the recent debate on what was then the Sentencing Bill, I was heartened by the breadth of support for my amendment on the purpose of prisons. This emerged from some work with a number of people across the criminal justice sector, as part of a round table which I have been convening in Westminster. We submitted our work to the Gauke review. I regret the Government’s reluctance to identify this as a crucial step. If we truly want clarity across HMPPS, the wider criminal justice system and, indeed, the public about exactly what it is we are seeking to do and be, we need this legislative definition of the purpose of imprisonment. Would the Minister agree to meet with me to discuss introducing such a definition?
In the past year, I have taken time to listen to young people across Gloucestershire, both through an online survey and at in-person events. It is important to include the voices of young people in policy-making. Most students thought that the most important use for prisons was to keep the public safe. The next most popular answer was that they are to rehabilitate offenders. Fewer students thought that prison’s most important use was to punish. Instead of building prisons or making sentences longer, young people thought that reducing crime required addressing some of the upstream issues that lead to that repeat reoffending, not least tackling drug and alcohol addiction. They also spoke repeatedly about the need for employment opportunities.
On a slightly different note, the committee’s report articulates well the challenges faced by prison governors in recruiting and developing staff. As I noted in my submission to the inquiry, based on my own visits to prisons,
“Whilst good governors are invaluable, culture cannot be created by one person alone and relies on the buy in to a set of values that are understood, shared, and lived by all the prison staff”.
I continue to be astounded that prison governors are unable to appoint their own staff. This is out of sync with most of the public sector. Absurdly, the first time governors meet newly recruited staff is on the day they start work. It is not a surprise then that governors express frustration to me, not least with the protracted HR processes to dismiss staff who do not meet their expectations and who would not have been recruited by them in the first place.
Much more still needs to be done to invest in staff and to value the prison sector, both in training and development, as we have heard. The public are shocked when they discover that training for prison staff takes a matter of weeks. I might also add that, in most of our prisons, chaplaincies are doing an outstanding job. Good chaplaincy teams feed into a good culture. They could be used much more to develop staff, not least in that relationship which is at the heart of a good culture system.
I will make a brief point about the recent policing White Paper which indicated that a crime prevention unit would be established in the Home Office. Shockingly, in 103 pages, the White Paper does not mention prison once. Where is the joined-up thinking? Can the Minister reassure the House that this new crime prevention unit will look at the place of prison?
This leads me finally back to culture. Good leadership within a prison builds culture and hope. If we want safer communities, we must create safer, more humane prisons. The culture inside the prison will translate to the culture outside the prison.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I commend the work of the chaplaincy service in prisons. I also welcome this debate, inspired as it is by the report of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, must have been feeling a little battered about two-thirds of the way through the speech by my noble friend Lord Foster. He probably had a note from his office saying that my noble friend is a Liberal Democrat and is sympathetic to his aims. This is what makes my noble friend such a formidable politician: he does not pull his punches, but he does not mean any harm.
Lord McNally (LD)
That came out wrong. When he referred to the Government’s response to the White Paper, he also reminded me of my old friend, Fred Peart. Fred was Leader of the House a long time ago. He had an absolutely fail-safe way of answering questions, however hostile. When there was a request for action, he would stand up, repeat it and then say, “I have to tell the noble Lord that it will not be next week”. I thought that the Government’s response was, as my noble friend Lord Foster delicately implied, a “not next week” reply. There are so many times when they adopt the suggestion but do not make any practical advance. This is one of the problems.
When the Government were elected some 18 months ago, one of the most welcome appointments was that of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, as Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending. I served at the Ministry of Justice from 2010 to 2013 as Minister of State under the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and from 2014 to 2017 as chair of the Youth Justice Board. My delight at the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, was because, during those seven years as a Minister and then as YJB chair, I had worked closely with the noble Lord, his brother and their late father in the pioneering work that the Timpson family has done in helping and assisting the rehabilitation of offenders.
I was further encouraged by the fact that the noble Lord would be joined in the battle for prison reform by my successor as YJB chair, Charlie Taylor. Since 2020, he has been His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons. My only fear is that the sheer scale and multifaceted nature of the crisis in our prisons would break their spirits because of the magnitude of the task faced.
I will raise a couple of points on which the Minister may want to comment. I am genuinely worried about the retreat on education. I know the budgetary problems that are faced and I commend the work done by David Gauke on the sentencing review. But, as has been said by a number of speakers, the education of prisoners is one of the key ways to rehabilitation. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised the problem of drugs. The general public just do not understand why drugs should be so effectively and proficiently available in our prisons. The man in the street wants to know how they got in there and how this is such a factor in our prisons.
I see that I shall get a commending smile from the Whip by sitting down. Good luck.
Lord Babudu (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful to be able to speak in this important debate, which goes to the heart of who we are as a society. As it is my first time addressing your Lordships’ House, let me start by thanking the wonderful staff throughout this place: the doorkeepers, the caterers, the cleaners and the security staff. My mother worked as a cleaner and my dad as a security guard, so there is a special magic for me every time I get to greet anybody in this House doing such work—they are the unsung heroes of our story.
I thank my supporters, my noble friends Lady Lawrence of Clarendon and Lord Boateng, two giants of Black British history who have inspired me from my childhood through to this very day. I also thank Black Rod, Garter, the Clerk of the Parliaments and everybody else who, among all the demands on them, has so dutifully learned to pronounce the surname Babudu. Those efforts make me feel incredibly welcome.
“But where is Babudu from?”, I hear noble Lords ask. From Ghana, where my parents were born and raised, and where they left in search of a better life for their as yet unborn children. They came to Peckham, via Elephant and Castle. I was born here, and for some 40 fine years we lived under the watch of the force of nature that is the noble Baroness, Lady Harman, who was until recently our Member of Parliament. Peckham, my little corner of south London, is a magical place. I grew up there, my wife grew up there, we are raising our five children in the area, and I had the honour of representing Rye Lane in Peckham as a local councillor.
However, as magic as Peckham is, it is not always the easiest on its residents. Growing up in Peckham, I saw how normal it was for children to carry knives. I was 11 the first time somebody pulled a weapon on me. I was 14 when I first lost a friend to knife crime. Were it not for the warm embrace that my parents held over me and my siblings’ lives, I am under no illusion that I could have been the subject of, rather than taking part in, this debate on our prisons.
We are living in history. Democracy is under strain, society is fracturing and technology is racing forward. In such times, I am especially glad to find myself in your Lordships’ House, where working with each other to find common cause is seen as a badge of honour, not a lapse in party discipline.
While I am younger than many of your Lordships—something my children simply do not believe—I bring some understanding, I hope, of issues relevant to this place. I have spent most of the last two decades helping charities and funders better use evidence, and working with young people to help get their voices heard by decision-makers. Time after time, young people show an incredible ability to bring unique and valuable perspectives. One initiative that I am especially proud to have been a part of is Peer Action Collective, which has so far seen nearly 300 young people conduct research and social action involving over 12,000 young people across England and Wales, changing how communities understand the role of violence in young people’s lives and how to tackle it. I hope to continue to use my voice to amplify young people’s views.
I also bring some wider experience: I started off as a corporate solicitor, I have led and grown social enterprises, I have been a local councillor and I have led successful initiatives on issues as diverse as tackling school exclusions and getting finance into start-ups, particularly those led by women and people from minoritised backgrounds. The guiding purpose which has steered me through all those roles and to this place will guide me in it. That purpose is to help bring about a healthier society; one where, whatever your background, your race, your sex or your socioeconomic status, you have a genuine opportunity of living in good health. I am currently executive director of Impact on Urban Health, part of Guy’s and St Thomas’ Foundation. Whether there, here, or elsewhere, I will always spend my time championing solutions that impact the true drivers of good health: where you live, where you work, the air you breathe and the food that you eat.
We know a lot about how we can turn back the tides of ill health that are rising all around us. With that purpose in mind, this debate is a perfect opportunity to say that health will be advanced by appropriately investing in people, especially those who are furthest from good health. That does not mean indefinitely large and growing prisons or welfare bills. It means giving people an opportunity, an honest chance to find their feet, when they are trying to overcome challenges that have been part of their lives for a long time.
In preparing for this debate, I spoke to a friend who had two spells in prison before dedicating himself to ensuring that young people do not make the same mistakes he did. He shared his worry that prisons, as they stand, cement people’s identity as a criminal, and do not prepare them for the outside world. I believe that is a big part of why we have a persistent reoffending crisis. We also face a health crisis in our prisons. The Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Chris Whitty, said late last year:
“On average, people in prison and on probation start from poorer physical and mental health than the general population, and the prison environment can exacerbate this”.
Prisons should be places that people leave healthier, more ready for work, less likely to reoffend and more able to contribute to society.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend and to congratulate him on his excellent speech. He certainly has a lot of experience. When he speaks to us in the future, it will be not from the theory of what it is all about but from practical experience of the day-to-day life that he has led. He is so well qualified to speak in this debate and, ideally, to one day become chair of the same committee, and more besides. I am genuinely impressed by the things that he has said. His children are amazed that he is one of the youngest here—I was one of the youngest here, but that was a long time ago. What I will says is: what took him so long to get here? He should have been here long ago. He is going to make a great contribution to this House and our work. He has made a great maiden speech and I wish him well in his future endeavours—we are going to be friends for a long time.
I am delighted to be a member of this committee and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on leading us so ably through many interesting projects, including this one on prisons. I am convinced that my noble friend the Prisons Minister is committed to getting action to sort out the problems of the Prison Service. He inherited a very difficult task when he became Minister, and I wish him well with that.
I remember when I was in the Commons and was interested in penal reform. The prison population then, in the 1980s, reached 44,000, at which point we thought the world was coming to an end—that was an absolute disaster. We are now at double that figure and in an impossible predicament. We just cannot go on like this, so I hope that our recommendations will help the Minister. A lot of this is a work in progress. I do not denigrate that phrase; I think I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt by saying that “work in progress” means he is going to do it and we are going to get on with it. After all, one of the recommendations from the Select Committee report states:
“We believe that the current Prisons Minister understands the need for change and what needs to be done; he should be strongly backed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice”.
That sums up what our Select Committee report is about.
In preparing for this debate, I thought about how I have visited a large number of prisons. I will not go through them all but, as part of the Select Committee’s work, we visited Belmarsh and Isis, both characterised by excellent first-class women prison governors. We were really impressed by them. We sat around a table with a group of prisoners in Belmarsh and their plea was, “Please could we have the sort of training to help us get jobs when we get out?” It was a heartfelt plea. We were then told there were difficulties around this because they were not always going to be there long enough. There were also difficulties in liaising with local education authorities and so on. That is something that could certainly be overcome. On that list of prisons, I should add that I had Wandsworth prison in my constituency. Interestingly enough, I have visited prisons in Chicago, Bangkok and Tokyo, but this is not meant to be a tour around prisons of the world.
One of our big challenges is public opinion. Public opinion is being whipped up by some in the press to demand longer and longer sentences. One reason why the prison population has gone up is because sentences are much longer. This is not a satisfactory position. We have to tackle this culture in public opinion, because demanding ever-longer sentences simply will not solve the problem and will not make us safer in the end.
Interestingly, we learned in our evidence that prisoners like the idea of prison governors being more visible in walking around the prison. That is something we do recommend. I know there is a lot of pressure on prison governors, but it is important. We felt that governors should oversee the recruitment process of staff, that they should be longer in post before each rotation, that they should have more say in budgets and that there should be training for governors.
Let me talk about an experience I had, not as a member of the committee but before that, in Coldingley prison. The Howard League for Penal Reform had initiated a business in the prison, where prisoners did design work and so on, competing in the marketplace with the outside world. It was very enlightening. One of the prisoners, who was in prison for a long time, told me it was the best thing that had ever happened to him. There was an excitement about it. What happened? It closed down. Why was it closed down? Well, they were earning money. The Home Office said, “If you’re earning money, it can be taxed, and there’s a problem about employment rights, and we can’t have that competing with the authority of the governor”. So it was all stopped. It was a really brilliant initiative, and it just came to an end.
There needs to be more support not just for governors but for prison staff. There needs to be far more help with education and vocational training. It is an indictment of the system that about half of prisoners are functionally illiterate. I hope that the Minister will deal with these problems. He has a lot on his plate, and I hope he gets the full support of other Ministers in the Government so that he can bring about the changes that we all wish to see happen.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and to be part of a debate where we have five maiden speeches, three of which have taken place and were very impressive. I add my welcome to the five new noble Lords. I look forward to the remaining two speeches.
I welcome this report, which focuses on what happens in prison. Its statistic that reoffending accounts for 80% of the costs of offending is shocking, because it strongly suggests that prison is not working to rehabilitate people. Preventing reoffending requires prison to tackle criminogenic needs—the changeable factors in a prisoner’s life that directly influence their risk of reoffending. Lack of healthy, pro-social relationships is female prisoners’ greatest criminogenic need and men’s second-highest, exceeded only by the closely related lifestyle and associates need. We will never see the much-needed step change in rehabilitation unless we harness the power of good relationships throughout the system.
Better Prisons: Less Crime mentions this 10 times and emphasises the difference that good staff-to-staff, as well as staff-to-prisoner, relationships can make. It mentions HMP Woodhill, and I attended the inspection where it was given an urgent notification. One response to this has been staff better supporting staff. The Minister and I and other noble Lords visited HMP Belmarsh recently and talked to the exceptional governor there about her successful buddy system, where more experienced officers come alongside new recruits, which is helping greatly with retention. Better Prisons: Less Crime gives education more than 100 mentions and employment more than 30. Yet my first report to government on the importance of strengthening family and other relational ties to prevent reoffending and intergenerational crimes said:
“Supportive relationships with family members and significant others give meaning and all-important motivation to other strands of rehabilitation and resettlement activity”.
Ensuring that prisoners have good relationships should top the hierarchy of goals. The Government’s own starting point for commissioning my two reviews was that those who receive family visits are 39% less likely to reoffend than those who do not, making this the most successful rehabilitation pathway. I have had much pushback on this, especially criticism that this focus is being soft on crime. My response to this is that if we lower reoffending by helping prisoners cultivate good relationships, with all that this entails—lower court costs, less crime, fewer victims, more children growing up with reformed parents in work—we are actually being hard on crime. Can the Minister advise how prisons are emphasising the need for good relationships?
I still work with HMPPS and the MoJ on this agenda, and this policy area has some very vocational civil servants dedicated to bringing about system and culture change. My review’s implementation treats relationships as the golden thread running through all processes in prison and probation, influencing how staff, from governors to newly recruited officers, treat prisoners, support each other and engage with the wider community. An extrovert prison purposefully builds relationships with the outside world. Some prisons now run community days for the 50% or so of prisoners who do not receive social visits. People come in from local organisations as living reminders of what life is like outside. They help prepare prisoners ahead of release, pointing them away from criminal associates by providing alternatives. Some are prison-experienced themselves and are a powerful encouragement that change is possible.
Focus has now widened to the role that good peer-to-peer support plays in rehabilitation. Prisons lack in many areas, but what they have in abundance is prisoners—and prisoners can be an asset. I sat in a peer support project in HMP Bullingdon alongside the area executive director, who said that one of the mentors had form as the major troublemaker in other local prisons. That mentor testified to how much his role had changed him:
“For years, I would respond to all authority with violence, and where did it get me? I tell mentees, I was just as angry and frustrated as them, but sharing that built good friendships that helped us both change and stay out of trouble”.
This project had support from the very top and a senior and highly skilled supervisor who could identify prisoners likely to be good mentors.
Every wing in every prison needs these programmes. Before HMP Dartmoor shut down, a similar programme, Peaceful Solutions, significantly changed it into a calmer prison, one result being that officer recruitment became much easier despite the remote location. So can the Minister outline how approaches with the potential to change prison culture by harnessing the power of pro -social prisoner-to-prisoner relationships are progressing?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, having just joined the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I support this report and particularly commend the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for the way he introduced it. I thought he was direct, unsparing and fair. I am sure that this Minister in particular will take its central message: that it is all about implementation and the clock is ticking, and it has been ticking for many years. That is a very fair comment.
All political parties represented in this Chamber need to understand the context that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, described, which is that not one of them has gone into in a general election promising lower sentences or more remission. This Government have done something about remission, but those two facts have driven the prison population to an unsustainable level, as well as the context in which this report is delivered. We have to acknowledge that.
I wish to talk about two subjects relating to this report; first, about the complex and difficult problem of staff corruption, and then about the tagging of prisoners on release from prison. The vast majority of prison staff serve in a difficult role with integrity. However, there are issues of corruption with some staff, which appear to have increased over the last few years. The report identifies some of the challenges with the present recruitment process, for example. It is difficult to estimate the scale of the problem. However, there are two significant symptoms of it. One is the wide availability of mobile phones in the prison estate. This is really important. We are getting murders arranged from prison, drugs supply continued and firearms discovered. It is vital that this is controlled. The second is the fact that drugs are available in prison, leading to more people leaving with a drug habit than entered with one—on average, this rises from around 40% on entry to 60% on leaving.
Of course, both forms of contraband can be delivered by drones or visitors, but the penetration being achieved in phones and drugs indicates significant elements of collusion. The problem is increasing, because there is an ineffective system for investigating the intelligence being gathered. I blame no one for this problem, because it is caused by a basic flaw in the system. The Prison Service does not have an investigative arm with the necessary powers, including overt and covert surveillance mechanisms, within the community outside prisons. The police do have the powers but require a high degree of certainty before they start a resource-intensive investigation. Therefore, because the Prison Service does not have an investigative arm, it struggles to get the evidence to persuade the police to investigate this serious crime. This problem is aggravated in rural areas, where many prisons are located, which are often covered by small police forces that generally do not have the resources to investigate the most serious crimes. This means there is an increasingly high bar to commence an investigation.
Local prisons in urban areas face a different problem: the prison staff often share schools, licensed premises and so on with the families and associates of prisoners, which adds further pressure on discipline and staff integrity. The overall problem could be eased by providing a national squad of police officers, supported by prison staff, to investigate intelligence in the prison and in the community, combining prison and police intelligence, powers and skills. At the moment, there is no such unit and everybody is deprioritising this vital area. If we want to continue the prison staff professionalism that this report argues for, a foundation of integrity and basic security in the system is vital. At the moment, for the reasons I have described, I fear it is seriously challenged.
I move briefly to tagging, which the Minister and I have discussed before and which we agree is a vital opportunity for the future when prisoners are released. It starts to control some of the factors that cause prisoners to continue to reoffend. We now have geolocation, which can exclude prisoners from certain areas or maintain them within one. There is sobriety tagging, which manages whether someone is taking drugs or, more often, alcohol as a precursor to their offending pattern. The Minister will know that there have been problems in fitting these devices on leaving prison. The commercial company involved has not always been able to do it—that is not always its fault, but it has not always happened. Probably more importantly, the data produced by the tags is not shared live with the local police, who could do something about the breaches, particularly if a crime has just been committed. In any case, it is vital that this is looked at.
These two areas are vital: prison corruption—I blame no one for that, certainly not prison staff—and tagging. Could the Minister update us on both in his reply?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends and noble Lords on their excellent maiden speeches. I look forward to those to come and welcome them to the House. I thank the chair and the witnesses and contributors who helped produce this excellent and detailed report. I share the disappointment that has been expressed about the Ministry of Justice’s response. It was complacent, generalised and lacking the urgency that this topic demands, notwithstanding, as has been said, our confidence in the Minister.
Prison imposes the most severe power of the state, the deprivation of liberty, for three reasons: to punish offenders, to protect the public and to reduce reoffending through rehabilitation. However, because prison is failing to reduce reoffending, it is also failing fully to protect the public. The prison system is now in a parlous state after years of neglect. Prisons are overcrowded, understaffed, ineffective and very costly, not only financially but in the damage inflicted on communities. Nearly half of all prisoners on average are reconvicted within a year. The Sentencing Act may help, but it does not obviate the need for radical reform of the prison system.
I will focus on a few key priorities in the report. The first is leadership. The head of an institution is usually the most important factor in determining its culture, effectiveness and efficiency, and they can be held to account if they have the autonomy to do what is required. In the Prison Service, that is not the case. The top-down control by HMPPS stifles innovation and weakens governors’ ability to manage effectively. These findings are mirrored by reports from the other place and the chief inspector. Governors are accountable but not empowered.
The government response claims that governors do have some flexibility, but that does not reflect what many governors told us: that lack of autonomy was one of their main areas of frustration and needs transformational change. In what other spheres of public or private services is it thought that rigid centralised control is the best way to achieve effectiveness and efficiency? It is not true in education, the police, health or even private prisons. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that there needs to be a step change in governor autonomy and how does he propose to increase operational and strategic freedoms for governors?
The second point is workforce, which includes myriad issues. I agree that most prison officers and support staff are doing their best in difficult circumstances, but there is, nevertheless, a daunting list of workforce challenges that must be addressed, including recruitment, performance management, training, appraisal, line management, sickness absence and so on. It is astounding that prison officers are recruited via an online process, as we have heard, and that governors do not meet new recruits before they turn up for work. Would that be regarded as acceptable for a teacher, social worker or police officer? I think not. There is at best a patchy system of training, virtually no system of appraisal and little supervision, with line managers expected to manage 20 to 30 officers.
We hear almost daily about workforce problems, including corruption—as we have just heard—hundreds of prisoners released in error and allegations of staff misconduct, including with children in secure units, yet the committee was given very little detail and perceived no real sense of urgency from the Ministry of Justice. It said this was a work in progress. Can my noble friend the Minister set out how he is approaching this fundamental programme of change and what his priorities are?
The third point is reducing reoffending through purposeful activity. This could be said to be the raison-d’être of the prison system, yet it repeatedly fails to deliver education and remedial programmes. Prison becomes a very expensive waste of money, by failing to reduce the likelihood of reoffending on release. There is limited availability of and access to provision. Attendance is not prioritised against the demands of prison routines or staffing problems, and it falls by the wayside. Could my noble friend the Minister give further details about what work is going on to improve this situation?
Finally, I will mention women in prison, where there are very high levels of need and vulnerability, 71% reoffending, high levels of trauma, substance abuse and so on. This discrete and very vulnerable subset of the prison population is in particularly urgent need of the recommendations in our report. Will my noble friend consider accelerating those recommendations in the women’s estate?
These are just a few issues. Setting all the others aside, they alone are incredibly challenging. I genuinely do not doubt my noble friend’s ability and commitment to the changes necessary, but, with the greatest respect, his task will be even more difficult unless he can build a more capable, flexible and innovative HMPPS.
Baroness Davies of Devonport (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to participate in this debate and to follow the noble Baroness. I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for their warm welcome and pay tribute to my sponsors, my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. I thank the officers of the House and all the Palace of Westminster staff for their kindness and time. I honestly cannot say enough about how wonderful and patient everybody has been as we have got lost around these red and green carpets. I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has been my mentor. I think he wanted to check my speech to make sure that I did not tell your Lordships stories about what happened way back in 1980, when we were on the same Olympic team. Without his guidance I would have been seriously lost, so I thank him very much.
I will always cherish my introduction day. It was a privilege to be able to share it with family and friends, including my 90 year-old father. My dad was my coach, and is still coaching today, but was ostracised for speaking out against the East German state for cheating during the Iron Curtain era. As the coach of the only individual female medallist in the whole Great Britain team in Moscow, which was me, he was still left off the coaching staff for daring to ask for a level playing field for women. On the day of my introduction, he was wearing purple to remember my mum, who lost her life because of the contaminated blood scandal. Without incredible family support, I would not have made it as an international athlete, a career spanning 13 Olympics so far, as either a swimmer or a poolside reporter.
That passion for sport will, I hope, be put to good use in your Lordships’ House as we consider ways to promote the health, well-being and wider social benefits which come from taking part in physical activity. My international life in sport began at 11 and lasted 20 years. There was five hours a day of training, six days a week, juggling school work with the pool. In those days, there was no lottery funding and my choice after state education was retirement or a sponsored degree in America, which I took. I had been training hard for 10 years—the longest holiday being a week—including training on Christmas Day, which was down to Mr Daley Thompson, and for three months I trained with two broken arms. However, to maintain my scholarship, I had to swim full time, so I came back to the UK, took part in a television programme called “Give Us A Clue”, which many noble Lords are too young to remember, and I was promptly banned for receiving £40 expenses, even though UK Athletics had trust funds and athletes were able to be full time. I had to wait another nine years until trust funds were introduced into swimming before I could make a comeback to finish my sporting career at the Barcelona Olympics, if you do not count “Gladiators”— and if only I had trademarked the word “Amazon”.
Those challenges have taught me to be resilient, to understand that no one can keep you down unless you consent to it. Those same challenges have made me resolve to hold up the principles of equality and fairness. I am passionate about the physical and mental health of our children and how to motivate them to be the very best they can be. I feel privileged that I grew up at a time when stereotypes were being pulled down and, most importantly, we had no smartphones and we had free speech. Never before have our children been bombarded with so much grown-up material as they are today.
Here in the House, I also hope to extend my interest in women’s rights, so in that context, I turn to this debate on the Better Prisons: Less Crime report. However, I wanted to highlight the unique challenges incarcerated women face. Of the 88,000 prisoners in England and Wales, only 8,000 are women. The default setting for management is therefore male. It is imperative that we look at how we treat women in prisons in a way relevant to their biological needs. The average stay is only 42 days—just long enough for you to lose your home, your children, to ruin your life, but not long enough to make any major improvements in your poor mental health, or your drug or alcohol abuse, which is more prevalent in the female estate. Shockingly, 82% of women in prison report mental health illnesses.
There are no female prisons in Wales and if you live in Cornwall, you will be put on remand in Gloucester, a round trip costing over £100 for any family member who wants to visit, which is all too often more than the whole week’s food budget. Women need the connection with their children; many are single parents. An obvious solution is the expansion of the third spaces—community-based care centres that offer much closer-to-home facilities. The vast majority of these women have at some point in their lives been victims themselves of crime or violence. Self-harm figures have rocketed in the last 10 years and are almost nine times higher than in the men’s estate.
After talking with Zoe Short, governor of Eastwood Park Prison, which covers the whole of the south-west and Wales, it was obvious that mentoring programmes help to build the confidence female inmates often lack, and could be hugely advantageous, making these women feel like they matter. There was such a successful programme in recent years, but it was limited to men and football. I hope the Government may consider expanding the mentoring programme, and I hope to discuss further what I might be able to do to encourage other successful sportswomen to take up the opportunity of motivational visits, including looking at encouraging more of the physical activity that I know directly correlates to more personal self-confidence.
In closing, I know there are some truly amazing people here, doing incredible work on this subject in the House, and I thank noble Lords for introducing the debate and bringing their extensive professional experience to bear on policy formulation across all party lines.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
It is a real honour to follow my noble friend Lady Davies of Devonport. I congratulate her on a thoughtful and brilliant first speech, a story of such determination and resilience. She was a total hero of mine growing up—I am trying not to be too starstruck—and a huge inspiration to me and so many young girls, at a time when mentors in the sporting world were in pretty short supply. She was someone we could all relate to, and she came across as incredibly kind and encouraging. She was, and remains, a remarkable sportswoman. Let us just take a moment: she swam for Britain aged 11—I had barely got myself to school on my own at that age. It is a huge testament to the support she had from her family, and I heard her tribute to her mother and father. At 14, she won two European bronze medals and, aged 15, she won two Commonwealth gold medals. Her astonishing form continued, and she went on to win silver in the Moscow Olympics, although we know it should have been gold. She became an even bigger household name when she burst on to our TV screens. As a dedicated TV addict in those days, I basically spent the first 18 years of my life watching her on TV. She was either commentating brilliantly on key sporting events, appearing on “A Question of Sport”, presenting “Big Brother” or absolutely nailing her opponents as a Gladiator. She was a staple in my life. She is a mother, a grandmother, a committed campaigner for so many charities, a skilled equestrian—I could go on, but all noble Lords need to know is that she is superhuman.
However, perhaps most importantly, she is brave and campaigns courageously for women’s rights in sport, at considerable personal cost and risk to herself. She spoke out at a time when few people were brave enough to make the common-sense case that it was unfair on women to have to compete against transgender women in sport. I know that many young women in elite sport, and more generally, are incredibly grateful to her for this. She is brave, determined, hard-working and full of integrity. We need more of this in our politics, so I and many others are delighted that she joins us in this Chamber. I look forward to working with her—and maybe even working out with her, but I am not sure I am brave enough to do that. I know she will make powerful contributions, and she has already shown real leadership.
I also welcome the other four new Peers to this House. We have heard some amazing speeches already, and I look forward to working with them. We are at our best when we are cross-party, so I am sure there are lots of conversations to be had over the years. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his amazing leadership and the team, particularly Alex South on the committee. I have been on committees that have produced many reports, but this has been a particularly powerful one.
Speaking of bravery, I want to begin by recognising the courage of our prison staff across this country. They rarely get that acknowledgement, and the Prison Service medal is the least we can do. They are on the front line. On the point the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, made so powerfully about recruitment, it is absurd that we are recruiting in this way. It is such an important and difficult job. You cannot possibly be recruited as a prison officer, potentially having never stepped into a prison before. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said it is insanity writ large, and it is. I remember the first time I went into a prison—although admittedly, I was eight months pregnant; do not ask what I was doing, heaving myself around Wormwood Scrubs. You can either do it or you cannot: it is a pretty shocking experience once those doors close and you see the reality of being inside a prison. It is no good for the staff or those in the prison, because when it becomes clear that someone is not right for the job, people start to worry a great deal about their safety, and rightly so. The whole thing potentially starts to fall apart quite quickly. The committee is unequivocal that our prisons are in a state of crisis. They remain overcrowded, under-resourced and unable to provide the conditions necessary for rehabilitation that so many of us have spoken about.
This overcrowding has many problems, about which noble Lords have spoken very eloquently. Low-level offenders are frequently housed in close proximity to more serious criminals. When we went to Belmarsh, which other Peers have spoken about a great deal, I talked to one inmate who said, “I came in because I robbed Tesco, but I’m leaving knowing how to rob a bank”. He was half joking, but that is the reality. The committee noted that overcrowding, poor conditions and a lack of purposeful activity create circumstances in which criminals become far more hardened rather than helped. When the cells are full, the staff are stretched, and gangs operate with impunity.
It struck me, on the several occasions I have been into prisons, that a lot of the classrooms and workshops are completely empty, either because there has been a big security problem or because the logistics of moving these guys around are incredibly challenging, especially if there are gangs being placed in the same prison. It is just an impossibility. There may be provisions for education, but quite often, with the greatest will in the world, you cannot get people out of the cells and into the places to do the learning. That is a massive problem.
On employment, the reason why I was in Wormwood Scrubs when I was eight months pregnant was because I worked for BT at the time, which was trying to recruit. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, obviously knows a great deal about this, and I praise his work on it. It was not and is not straightforward, and far more work needs to be done on the programmes that help prisoners gain real work experience to make sure there is a real, meaningful connection with local employers that helps drive what they want from people leaving prisons, so that they can them give them meaningful employment about which there is a sense that it could potentially lead to something, rather than just being an activity for the sake of it that does not really take them anywhere. That is very important to get right.
Many others have also mentioned the urgent need for clarity of purpose within the prison system. The committee calls on the Ministry of Justice to enshrine reducing reoffending as the statutory aim of prisons. Rehabilitation is not an alternative to justice; it is essential to it. Being in prison is the punishment. What follows must be about equipping individuals to return to society as stable, contributing citizens.
I have one final point, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on tagging. If electronic monitoring and tagging are to be an answer to early release then there are some big problems to be addressed in the back office and in its organisation if it is going to be rolled out at any great scale effectively. I make one very small, urgent plea: when there is a lack of faith in that system, such as survivors of domestic abuse being absolutely terrified when they know their perpetrators are coming out of jail, it is vital to get the electronic tagging system under proper control, if it is an approach we are going to take.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee deserves congratulations on producing such an excellent and thorough report. Congratulations are also due to those who have delivered their maiden speeches today, all of excellent quality—and I am sure there is one more to come.
The only thing in which our prison system excels is the number of people it crams into it. That is the root of all the problems we are addressing today. There are too many people who cannot be given enough work to do, or the education or experience they need, many of whom should not be there in the first place.
I am sure many noble Lords, like me, were delighted when the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, was appointed to his post, because we knew that he wanted to do the best possible thing for the country, for the prisoners and for those who offend, many of whom are not really bad people but just find themselves in a bad position. I have every sympathy with him in trying to align his principles and aims with the system he finds himself confronting—in particular the media, which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to, which is out for blood all the time rather than rehabilitation. It is a very difficult equation to balance. It cannot be done overnight, and I wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Timpson, all the best still, but it is not to underestimate the problems he faces.
Many of us will have dealt with Timpson, the family business, which has done so much to encourage the employment of prisoners. One of the things that is most notable is that the staff in Timpson appear to feel empowered to do what they believe is right for the customer and to use their initiative. They are not bound in by stupid bureaucratic rules. But it is appalling to read how little autonomy the governors in our prisons have. If a member of staff at Timpson appears to have more autonomy than a prison governor, there is something radically wrong in the system. We are seeing the results of that in the way the staffing levels and budgets in prisons are allocated. They are not fit for purpose. As the committee said, Governments need to give more autonomy to governors. I would be very interested to hear more from the noble Lord about how he is going to address that.
Many people have talked about the drugs issue. It is absolutely crazy that we have the House of Commons Justice Committee saying quite blithely that it is now at “endemic levels. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, talked about how it manages to flourish. There is a prevailing culture of acceptance of drugs in our prisons. This cannot be right. There were 136 drug-related deaths in the two years to December 2024 in our prisons. If anyone in this Chamber tried to run a drugs racket, our doorkeepers would be on it in seconds.
How is it that such things are allowed to flourish in our prisons? We know: it is the corruption that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to. There are organised criminal gangs running rife in our prisons, and in part that must be because we do not have the right prison officers. The vetting system has to change. There have to be face-to-face interviews and, as in many public services, there has to be lifelong vetting of those in these positions. These are positions of power, and we cannot afford for them to be in the wrong hands.
I would also like to refer to the plight of women prisoners, many of whom—if any—should probably not be there. Female prisoners suffer not only the cost to themselves; the cost to their families is huge. The reoffending rate for women, if they have been on a short sentence, can be up to 58% and beyond, but if they have a job on leaving, that makes all the difference. Training is all-important for women prisoners. The charity Working Chance does great work in putting women prisoners into work when they leave, but we need that for all our prisoners.
We need more education. It is utterly crazy—as Charlie Taylor, HMIP, has already said—that, at £45,000 a year, we cannot educate prisoners to read. We need to learn more from the noble Lord the Minister about what he is going to do about that.
I would also like to bring up the issue of mentees and mentors, which others have raised. They are all-important. They do not need to be sportspeople, and they do not necessarily need to be other prisoners, but they are all-important in building relationships.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Lords on their maiden speeches. They were truly excellent contributions, and I look forward to the one that is yet to come in this debate. I am delighted that they have all chosen to speak and make the ground of their maiden speeches the topic of prisons, which is a topic very close to my heart. I am delighted that we have already heard a lot about the particular plight of women in prison.
I have chosen this debate for my first speech after my maiden speech—the difficult second album genre of speeches—having studied and worked in prisons for many years. I will restrict my comments to three particular areas: the purpose of prison, which has been very well covered already, so I will keep that brief; the use of release on temporary licence to enable people to work; and supporting prison staff.
If we want to reduce crime and ensure that there are fewer victims, we have to sort out prisons—I cannot state it more plainly than that. I welcome the report and my noble friend the Minister’s response to it. But there was a surprising omission, and that is the critical role of experts and those with experience in helping policymakers to get this right—that is both people with lived experience in the justice system and those who work in it.
We have already heard that the context is truly grim. I will not repeat all the things we have heard, but I just make your Lordships’ House aware that the current rate of self-harm in our prisons is 859 incidents per 1,000 prisoners.
I now turn to the second recommendation in the report, which states that
“the Ministry of Justice … should set out a clear and consistent … purpose of prison”.
As others have eloquently stated, if we want the public to understand the decisions being made about prisons, they have to understand what prisons are for. What is the primary purpose? It is an urgent, practical question; it is not an esoteric, academic ponderance, because the answer to that question then dictates a load of answers to what actually happens in our prisons, day in, day out.
I raise this particularly because most people in our prisons now will be released back into wider society. About 14,000 people are released every three months. What each prisoner experiences in prison then shapes how they go on to live after release. We must communicate that purpose and ensure the visibility of evidence for what reduces reoffending and restores communities and lives.
That brings me to my second theme: the increased use of release on temporary licence to unlock employment opportunities. I know that my noble friend the Minister is as passionate as I am about the role of employment in preventing reoffending. Indeed, I first encountered him when I worked for Working Chance, which we have already heard about, supporting women with criminal convictions into work while he was becoming a household name through his pioneering employment schemes in prisons and after. We know that work can provide dignity, purpose and a reason to get out of bed in the morning, and it gives you new skills.
The use of release on temporary licence, which is often limited to day release—people going into the community to work or volunteer, then returning to the prison at night—can help build confidence and get people ready for release. The scheme is available only to some prisoners, appropriately vetted near the end of their sentence, but government data shows that, in 2024, 99.8% of those released on temporary licence completed the period successfully and safely, and those prisoners given release on temporary licence have lower rates of reoffending on release.
When I worked at Working Chance, I had a colleague who had been on release on temporary licence who came in every day to work with us, and about a month in she was finally released from prison. Let us call her Katie. On the day she was released from prison, her whole world shifted. She was struggling to navigate new relationships and thinking, “Where am I going live? How will this go?” But in the midst of that, she continued to come to the job that she had done for several months, from nine until five, Monday to Friday, sitting at the same desk and drinking her tea from the same mug with familiar colleagues. She continued in that role for several years and then got a better job in a large public sector body. The reoffending rate at Working Chance, when I worked there, was 3%.
Witnessing Katie’s transition from prison on that day-release programme gave me a front-row experience of what the data already showed us. It showed somebody able to successfully transition into normal life and make a contribution. Most people in prison today are going be released, so let us crack on with that.
I have left myself with no time to talk about the importance of staff. They do a very tough job. I ask that my noble friend the Minister consider meeting with me to discuss how we can help staff exposed those traumatic events. I welcome the recommendations around sickness levels.
We all agree that it would be better for staff to work in less violent, less understaffed and less traumatising environments, so let us get a clear purpose for prisons, increased use of ROTL and greater support for our prison staff, because most people in prison today are going to be released.
Baroness Neate (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I feel acutely the responsibility to use this privilege for good and to represent the vital role of civil society in addressing the troubling challenges our country faces. My father often said—really often—“You’re not special; you’re just lucky”. It sounds harsh, but not when you think of the many people who are very special and not at all lucky. I have met many of them in my career. I know full well that great good fortune has brought me to this place.
I thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, the staff of the Convenor of the Cross Benches, Black Rod’s office, and the doorkeepers, who showed such amazing kindness to my family on my introduction. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green and Lady Casey of Blackstock, for supporting me, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the Appointments Commission.
I applied to join this House because, for decades in front-line charities, I saw families beset by crisis after crisis, while policy changes were not helping. Charities working in communities know how housing, domestic abuse, child protection and criminal justice collide in real lives. I believed I could bring that experience into legislative debates that too often treat these issues in silos.
Prison is where many of our most pressing social problems collide. I will explain that in a minute through the story of a young woman who I will never forget.
I began my charity career at Action for Children, supporting families in crisis. I was stunned by the scale of domestic abuse at the heart of that damage, unrecognised or minimised as a volatile relationship rather than systematic control and victimisation.
That led me to become chief executive of Women’s Aid. There I helped achieve the criminalisation of coercive and controlling behaviour, more funding for refuges, and changes in the family courts. At Women’s Aid we heard daily from women who were staying in terror because they feared homelessness and losing their children. I came to see that insecure private renting and the shortage of social homes trapped survivors between life-threatening abuse and unliveable temporary accommodation. That is why I became CEO of Shelter.
To return to prisons, Action for Children ran the mother and baby unit at Styal prison. There I met a 20 year-old woman and her six month-old daughter, born in prison. It still chills me that she said that she herself had been born in Styal two decades before. Her mother had offended in a coercive, controlling relationship. She grew up in and out of care, was later homeless, convicted of shoplifting and pregnant when sentenced. She was likely to be homeless after release. She was parenting with confidence and love, but I knew she might well lose her baby.
You see how policies intersect to create those we label “complex needs” or “hard to reach”. But it is systems that are complex and help that is hard to reach. We blame people for the spiral of trauma and harmful or dangerous behaviour, but with comfort, resilience and support when problems first arise, things would be different.
We often talk about charities changing lives, but people’s own courage and tenacity are what change their lives, given the chance. Charities can help achieve the resilience that many of us have from childhood, which for others has been eroded. What I have learned is that policy silos do not help us find answers. Before changing policy, we must understand how lives are unravelled by the systems we create. Unintended consequences are avoidable, but it takes engagement with front-line expertise and experience.
I am not a politician. I am proud of what I have achieved in respectful partnerships with senior politicians of all parties—who trusted that my priority is people facing the hardest circumstances. I am honoured to serve both you, my Lords, and them.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
My Lords, it is a source of pleasure and pride to follow the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Neate and to welcome her to this House. We have truly just heard a speech of clarity, authority and lived experience, and many of us will feel that her presence strengthens the best tradition of this house, bringing front-line public service insight into national policy and legislation.
Polly—my noble friend Lady Neate—comes here after decades at the sharpest edge of social policy. As chief exec of Shelter, she has made the case that housing is not a side issue but the foundation of stability in people’s lives. Before that, at Women’s Aid, she helped shift our understanding of domestic abuse from private tragedy to systemic coercion, requiring a systemic response.
Earlier still, at Action for Children, she worked with children and families in acute crisis, seeing how poverty, violence, housing insecurity and state systems collide in young lives. I worked with my noble friend when I was vice-chair of Shelter; she combines policy precision with an instinctive focus on what it feels like to live inside our systems. She will be a powerful voice here for those shaped by housing insecurity, abuse and contact with the care and justice system. I very much look forward to her future contributions and to working with her.
I note the wonderful contributions from all five noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches today. The breadth of experience that we have heard just from those five—the different perspectives, different experiences and different ways of seeing—is indicative of the strength of this House and what makes this place truly remarkable. It is of great regret to me that the wider community and population do not understand the richness that this place offers to our country.
Turning to prisons, the committee’s report shows a system under strain, where leadership, staffing and clarity of purpose will determine whether we reduce reoffending or simply manage crises at huge human and financial cost. I want to focus on the people who sit at the heart of that question—prison staff. Prison officers, like social workers, nurses and firefighters, do work that is complex, emotionally demanding and essential. Yet we persistently treat these roles as low status, modestly paid and peripheral to public life. The report highlights the recruitment and retention crisis, low morale and the reality of violence and trauma facing staff. We ask them not only to keep order but to help change lives, then we underinvest in those very people whom we expect to deliver that change. If we genuinely see prison staff as central to public protection and reducing reoffending, should that not be reflected not just in pay and training but in how their role is understood and valued across society?
Can the Minister say more about what the department is doing and what further steps it might take to raise public awareness of the importance of prison staff and the contribution that they make to public life? I am acutely aware that at the same time we face a profound labour market shift. We tell young people that the future—their future—lies in learning how to use AI, yet many white-collar pathways that shaped the aspirations of the next generation of workers are likely to contract. We are already seeing and experiencing that contraction. Large numbers of young people will face a more precarious landscape than we are ready to admit.
Here is the paradox. Sectors such as prisons, care, health and community safety urgently need capable people. This is work that AI will not replace, regardless of what Foucault may have fantasised about, yet we signal that success lies elsewhere. If we are serious about safer communities and reducing reoffending, we should be making careers in the Prison Service and allied public service roles high-status, well-paid, properly supported professions with clear pathways and recognition. This is not fall-back work; it is nation-building work.
This points to a seismic shift that we are facing not just in the prison sector but across the public sector. We need to start revaluing human relational work to align education and workforce policy with social need, and to see affordable housing as part of the infrastructure of prevention. If our public service staff do not live where they work, how can they connect with the communities that they are trying to serve? This is consistent with the report’s central argument: the system must be organised around reducing reoffending and protecting the public, not managing failure at scale.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak with some deference after the wealth of contributions that have been made thus far, but I want to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath—I want to call him my noble friend; we worked on a committee together not so long ago—on this redoubtable, detailed report, which has fed the debate. The biggest commendation we could make for it would be that we do not now file it away so that it can gather dust but that it could continue to be in a dialectic relationship with government, as it has already been, as we find our best way forward to the next steps that we have to take.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was bold enough to quote from speeches she had made 20 years ago; emboldened by that, I wish to refer to actions of my own that were 30 years ago—I know I do not look old enough to have that age gap, but, take my word for it, it is absolutely true. Why, when I was working 30 years ago as the president of the Methodist Church in Britain, did I choose prisons to be one of my key subjects? Homelessness was the other, but that will wait for another day. There were several reasons.
I had been responsible for a Home Office-endorsed hostel for remand prisoners. This was an alternative to prison where about 30 people who would otherwise be in a prison cell had structured time with a criminologist, I remember, from Cambridge University, and various things like that, to help to take the weight off the prison and perhaps help some of the people inside to be seen in a better perspective. In addition, we had halfway houses for young people who had been in trouble with the law. Again, we saw to it that there was discipline—it was warden-controlled—but, at the same time, giving young people the freedom that young people will have whatever you do.
I had those responsibilities resting on my shoulders, and one or two other factors too. My schoolmate was Home Secretary at the time—the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I was firmly against his slogan, “Prison works”. He knew that; it was not the only thing we disagreed about, but friendship survived. I hope that the fact that I take a different stance from his yet again today will not threaten our ongoing relationship. He is a fine man, and I am proud to know him personally.
In addition to all that, at Wesley’s Chapel, where I was the minister at the time, I interviewed David Ramsbotham, who was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe—not, alas, in her place. He just swept me off my feet. I read his first report as Chief Inspector of Prisons—I have it here. He told me that he wrote every word of it himself. For the six years that he held that office, this was his pellucid thinking about the experiences he had had and the conclusions he had been driven to. He was a remarkable man. I remember him sitting over there in the corner—the noble and gallant Lord by then—and continuing to regale us with his wisdom, strength of character and goodness of heart.
All that led me to be interested in prisons, and, in the course of my presidential year, I visited Lincoln, Leyhill, Blakenhurst, Walton, Garth, Doncaster, probation officers in Leeds and a detention centre in Rochester, as I tried to understand from alongside those incarcerated how it was affecting them and shaping the direction of their lives. I have never forgotten it. I have been in many prisons since, but that was a concentrated introduction to the whole dimension of British social life.
What can I say, other than that, if that speech of David Ramsbotham had been substituted at the last minute by an act of terrorism for the report that we are looking at, it could have done the trick? It is the same stuff, for staff, governors, conditions within prison, pay and pensions. It is all in there, his first report; here we are, 30 years later, debating the selfsame issues. I hope, if I live another 30 years—my wife dares to shrink from the possibility—that I may be back and just see whether we have made any progress then.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate our five maiden speakers. They are the future of this House, and the future of this House is clearly effective.
I congratulate, too, the committee on this well-researched and hard-hitting report. I absolutely join in the welcome that this House gives to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson—he enjoys support all the way around the House, and I very much hope that he never qualifies for early release—but I was rather disappointed by the lack of urgency, commitment and humanity in the Government’s response to the committee’s report. I rather suspect that the Minister did not write it himself.
My connection with prisons comes from my wife, Antonia Rubinstein, who co-founded and ran the charity Safe Ground for 17 years. We were lucky; prisons were reasonably well funded in those days, and we had a fine succession of Labour Prisons Ministers. I remember with particular admiration Lord Williams of Mostyn, the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and Hilary Benn. They all, as I remember them, exercised their distinctive voices. That allowance for Ministers to speak in their own voice seems to have been suppressed over the last 25 years, and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, will reverse it.
In the same vein, I hope that, as the report asks, the Minister will swiftly restore discretion and responsibility to prison governors, who should also stay in post for a sensible time. A lot of my working life has been with the Good Schools Guide, and I reckon that seven years is about right for a headmaster; it is long enough to do big things and not too long to get stale. That same period ought to apply to prison governors. Given discretion and longevity, governors would be much more effective in running prisons and instilling a strong ethos into the staff, and they would collectively become a strong, self-improving community of capability, expertise and experience available to the Minister. As the president of the Prison Governors Association said at its 2024 conference, recalling what it was like 20 years ago:
“My team … were mine to deploy into whatever role I chose for them. The SMT could be as large or small as I liked, provided changes were properly consulted upon … I didn’t have to choose from a restrictive list of job descriptions … teams were resilient and … the senior management team was small …. decisive and executive … The staff group was well established, experienced, confident and capable … also occasionally grumpy and intransigent where change was required. The prison was reasonably safe for both staff and prisoners”.
Responsibility and trust have gone and been replaced by a central bureaucracy. We thought in doing that—this was largely under Conservative Governments—that we were buying safety, but look at our prisons now compared to 25 years ago: we have achieved the opposite. All through public life, we can see that this pursuit of imaginary safety has hugely increased expenditure, from £100 million bat tunnels to our own £10 million front door, and our nice but utterly pointless traffic marshals. We need to get back to a culture of trust and responsibility. We would free up a large amount of money that could then be applied in our prisons without troubling the Treasury.
As chapter 4 of the report describes, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, said, staff in prisons need to be much better supported. I will say only that I very much agree with what was said about the Belmarsh buddy system and other advocated forms of mentoring. My wife was talking to a couple of Timpson employees the other day—always an enjoyable thing to do—and asked them what they would do to improve the lives of the staff who had looked after them when they were in prison. They both said mentoring. I hope that is a theme that the Government will take up.
I end with one other suggestion. In 1997, the Prison Service commissioned Safe Ground to produce a programme for prison staff to deliver family relationships education to prisoners. It was called Family Man. It was hugely successful. It helped prisoners build a network of family relationships to support them post-release and made prisons safer places because of the effect on the motivations and attitudes of prisoners. This is a Prison Service course; it owns the copyright of it. It should be revived.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I should first declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all the London boroughs and the City of London. I wondered whether that interest was relevant to this debate, and then I realised, of course, that local government, its many services and the people who work there, and the councillors who are elected there, are hugely relevant to the Prison Service—more relevant than many of them may realise. I will say a little bit about that later.
Something else I need to say to people present, especially in view of the difficulty nearly everyone has had in trying to deal with such a wide-ranging and important subject as this in only five minutes—I sympathise—is that I did not know that I was going to be replying to this debate until I arrived here and got the speakers’ list this morning. The good news for Members present is that, like everyone else, I prepared for a five-minute debate and, when I checked with the Table here, I have 20 minutes. I will leave noble Lords to think about the consequences of that over the next 18 minutes. I will, of course, keep much closer to the original four minutes and 50 seconds that I had planned.
I expected to hear, and now have heard, very much about the difficulties and shortcomings of the Prison Service. The committee made a lot of recommendations. I am pleased that 19 of them were accepted by the government; 15 more were partially accepted. The only one that was not accepted at all was about the rank of the Prisons Minister. We felt they should always be a Minister of State but, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the Prime Minister is not yet ready to agree to that for all times.
The recommendations are good and sound. Reference has been made to them and I think it is fair to say there has been general support, as far as I am aware, for all of them. The Government have accepted nearly all of them. That is the easy bit. What we want to know from the Minister in a few minutes is: what is going to happen now and when will those recommendations be implemented? There has been much praise for the Minister today—so far—and certainly much welcome for his appointment. His interest and that of his family business in this whole issue is well known. I welcome that too.
That brings me to the committee’s first recommendation, which flowed from our consideration of the committee’s purpose. It struck me at the time—this meeting may be exceptional—that generally most people, and certainly most of the public, do not ever think about what the purpose of prison is. They would perhaps be surprised to be asked that. They would say, “Well, it’s to lock people up”, and so on. The committee took the view, as we were urged by a number of former prisoners who gave evidence to us, that that is not the purpose of prison. Locking people up and the deprivation of liberty are the punishment. The purpose of prison—something I think we were unanimous on—is to reduce reoffending. I congratulate the Minister on insisting that that should be added to his job title; both he and we should make more of that.
We should emphasise that the purpose of prison, and of putting people there, is not to punish them—they are punished by their deprivation of liberty—but rather to reduce reoffending. We state in the report, and sadly it is a well-known figure, that 80% of offending is committed by people reoffending. That statistic is shocking, and is becoming better known. I was surprised and, indeed, shocked to learn, through a report made a few years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that 63% of prisoners’ sons become offenders themselves. That is the continuation.
I was going to say, in my original five minutes, that for most of my life I have lived in the London Borough of Sutton. Around a mile outside of our borough boundary and from where I live is High Down prison, as is Downview prison, one of the relatively few women’s prisons in the country. Both were built in the last 30 years when, as it happens, I was leader of the council. During our committee’s inquiry, I went to visit High Down to refresh my experience and my knowledge of it, and to talk with some of the staff, particularly with the governor. I wanted to talk about one particular experience from that visit—I still want to do this, even though I am supposed to be replying to the debate.
Along with my wife, I was invited to join the dads’ group. This is a group for prisoners and participation is entirely voluntary. Several prisoners told us that they had been reluctant to come to the dads’ group, probably because they feared being lectured, or what their fellow inmates would think about it. They all said, however, that the course had changed the way that they viewed their lives. It had been life-changing to them. There is now a waiting list to come along because they had been recommended to do so, in the best way possible, by their fellow prisoners.
All of those prisoners told us of their individual experiences. I will not repeat them, but one that struck me particularly was a man telling me about his experience with his son, who had autism. He simply did not know how to talk with his son until this course gave him that wherewithal. That was something we heard repeated by several others in various ways. The change that this voluntary course made to those men’s lives was enormous. They were all desperate to get out: not to reoffend, but to start again with their families and their children. I hope that it affects reoffending. It must, surely, bring down that figure of 63% of offenders’ sons who apparently become offenders themselves. The men talked about how much the course had helped them, and how much they could not wait to get out and put it into practice.
They did not entirely have to wait to get out to put that into practice because, as a corollary to that, the visitors’ area in the prison had been completely revamped and restyled to make it much more comfortable for families, so that they could meet as families and talk to each other in a more intimate way. In other words, it was a proper corollary to what the dads’ group had been doing. That was just one example.
If I had had time, I was going to mention that I was shown around High Down Prison by a man with the title “community engagement manager”. I am not familiar as many noble Lords will be with the Prison Service. Is community engagement manager a usual term in a prison? I am not aware that it is, but I think it should be as there is a very important role for engaging with the community—not just the prison community, but the area in which the prison is located.
I referred to the fact that I live within a mile or so of the prison. It is in a greenbelt area, surrounded by trees and bushes. That creates a bit of a problem in respect of drones, but that is the negative side. I suspect that most of the nearly a quarter of a million people who live in the London Borough of Sutton, as I do, have no idea that there are two prisons within a mile or two of them because they are tucked away out of sight. Part of the community engagement manager’s role is to have more engagement with the wider local community. He is able to do that in part because, before he became community engagement manager, he was the manager of a local employment agency. He knows many of the local businesses well and still works with them; he knows what they do and how they do it.
I see the Whip standing up and I am afraid he is about to tell me that I do not really have 20 minutes. I will be brief. It is part of the manager’s role to engage with the local community. That is very much a job that the Prison Service, and the Minister, needs to have in order to demystify prisoners. Most people, thankfully, have no personal experience of prisons. What they know and think of prisons is usually what they see on television or hear in the media. The reality is not always the same, so whatever can be done to connect prisons and the public must be all to the good.
The report states a lot of what could and should be done. We all wish the Minister every success in trying to implement that. I hope that this excellent report is not simply going to gather dust on the shelves, meaning that we come back in 20 years and say, “If only we had done that”.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this has been an illuminating debate on a most important report. I will come to the report shortly, but first I will address the five compelling and varied maiden speeches.
First, the noble Baroness, Lady Bi, comes with an exceptional career in the law behind her, and no doubt still ahead. I am sure she will, from what I have heard and read, give voice not just to the important interests of the City of London but to the interests of the vulnerable and of the arts.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Redwood is an eminent parliamentarian of 36 years’ standing. He was astute to identify that failures in productivity in public service are a central issue today, as they have been for many years, not just in the field of prisons but across our society. He was right to stress the importance of quality and efficiency. We will all benefit from his experience and insight.
Thirdly, we had the noble Lord, Lord Babudu. He is the executive director of Impact on Urban Health, which works to develop the potential for cities to be healthier. His experience in that, and more particularly at the sharp end of knife crime, of which he told us a little, will give the House valuable insights, and we should listen to him.
Fourthly, we had the noble Baroness, Lady Davies of Devonport. She was a remarkable athlete and an Olympian of great distinction. She has built on that platform to campaign on and highlight, based on her own experience, the misuse and particular dangers of hormonal drugs, both in sport and for teenage health. Further, she understands the importance of a level playing field in all respects and the need to provide decent facilities for women prisoners. We will surely benefit from her experience and wisdom.
Last but not least, we had the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. She is the newest of our Cross-Bench people’s Peers. She will be a valuable addition, not least because she was the chief executive officer of Shelter, a charity of which I am a long-standing supporter. Her expertise in the important field of delivering legal services for social welfare will be valuable to this House, as will her work with Women’s Aid.
I turn to the report. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Motion and acknowledge the hard work of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee in producing the Better Prisons: Less Crime report. I declare that I was a member of this committee until December 2024, and that I took part in the first stages of its evidence gathering. I congratulate its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on not only his truly compelling speech today but his work as chair of that committee when I served on it.
The report—noble Lords will be glad to hear that I shall not attempt to address every facet of it—provides a stark account of a system under acute pressure and engaged too often in firefighting. I am grateful to the committee for laying out their recommendations so clearly. The consequences of doing nothing are real for us all: offenders, staff and the public. Something must be done.
Our prisons are now at a critical point—we all know that; we hear it too often, but they are strained to the point where their core missions of public protection and rehabilitation are compromised. Those conclusions mirror what has been reported by HM Inspectorate of Prisons. At times they go further. Overcrowding and violence are persistent realities and too many prisons are quite unable to provide regimes capable of reducing reoffending. Apart from locking people up to keep them away from us and keep us safe, prevention of reoffending is what prisons should be about. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe, in her elegant speech, showed by reference to what she had said over 20 years ago, in 2005, the political class in this country has failed to address the issues that this report brings to light.
I turn to the newish issue of Islamic extremism in prisons. Last year, the Conservative Party raised concerns about the threat posed by Islamist extremist inmates. We were not the only ones to do so, but it is an important issue. This followed violent attacks on staff by high-profile extremist offenders and evidence of organised radicalisation within the estate. Indeed, I myself asked a Question on this in this House. Islamist gangs inside prisons have held makeshift sharia-style trials and groomed vulnerable inmates. Some prisoners apparently seized power in certain wings.
That problem sits alongside other well-recognised safety problems, and these have to be tackled robustly. The Government and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service must work better together as a united team. They must ensure that effective specialist counter-extremism units exist, and staff must be trained to identify and respond to radicalisation threats before they metastasise into actual violence. The attack in April 2025 at a separation centre, where extremist inmates used hot oil and improvised weapons against officers, was horrifying and underlines the urgency of this issue.
On reoffending and purposeful activity, the committee’s analysis of these issues—and we have heard other speeches from noble Lords on this—cannot be faulted. As for purposeful activity, the report is spot on. It rightly identifies and links lack of work, education and training with higher levels of self-harm, unrest and, most importantly for all of us, reoffending. The Government appear to recognise this. In their manifesto for the last election they pledged to
“work with prisons to improve offenders’ access to purposeful activity, such as learning, and ensure they create pre-release plans for those leaving custody”.
Much has to be done. There is a worrying new dimension. The Chief Inspector of Prisons recently stated that, in Manchester, 35% of prisoners were locked up all day. That is absolutely staggering and terrible.
On education, I was disappointed to read that independent watchdogs and monitoring boards, to which we should listen, have described seismic cuts to prison education provision. Some 300 education staff were recently made redundant—that is not the way forward. Reports indicate reductions in core classroom education of 25% across the country; in some prisons, the drop is as much as 60%. Governors have had to make teaching roles redundant and to slash the number of courses available, yet this Government have acknowledged that education is one of the most effective tools to break the cycle of offending. Something must be done; this must be put right. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, was right to stress this and to draw on his own experience and expertise in this field. We want to stop reoffending—we all do.
The cuts here undermine the principles that we all support. Prisons should not be a revolving door into further criminality, as noble Lords have explained. Reduced education opportunities reinforce boredom and frustration, and they do not put people on the road to improvement. Too many people in prison have low or non-existent literacy and numeracy; that has to be addressed. It should be a core aim in prisons. It also, as we all know, makes violence more likely. People who cannot articulate in words turn to physical means. Cuts have left offenders without the skills to reintegrate into society. If our aim is to reduce reoffending then cutting education is at odds with that aim. The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, himself told the committee that he had walked past too many classrooms and workshops with no one sitting in them.
To turn to the issue of staffing, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee has underlined its alarm at the reductions. It has warned that they could jeopardise rehabilitation efforts and make reoffending levels harder to change. My noble friend Lady Bertin was absolutely right to stress the importance of recruitment and getting it right—recruiting enough of the right people in the right way and then keeping them. On staffing the evidence is unambiguous. Morale is low and experience is thin in key areas. Officers spend their shifts just trying to maintain order, with no time for purposeful engagement with prisoners—which is what we all want. Training reform must be accompanied by career progression improvements which recognise the professionalism of the job. Here I should mention the observations of my noble friend Lord Lucas. In his valuable contribution, he highlighted the importance of having the right governors in the right place for long enough, but not for overlong. From his experience in education, he stressed the value of mentoring. To conclude on the issue of staffing, we welcome the proposals for a Prison Service medal. I urge the Government to give this serious consideration.
Finally, I turn to accountability. The current independent inspection framework lacks effective enforcement powers when standards slip. Too many good recommendations from the Inspectorate of Prisons and independent monitoring boards are acknowledged but not then implemented. They lie in the shadows. The committee’s call for enhanced powers for inspectors and formalised collaboration between inspectorates must be taken seriously.
What matters now is for implementation reforms to work. We must prioritise education and training programmes, not cut them. We must support prison staff and not see them leave for better-resourced jobs. We must bolster the security and rehabilitation framework to deal with extremist threats concretely, consistently and effectively. We want a system that protects the public and gives those who can be reformed a genuine chance to go on to live a crime-free life.
This experienced committee’s report contains many wise recommendations—I can touch on only a few core points. The Government must now act on them. They have accepted the recommendations and we want action. I urge members of the committee to check on delivery. I hope that, in a year’s time, they will be asking questions in the House if this has not happened.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to close this debate on a topic that is very close to my heart. I was thrilled to see that so many new noble Lords chose this occasion to make their maiden speeches. It was heartening to hear references to the late Lord Ramsbotham, who many of us have so many fond memories of.
We clearly have a super-talented bunch of new noble Lords. My noble friend Lady Bi is a champion for the active participation of disadvantaged communities in public life. The noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of homelessness, and on behalf of domestic abuse survivors and their children. The noble Baroness, Lady Davies of Devonport, has been a determined campaigner on behalf of disabled sports in England and SportsAid. The noble Baroness is no stranger to navigating choppy waters, so I am sure that she will fit right in here. My noble friend Lord Babudu has brought about lasting change to the lives of countless young people as a former chair of the Blagrave Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, brings a wealth of experience, after almost 40 years in the other place. It is a privilege to welcome these noble Lords to your Lordships’ House, along with the expertise that they bring.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his opening remarks and for securing this important debate. I thank the whole Justice and Home Affairs Committee and its officials for the report, as well as everyone who has contributed to the inquiry, including our recognised trade unions.
The strength of feeling in this report is clear and justified. This Government do not shy away from the fact that our prison system is in crisis. Years of underinvestment and mismanagement meant that we inherited a system on the verge of collapse. At one point, we had fewer than 100 places left in the adult male estate—that is one bad weekend or one surge in remand away from a total breakdown of law and order.
The previous Government could have tackled these problems, but they were more concerned with looking tough on crime, blindly slashing budgets and engaging in disastrous and costly ideological reforms. As a result, this Government were forced to take urgent action. Through the Sentencing Act and an historic expansion of the prison estate, we are putting the system on to a sustainable footing, but that is not job done. I did not accept this role just to prevent disaster. I took the role because I want to make our Prison and Probation Service a world-class organisation—and I mean the whole organisation: prisons and probation, working together as two sides of the same coin, because the public deserve better. They deserve a system that punishes offenders and protects the public but also rehabilitates and reduces reoffending—but we are a long way from that.
Reoffending rates are still far too high, creating more victims and costing billions to the British taxpayer. We need serious reform, and we are doing serious reform. We need to tackle the underlying causes of crime and help offenders to find a new path out of crime. We need to make sure that our hard-working prison staff and leaders have the time and resources to make a real difference. That is what they joined the service to do. Most importantly, we need to put victims first, to make sure they are protected and can see justice is done, but also to make sure that others do not suffer as they did. There is a long road ahead. I am therefore grateful for the committee’s report and this opportunity to take stock. I recognise the problems that it identified. I am in the business of finding solutions and championing the green shoots that we are beginning to see.
We accepted, or partially accepted, all but one of the committee’s recommendations and today I will address each of the report’s key themes. The report, as many noble Lords have raised today, rightly stresses the importance of clearly articulating the purpose of prisons and the importance of reducing reoffending. I completely agree. That is why I insisted on adding “reducing reoffending” to my job title. When we release someone, we should be confident that we have done all we can to make sure that they do not end up back inside. That means treating addiction and mental health issues, ensuring they can learn new skills and prepare for work, and making sure that they have somewhere to live upon release. For far too many, however, we are failing to meet these basic needs, leading many back to the revolving doors of crime. That means we are also failing victims.
However, this is not always straightforward to communicate, so we must do more to communicate the purpose of prisons and the work that our amazing staff do. That is why the “extraordinary jobs” campaign highlights the vital work our staff do to change lives. It is why our communications focus on proven approaches to cutting crime and reducing reoffending. It is why our Sentencing Act incentivises rehabilitation and prioritises punishment that works. It is also why we are investing up to £700 million more in probation by the end of this spending review period.
The committee highlighted the need for more collaboration between public and private prisons. I agree that there is a lot more room for improvement, and we have made progress. We are developing a digital platform for sharing information and good practice across the public and private estate. We will also build on events such as the HMPPS Insights Festival, where over 8,000 staff from the public, private and voluntary sectors registered. It will take time and commitment, and I am determined to get it right.
The committee is absolutely correct that all our staff deserve to be supported by strong leadership. It is also vital to say that prison governors have uniquely challenging jobs. Every time I visit a prison—something I do most weeks—I am reminded of the stark reality of the job. It is difficult enough at the best of times, but when you are constantly struggling for spare beds, your buildings are crumbling, and you cannot hire or keep staff, then even the best cannot lead; they can only cope. We are therefore bringing stability and increasing capacity. This space enables governors to drive performance, to set their culture and to lead. I also recognise that we need to trust and empower governors to do what works for them, their prison and their staff. That is how I ran the Timpson business. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for her kind words—if I ever went back to the business and had an advertising department, I would like to consult her on how I should approach things. Let us take Mick, the governor of HMP Hatfield. He is often out and about all day meeting employers, working with local partners and seeing how employment benefits offenders out on licence. Six months after release, 86% of his prisoners are in employment. Mick is doing it his way, and it is clearly working.
We will prioritise autonomy through the HMPPS’s “free, flex, fixed” framework, and we will give leaders more flexibility with their budgets, including introducing a new self-service procurement process for low-value items, allowing governors to source routine goods and services more quickly. The committee also emphasised the importance of governor development and succession planning. Through our Enable programme, an induction programme is now in place for first-time governors and those moving to new posts. And we are producing a development scheme for governors ready to take on the toughest challenges.
We are also tackling what I call the “EuroMillions problem”. If a dozen governors won tomorrow night, that would be a serious loss of leadership. We need more future leaders lining up, ready to lead. That is why the first cohort of our Future Prison Leaders programme has started, and our national talent committee is identifying high-potential individuals as well as prisons where succession risk is most acute.
Prison staff are some of our finest public servants, but they too need the space to succeed. They need opportunities to build real relationships with the prisoners they manage so they can make a real difference, but they too are often just trying to get through the day. So, as my noble friend Lord Moraes and other noble Lords pointed out, we need to boost recruitment, fix vetting and bring down sickness rates. We have secured a temporary exemption to the visa rules for foreign nationals working as prison officers to prevent an urgent staffing crisis, but that is not a long-term solution. We will improve training and make sure staff get the recognition they deserve. Of course, that is easier with consistent leadership, and I hope I am doing my bit. My goal is to be the longest-serving Prisons Minister. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: I hope that I am not offered an early release.
We are also helping potential officers to understand the realities of prison work. This includes supporting governors to offer familiarisation visits to applicants. Informed by my own independent review, we are improving training through the Enable programme, and we are rewriting initial prison officer training so that it goes well beyond the current 10 weeks. It will instead become part of a year-long induction. This means that officers will get the best possible start.
We also know that, despite brilliant work, prison staff can often go unnoticed. I will continue to champion their work in public life, which is why our proposal for a King’s Prison Service medal to recognise excellence in the Prison Service is going to the honours committee this month. We are seeing continued progress in retention. In the latest published data, the resignation rate for officers in bands 3 to 5 was 7%, the lowest in four years. These green shoots are very welcome.
Let me turn to the power of purposeful activity. Noble Lords will be aware of the importance I place on prisoner skills and employment. I saw at first hand in the workshops I opened and the prisons I recruited from in the Timpson business how employment helps. The data is clear. Access to in-prison education and employment upon release can both reduce reoffending by up to nine percentage points, but, once again, we also need to tackle the broader issues. Prisons cannot run consistent and meaningful programmes if they are at full capacity or if their facilities are falling down, so we must bring stability and sustainability to the system.
But I know that is not the only challenge. The education budget has not kept pace with rising costs. Despite contracts that improve quality, we can buy fewer hours overall, so we are making sure that as many prisoners possible can access the training on offer. We are increasing the potential of digital systems to help more prisoners learn, and we are expanding literacy initiatives—I am delighted that Lee Child is our first ever Prison Reading Laureate. We will continue to support governors to commission vocational courses and link up with employers, charities and local partners. That includes our new regional employment councils which are furthering the work of prison employment advisory boards. It is also important that prisoners maintain positive relationships with their family and the outside world, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, continually champions. That is why I negotiated a 20% reduction in phone call costs for prisoners—because maintaining those links helps to turn lives around.
The committee’s final theme was accountability and oversight. I greatly value the independent scrutiny of our chief inspectors, Charlie Taylor, Martin Jones and Martyn Oliver. I meet them regularly, but I agree that there is room for more collaboration. We are reviewing the role of the independent monitoring boards, alongside other oversight bodies, and I will update your Lordships’ House on our conclusions in due course.
Parliamentary accountability is also vital, and the Deputy Prime Minister and I regularly appear before Select Committees. I hope noble Lords know that I am always keen to discuss any proposals to reduce reoffending and help people turn their lives around. It is important to note that we are seeing an uptick in HMIP scores, but there is still a very long way to go. I do not want to settle for “good enough”. I am really competitive and I want to run world-class prisons. We are starting to see things move, and that deserves recognition.
It is clear that we inherited a system in crisis and we are putting in the hard work to fix it, but we are also being incredibly ambitious, with our target to halve the number of prisoners released with nowhere to live—an agreed cross-government commitment—our once-in-a-generation reforms of our courts and sentencing, and innovations such as intensive supervision courts. Transformation will take several years but, if we get this right, reoffending will fall, the public will be safer and we will have fewer victims.
I thank noble Lords again for the opportunity to respond to this important debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for securing it and the members of the committee for the work that has gone into this report. I confirm that I will provide them with an update in March. I also thank noble Lords who have contributed today. I am very happy to meet the right reverend Prelate in due course. I have tried to respond to as many of the points raised as possible but, due to the fantastically high number of noble Lords taking part and the limitations on time, I regret that I cannot cover everything. I will specifically update the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, on the points that they raised. Of course, I also give my continued thanks for the dedication of our prison and probation staff who keep the system running day in, day out. I am proud to have them as colleagues.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, not least those who have given us five excellent and thought-provoking maiden speeches. I am sure that all will make valuable contributions to the work of your Lordships’ House. I was somewhat concerned on their behalf by the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde of Bemerton, who instead of praising the maiden speeches and leaving it at that, went on to put fear into their hearts by telling them that they now have to go away and come up with their difficult second album. Based on their performances today, I am confident that they are up to the task and we look forward to hearing them.
It is often said that a society can be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Prisoners, despite having committed acts deserving of opprobrium, often represent some of the most vulnerable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, pointed out. Frankly, at present we are failing them. We are failing the staff working in our prisons and the public, not least because we are failing to help prisoners prepare for life outside prison or to provide adequate measures to reduce reoffending. As I pointed out, it was happening 43 years ago and we have heard that it was happening 20 years ago. Sadly, it is happening today.
Despite the gloomy picture that I and our report paint of the situation, I have genuine optimism about the future. One of the reasons for that optimism is the Minister. He clearly gets it. All noble Lords who spoke clearly get it. The task is to persuade the rest of the Government to get it and ensure that the Minister and his team are provided with the support to take forward all the recommendations in our report, which I hope will not stay on a dusty shelf. I am sure it will not because, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, pointed out, I will be having a dialectical relationship with the Minister to ensure that. I am optimistic. I hope the Minister is around for a very long time. I thank him for what he has done and for his energy and enthusiasm. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this excellent debate.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office to an Urgent Question in another place on the Government’s response to the humble Address agreed by the House of Commons on 4 February 2025. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, last week, the House made a humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. On Monday, my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister updated the House on further action that the Government are taking.
My right honourable friend 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 counsellors. He also explained how we have changed the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. He also set out other areas in which we recognise the need to go further, including tightening transparency and lobbying.
In that Statement, my right honourable friend also set out how the Government are responding to the humble Address Motion, and I am pleased to provide a further update to the House today. The Government will comply fully and publish documents as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, we welcome both the principle and content of that Motion, and we will deliver on it as soon as we can.
As such, departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is under way to identify documents that fall within the scope of the Motion. We will do so as soon as possible when the House returns from recess.
In line with the Motion passed by this House, where the Government consider that documents may be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the Cabinet Office will refer that material to the independent Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has written to the ISC, and senior officials have met the committee to discuss what it requires in order to fulfil that role. As I said in the House last week, full resources will be made available to ensure that that process happens, and we will work with the committee to explain the Cabinet Office’s process for providing material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its work, and we commit to full engagement with it to ensure timely and effective release.
The House will also be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan Police regarding the ongoing police investigation. That statement made it clear that the
‘process to decide which documents should ultimately be published remains a matter for … parliament’.
That is absolutely right, and we agree, but as the House would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release anything that may undermine an ongoing police investigation. As such, we are working with the police as they conduct their inquiries to manage this process. I think that is the right way forward, Mr Speaker, and I hope you and the House agree.
In conclusion, the Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously and, given the nature of the issues at stake and the scope of material in play, we will comply fully and deliver this material as quickly and transparently as possible. The Government will keep the House updated as they do so, and my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will publish a Written Ministerial Statement later today”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Events have moved on somewhat since the humble Address on 4 February. Then, it was Lord Mandelson; now, it is the noble Lord, Lord Doyle. Unless the vetting process has changed recently, this is a question not about process but about the Prime Minister’s judgment. I do not think the House wants to hear a repeat of what we have heard all week, about how the Prime Minister is such a decent man—that is not the point in question. The point in question is the Prime Minister’s judgment.
The Prime Minister now needs to appoint a new Cabinet Secretary. What specifically will be different this time, and has the updated request in the other place, asked for by today, been provided?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. She knows more than I do, outside of media speculation, about the appointment of a new Cabinet Secretary. I will not comment on any speculation regarding the position of the Cabinet Secretary or anyone who may or may not ever hold that role. However, the question from the noble Baroness was about the integrity and judgment of the Prime Minister. Noble Lords will be aware of why I am in your Lordships’ House: it is because of a horrible chapter in my party. From 2020, when I lost my seat, the Prime Minister asked me to work with him to root out antisemitism from my party. The Prime Minister underpromised and overdelivered. I trust the Prime Minister and I trust his political judgment. He is not just a nice and good man; he is a very good Prime Minister.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the degree of transparency that is happening over the Mandelson appointment. We stress as strongly as we can that the maximum amount of transparency is now needed to restore public confidence and trust. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned that events have moved on. Events will continue to move on for some time on the broader Epstein issue. We have already heard about flights in and out of Britain; we will no doubt hear more names of people—possibly in British politics, very likely in British financial and company circles—which will continue to come out. All of us share a responsibility in making sure that public confidence is not cut further. I make a plea to those in all parties not to be too partisan about the way we handle this, because trust in democracy as a whole is now at stake.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the things I find so distressing about the events of recent weeks is that we keep forgetting that the victims have to live and breathe every part of this time and time again, ad infinitum, both because of the way in which this is coming out, with the release of the files, and because of some of the associated events that have occurred. It is right and proper that we remember there is a responsibility on every Member of both your Lordships’ House and the other place to rebuild trust in politics, which, let us be honest, is at an all-time low, as we have discussed in your Lordships’ House in recent days. This helps nobody except those people who seek to undermine our core democracy and our British values. We need to work together to fix what is so clearly now broken, but we also need to make sure the victims are at the heart of everything we do.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, Sir Lindsay Hoyle said that the ISC is completely separate and independent, so there should be no barrier to releasing the information. At the same time, the Minister for the Cabinet Office is supposed to have released a Written Statement today giving more details. As of a minute ago there had been no publication, going completely against the protocols of Parliament and the guidance by the Cabinet Office. When will the information start to be released to the ISC and when will that Written Statement be published? Time is ticking.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Time is indeed ticking, but the noble Baroness will be aware we still have two more debates in front of your Lordships’ House before the House rises. The Written Ministerial Statement will be published today, as I said.
On the independence of the ISC, we are incredibly lucky to have Members of your Lordships’ House on the committee, led by my noble friend Lord Beamish. I would never question either his integrity or his ability to do the job. As we laid out, and its correspondence from yesterday makes clear, engagement has already happened. There were meetings between very senior members of the Cabinet Office and of government with members of the ISC on Tuesday, and the process has started. On the timing, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office made clear in the other place, we expect the process on the documentation to continue at pace—and I do not mean at Civil Service pace, I mean at pace—after the Recess.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the ISC, I note that my noble friend the Minister did not say anything about my integrity, which is a bit worrying. I make it absolutely clear that deciding what is in scope to be released is totally for the Cabinet Office. The ISC will have nothing to do with that whatever; it will see only the material that the Cabinet Office says that it cannot release because it includes intelligence or foreign affairs. Those will be the only things we look at.
On independence, we have already said that we will not be working in conjunction with the Cabinet Office. We are completely independent. We can be quite bolshie about things, which is good. We will look at it totally separately and work through at pace, as soon as this comes from the Government, where there are difficulties about the Met Police and things such as that. As soon as it starts coming our way, we will work on it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend—the idea he could be bolshie would be completely beyond my appreciation of him. He should take it as a given that I consider him to be a man of great integrity. After all, he is a senior officer in our senior service. I will always appreciate and accept him in that way.
What my noble friend said about the role of the ISC is absolutely correct and aligns with my understanding. Obviously, the ISC met with the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, the FCDO Permanent Secretary, the Deputy National Security Adviser and the acting director-general of propriety and ethics this week to set out how this will work. That meeting was considered fruitful and constructive, and I hope that, in the coming weeks, the relationship will continue in that vein.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the National Security Adviser, who is not a civil servant and was very deliberately chosen by the Prime Minister to be a special adviser, will have no involvement in the scrutiny of what information is going to be released, and that it will be entirely in the hands of the Cabinet Secretary, subject to the process agreed by the ISC?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I have been very clear on who participated in the meeting on Tuesday. On the role of the National Security Adviser, who is a man of huge experience and great integrity, I am not aware of any specific role for him, but if that situation changes I will update your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, the Minister referred to new legislation to remove peerages from disgraced Peers. When might we expect to see that legislation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right. The reality is that we need to make sure that any process of getting to the point of legislation on something that is so important to Members of your Lordships’ House is done through consultation and engagement with the appropriate bodies, and that conversations are had in the usual channels. We want to work at pace to make sure that future legislation is in front of your Lordships as quickly as possible, but we want to make sure we get it right, as the Lord Privy Seal said on Tuesday. We will definitely see it after the Recess; I just do not know when in terms of the specific dates. I look forward to working with the usual channels to make sure that the consultation is as broad as possible and that noble Lords see the legislation as soon as it is ready.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that legislation to do with bringing the House into disrepute will not cut across differences of opinion, differences of political views, and the absolute principles of freedom of speech and parliamentary privilege?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I absolutely will. The noble Lord and I may not always agree on certain issues; I do not believe we did when we were in the other place either. However, that is what this debating Chamber is for. That is the principle of Parliament. It is so that we can argue with each other to make sure that legislation is better. That is the role of your Lordships’ House. I do not think that anybody would ever suggest that we should limit our own freedom of speech or expression, nor would I expect any such suggestions ever to be in legislation that would pass your Lordships’ House.
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Patel, seeks to ensure that UK medical graduates are prioritised above other categories of eligible applicants.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, my name is also attached to Amendments 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14, which are consequential, so I will not speak to them. This may be the briefest of introductions to any amendment.
My amendment tries to prioritise—which is the main theme of the Bill—UK medical graduates for training in UK programmes. The Bill’s Long Title says it is to:
“Make provision about the prioritisation of graduates from medical schools in the United Kingdom and certain other persons for places on medical training programmes”.
In Clause 1, this therefore also includes
“persons in the priority group”.
In Clause 2, it includes person not only in the priority group but also, in subsection (2), persons who are
“a British citizen … a Commonwealth citizen who has the right of abode in the United Kingdom … an Irish citizen who does not require leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom … a person with indefinite leave to enter or remain … a person who has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom”
and so on. Similarly, Clauses 3 and 4 describe the priority group as including not only UK medical school graduates but many others, including those from countries with which the UK has made a trade deal.
All those priority groups will be able to apply for the same jobs as UK medical graduates. Add to that—several amendments on this are coming later—that the graduates of UK universities that have overseas campuses will also be included in the priority group. They are not all in the amendments today, but if these amendments are accepted, there are other universities not listed which have overseas campuses, such as the two I know—Dundee, for instance—although I did not table an amendment on that.
My amendment is because of the enormous number of emails that we have had, both from UK graduates and overseas graduates who cannot find jobs. I know there are subsequent amendments coming later about those international graduates who are now stuck in a bottleneck for this year, but that is a separate issue. My amendment does not refer to that; it refers to UK medical graduates.
We heard a story on the BBC about Emma, who was one of the 1,000 graduates who cannot get a two-year foundation slot so she cannot progress at all. She cannot find a locum job because they are all full. We heard of people who cannot enter the specialty training programme at years 1 and 2 because the competition for the specialty training programme is four applications for one job. We have 50,000 international medical graduates applying for a job for 2025, for 10,000 slots. If we cannot get UK graduates to find jobs in training programmes, that is scandalous. We could cut the number of medical students—but on the other hand, we are going to increase the number of medical students, and that will compound the issue for future applications for training.
By the way, I am not saying that others in the priority group in these clauses are not to be considered for a job. All I am saying is that UK medical graduates should be prioritised. The definition says “UK medical graduates”, but there are international students who go to our medical schools and therefore they are UK medical school graduates, so we include them. They are about 7% of the total medical graduates of UK universities. My amendment only seeks to prioritise UK medical graduates, who should be considered first—not that the others will not be considered or get jobs in whatever they come to do. This includes the subsequent amendments about overseas campuses and other universities.
I hope that the Opposition Benches will agree that UK medical graduates ought to be the first priority. I doubt that the noble Baroness the Minister will accept my amendment—the Government want this Bill to go through as an emergency Bill and not to be held up because, otherwise, it will run out of time—but I hope that, at the Dispatch Box, while not accepting the amendment, she will recognise that UK medical graduates must have priority above others for training slots. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 2. The clerks suggested changing the wording to what is now there. It is a probing amendment, and like those of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, it could be applied to other clauses as well. It is about the principle. My strong view is that we have opened up medical schools and made more placements because we want to make sure that we have an ongoing workforce. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in his place. He will have done work not only for Health Secretary Wes Streeting recently but previously in making sure that we have a strong workforce pipeline.
I am conscious that many medical schools, by way of survival, by way of diversity, have opened up a number of places. Admittedly, this is still quite small compared with the number of UK citizens going to medical school. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, we have a curious definition in this legislation—that a UK medical graduate is simply somebody who went to a UK medical school. I do not think that is what the public would think that this is about. From a lot of the emails, I do not think that it is what a lot of doctors appreciate either—although I appreciate that it is the position of the BMA, which does not want to differentiate in that regard.
We have young people taking on debt by investing in their own education and several billion pounds being put in by the UK Government, by the UK taxpayer, to have this pipeline. Therefore, it is vital to have what my amendment seeks—a set prioritisation in this legislation and not, as the Minister said the other day, a “just one group and then no more” kind of prioritisation. It is vital that UK citizens are given priority.
It is important to look at some of the analysis. It is not the case that all training posts could be filled by UK citizens who have trained to be doctors—far from it. We would not have GPs coming through. According to the 2024 analysis, only about half of the GPs going on the ST1 or CT1 were from UK medical schools. There is a whole series of issues, and we are seeing this in different elements including psychiatry and paediatrics—very few UK medical students, it seems, want to do paediatrics. I could go on with the series, but the point is clear: this is not about excluding people from the rest of the world coming to work in this country or to fill key roles in the NHS; it is about ensuring that our investment is prioritised on UK citizens.
There is a certain peculiarity, which will come up in other groups, about what then happens with the Republic of Ireland and similar. I am not seeking to get into that debate; perhaps we will a bit later.
I want to get a sense of this from the Minister. One thing that is clear in the statistics, and which the Minister and the Department of Health should be seeking to understand more, is that for quite a wide range of the training courses UK students are turning down the opportunity, once they have been offered placements. Why is that? For general practice, I think that only 57% are accepting. I am conscious that people might get posted around the country, but that needs careful scrutiny as well.
I do not wish to suggest in any way that we are not welcoming people from different parts of the world, but it should go back to trying to make sure that we are addressing particular gaps in our NHS workforce, now and in the future, not squeezing people out, and recognising the work that has been done to increase the potential numbers in home-grown talent.
Those of us who spoke at Second Reading have, in the last week, had a lot of emails coming in. I completely understand that there are different stories. For a brief time, when I was Health Secretary, a by-line suggested that I thought everybody should disappear to Australia—far from it. We cannot stop people leaving this country to go to Australia or elsewhere in the world, but we should be making sure that the reason they are choosing to go elsewhere is not because they cannot get a training place here when they have been deemed appointable. Ideally, they would be offered a role. That is something we can fix with this legislation. I hope the Government will rethink their approach to this during the passage of the Bill.
I apologise to the Committee that I will not be here to deal with my amendment later on, but I know that the Front Bench will do so. The time is pressing to get this right. I had not realised quite how soon a variety of decisions need to be made: I believe they need to be made before, or certainly within a few days of, Easter. It is critical that the Government think again. I am sure that, with encouragement from the Committee and from very distinguished medical practitioners, current and past, they will do so. That is why I commend my amendment to the Committee.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to support my noble friend in her excellent amendment. Broadly speaking, this is a very welcome Bill. I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward to address what is becoming an acute issue, but it could be better. My remarks fall into two separate parts: there is the philosophical issue and there are the practical, evidence-based matters, which I will elucidate in the course of my remarks.
First, it has to be said that British taxpayers fund medical education through universities and the NHS, and we should be thinking much more about the value for money that those taxpayers receive. Prioritising British citizens would ensure that the investment benefits the domestic healthcare system and would, I think, reduce the risk of brain drain, where trained doctors emigrate after completing training. Training costs are substantial—estimated at £200,000 to £500,000 per doctor—and British citizens would be more likely to remain and practise in the UK long term. There is a case that they perhaps provide better value for public investment in medical education.
The wider philosophical issue, as alluded to by the Nuffield Trust, is around the fact that, in recruiting international medical graduates, the NHS has a negative impact on the domestic healthcare sector and staffing shortages in many countries abroad, particularly in Africa and Asia and poorer countries generally. That point has been made over many years. There were issues too about cultural familiarity, language proficiency, better understanding of local healthcare practices and patient expectations, and easier integration into multidisciplinary medical teams.
Specialty training, competition ratios and bottlenecks have reached breaking point. Preliminary information for the 2025 specialty training application cycle is concerning. This year, there are over 33,000 applicants for just under 13,000 training posts. This means that up to 20,000 doctors will be left out of specialty training this August. Even if you are not directly affected, that is a public health and public policy issue.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned that 7% of undergraduates who take medical degrees in the UK are from overseas. I briefly mentioned last week my conversations with the head of admissions at a Russell group medical school. An important point that I did not have time to raise then, but is appropriate to raise now, is the significant amount of money that that 7% contribute not only to that medical school but in additional payments to the local trust.
I wanted to make your Lordships’ House aware of that, but I also want the Minister to talk about the consequences if we accepted the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and just had British citizens as opposed to the British graduates the noble Lord Patel talked about. What impact would there be? We have held our tuition fees static for a while in this country, while those overseas students have been paying a phenomenal amount. I am just worried that we might throw the baby out with the bath water. The unintended consequence of making some of those courses unviable is a serious concern, and I think it appropriate to raise it at this point.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I too am a little bit concerned about unintended consequences. It is a real pleasure to see my noble friend Lord Darzi in his place, because I hope he will have comments on this issue.
I trained as a clinical academic. Indeed, we know that clinical academics have had a unique value to the health service. They work part-time in the health service with a reduced salary and do research at the same time. I am very concerned that many of the clinical academics we have had at Imperial College, for example, have been from overseas. They were medically qualified elsewhere but had not yet been in Britain and were still junior doctors, in a sense. I am really concerned that there are many such people who come to Britain, do a postdoctoral degree such as a PhD and, in the meantime, keep their medical skills flowing, as I did myself. I was seven years in this situation with the Wellcome Trust. I remember it very well. I was overseas but at least knew that I could come back to Britain. But I was a British subject—that was easy.
There are so many of these people. To give just one example, Professor Jan Brosens at Warwick University is undoubtedly one of the key people who have contributed massively to female health, particularly on implantation of the ovum and in his magnificent work on endometriosis. He came as a junior doctor from Belgium, from Leuven University, to what was then Hammersmith Hospital, which is now, of course, Imperial College. Now, he is a very distinguished professor at Warwick University with a very large team. His recruitment made a very big difference to the whole field. His is not an isolated example; there are many such people I can think of. I hope the noble Baroness can suggest some way of dealing with this problem of unusually good graduates from elsewhere, who may not be British citizens, perhaps, in the current priorities, but who would really be deserving of serious consideration for certain specialty jobs. Not to do that would be a great loss to the health service.
Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, many of you will know that I did my medical training in Ireland. In fact, I exercised some of my skills in this Chamber back in 2007. Irish medical education is excellent, and many of its graduates have gone on to distinguished careers in the NHS. I speak today to ensure we strike the right balance in this Bill, specifically by securing fair treatment for doctors who hold degrees approved by the Irish Medical Council.
As drafted, the Bill would exclude graduates of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland at its medical campus in Bahrain, for example—a campus that was established more than 20 years ago. Let me be clear about what that institution delivers: it has the same curriculum, the same examinations and the same quality assurance as Dublin, leading to a single national University of Ireland degree. Its programme and clinical training sites are also accredited under Irish regulatory oversight by the Irish Medical Council. I urge that, on Report, wording be introduced to bring graduates of this institution within the priority group. Such a clarification would sit squarely alongside the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Mendelsohn. These seek to ensure that medical graduates of a UK university holding a GMC-approved degree and following the same curriculum and assessment, but studying outside the British Isles, are included in the priority group. It would also be consistent with the similar amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Forbes and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Hollins.
I draw a further anomaly to your Lordships’ attention. The unamended Bill would place graduates of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland’s campus in Penang, Malaysia—a joint programme with University College Dublin—within this priority group. These students study an Irish Medical Council-accredited, GMC-recognised degree, completing half their education in Ireland and half in Malaysia. Yet the well-intentioned clarifying amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, requiring at least 60% of the time to be spent in Ireland, would inadvertently exclude them.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it has been many years since I last spoke in a health debate. There is a sense of déjà vu in seeing the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the Opposition Front Bench. It is also an absolute pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and to hear the arguments he has made, which are very consistent with those we will be making later in the group of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada.
I rise to speak to the amendments in this group, but particularly to Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. On Amendment 2, while I understand the intent of the noble Baroness to protect the domestic workforce, we on these Benches cannot support the introduction of citizenship as a primary filter for medical training priority. To do so would undermine the central logic of this Bill, which is to protect the taxpayers’ investment in training, not to police the passport of the trainee. If a non-UK citizen comes to this country, trains in our medical school for five years, often paying significant international fees—my noble friend made an extremely good point about the value of that to our universities—they cross-subsidise our universities and then commit to the NHS. They are a UK medical graduate in every sense that matters to workforce planning. Their training is identical; their clinical exposure is identical. We on these Benches believe that to deprioritise them, based purely on nationality, would send a disastrous signal to the global talent pool that our NHS has always relied upon. It would also contradict the argument we will make later regarding the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, on the Queen Mary University of London Malta Campus: that it is the content and quality of the qualification that matters, not the geography or the nationality.
Regarding the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I sympathise with his desire to ensure that UK graduates are prioritised. That is, after all, the purpose of the Bill, and while we can argue about the definition of a UK graduate, we must be careful not to make the legislation so rigid that it removes any flexibility for the Secretary of State to address shortages in specific specialties, or where international talent is essential. Several noble Lords have mentioned that we have all received correspondence from doctors in hard-to-fill areas who warn that absolute exclusion could leave rotas empty. Prioritisation must not constitute a blockade.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, deserves our thanks for opening our Committee debate in a cogent and powerful way. He is absolutely right: in this country, we train some of the very best doctors in the world—at great expense to them and to the taxpayer—but too many are choosing to leave the training process because in the now expanded competitive scrum they cannot access the training places they require. Each year many remain unemployed. That is a serious policy challenge, and Ministers are right to seek to address it. We need a long-term and fair solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is seeking to ensure that UK medical graduates are prioritised for training places first before those in the priority group are offered places. There would then be a third tier of prioritisation for any other eligible applicants. This would put UK medical graduates, as defined by Clause 4, ahead in the queue for training places. I do not think we can fault the noble Lord for his logic. If we believe there is currently a massive and disproportionate injustice being meted out to UK medical graduates, we owe them the best chance we can give them to enter further training pathways in this country.
However, I have two questions for the Minister. First, the Explanatory Notes confirm that those who have trained in Ireland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have been included in the priority group because
“existing agreements require us to recognise their qualifications and offer parity in access to the profession”.
Can the Minister please confirm whether the reordering of prioritisation, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would cut across the existing agreements that the UK Government are bound by?
Secondly, I think many of us agree that emergency legislation should be avoided as far as possible, but where it is necessary, it should be simple and straightforward. On the face of it, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would make the Bill a bit more complicated by adding a further tier of prioritisation. If that is so, I am sure he would argue that the extra complexity is well worth it. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether such an additional tier of prioritisation would make the process more complex to manage.
Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey would prioritise UK medical graduates who are British citizens first, then those persons in the priority group and then UK medical graduates who are not British citizens. The category of other eligible applicants is not included. Perhaps it is an inadvertent omission; I do not know. Again, this would create a three-tier prioritisation process, where the Government are currently proposing two tiers, with the added dimension of drawing a distinction between different categories of UK medical graduates. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I am uncomfortable with that as a matter of policy. On the face of it, the amendment presents a more complex set of arrangements than those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, so it would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the Government view my noble friend’s suggestions, including their ready workability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions to this debate. Amendments 1, 3, 6 to 8 and 12 to 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, seek to create tiered categories of prioritisation for the UK foundation programme and specialty programmes. Taken together, they would require places to be allocated to UK medical graduates in the first instance, and then to applicants in the other prioritised categories specified in the Bill. As noble Lords have observed, the Bill sets clear priority groups, but it does not make rankings within these groups, and that is what we are looking at.
I welcome my noble friend Lord Darzi, not least because the review that he undertook for the Government in 2024 recommended that we should prioritise medical training, for all the reasons given by the noble Lords who support it. I will return to this whole area when we debate a later group, but on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi—this will perhaps also be helpful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe—alongside UK graduates, we are prioritising in the Bill graduates from Ireland and the EFTA countries. This reflects the special nature of our relationship with Ireland—specifically, our reciprocal rights of movement and employment—and our obligations under international trade agreements with the EFTA countries, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to, that require consistent treatment of these graduates in access to medical training. The amendments that we are looking at would mean that we could not honour these agreements. That, by its nature and definition, would create huge difficulties.
On specialty training, these amendments would also mean that we could not effectively deliver on our policy intention to prioritise applicants with significant NHS experience who understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population. It might be helpful if I summarise this by saying that the Bill sets out what I would regard as a binary system where applicants are either prioritised or not. Clearly, once that prioritisation has happened, the normal processes will apply to establish who the appointable applicants are, to fill the posts, and so on.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to create tiered categories of prioritisation for the UK foundation programme and to prioritise UK medical graduates who are British citizens above all other applicants. The Bill as drafted prioritises all UK medical graduates who meet the criteria, regardless of their citizenship status. It might be helpful to the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Clement-Jones, to restate that what matters is where a doctor is trained, not where they are born. UK-trained medical graduates have undertaken curricula, clinical placements and assessment standards aligned to the NHS, and are therefore best prepared to move directly into NHS practice.
The Government are committed to prioritising those doctors who have already spent a significant part of their education within the NHS and understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population, not least because—this is an issue that we have discussed many times—these doctors are more likely to remain in the NHS for longer, supporting the sustainable medical workforce for the future that we are all looking at.
As I set out in relation to the previous set of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, this amendment would also mean that we would not be honouring the special nature of our relationship with Ireland and obligations under trade agreements with EFTA countries. I emphasise again in the Chamber today that prioritisation does not mean exclusion. All eligible applicants will still be able to apply and will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received offers, which we expect to be the case particularly in certain areas.
My noble friend Lord Winston raised a question about the Bill in respect of highly skilled overseas doctors and particularly referenced clinical academics. As I have said, it is not exclusion from applying—it is prioritisation. It may be helpful more broadly for me to emphasise that there are likely to be opportunities in specialties such as general practice, core psychiatry and internal medicine, because historically they attract fewer applicants from the groups that we are prioritising for 2026. I understand the point that my noble friend is making, but we have to focus on the core purpose of the Bill. With that, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Patel (CB)
Obviously, the Minister is not accepting my amendment, but she makes the point that all the priority groups will be treated in the same way—whatever the definition is of people in the priority group, they will all be grouped together as a priority, and that would include UK medical graduates. What assessment have the Government made of the effect that it will have on UK medical school graduates to include all the others in the priority group? What disadvantage will that put UK medical graduates to? Will it be minimal, medium or a lot?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We do not anticipate that that is going to cause a problem. The noble Lord did not specifically refer to the EFTA countries, but I should like to. Some of them will not produce any suitable people who are likely to be included, so in our modelling we do not anticipate that there will be a problem. What matters is patient care and getting people with the right training who understand what the NHS is about, understand the culture of the NHS and provide as best as they can. That is what the whole Bill is directed at doing and prioritising.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I accept that the Minister is not predisposed to accept the amendment from my noble friend Lady Coffey, and she has made a clear case for that, but is she in a position to reassure the House that the issues raised by my noble friend and others about the relative take-up of specialty training places in less popular disciplines, such as anaesthetics or paediatrics, will be looked at by the department? I did not get the opportunity to make this point, but one point was that prioritising British medical students—not excluding others—would have a positive impact on those particularly hard-to-fill disciplines. Is the department taking that into account generally in its workforce planning?
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
Can I ask about applications from overseas? I know from the paperwork that has been shared online that everybody has been grouped together as the rest of the world. With the applications that we have had this time and last year, it might be helpful to share the data of the breakdown by each country rather than just lumping it all together as the rest of the world. Then we could see how many applications there are from the nations that we have an international agreement with.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, no matter which amendment they spoke to, and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his strong support for my amendment. More importantly, he said that UK medical graduates need to be prioritised and should not have to enter into competition with others whose graduation is not from this country. I know that the Minister was not able to say that UK graduates would be seen to be prioritised; I understand that. Of course, these debates help, because the outside world is interested in what is said here. I hope that particularly those who make decisions about interviewing or selecting for interview for training programmes will get the message, take note of this debate and bear in mind what it was all about. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(2) Nothing in this section shall be taken to negate or override a confirmed offer of a place on a UK Foundation Programme where the offer was made prior to the date on which this Act was first laid as a Bill before Parliament.(3) In this section “confirmed offer” means an offer in writing made by a person who has a function of deciding offers of places on a UK Foundation Programme.”
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by making it clear that this is very much a probing amendment, for reasons which I shall explain. Across all the many representations I have received on the provisions of this Bill—from UK medical graduates; UK citizens studying medicine abroad; non-UK citizens studying abroad; some in the middle of their degree course; some who have finished their degrees, and some who have commenced but not completed a UK foundation programme—there is one issue that rises to the surface. It is an issue that is most easily encapsulated in the phrase “legitimate expectations”.
Quite justifiably, in my view, individuals who have embarked on the long and costly journey that is required of them in order to gain a GMC-approved medical qualification and who have found themselves suddenly deprioritised by one or other provision within this Bill have questioned the fairness of the dividing lines that the Government have chosen to draw in such summary fashion. Medical graduates—many of them British citizens—who have demonstrated both commitment and excellence and who have adhered in good faith to every step of the process laid down under existing rules are now being told that their trust in the system counts for nothing and that, all of a sudden, their legitimate expectations have been overridden.
Noble Lords will note that my amendment relates specifically to the 2026 UK foundation programme. It suggests that a graduate who has already received a written offer of a place on a foundation programme should be able to rely on the validity of that offer. In reality, I understand that, with very few exceptions if any, applicants to the 2026 UK foundation programme have not yet received formal written offers of employment. However, the formal process began last summer. Eligibility applications were completed last July and foundation programme applications in September. Since then, there have been mandatory UKFP-related deadlines, including the national clinical assessment—NCA—in November and PLAB 1 in December. In other words, the process is active, sequential and consequential, notwithstanding as yet the absence of formal written offers.
To take the case of a medical graduate in February 2026 who finds themselves prospectively deprioritised in the way that I have described, in the Government’s view, at what point on that graduate’s journey does the principle of legitimate expectations kick in? How fair is it to say to a talented and high-achieving graduate that, despite their passing through all the existing procedural hoops, they now need to lower their expectations quite dramatically and accept that they are no longer in that part of the queue for a medical qualification which, in good faith, they previously worked to join?
In summary, my amendment is intended to pose a somewhat broader question than its literal wording would suggest. What do the Government have to say to that cohort of soon-to-be deprioritised graduates who have committed time, effort and money to pursuing their goal? Is there any room for movement? I beg to move.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I speak to the amendments in this group in my name—Amendments 5 and 10—and to Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, which I have also signed.
I follow up the point that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about in terms of the fairness for those people who went into the application process last summer. They started this process with the expectation of getting a confirmation any time now and being able to prepare. That is why my Amendment 5 proposes to postpone the implementation of this speciality training prioritisation for this year’s intake, so that those people who are applying for 2027 know that we are changing the rules, rather than telling those people who applied last summer that we have changed the rules. Let me be clear from the outset: this amendment does not seek to undermine the principle of the objectives of this Bill on medical training; rather, it seeks to ensure that these objectives are implemented fairly, coherently and without unintended harm to the very trainees upon whom our healthcare system depends.
The central issue for us here has always been timing. As the Bill currently stands, these changes would be introduced during an active application cycle. This raises serious concerns about procedural fairness and legitimate expectations. Applicants have made life-altering decisions—academic, financial and personal—based on a set of rules that existed last summer when they applied. To change these rules mid-cycle, in my opinion, is not merely inconvenient but fundamentally unjust. Like many others, I have been contacted by affected medical students who have articulated their concerns around the criteria. They noted that they had complied fully with all the requirements enforced at the time of application, only to find themselves potentially excluded by the change that has now been imposed. Without transitional protections, the Bill would disadvantage applicants who acted in good faith, followed the guidance provided and had every reasonable expectation that the rules would not be rewritten half way through the process. This is not about isolated grievance; it reflects a systematic risk inherent in rushed implementation.
Medicine is a profession that demands long-term planning, with years of study, examination, placement and significant personal sacrifice. When Parliament alters the conditions of progression without adequate notice or transition, it destabilises that planning and erodes trust in the system. My amendment therefore offers a modest but proportionate and sensible solution: a one-year delay that would allow for clarity in communications and proper preparation. It would give institutions time to adjust their process, regulators time to issue clear guidance and applicants time to make informed decisions so that people who will be applying this summer know what the criteria are. Crucially it would also align with the principles of this House, which has long upheld fairness, legal certainty and an avoidance of disadvantage. We should be especially mindful of these principles when legislating in areas that directly affect access to professional training and career progression.
There is also the practical consideration. Disruption of the current application cycle risks creating gaps, appeals and bottlenecks that could ultimately harm workforce planning in the NHS. At a time when staffing pressures are already acute, we should really be wary of reforms that may have unintended consequences and might deter capable candidates. My amendment would not delay the reforms indefinitely, but simply ensure that reforms are done properly. By supporting this amendment, we would send a clear message that, while we are committed to improving medical training pathways, we are equally committed to treating applicants fairly and honouring the rules under which they apply.
We have heard about the immigration status mentioned earlier and the criteria on which that is based. With my Amendment 10, I would like to raise with the Minister the alternative option, given that the Government are also seeking to change the rules around indefinite leave to remain. My understanding is that there is a better option. The NHS has its own recruitment platform, the Oriel system, which is able to demonstrate professional commitment to the NHS. In doing so, it shifts the focus from legal residence status to actual service, contributions and engagement with our health system.
The NHS does not run, as we heard earlier, on immigration categories. It runs on people who turn up to shifts, who trained within its system, who understand its pressures and who have committed themselves to caring for patients day in, day out. The Oriel registration is not just a symbolic tactic; it is a gateway through which NHS recruitment, training and workforce planning operates. It is a clear, objective indicator that an individual is already participating in or seeking to participate in the NHS.
Similarly, the concept of professional commitment to the NHS allows for a broader and fairer assessment of contributions. It recognises work undertaken in the NHS trust, clinical placements, foundation training, research, teaching and other forms of service that directly benefit patients and institutions. This approach reflects reality far more accurately than a single immigration milestone, which may have little bearing on an individual’s clinical engagement or future commitments or intentions.
There is also a serious risk of equality issues at stake. Many doctors who have trained in the UK, worked in NHS hospitals, paid taxes and served our communities for years do not yet hold indefinite leave to remain, due to the structures and lengths of immigration pathways. To divert these such individuals despite their proven service risks sending a deeply damaging message that contribution is secondary to paperwork. At a time when the NHS remains heavily reliant on international medical students, we should be careful not to erect barriers that discourage retention or undermine morale. These clinicians are not temporary stopgaps; they are integral members of our workforce. Many intend to build long-term careers here and many already have.
From a practical standpoint, this amendment also improves administrative clarity. Assessing our registration and documenting NHS experience is straightforward, verifiable and directly relevant to workforce needs. By contrast, tying prioritisation to immigration status risks complexity, inconsistencies and unintended exclusion. If the aim of the Bill is to strengthen medical training and to support the NHS workforce, our criteria must align with that goal. This amendment ensures that prioritisation is based on what truly matters: demonstrated commitment to the NHS and the work that it exists to do. Therefore, I urge noble Lords to support both my amendments.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I repeat my declarations of interest from Second Reading as chair of King’s College London and chair of Cancer Research UK, and as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners. I am going to speak to my Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25. I am most grateful to my co-signatories: the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord Patel.
The Government, in my opinion rightly, want to prioritise for specialty training doctors who, among other things, have significant prior experience working in the NHS. They propose in the Bill that that would be an explicit criterion to be taken into account from 2027. So the principle is clear. The practice for 2026, however, is said in the impact assessment to be such that they cannot use that criterion for the current cycle. So, instead, a series of proxies are proposed which, in the words of the impact assessment, would
“capture applicants who we believe are most likely to have NHS experience”.
This set of amendments, which should be an easy pill for the Government to swallow, would simply give them the ability to apply in 2026 the same criterion relative to work experience in the NHS that they propose from 2027 onwards. I recognise that there may still be some discussions, as we just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, about the executability of that criterion, using the Oriel system or other mechanisms. These amendments would not require the Government to bring forward their 2027 approach but simply permit them to do so if, in the weeks between now and 5 March, for example, if that is the deadline for when Royal Assent is required, it becomes clear to them that the modest enabling work on the computer software, estimated at £100,000, can be put in place if that were needed.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, to which I have added my name. I am not going to repeat much of what he said, but I support it because when, in 2026, both the UK and overseas graduates are further down the process of applying—and some have even been asked to come for interview—they will now not be able to continue. That seems morally and ethically wrong, so I support the amendments. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He made his points very strongly.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my role as a pro-chancellor of Cardiff University, and that I have until recently been an observer on the Medical Schools Council; I am still in touch with it.
This group of amendments seems incredibly important for our international reputation for fairness and consistency in what we commit to, but also in wanting excellence in our NHS. Therefore, there needs to be a sophisticated way of prioritising. One of those important areas is the contribution to the NHS, especially during Covid and major events, when some have gone way above what is normally expected and come back from holiday or maternity leave, or whatever, to deal with a major incident, while others have perhaps not always been quite so flexible.
We certainly have a crisis and must deal with it, so this is not in any way to say that we should not be doing this, but the timing is the worry. I will come on to the other degrees in the next group. Can the Minister explain whether the Oriel system itself is a block to incorporating the flexibility that these amendments ask for? There is a real worry among some that the Oriel system is a rate-limiting step, rather than being flexible enough to be rapidly reprogrammed appropriately to allow the intention of these amendments to be incorporated at great speed, and therefore redress the accusation of unfairness.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I offer our strong support for Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and Amendments 5 and 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mohammed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his Amendment 4, because it, in essence, sets the theme of this group, which is the dashing of legitimate interests for this year, which a number of noble Lords explored.
Before I address the specific mechanics of these amendments, we need to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and other noble Lords who highlighted at Second Reading the whole question of the protracted failure in long-term workforce planning. For years, we have seen a disconnect between the number of medical school places and the number of specialty training posts. There is a bottleneck of our own making: 12 applications for one post is a disaster. My late wife trained in the 1970s and became a registrar at Barts. I have no recollection of it being anything like on this scale, and we risk dashing the expectations of many of those currently in training.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, noted at Second Reading, the Bill does not widen the bottleneck; it simply reshuffles the queue. Although we on these Benches accept the principle that UK graduates should not face unemployment after taxpayer investment, we must ensure that, in correcting one failure, we do not commit a second failure of fairness against those have served our NHS in good faith.
These amendments address one of the greatest injustices in this Bill: the decision to implement major changes mid-cycle for 2026, using the blunt instrument of indefinite leave to remain as a proxy for experience. The Government claim that assessing actual NHS experience is “not operationally feasible” for the 2026 rounds. Since Second Reading, we have received compelling evidence to the contrary. As my noble friend says, we have heard from doctors currently using the system who confirm that the Oriel recruitment platform already captures data on “months of NHS experience”. The question is there; the data exists. The claim that this cannot be done is a choice, not an administrative necessity.
By refusing to use this data, Clause 2 creates a perverse experience gap. It excludes doctors who have served on our NHS front lines for two or three years but who have not yet reached the five-year threshold for settlement. We have received hundreds of emails detailing the human cost of this decision. We heard from a mother who lived apart from her one year-old child for seven months to study the MSRA exam, only to find the rules changing days after she sat it. We heard from a neurosurgery SHO with two years of NHS service, who notes that this mid-cycle change renders his sunk costs unrecoverable. We have heard from a British citizen whose wife, a doctor on a spousal visa, is deprioritised, despite being a permanent resident.
Amendments 9 and 11 offer the Government a lifeline. They are permissive—my noble friend’s amendments mandate the Government. The bottom line is that the Secretary of State should use the data we know Oriel possesses to prioritise those with significant NHS experience in 2026, just as they intend to do in 2027. To reject this is to choose administrative convenience over natural justice.
I see the amendments at this stage as a probing opportunity. We need the Minister to explain in specific, technical detail why the existing Oriel data fields regarding employment history cannot be used to filter applicants for this cycle. If the Minister cannot provide a satisfactory technical explanation today, and if the Government resist this flexible approach, we will be forced to conclude that this is a choice, not a necessity. In that event, we may well need to return to it on Report.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This group of amendments relates to the implementation of prioritisation of posts starting in 2026. I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this. It is a very important area, as noble Lords have said, and I have listened closely, as ever, to the points made.
Beginning with prioritisation for the UK foundation programme, Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, seeks to prevent prioritisation applying to offers for the foundation programme that were confirmed before 13 January. To clarify, the Bill will impact only offers for places made after the Bill is passed and becomes law. The Bill will therefore not have any impact on offers to the foundation programme made before it becomes law. In our view, the amendment is therefore not necessary. In any event, no such offers exist, other than for a very small and specific group.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked about those who have already been allocated. The only individuals who have already been allocated foundation programme places for 2026 are those who deferred last year for statutory reasons, such as maternity leave or sickness absence. These individuals have already been assigned to posts, and this year’s allocation process does not affect them in any way.
On a more general point, as I referred to in the earlier group, and as noble Lords will recall, the 10-year plan, which was published in July 2025, confirmed that it was the intention of the Government to come forward with the Bill we are speaking of today. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked about the time it has taken since that date in July 2025. I can only say to the noble Lord that this is linked to our careful listening, which he will be aware of, to resident doctors and our understanding of the pressures that they are facing. The Bill is about action now. It is about acting decisively and introducing legislation for 2026, because, as noble Lords have kindly acknowledged, we need to start reshaping the workforce pipeline and show our commitment to easing the bottlenecks in training places.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I would be grateful if the Minister could say what proportion of those who wrote were disappointed with the Bill versus those who wrote supporting it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I cannot give an exact proportion, as the noble Lord is aware, but I have noticed that the proportion has changed as the Bill has progressed. As we have approached Committee, I have certainly seen more email traffic urging a non-amended Bill rather than an amended Bill. I would imagine that that is reflected in other emails. The noble Lord is indicating that it is not. I can see differing responses, but that has certainly been my impression.
The application of prioritisation to the 2026 intake is necessary and justified. If, as I referred to earlier, we waited until 2027, competition ratios are projected to rise even further, meaning that more UK graduates would be unable to progress their careers on time, with a greater risk to the long-term sustainability of the workforce. For these reasons, another year’s delay is not an option, and we cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment.
Amendment 10, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, also seeks to change categories of people who would be prioritised for specialty training places, starting in 2026, by virtue of having significant NHS experience or by reference to their immigration status. We cannot accept this amendment on the basis that the effect would be to prioritise every individual who applied for specialty training places in 2026 because all applicants are, by necessity, already registered on Oriel. This amendment would in practice nullify prioritisation for 2026 and render the legislation ineffective. It would not address the severe and growing bottlenecks in specialty training that the Bill aims and is designed to tackle.
The proposal to prioritise those who have demonstrated a professional commitment to the NHS also presents workability problems as there is no clear or objective definition of what such a commitment looks like, nor any reliable way to assess it for tens of thousands of applicants at this stage. Attempting to do so would be unmanageable in a practical sense and would introduce inconsistency, delay and uncertainty for applicants.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
One objective proposition that has been suggested is two years of NHS experience, which, it is said, would be readily trackable on Oriel. Can the Minister confirm whether that would indeed be possible?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Although I cannot be specific about what is technically possible, I can say that, as the noble Lord is aware, the arrangements for 2026 in the Bill can change for 2027, and that will be the subject of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders to get the best definitions we can. We know that currently, because of the time pressure, we are going to have to use—I think the noble Lord used the word “proxy”, in my view correctly. So that is where we are.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister criticised Amendment 10 from my noble friend on the basis that, in a sense, it is technically not doing what it attempts to do. But she has not really addressed the key argument at the core of this, which is that the Oriel system is capable of assessing precisely the kinds of two-year experience that so many of these deprioritised doctors will have. Is the Minister saying that it is absolutely not possible to use the Oriel system for that purpose in this context?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My recollection from my discussion with officials about this very point is that, with no criticism of the Oriel system, this is about what we are trying to do now and what we have available to us. It would require—I am looking for the right words—not just using that system but manual attention to thousands of applications. I am very happy to write to the noble Lord with further technical advice on the matter, but that is the situation of which I have been advised. The whole point about the way the Bill is designed is to make it workable. If we change it, we know we cannot deliver in the way the noble Lord might wish.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister for that. I hope that, despite the recess, there will be time to get all the information we need. There is a real problem here with the credibility of the Government’s position. There are many of us who hope that it will be possible to do something different, particularly since, in a way, the boot is on the other foot. The Government have had since last July, as we keep being told, to get the Oriel system fit for purpose in order to supply the information for 2026.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is ambitious on workability, beyond what I can honestly confirm is possible. Noble Lords would not wish me to stand at the Dispatch Box and suggest that, having looked at all we could do, the situation is anything other than that this Bill is a workable option. I can assure him that, as always, all noble Lords will get the information they are promised in a timely fashion. I also hope that the all-Peers letter and the letters I subsequently sent in respect of various areas of concern were helpful to noble Lords. I will of course ensure that anything further is there.
The issue with Amendment 10 is also that there is not that clear objective and definition of what a commitment looks like; it makes reference to it but does not explain it. By contrast, the Bill uses a set of carefully chosen, specified immigration statuses as a practical and proportionate proxy for identifying applicants who are most likely to have an established professional commitment to the NHS, which I believe is what all noble Lords are looking for. After careful consideration, we have concluded that for the 2026 recruitment round, that is the best approach. The amendment would remove any practical effect of prioritisation, which of course is at the heart of the Bill.
Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, seek to create a regulation-making power to define additional persons with significant NHS experience to be prioritised for specialty training in 2026. We cannot accept these amendments. As already stated, the Bill sets out the most suitable criteria for prioritising specialty training places in this year. Under the existing Clause 2(2), for specialty training places starting in 2026, immigration status will be used as a practical proxy for NHS experience to allow prioritisation to begin swiftly. This proxy is being used because applications for posts starting in 2026 have already been made. Therefore, we need to prioritise based on the information already captured, and which can be assessed.
To build on what I was referring to in the exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—I know this is also of interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—while NHS experience is captured in the Oriel recruitment system, using it as an assessment criteria for the 2026 allocation round would require a manual review of tens of thousands of applications, “manual review” being the words I was looking for earlier. This is just not operationally feasible. There is no current agreed threshold for what constitutes a meaningful level of NHS experience. Stakeholders offer very different views on this, which is why we have committed to a proper engagement process, subject to the Bill’s passage, to ensure that any future definition is fair, evidence-based and deliverable.
The Bill already gives us flexibility to ensure that we take the best approach to prioritising those with NHS experience for specialty training posts in subsequent years. For posts starting in 2017 onwards, the immigration status category will not apply automatically. Instead, we will be able to make regulations to specify any additional groups who will be prioritised by reference to criteria indicating significant experience as a doctor in the health service, or by reference to immigration status.
For the reasons I have outlined, I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, especially those from around the Committee who felt able to support my Amendment 4. I think there will be very many people in the medical community who will read the Minister’s reply to my amendment with acute disappointment. I say that not only because of the arguments I tried to articulate about legitimate expectations but also because of the point, well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the damage that the Bill will cause to the UK’s reputation for fairness around the world.
I would also pray in aid the amendment spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, who argued in favour of delaying the implementation of the medical specialty training prioritisation requirements by one year. In doing so, he has very much echoed my thinking in this whole area. My initial reaction to this amendment is that it would have a positive impact on applicant confidence, as well as trust in the system, to pick up again the point by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, by allowing an extra year to transition to the new prioritisation process.
I also note that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, in his role as chairman of the Constitution Committee, has written to the Minister, raising the committee’s concerns about the impact of the new prioritisation regime on applicants for the 2026 cohort who would fall outside the prioritised groups. It seems to me that Ministers really should consider this proposal carefully.
Amendment 10 by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, would remove the requirement that those who are prioritised for specialty training programmes must have indefinite leave to remain or leave to enter or remain in the UK, replacing those subsections with the requirement that persons merely need to have been
“registered on the NHS Oriel recruitment platform, or … demonstrated a professional commitment to the National Health Service”.
I thought the noble Lord argued his case very well. Of course, material in this context is the number of applicants who do not currently have leave to enter or remain in the UK who would, under the noble Lord’s amendment, be able to come here. I am, however, quite surprised to hear from the Minister that it would require a manual search of tens of thousands of records to find the answer to that, and that there are not ways of conducting a search automatically or electronically that could reveal the information that is needed. Again, I was disappointed by the Minister’s reply, for the reasons largely cited by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Finally, I comment briefly on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, to which I added my name. These do not seem to me to be onerous on the Government in any way; they merely grant the Secretary of State the power to permit the appropriate authority to make regulations specifying further groups of people who are included. I feel that the Bill is particularly unfair to doctors with significant NHS experience seeking a specialty training post in 2026, and the mechanism proposed in the noble Lord’s amendments could be used to address that unfairness.
It is a pity that the Minister felt compelled to sound a negative note on the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. However, having listened to the Minister’s reply and to all the amendments in this group, I think a period of reflection is warranted, hopefully by the Government as well as noble Lords around the Committee. With that, I beg to withdraw Amendment 4.
Baroness Gerada
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 15, 16 and 19. I want to disclose an interest that I did not have at Second Reading: I am now co-chair of the Malta APPG—and I remain of Maltese heritage.
Amendment 19, in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Mendelsohn, seeks to add Malta to the list of countries in Clause 4(4). It is precise and proportionate, and it would correct a narrow but serious unintended consequence in the Bill, as I will explain. Of course I acknowledge the need to prioritise UK graduates for training but, as the Minister of Health and Active Ageing of Malta put it in a letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Bill risks
“undermining two centuries of proud tradition and the dissolution of a strong bilateral relationship in healthcare, care, and the training and specialisation of Maltese graduates”.
At Second Reading, I spoke about the unique medical training partnership between the UK and Malta, which dates back two centuries. For example, Maltese surgeons have held licences from our own royal colleges since the 1830s. This is therefore not a recent convenience but a deep historic alignment. It is a relationship that has shaped both systems for generations, creating an instinctive alliance in training, practice, standards and expectations.
The Maltese education system is modelled on the UK system and aligned to British clinical and ethical standards. Training is delivered in English, and the Maltese healthcare system closely mirrors the NHS. That is why my father was able to come to this country in 1963 and devote his working life to serving patients in the east of England, and why others from Malta have done the same, performing well above their weight in serving patients in this country.
Furthermore, postgraduate membership and fellowship remain aligned with the British royal colleges, reflecting a deep and enduring professional loyalty. Indeed, many of these doctors have become trainers, educators and examiners, helping to uphold the quality of UK postgraduate education—some have had daughters who became presidents of royal colleges. Malta and the UK are therefore historically, culturally and educationally linked.
I turn to the comparison of the Malta foundation programme, an affiliated programme to the UK foundation programme, and I shall reflect on the free trade agreements that the UK holds with the countries in Clause 4. Government documentation for the UK’s free trade agreement with these countries requires regulators to
“recognise qualifications or relevant experience of a professional who applies for recognition and possesses comparable professional qualifications”.
The language in that documentation, which recognises reciprocal arrangement, strongly aligns to the UK-Malta affiliate programme and, on that basis, it should be treated no less favourably than these other nations.
Since 2009, our foundation programmes have been formally aligned, sharing the same curriculum and e-portfolio. This alignment was renewed in 2024, confirming that the Malta programme met the same standards and outcomes as the UK foundation programme. To the best of my knowledge, no other country anywhere in the world has that level of mutual recognition.
At the centre of this is Queen Mary University of London’s campus in Malta, a UK public university delivering an identical UK GMC-approved MBBS degree to that which it delivers in its east London campus in Tower Hamlets. The students follow the same curriculum, complete the same statutory mandatory training, take the same UK national qualification exams and graduate with the same UK primary medical qualification. They are registered by the GMC as graduates of Queen Mary University of London.
During Second Reading, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, addressed Malta as a distinct case, and indeed it is. The QMUL training programme is a UK programme delivered overseas under a framework recognised by and supported by the UK Government. More than half the students are UK citizens. The equivalence of training between the UK and Malta is complete, not approximate. It is not close; it is identical. Even the patient profile is the same. Malta’s population, diversity, healthcare system and disease patterns share extraordinary similarities with the UK, particularly compared with any other international training environments. Moreover, most students undertake NHS attachments during their training. These graduates enter the UK workforce fully prepared for UK foundation training, trained at no cost to the UK taxpayer.
The impact of a medical school goes beyond the students. QMUL has made a not insubstantial professional and financial investment in the campus and the Government of Malta have invested in the school’s construction. This aligns with the UK Government’s wider objective of developing international UK university campuses, as outlined in the recent strategy document from the Department for Education. This Bill, if not amended, puts this at risk.
The numbers are small, as the foundation years are capped at between 50 to 70 graduates. This is less than 0.6% of the UK foundation programme places. This is simply no workforce threat, no substitution effect or planning distortion. There is, however, a real risk of unfairness in the Bill as it stands. These students have a legitimate expectation, grounded on 15 years of consistent government practice, and the experience of all preceding QMUL medical graduates, that they should be treated comparably with other holders of UK primary medical qualifications. The Bill as drafted removes that status and places these graduates behind Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland—jurisdictions whose graduates do not hold a UK primary medical qualification, do not sit the medical licensing or prescribing exams and are not trained on an NHS-aligned curriculum. This is difficult to explain, let alone to justify. This amendment simply corrects this anomaly. It protects a uniquely successful partnership, anchored in history, quality and equivalence.
Going beyond foundation years, a few Maltese doctors come to the NHS every year to fill gaps in their own medical training—so-called finishing school. These are in non-numbered posts. Malta provides 70% of their pay and these doctors are contractually required to return to Malta. This is not a pipeline of overseas doctors displacing domestic graduates. It is a small group, maybe 30 or 40, who meet our standards, all of whom have been examined and trained specifically in UK practice.
Finally and briefly, I turn to Amendments 15 and 16 again in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Mendelsohn. These suggests a carefully defined exception in Clause 4 for UK universities operating overseas campuses that deliver an identical UK-approved medical degree as in the British islands. These are exceptionally narrow amendments confined, to the best of my knowledge, to only two programmes in the world—Queen Mary University of London’s campus in Malta and Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia.
At Second Reading, the Minister referred to
“almost 300 applicants from … overseas campuses”,—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. 1679.]
and noted that the Government need to control this number to “avoid opening the floodgates”. I stress, as I have already said, that the number of QMUL graduates applying for UK jobs is capped by the University of Malta at between 50 and 70, with around 120 from Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia bringing the total to 190. These caps would enable the Government to control the number of overseas applicants.
I also want to make clear my support of the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Forbes, which provides a similar solution. Only institutions operating overseas campuses that meet the criteria set out in the amendments and that are in operation at the time the Act is passed should be included. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 15, 16 and 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, which I have signed, and which she spoke to so convincingly. These Benches also support Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and signed by my noble friend Lord Shipley, and Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
As I said at Second Reading, I am the former chair of the council of Queen Mary University of London and now, for my sins, an honorary professor. Amendments 15, 16 and 19 seek to correct a category error in the Bill: namely, the classification of students holding a UK primary medical qualification from a UK public university as “international”, solely because their classroom is in Malta. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will say the same in respect of Malaysia. The Minister has argued that these students lack “clinical familiarity” with the NHS, but that does not withstand scrutiny. These students follow the exact same curriculum as their peers in London, as the noble Baroness said.
The Bill prioritises EEA nations, because it seems that our trade deal requires us to recognise “comparable” qualifications. It is legally incoherent to accept a “comparable” qualification from Liechtenstein while rejecting an “identical” and “affiliated” qualification from Malta. We are treating a formal UK affiliate worse than a trade partner. These students sit the UK medical licensing assessment and they are taught by UK-trained consultants. As I said at Second Reading, it is a manifest absurdity that, under this Bill, a graduate from Liechtenstein with no UK degree and no UK training is prioritised over a Queen Mary student who holds a UK degree and is specifically prepared for our health service.
I strongly endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, regarding our free trade agreements. We are in an absurd position whereby a treaty obligation forces us to prioritise these “comparable” qualifications. This is not workforce planning; it is a diplomatic and regulatory own goal. As the noble Baroness explained, Amendment 19 offers a simple solution by adding Malta to the priority list. This honours the mutual recognition agreement held between the UK and Malta since 2009—an agreement the Department of Health explicitly renewed in 2024.
Amendments 15, 16 and 17 offer a broader solution based on the qualification. If a student holds a UK degree from a UK-registered institution and passes identical UK assessments, they should be treated as a UK graduate. The Minister fears displacement of domestic talent, yet the majority of these Maltese trainees are contractually obliged to return to Malta after their training. They are what can be described as a circulatory workforce: one that supports the NHS during their training years, without permanently blocking the consultant pipeline. They are the ideal workforce partner. As stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, Maltese surgeons have been licensed by our royal colleges since the 1830s. This is not a new or risky pipeline; it is a two-century year-old bond that the Bill carelessly severs.
Furthermore, we support Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, regarding people who qualify in the British Islands but who have trained abroad. We are all on the same page in advocating for these well-qualified students, who should be eligible to have the same priority in obtaining training jobs as those currently set out in the Bill. We have received heartbreaking correspondence from British nationals studying in eastern Europe, often because of the cap on places here, who intend to return to the NHS. One correspondent highlighted that we allow British dentists to return without these barriers. Why do we treat our future doctors differently?
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to support the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada. The best surgical training I had was with a Maltese surgeon, who was absolutely fantastic and taught me lessons I have never forgotten. One has to see that that cross-fertilisation happens across the NHS very often.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 15, 16 and 19, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It is my first opportunity to speak in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, in this Chamber. She is one of the more extraordinary and fantastic additions to this House in recent years. She has made a massive contribution to our country in medical expertise. The case that she made for these amendments was utterly compelling. I hope the Minister has felt the same inspiration as I did from her words. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who I realise I have now known for 29 years, for another great speech, which again I think added to the strength of these points.
The amendments address an important omission, which has a couple of concerning issues underlying it. The case for why we should continue with this relationship is compelling. We seek to add Malta to the list of jurisdictions whose primary medical qualifications are recognised for prioritisation. As stated, Malta’s medical education system is not merely comparable to that of the United Kingdom; it is formally and historically integrated, through decades of regulatory alignment, shared training structures and sustained institutional partnerships, including the Queen Mary University of London’s Malta campus.
A substantial proportion of the graduates from this campus are United Kingdom nationals and many others hold UK domicile or indefinite leave to remain status. This is a cohort that can be planned for with confidence and absorbed without difficulty within the normal operation of the system, while making a real and practical contribution to the NHS. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, they provide a valuable workforce capability that does not undermine the consultant pipeline, which is something we have to manage very well. Excluding this cohort of medical students disrupts an established pipeline, separates training from deployment and leaves capacity unused within a system that is under constant pressure. That is not disciplined workforce policy; it is a misalignment between regulation and operational need.
Medical education is one of the United Kingdom’s most significant strategic assets and a central pillar of our global impact in healthcare. It is very important that we maintain alignments and partnerships where they exist. Undermining them does nothing to enhance our reputation as a stable partner for any form of business, let alone the important thing of building relationships in medical research. I hope the Government reflect very carefully on this. A category error has led to a position where, even as recently as 2024, we undertook another solemn commitment—as you do in contracting—which we have now backed away from. That is a terrible place to be in.
The historic connections we have with countries—where we align these things over years and people invest with confidence—must not be undermined, especially when we, essentially, use a free trade agreement as a mechanism to undermine it. This is the wrong way around. This is not strategic planning; it is dodging and weaving between different and vacillating policies. We cannot be subject to this.
I hope the Minister will encourage the Government to reflect very carefully on this. I hope that there will be some positive news about how we can make sure that the countries we have aligned with most closely and have a formal UK affiliation can be brought into this arrangement and that some form of these amendments can be accepted.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I must begin my contribution to this debate with two formalities. First, I declare that I am an honorary member of the court of Newcastle University. In fact, I am a recent recipient of an honorary doctorate from Newcastle University—although I must stress that I in no way compare an honorary doctorate in civil law with the range of national and international medical expertise in the Chamber this afternoon.
I also apologise to the Committee for tabling the probing amendment in my name without speaking at Second Reading. I hope that your Lordships will excuse my inexperience in the procedures of the House and be assured that there was no intended discourtesy to the Committee on my part by this inadvertent breach of procedure. Previous contributions to the debate have demonstrated that I may have got off somewhat lightly in terms of email traffic by not speaking at Second Reading; I have no doubt that there will be more email traffic to come on this subject.
I congratulate the Government on bringing this Bill forward and acknowledge the legitimacy of its core purpose. Prioritising doctors trained in the United Kingdom for foundation and specialty training is a necessary, reasonable and understandable aim, particularly given the sustained workforce pressures in certain parts of the NHS.
I was motivated to table this amendment by a number of representations that I received from concerned students who had been studying at the NUMed campus in Malaysia, which I had the great privilege of visiting shortly after it opened about 10 years ago. Many graduates of the NUMed Malaysia campus have gone on to serve with great distinction in the NHS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said, the numbers are very small, but their impact on our National Health Service is very great. That sense of pride in the NUMed campus is felt deeply by Newcastle University, which is how I know and have been contacted about this issue. However, in a number of the representations that I have received, there has been a mistaken interpretation that the intent of the legislation is to exclude rather than prioritise. I wish to comment on these points in the debate on this group.
I was very surprised to see figures demonstrating that, in some specialties, competition ratios for specialty training have now exceeded 20 applicants per post, making the urgency of the Bill ever more apparent. I listened very carefully to the debate and have been greatly reassured by my noble friend the Minister’s assurances, particularly on the prioritisation of UK students rather than the exclusion of overseas students, and the intention of the Bill to smooth out bottlenecks in medical training and focus on homegrown talent as a priority. This does not mean denying the NHS appropriate international talent when it is appropriate to deploy it. I am also very reassured by my noble friend the Minister’s reassurances on the concerns about unintended consequences being addressed by subsequent regulation and review.
The Government have expressed a clear intent to continue to engage with relevant UK universities with international campuses to further explain the intention of the Bill and the way that it will operate in practice, and to support them as they adjust to the Bill’s very legitimate and important requirements as it progresses towards enactment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, it was with great pleasure that I added my name to the amendment so nobly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle. I am most appreciative to my noble friend Lady Gerada for the way that she introduced this whole group, because she flagged up very clearly that Malta and Newcastle are different from other places.
I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, that my probing amendment was simply to probe. I was worried that the Bill’s wording could inadvertently leave UK-based universities unable to develop other outreach campuses, but not Irish medical schools and universities, and that those graduates could then be included in the future. I wanted to make sure that we had a level playing field, but I accept that the wording is clumsy and does not work.
I think the key word in the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, tabled is “extant”, when it says that the
“medical school … is extant on the day on which this Act is passed”.
That would allow those schools currently in place, particularly Malta-Newcastle and, if the Government are so minded, the RCSI in Bahrain, to be able to be included because those degrees are taught to the same curriculum and examined at the same level, and those taking it undertake the medical licensing exam and prescribing exam—which I know is changing, but it will still be important that there is a completely level playing field. It would stop the mushrooming that could occur from other universities.
The word “extant” is really important, and I hope that the Minister will be able to take it on board and that it is completely compatible with the compelling case made by my noble friend Lady Gerada.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of the thrust of the amendments in this group. I start by acknowledging the concern that I think is animating the Government on this point, which is that they do not want to see a thin end of a wedge that opens up substantially with a lot of newly created international programmes that then end up further displacing UK-trained graduates and undermining the ability to effectively plan the medical workforce of the future.
Fortunately, however, none of these amendments actually constitutes the thin end of the wedge—there is no wedge. As we have just heard, these amendments grandfather the current, very modest arrangements at QMUL Malta and Newcastle University, which are so numerically small, with a couple of hundred students relative to 12,800 for the other training programmes. So those are not the programmes that have caused the problem that the Bill is seeking to address, nor should they therefore be collateral damage as the Bill progresses.
As discussed at Second Reading, particularly in respect of Malta we have a long-standing relationship, and we have a series of diplomatic and other ties of bilateral agreement that the British Government and the Maltese within the last 12 months have renewed, which are of continuing and considerable significance to us, including on defence, security and other aspects. So the Government would be well advised not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to take seriously the concerns that these amendments represent.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I shall speak to the Amendments 15, 16 and 19 to add my support to the amendments on the issue of Malta from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, as well as Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and Amendment 20 from the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Given that we have had a substantial discussion on Malta, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I shall speak more towards Newcastle, forging the northern alliance that we may have—and more importantly because my mentor, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who cannot be here, made a particular point of visiting my office to say, “You are going to be speaking on Newcastle on Thursday, aren’t you?” So here we go.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, would ensure that graduates from overseas campuses, and United Kingdom medical schools in particular, are treated fairly and consistently. I think that the amendment is precise and proportionate. It applies three conditions: first, that the primary medical qualification is awarded by a United Kingdom medical school—in this case Newcastle, but there will be others; and, secondly, that the qualification is obtained through study at an overseas campus that existed at the point of this Act being passed. The noble Baroness talked about potential creep when we discussed this last week in terms of other institutions being able to take advantage and open that back door. With this very timely amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, it is very clear that—
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
Is it the noble Lord’s understanding that there would be the opportunity for creep as is currently set out in the Bill? For example, if Queen Mary University of London wished to establish a medical school in Liechtenstein, which currently lacks one, it would be able to do so with an unlimited number of places. All those new students would then be passported into the NHS.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has given people ideas. Possibly, this could happen, yes.
Thirdly, both courses and study for the convocation are approved by the GMC as being equivalent to the UK medical qualification. This is not about lowering standards or creating a new route through the back door. On the contrary, this is about recognising the standards that already exist and are regulated by the GMC. The GMC is determined that these courses are equivalent in content assessment and outcome. It is difficult to justify why we should exclude them, given the numbers that we heard about earlier.
Universities such as Newcastle—and there may be others as well—rely heavily on this partnership. These programmes have not just happened overnight. They have existed for some time. They are run by UK institutions, aligned with UK curricula and assessed identically to UK standards and subjects. Graduates receive UK-awarded degrees, not foreign substitutes. Such programmes contribute to the NHS. Only yesterday, we heard from Newcastle University that they have had up to 150 students on their Malaysian campus. As we heard earlier, some of those students have come back to the United Kingdom and, in particular, have served for many years as GPs when we have had an acute shortage. We need to take heed of that contribution and also the long-standing relationships that exist both with Newcastle and Queen Mary.
We are only asking for a very small change. We are not asking for tens of thousands of students to come here. We are asking for a small number through long-established partnerships that have existed and stood the test of time. We are asking the Minister for some flexibility. This is being heard from all sides of your Lordships’ House. We are about to go on a holiday. I hope that the Minister will take this time to reflect on our debate and come back on Report with government amendments that we can all support. I look forward to the debate that we are going to have in less than a fortnight’s time.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 20 and 21 and in support of the other amendments in this group.
My amendments are intended to work together and to return us to one of the salient themes of our debates at Second Reading, a theme which has been persuasively developed today by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and other speakers. At the heart of their concerns is why the Government have chosen to adopt a definition that threatens to undermine high-quality workforce capacity in the NHS, that jeopardises the sustainability of medical education delivered overseas by UK institutions, and that runs completely counter to the Government’s stated ambitions on promoting British standards of education internationally.
The Bill prioritises graduates based on strict geographic criteria, rather than on the provenance of their qualifications. UK academic institutions such as Queen Mary University of London and Newcastle University have campuses respectively on Malta and in Malaysia which train doctors to GMC-approved standards, using the same curriculum and the same assessments as those employed on their campuses in the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, has eloquently made the case for Maltese-trained students. I can add little to that. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Mendelsohn, and Lord Forbes have also spoken very powerfully on the same theme. The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, speak of the two qualifications—in other words that gained in Malta and that gained in London—as being identical in character. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, uses the word “equivalent”. I would go further by saying that the degree issued by the Queen Mary University of London Malta campus is not merely equivalent to a UK degree: it is a UK degree.
Not only that, but Queen Mary University is able to state that cohorts of its students trained in Malta frequently outperform their contemporaries who have studied and trained on the London campus. The intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has confirmed that that is not an isolated claim. The same claim could be made of many graduates of Newcastle University’s campus in Malaysia. These are excellent doctors, so there is not an issue of quality here.
Nor should there be an issue around numbers. In total, as we have heard, the number of these overseas-trained graduates is modest in comparison to the overall NHS training intake in a given year. The numbers really ought to be treated as de minimis. We have heard from Ministers that, if they were to flex the rules in the way that I and others are proposing, there would be no way for them in the future to control the total numbers of eligible applicants from these sources. My question is: why? It would seem perfectly possible to grant Ministers a power to cap total numbers at a figure corresponding to recent experience. It would then be up to the relevant universities concerned to collaborate year by year to ensure that the cap was not exceeded. That is what my Amendment 21 is intended to do.
Finally, we return to the issue of legitimate expectations. For all the reasons that I have given, students trained on overseas campuses of UK institutions have never dreamed of questioning whether the status of their qualification would differ in the slightest from the status of the qualification gained by their student colleagues in London. They are, in consequence, not to put too fine a point in it, appalled that, through this Bill, they are suddenly to be regarded as less deserving of a medical career in the NHS. I ask the Minister to think again.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this debate, as I have been grateful for the time that noble Lords have given to discussing their concerns about various aspects of the Bill in advance of today. I can say to both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that I always reflect on what they and other noble Lords say. Indeed, I reflect on what every noble Lord says—it is true that I may listen to some more than others, but that would be telling. I am genuinely grateful. In my view, it really does assist the passage of legislation and I take it very seriously. I will of course reflect, as I have before, not just on what is said in the Chamber but on what we have discussed outside.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said previously that people will be watching and reading this debate, and I absolutely agree and am glad that they do. So I must emphasise the point that this is not about excluding people from their applications; it is about prioritising. The reason we are in this position is the removal of the resident labour market test in 2020, which changed the whole landscape. In 2019, there were 12,000 applicants; now, there are nearly 40,000 applicants, which means four resident doctors for every specialist training post. I believe that noble Lords understand the scale. Internationally trained doctors make a huge contribution and will continue to do so. We are aiming to bring forward those internationally trained doctors who have significant NHS experience for training posts in the future, which I think is absolutely right.
Let me turn to the amendments in this group: Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada; Amendment 17, tabled by my noble friend Lord Forbes; and Amendments 20 and 21, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Each of these amendments seeks to ensure that graduates of overseas campuses of UK medical schools are prioritised for foundation and specialty training. I understand why this is being raised, and it is quite right to probe this whole area, in my view. While I appreciate the intention behind these amendments, and the manner in which they have come through, the Government are unable to accept them.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I want to come in on the point about whether or not the UK Government would lack the ability to control the expansion of international places in the grandfathered campuses. Is it not the case that, in fact, the UK Government do have such a tool at their disposal, through the Office for Students? The OfS has to agree the number of undergraduate medical places that a university can operate here in the UK and can cap those, and could therefore introduce an off-setting mechanism so that any additional place created outside the UK would see a reduction in the UK authorisation. That would be incentive enough, I suspect, to ensure that universities did not behave in the way that the Minister is concerned about.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord kindly raised this with me before, and I did test it out. I am grateful that he has given thought to this, because it is an important point. However, I am advised that, unfortunately, the solution that he has come up with would not deal with all the concerns we have and would still give us difficulty. The noble Lord talked about the thin end of the wedge, and I fear that we are still in the same place. I am happy to write to the noble Lord, and to make that letter available, to explain further detail. I am grateful that he has given consideration to a solution for what is undoubtedly an issue.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I understand the comments that the Minister has made to my noble friend Lord Stevens. Would she consider wording in the primary legislation that expands on the fact that the campus must be extant and includes that the number of students studying medicine for the UK degree must be the same as when the Bill passes? That would provide rigid guidelines in primary legislation and would not rely on another body, where a quota could possibly be negotiated.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Again, I understand that the noble Baroness is coming forward with a solution and I appreciate her thoughts. I always reflect on what is said, but my initial reflection is that that does not deal with the fact that we already have a number of people. I asked this very question about continuing to prioritise them. It is significant even currently and that is part of the problem, although I understand what she is suggesting.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will take one more intervention, but it might be helpful to hear all that I have to say.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sure that it will, but I just wanted to follow up the Minister’s pledge to deliver a letter to us in which she will set out precisely what her concerns are. Will the timing of that letter be early next week so that there is time to table amendments for Report to meet some of those concerns?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As I always do, I will seek to engage in sufficient time before Report. I will not promise the beginning of next week, but we all know the deadlines that noble Lords are working to and I am very respectful of that.
Amendment 17 could create the loophole I have referred to and risks existing international overseas campuses expanding their intakes further. I am grateful that noble Lords acknowledge the concern and are considering how to deal with it. That would be outside any UK workforce planning.
Amendment 21 would provide a regulation-making power to limit the number of applicants who could be prioritised from these overseas campuses. Going back to my earlier comments, it is not clear how such a requirement would be implemented effectively and fairly in practice but, in any event, it would not provide an appropriate safeguard for UK workforce planning.
The Bill rightly prioritises those whose education and placements the UK taxpayer has supported, who are most likely to work in the NHS in the long term—I emphasise this point—and are better equipped to deliver healthcare tailored to the UK’s population because they understand the UK’s epidemiology. However, I hope my noble friend Lord Forbes and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, will take back to the university that graduates from international overseas campuses are not excluded and will continue to be able to apply to the foundation programme and specialty training.
Amendment 18 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, relates to the prioritisation of medical graduates from institutions in Ireland. The Government cannot accept this amendment, and I thought her own assessment of it was most honest and helpful. Throughout the development of this Bill, we have been clear that graduates from the Republic of Ireland are prioritised on the same basis as UK medical graduates. This reflects the long-standing and unique relationship between our countries, including the arrangements under the common travel area, which supports reciprocal rights of movement and employment. It also ensures coherence in workforce planning across both jurisdictions, where medical education and training pathways have been closely aligned for many years.
Introducing different criteria for graduates from the Republic of Ireland, as this amendment proposes, would risk disrupting those shared arrangements. It could also create an uncertainty in the provision of postgraduate training in Ireland.
Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, seeks to add Malta to the list of prioritised countries set out in Clause 4. This would require that those who hold a primary medical qualification from any institution in Malta, irrespective of their nationality, are prioritised for foundation and specialty training. I address this particularly to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, to whom I listened closely, as I did to the noble Baroness, but we cannot accept this amendment.
I refer particularly to the European Free Trade Association countries, as they have been mentioned a number of times, including by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others. Those countries listed in Clause 4 are those with which the UK has signed agreements that include offering parity of access to the workforce. I have looked back at when those agreements were made: for the EFTA countries of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, the agreement was made in July 2021, and Switzerland was in 2019. I make these points because they certainly precede this Government. In practice, as I have said before, not all these countries will have eligible applicants in any case.
The 1975 UK-Malta reciprocal healthcare convention will continue and is not affected by the Bill. I emphasise that that agreement is wholly related to reciprocal access to healthcare, not access to training or employment related to medical training. I hope it is helpful to say that the Bill includes a power to amend the list of countries in Clause 4 to reflect any future international agreements that the UK may enter into. As I have also stated previously, the Government set UK medical school places based on future health system needs. I emphasise that there is no disrespect intended here and we very much value the long-standing partnership with Malta on healthcare, and that will continue to be valued. However, prioritising international graduates would undermine our ability to keep foundation training numbers aligned with the NHS workforce that we are planning for and manage those bottlenecks in specialty training, about which there is concern across the Committee. This is about focusing on patient care and ensuring that those whose education and experience best prepares them to practice safely and effectively in the NHS are the ones who are prioritised.
For specialty training, prioritising these individuals would not support our aim to prioritise doctors with significant NHS experience who understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population. I reassure the Committee that this Bill will not affect existing fellowship arrangements with Malta, and the affiliation of the UK foundation programme and Malta foundation programme, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, referred, will still stand. Senior officials in my department have met with the high commissioner of Malta to the United Kingdom to assure him of this and last week I received a positive letter of acknowledgement from the Health Minister in Malta.
To be absolutely clear, individuals with a primary medical qualification from Malta will still be able to apply for foundation and specialty training places, and they will be considered for any places that are left after prioritisation. But it would still be the case that it would be at odds with the aim of the Bill for them to be prioritised for these places. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Winston (Lab)
The NHS is a complex organisation which is going to be rapidly changing, with increasing issues regarding its employees and all sorts of new technologies that will develop in a way we have never seen before. In view of that, does the Minister think there might be some reason for the Government to consider looking at this situation in, say, five years’ time to see the effect of the Bill on the health service?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right about the pace of change, and many of the changes we cannot even imagine as we discuss this today. We keep the impact of legislation under review, and the Bill will be no different to any other Bill in that regard.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I do not want to put the Minister too much on the spot now, so could she clarify in her letter whether Clause 4(3)(b) means that the Bahrain campus is within the allocation for prioritised places, whether any other Irish campuses are, and how the limit would be held on other campuses developed from Ireland, given that the response we have had seems to exclude Malta and Newcastle?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am happy to set it out in a letter, but I can say immediately that graduates of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland’s Bahrain campus are not necessarily prioritised just because part of their programme takes place in Ireland. The Bill is clear that prioritisation applies to graduates of Irish medical schools who complete the majority of their medical education in Ireland, but I am happy to add to that in my letter.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for the care with which she has addressed my amendments. I will be very brief. I must say I am disappointed, and I have a few points.
I will address Malta first. These are not international medical graduates; these are UK-trained doctors training in a UK university, albeit overseas. As I said, they are trained for the NHS. The Minister mentioned several times that it is not exclusion, it is prioritisation. I have already had emails from two doctors, one of whom is being excluded from applying for a postgraduate examination until the UK cohort has applied. I will not say their specialty, because it might identify them, but it means that the tiny island of Malta will not have this particular specialty because this doctor cannot finish his training until he does that. They are already being excluded from fellowship posts that have been long standing over decades—that is of last week.
Given the fact that the Bill is being taken through the House at such pace, as well as writing a letter—which I understand we will get in our post next week—would the Minister be willing to meet me and several Peers who have already raised some amendments so that we can explore this in more detail and work constructively towards a solution? I am sure these issues will be considered further on Report but, in the light of the Minister’s reply today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kamall
“Review: provision of medical training places(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the impact of this Act on the provision of medical training places as part of the UK Foundation Programme and UK specialty training programmes as defined by section 5 of this Act.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include assessment of the impact of this Act on—(a) the take-up of places on the UK Foundation Programme and UK specialty training programmes in each calendar year from 2010 to 2025, and(b) the total number of valid applications to the UK Foundation Programme and UK specialty training programmes in each calendar year from 2010 to 2025.(3) In undertaking the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consider the number of unsuccessful applicants or successful applicants who decide not to take up their training place.(4) Within two months of the completion of the review under subsection 1, the Secretary of State must publish a report including the findings of the review and lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the adequacy of provision of medical training places and publish a report detailing the findings of that review.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in speaking for the first time in Committee, I refer to my interests as a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, where I teach an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy, and where I also co-operate with the school of medicine, which will start accepting students later this year. I also work as an honorary fellow at the Vinson Centre for the Public Understanding of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the University of Buckingham, which also has a medical school but with which I have no direct connection.
I tabled Amendment 22 to facilitate a wider debate on the level of provision of medical training places and its impact on the outcomes for doctors and, by extension, patients, as well as the need for regular review. We all agree that the NHS and other health providers need highly qualified staff if they are to deliver the quality care that people expect of them, but that means that policymakers should seek to establish an education system that encourages young people to see the benefits of medicine as a career path, supports those going through medical training every step of the way and removes barriers to those who want to be doctors. As my noble friend Lord Howe said earlier, currently, too many young doctors reach the point at which they need to secure a medical specialty training place but find themselves disappointed, either because they are unable to access a training place or because the training place they are able to secure does not meet their needs.
A 2023 study by Tomas Ferreira on the career intentions of medical students found that many medical students finishing their foundation programme do not intend to take up medical specialty training places. The report says
“we report an increase in intention to not take up specialty posts immediately after the Foundation Programme, with an increase from 6.75% … of first-year students to 35.98% … of final year students. A contributing factor to this scenario could be a significant increase in competition ratios for specialty training posts, partly due to increasing medical student places and no corresponding increase in the number of training posts available”.
The lack of specialty training places to retain those medical students within the NHS is a challenge that the Government and we all face—something, I concede, we realised perhaps too late when we were in government. If the issue is not tackled, we will continue to see talented young doctors who might otherwise prefer to stay in the UK and work within the NHS, and maybe other health providers, leaving the UK to complete their training elsewhere.
The Government have announced their offer to the BMA to expand specialty training posts by 4,000, with 1,000 of them brought forward this year. That expansion in training places is welcome and necessary. I ask the Minister to confirm whether there will be any delay in their delivery and whether they will be delivered this year.
In May last year, I tabled a series of Written Questions on resident doctor medical training places, and the responses showed that very small numbers of training places are available in some regions. For example, in 2024, just one medical oncology specialist training stage 3 post was offered in the whole of the north-east region. The figure for the Wessex region was two places. For the earlier specialist training stage 1 posts in gynaecology, the Wessex region had just 11 places in 2024, while the whole of the south-west region had just 16 of those places. Can the Minister say whether those numbers are meeting the needs of those regions and whether there is a gap? What are the key factors that restrict the number of training places that can be offered in those regions?
The overall number of training places is probably the most important challenge young doctors face, but there are other considerations that affect talent retention. The geographical distribution of training places is also something that we all know needs attention. Last month, the Government announced that they will introduce new training places targeted at trusts with the biggest workforce gaps, prioritising rural and coastal areas, where patients currently struggle the most. We welcome that. That is good news. But, in designing this policy, I ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the number of medical students who actually want to train in these rural areas and whether that is a factor in some UK medical graduates choosing to go abroad or is irrelevant.
In response to concerns from the BMA about the challenge of doctors having to cover the upfront cost of their training, the Government have offered cost-related measures in their offer to the BMA, including reimbursement of exam fees. I ask the Minister for a little transparency and to give the Committee more detail on how reimbursement would work if the BMA were to accept that offer.
I hope that the Minister is able to answer these questions, either today or later in writing. I assure her that we look forward to working constructively with the Government as they face up to these workforce challenges. I beg to move.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, to help the Committee to assess the need for this further report that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, just set out, it would be helpful if we could hear from the Minister when the Government will produce their replacement long-term workforce plan for the 2023 edition, which itself was deemed to be long term but ended up having a half-life of less than two years. How imminent is that and will it deal with the sorts of points that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, rightly brings to our attention? When will we see the follow-on to the excellent Medical Training Review: Phase 1 Diagnostic Report, authored by the Chief Medical Officer and the previous National Medical Director of NHS England, published in October, which sets out these issues extremely well? The clue is in the title: it is the diagnosis. But when do we get the prescription? When does the treatment begin?
In a sense, the problem that we are dealing with through the Bill—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, just set out for us—owes its antecedents to the disconnect between the provision of NHS services and the ability to make smart, long-term workforce decisions. Unfortunately, for the period 2012 to 2022, those decisions on medical training were outwith the NHS and in effect were being controlled by the Treasury, which was constantly saying no to Health Ministers who were at the time trying to bring forward constructive solutions. Indeed, it was only when a former Secretary of State for Health became Chancellor that the situation was unblocked and we got the medical school expansion. Perhaps that is an inspiring example for the current Health Secretary—I do not know; perhaps he aspires higher. The fact is that we need that whole-government engagement on these kinds of questions to bring coherence and deal with these problems at root. Therefore, in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, any light that the Minister can shed on when precisely we will have line of sight to these sorts of questions would be, I think, of great benefit to the Committee.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 22, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. He absolutely made the case but, having heard what the Minister had to say on the previous group, I have a terrible certainty about what her response will be.
I assure the Minister that many of us want to find solutions, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentions. The principles of the Bill are supported across the Committee; it is some of the detail that is in contention. We must be honest that the Bill deals with the symptom—competition ratios—not the cure, which is the bottleneck of insufficient specialty training places. I go back to the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, used at Second Reading. We are simply reshuffling the queue.
This amendment places a necessary duty on the Secretary of State to review the adequacy of training places. We have received warnings from doctors in shortage specialties such as psychiatry and general practice, who fear that the Bill will drive away the international talent that we rely on. We need to know whether this legislation will succeed in retaining UK graduates or whether it will inadvertently exacerbate shortages by signalling to the global medical community that the NHS is closed for business. We cannot manage what we do not measure.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the debate that we have just had and I appreciate the support for what we are seeking to do, particularly from both Front Benches, as in the other place. I am most grateful for that.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, seeks to require the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act within six months of Royal Assent and to require that that review is published and laid in Parliament. I understand the intent behind this amendment, but we do not feel that there is a need to accept it because the Government have already set out their impact-monitoring and evaluation plans within the published impact statement on 14 January.
The noble Lord’s amendment also specifies requirements that are not compatible with how recruitment cycles operate. He will understand that I want to report to your Lordships’ House only on the basis of proper information, as he would expect. However, data as specified in the amendment would not be available to allow us to meet those requirements or to allow sufficient time and flexibility for the investigation of impacts. However, I give the assurance that, should the Bill be passed, the Government will ensure that appropriate data is collected and investigated to facilitate the already proposed impact evaluation. I hope that this will be helpful.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke on this amendment. I recognise the answer that the Minister gave about the impact report that the Government have announced. I will reflect carefully on whether what I intended with this amendment aligns with that impact report. If this is just a problem of synchronisation of when data is available with the report then, if the impact report that the Minister mentions does not provide information, perhaps we could find an amendment. We could look at syncing that data to make sure that it is a meaningful report that meets both our needs. Obviously, I will need to do a careful review, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
“(1) Regulations under this Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I know that it is late, but it is important that I move this amendment, which seeks for all regulations that are made under the Bill are subject to affirmative resolution procedures. In simple terms, after the Bill is passed, we would have a vote in both Houses on any changes made to allocation of spaces. This amendment goes to the heart of parliamentary accountability.
The Bill as currently drafted grants Ministers broad regulation-making powers, including the ability to amend key operational aspects of medical training with limited parliamentary oversight. My concerns are not with the intentions of the current Minister or the present Government but with the precedent that this sets. Delegated powers once granted outlive individual Ministers or Governments.
Medical training is an area where stability and predictability are essential. Doctors and medical students plan years in advance—sometimes decades. They make decisions about education, location, finances and family life based on the rules that Parliament sets. If those rules can be altered by secondary legislation without a positive vote in both Houses, we risk creating uncertainty and undermining confidence in the system.
The affirmative resolution procedure would provide a necessary safeguard. It ensures transparency, debate and accountability. It allows Parliament to examine whether proposed changes are proportionate, evidence-based and aligned with the original intent of an Act. Importantly, in this case, it would give affected shareholders—medical students, trainees, regulators and the NHS workforce—the assurance that changes will not be made without democratic consent and accountability.
This House has repeatedly expressed concerns about the expansion of executive powers through delegated legislation, particularly in areas with significant policy impacts. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has, on numerous occasions, warned against the inappropriate use of negative or minimal scrutiny procedures where primary legislation confers wider discretion. My amendment responds directly to those concerns.
There is also a practical benefit. Requiring affirmative approvals encourages better policy-making. Ministers can explain, justify and defend their proposals in open debate. That process often improves the quality of regulations, identifies unintended consequences and builds broader support for necessary reforms.
This amendment would not prevent future Governments adapting the medical training system. It would simply ensure that, when they do so, they do so with Parliament, not without it and not by going around it. It would preserve flexibility while embedding accountability. At a time when trust in politics and political institutions is fragile, Parliament must demonstrate that significant changes to professional regulations are made openly and responsibly. Requiring a positive resolution in both Houses is a modest but important step in that direction. I therefore commend this amendment to your Lordships’ House.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for his amendment and his very helpful introduction. From these Benches, we have consistently raised our concerns about the downsides of emergency legislation. The Constitution Committee chairman, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, wrote in his letter to the Minister that the Constitution Committee has
“repeatedly raised concerns about the fast-tracking of legislation, highlighting in particular the need to ensure that effective parliamentary scrutiny is maintained”.
We are all of us, I hope, doing our utmost in the short time available to scrutinise the Bill fully, but, with such a short period of time available, we cannot discount the possibility that this legislation will have unintended consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, posited one particular example in his speech during the last debate.
It is true that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not brought anything in the Bill to the attention of the House. However, in the light of the fact that the Bill has been fast-tracked through Parliament, there is, I believe, a case for making all regulations under this Act subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing for additional future scrutiny. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful not just for this brief debate but for the efforts of noble Lords to expedite this legislation. I acknowledge the short timeframe—it is not as short as in the other place but, nevertheless, noble Lords have been most co-operative, and I value that.
Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to require that all regulations made under the Act are subject to the affirmative procedure. This is an amendment we are not able to accept. To reiterate our intention, the Bill sets out the groups of people who are to be prioritised for specialty training from 2027 onwards. I reassure the noble Lord that the delegated power is limited to adding to this list by reference to significant experience working as a doctor in the health service or immigration status.
Similarly, we have set out in the Bill specialty training programmes excluded from the prioritisation scheme. The delegated power is limited to amend this list, and it gives necessary operational flexibility to respond to future changes in recruitment, training and workforce needs—something that I know noble Lords are very attuned to the need for.
I am sympathetic to the desire for parliamentary scrutiny and I always try to ensure that it is provided but, because of the limited scope of these powers, we believe that the negative procedure is appropriate. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just referred to, the Bill has been assessed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and no suggestion has been made that the negative procedure was inappropriate for this regulation.
I have spoken in a previous group to why we are dealing with emergency legislation. I hear what is said about the downsides, but we have to balance that with the scale of the problem and the urgency that it demands. That is why we decided to introduce emergency legislation.
The noble Earl spoke about the Constitutional Committee letter. We will be responding formally to the committee to address its concern. With that, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for that timely response. I particularly welcome the support of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the principle that I was trying to establish. However, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kamall
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment brings the Act into force one month after it is passed.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Coffey, who is not in her place, I hope it is acceptable if I move Amendment 26 and speak to Amendment 27. Both amendments seek to bring forward the commencement of the Bill rather than leaving its provisions to be implemented by regulations.
The Government say they need the Bill to pass as soon as possible but then refuse to commit to a date for commencement. Given that there is no date for implementation, noble Lords will rightly ask: what is the hurry with this Bill? There is a fundamental constitutional point here. Emergency legislation should be avoided as far as possible and, where it is necessary, it should be delivered urgently. In this case, we have been asked to fast-track the Bill without there being any apparent urgency to implement it.
The Minister sought to partly address this concern at Second Reading. Could she please explain exactly why the training allocation system will be unable to cope with the changed prioritisation arrangements introduced by the Bill if the BMA continues with its strike action during the coming months? What factors would frustrate the rollout? Would it be systems? Would it be the availability of officials? Would it be the ability of trusts and institutions to engage with the Department of Health and Social Care in a timely way? Or are there other reasons that noble Lords should be aware of? I hope this gives the Minister the opportunity to explain some of those reasons.
While we agree with the principle of giving UK graduates priority, and many noble Lords across the Committee have said this, we should take the time to have a proper debate on whether any other students should also be prioritised and in what order. We should have a debate to consider and debate questions such as: while qualifications may be similar, whether graduates from overseas branches of UK universities really do have similar experience to those who studied in the UK and worked in the NHS, or whether the country in which they studied has a patient profile similar to the UK, and whether in fact any of these distinctions are actually important. Another possible question that we should be looking at is whether historical prioritisation is still valid for today’s world, and whether it is worth while or too much effort to revisit some international agreements.
Instead of this much more considered debate, the Government tell us that they need to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible, but they are not forthcoming—perhaps not transparent—when it comes to implementation. Given this lack of clarity, I must say that there is a suspicion that the timing of the Bill and the Government’s rush to get it on to the statute book may appear to be not entirely unconnected with negotiations with the BMA resident doctors.
Whatever our politics and whichever Bench we sit on, legislation should be about making the lives of British people better. Although this Bill has the potential to help British citizens who are graduates of UK medical schools, the lack of transparency on implementation gives the impression that this legislation is more about giving the Secretary of State a negotiating chip in discussions with the BMA. I gently suggest that this is not a good enough reason for rushing such legislation, which is why my noble friend and I tabled these amendments. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 26 and 27 on commencement, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I confess that we are conflicted on these. This brings us back to the tension at the heart of the Bill. We have UK graduates urging immediate implementation to resolve their uncertainty; conversely, we have international medical graduates asking for delay or transition because the rules are changing mid-cycle. If the Government eventually accept the amendments in group 2, providing a fair transitional arrangement for those with NHS experience, then immediate commencement becomes less punitive. However, if they persist with the blunt ILR proxy for 2026 then rushing to commencement simply accelerates an injustice.
I urge the Minister to clarify when precisely the regulations for the 2026 cycle will be laid if this Bill passes and whether they will include the transitional protections we have argued for. I am somewhat pessimistic on that. Certainty is needed, but it must not come at the expense of fairness.
In that context, as we are at the end of Committee, I must ask the Minister to confirm that she is going to meet the cross-party group of those of us who have spoken at Second Reading and in Committee before Report takes place. I have kept my diary free for the Monday before Report and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, mentioned that earlier. We would all welcome a face-to-face meeting with the Minister. She talked about us being co-operative, and we all realise the Government’s desire for speed, particularly in the context of the industrial dispute, but, quite frankly, it takes two to tango.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s advice in his last comment.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, spoke about what I am going to call the tension between emergency legislation and the commencement clause. I will start on that point. I hope he is aware that our intent is, of course, to commence the Bill as soon as we possibly can, subject to its passage through Parliament. That is why I am so grateful to noble Lords and to Parliament more broadly—both Houses—that they have agreed to expedite the progress of this Bill.
I will come back on to this later in a bit more detail but, as I have already stated, there is a genuine question about operational feasibility, if strikes are ongoing, due to the strain that they put on the system. I am sure everybody in your Lordships’ Chamber would understand that. I will now refer to the amendments, and I have some other points to answer some of the questions that were raised.
Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, relate to the date upon which the Act comes into force. Both would remove the provision that allows the Secretary of State to appoint the commencement date.
We cannot accept these amendments, as they remove an important element—and I emphasise this point—of operational flexibility, should it be needed. The commencement provision within the Bill is not a mechanism for delay. It is, we believe, a necessary safeguard to ensure that systems planning and operational capacity are in place before the Act is brought into force. Noble Lords will also appreciate that it is a material question, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about how possible it is to proceed if industrial action continues, given the strain that strikes put on the system.
It is our intention to commence the Bill as soon as we are able, but it is essential that the Secretary of State is able to take all the circumstances, including operational readiness, into account when deciding when the Act should come into force. I think that it is honest to say this. Amendment 26 also seeks to require the Act to come into force one month after it is passed. Specialty training offers must be made from March. Delaying commencement by even one month would leave insufficient time to implement prioritisation for this year’s application round. In short, fixing a commencement date one month after Royal Assent, as Amendment 26 suggests, would create a situation where the Bill comes into force too late to tackle the bottleneck problem that we seek to resolve—the one that it is designed to remedy for the 2026 year—while also removing our ability to commence the Act only when systems are ready to deliver it effectively.
On the comments about industrial action made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I reconfirm that the Government have been in intensive and constructive discussions with the BMA resident doctors committee since the start of the new year. The aim is to try to bring an end to the damaging cycle of strikes, and to avoid what is undoubtedly further, unnecessary disruption for patients and NHS staff. We continue to hope that those talks result in an agreement that works for everyone, so that there will be no more strike action by resident doctors in 2026.
With regard to the noble Lord’s request for more detail on operational readiness, I know he understands that introducing reforms to such a large-scale recruitment process is a big undertaking. We do not want the risk of creating errors that could lead to further uncertainty for organisations, for educators and, most importantly, for our trainees. An effective commencement demands clear processes for delivery across the health system. The reality is that industrial action will put this at risk because it is a diversion of resources, as it always is.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about further engagement. I have already had engagement with a number of noble Lords, including both Front Benches. If it is possible to do so before Report, I will write again. Time is extremely short, so while I am always glad to do so, if the noble Lord will allow me to look at that in a practical sense, I will be pleased to. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that considered response to the discussions. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, not only to this group of amendments, but today. I also thank the staff for being here to look after us while we stay to this hour.
I should perhaps clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that when I laid the amendment it was with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Howe in mind. If we can address some of the perceived injustices or unfairness in the system, we should implement as soon as possible. I was not seeking to create a tension there.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that there are operational issues. I think that it would help the Government, and help this Bill to go forward, if the Minister were able to explain in a letter to noble Lords some of those operational issues, because sometimes it may be that we think that it is quite easy. I know, having been in government, that there are a number of issues. I can see that the Minister is looking forward to spending her Recess formulating that letter with her officials. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, talked earlier about a holiday, but I do not think that Ministers ever get a holiday. I am giving the Minister a challenge during the Recess to explain some of the operational challenges that lead to the Government not being able to accept this amendment to implement the Bill as soon as possible.
With that, I thank the Minister for her response. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.