House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The new national short-term lets registration scheme entered user testing at the end of October to ensure that it is robust and easy to use and meets the needs of the scheme ahead of its planned launch later in 2026. Secondary legislation will be required to enact the scheme and we intend to bring that forward when parliamentary time allows.
Rachel Blake
I appreciate the focus and attention that the Minister has brought to this issue, which is so essential in my constituency where about 6,000 homes are lost to short-letting. Will she share with us how she will capture the number of nights that properties are let out, as that is an essential part in ensuring that short-let properties do not go over the 90-day rule or breach any planning permission? Will she tell us how she will approach that matter?
Stephanie Peacock
The registration scheme will collect essential data to help authorities, but, as my hon. Friend knows and indeed secured a ten-minute rule Bill on the issue, the legislation does not address the issue around data sharing for the number of nights. I look forward to working with her to see whether we can rectify this issue to ensure that data is shared between platforms, and that hosts understand their responsibilities and give local authorities and Government the required data. I know from a number of meetings with her how important this issue is to her constituency, and she is a really big campaigner on it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her answer. Indeed, I am always impressed with her answers. Those that she has given us this morning are equal to what she always gives to me and others in this House.—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]
Back home in Northern Ireland, we have the same problem with short-term lets. This is about protection both of the landlords and of those who take on the short- term let. I know the Minister is a regular traveller to Northern Ireland, which we appreciate, so can she share what is happening here with those back home to ensure that the protection for everyone is equal across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his incredibly kind comments. Following his question, I will set up a meeting with my counterpart to discuss this matter and he would be very welcome to join it.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I feel all warm and happy after that lovely little exchange. This Government believe in the power of grassroots sport and that everyone should have access to quality sport and physical activity. The hon. Member will know that we recently committed a further £400 million to grassroots sport facilities so that every child and young person have the chance to live out their dreams.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. In Spelthorne, we love our sport. I was playing walking cricket last week with the cricket club. I have been in the ring at the boxing academy and I have been to the dance academy. We also have Spelthorne FC, Staines & Lammas FC and Ashford Town (Middlesex) FC. I am inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) to come and watch Windsor and Eton play against my Ashford Town (Middlesex) team, and we look forward to a fantastic game. However, the jewel in our crown is the year 11 girls football team at Thamesmead school, which is in the last 32 of the country. Will the Minister wish them the huge amount of success that we all hope they will achieve when they play the Beacon academy from Kent—
Lisa Nandy
We have just announced the first allocations of the £400 million that we are investing in grassroots sport, but I would pay a lot of money to see the hon. Gentleman at a dance academy. May I take the opportunity to wish Thamesmead—both teams actually—the best of success in what should be a fantastic competition.
Charlie Dewhirst
Swimming is not just a sport, but a very important life skill, particularly for those of us who represent coastal communities. Unfortunately, over 1,600 swimming pools across the country are now more than 40 years old. The previous Government committed £80 million to renovating those swimming pools. What are the plans of the Secretary of State or Minister to continue the legacy of the previous Government and improve our swimming facilities?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Member for that question, and many hon. Members will thank him for it, as they have raised it with me and the Sport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), consistently over recent years. The Sport Minister is working very closely with her counterpart at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address this issue. We have made more funding available, but we now need to ensure that it gets to the right places, so that every child can access good swimming provision in their local area.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On behalf of those on this side of the House, I congratulate everyone at Team GB for an incredible winter Olympics performance. Like many across the House, I was glued to the excellent coverage during recess, and was pleased to see online that the Sport Minister was in Milan supporting the team. We all know that the true value of Team GB’s success is their ability to inspire the next generation of athletes, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking to secure the legacy of these games in both the elite and grassroots facilities required for sports to succeed?
Lisa Nandy
The Sport Minister has just told me that more than 4,000 people have expressed an interest in the skeleton following Team GB’s fantastic performance, which really shows the power of these games. It was an absolute privilege to be out in Milan cheering on Team GB during the most successful winter Olympics ever.
The shadow Minister is absolutely right; we now must ensure that the lasting legacy of the games is in bringing forward the next generation. As well as committing future funding so that our athletes can succeed and we can bring people through from grassroots sport, as we have just discussed, one thing I discussed with the team in Milan was recognising in our honours system the people who helped those incredible athletes to get to where they were along the journey. It must not be just about the people who have succeeded and won medals; it is about time—it is long overdue—that our honours system recognised the ordinary men and women in grassroots sport who have helped people go on to do extraordinary things.
Mr French
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I am sure we all echo her comments. She will be aware of the widespread concerns regarding the Government’s plans to water down the powers of Sport England and the much-needed protection for grassroots pitches. Before Christmas, leading sports figures led by former Lioness Jill Scott and Fields in Trust wrote an open letter highlighting their concerns for people’s health and wellbeing and for sport more generally if the Government allow pitches across the country to be concreted over. What action is the Secretary of State’s Department taking to try to force the Government to U-turn on this bad policy decision?
Lisa Nandy
This Government believe that we need a much more sensible and lighter-touch system of regulation in this country. In principle, that is something that Members on both sides of the House should be able to agree with. What we do not want is a reduction in the grassroots facilities that are available to communities. The Sport Minister has been working with the Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and Sport England—they met recently to discuss this—to ensure that we proceed in a sensible way that sees no reduction in the amount of facilities that are available.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Our national youth strategy sets out our plan to ensure that every young person has somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares. It is backed by over £500 million of Department for Culture, Media and Sport funding over the next three years.
James Asser
Based in North Woolwich in my constituency is Fight for Peace, a boxing and martial arts facility that also delivers employment and education skills for young people, helping to divert them from gangs and knife crime. Like so many organisations over the last few years, it has faced a tough time. Does the Minister agree that organisations such as Fight for Peace, which supports over 1,300 people and employs over 50 people, are vital for urban and inner-city communities like mine, and what more can the Government do to secure their future? May I also extend an invitation to the Ministers to visit North Woolwich and see the fantastic work that the club does?
Stephanie Peacock
Boxing clubs like Fight for Peace play a huge role in supporting young people’s physical and mental health. Through Sport England, funding for England Boxing between 2022 and 2029 will be over £9 million. I recently met with the all-party parliamentary group on boxing, and I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further and, indeed, to visit his constituency.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
We all know that actions speak louder than words. So far we have seen a reduction in the urban cricket domes that were committed to by the last Government, the scrapping of our National Citizen Service without anything to replace it and now, supposedly, an argument over who will be funding school sport. Social mobility depends on participation. Research by Sky found that girls who play after-school sport in the UK are 50% more likely to get professional roles as adults. What are the Government doing to address this, and can the Minister give us grassroots examples in our urban communities of where things are improving rather than getting worse?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for all her work; it was a pleasure to meet her again yesterday. I do not recognise her representation of cricket domes. The previous Government simply did not fund them, but this Government has, announcing two new ones, alongside the £400 million of grassroots sports funding that the Secretary of State has referred to. On the National Citizen Service, we announced our national youth strategy, which was the first in over 10 years.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
This Government are championing the UK’s living heritage: the crafts, customs and festivals that are important for local pride and community cohesion. Following the ratification of the 2003 UNESCO convention, we invite communities to submit their traditions to inventories of living heritage in the UK. Some examples are Up Helly Aa on Shetland, the Notting Hill carnival and, some might argue, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Rachel Hopkins
The end of May will mark the 50th Luton international carnival, which is the UK’s largest one-day carnival. I think that 50 years means it qualifies as a UK tradition—it is definitely a Luton tradition. Does the Minister agree that events such as Luton carnival are vital for celebrating the rich cultural diversity of our country and strengthening community cohesion, and may I invite him to Luton to join in with carnival this year?
Ian Murray
I would be delighted to go to Luton carnival; it sounds slightly less scary than participating in skeleton.
We would welcome a submission to the living heritage inventories for Luton carnival, which is an important event in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as she has laid out. Congratulations to everyone involved in organising the carnival, not just now but in the last 50 years. We want to celebrate the UK’s diversity and encourage diaspora communities to contribute, ensuring that all practices are fully represented in our living heritage inventories. I will pass on her kind invitation, as well as to me, to the Minister for Heritage in the other place, who I know had an enjoyable time learning about Luton’s rich heritage when she visited last year.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
There is no finer UK tradition still lived out than drinking a cold beer and watching the local cricket team that has been there for decades. I recently visited St Annes cricket club. I should declare an interest as my dad was the professional there in 1973—he will probably not thank me for saying that, as that declaration is probably time-expired. Those clubs have relied on the revenue from their bars to support that wonderful tradition for many years, but the changes in national insurance costs and other cost pressures have completely eliminated the profits that many make and they are struggling to reinvest in facilities. What more support will the Government announce for our traditional British cricket clubs?
Ian Murray
The hon. Member makes a great point, and I congratulate to his father on being the professional at St Annes cricket club—I think he said that it was in 1973. If the hon. Member gets in trouble for saying that, I have just said it as well.
We know our cricket clubs and all our sports clubs are right at the heart of our communities. We want them to thrive and they should be thriving. This Government are fully committed to ensuring that all our sports clubs thrive. It is not just about enjoying that cricket with a cold beer, as the hon. Member says he does and like many hundreds of thousands do every Saturday, but about young people being involved and the way in which that takes them into the future of work and sport.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
In December, we published “Youth Matters”, the first national youth strategy that this country has had in nearly two decades. The youth investment and better youth spaces funds have together invested three quarters of a million pounds in youth services in Perry Bar, and we have recently announced an additional £100,000 of funding for Birmingham to undertake preparatory work for the Young Futures hub and local youth transformation.
Ayoub Khan
I know that I would not be in this House—the mother of all democracies—and I would certainly not be a barrister, if I had not benefited from youth centres in my ward of Aston. I recognise how important they are. We have lost somewhere in the region of 50 youth workers in Birmingham and my constituency lost out on the Pride in Place funding, which was £20 million that we could have benefited from. Given the importance of youth centres, the loss of Oakland youth centre and the risk of closure of Lozells Recreation Group, will the Secretary of State meet me and representatives of youth clubs in my constituency to see how we can ensure that that service remains in my area?
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely share the hon. Member’s assessment about the vital role of youth provision and the devastating impact that the 73% cuts to youth provision under the last Government made to the life chances of young people. The Sport Minister will be more than happy to meet him to discuss that issue.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
According to the Office for National Statistics, 3.8 million people report feeling lonely, with young people consistently among the loneliest groups. Is it any wonder when we have seen youth centres shuttered and libraries boarded up, and the very places that bring people together hollowed out? The Liberal Democrats have a plan to change this by creating a new wave of third spaces centred around something simple but incredibly powerful: shared hobbies. We want to bring people with shared interests together, creating places where they can thrive. What is the Minister doing to tackle loneliness through rebuilding community life and shared experiences? Will she seriously consider our proposals for a bold new wave of hobby hubs to help restore the social fabric of our communities?
Mr Speaker
Before the Minister responds, I point out that the question is linked to Perry Barr in Birmingham. The hon. Member is well away from Birmingham, and I am not quite sure that his question links to youth services—good luck.
Lisa Nandy
I am sure, Mr Speaker, that the people of Birmingham Perry Barr are clamouring for a hobby hub. In that spirit, I will address the important point that the hon. Member makes. Our national youth strategy is the first time we have put young people in the driving seat of their own lives. We handed over money and power to a generation of young people who told us that they need three things: somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares. That is why we are investing in the next generation of youth centres and youth workers. To the point made by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), I was delighted to be in Grimsby a couple of weeks ago where we opened an OnSide youth zone, which had people queuing for miles down the road to come in and see the incredible provision that we have been able to fund and back. I will certainly consider his proposal, and I would be keen to work with him as we help to rebuild youth work and youth centres, connect people to one another and turn around over a decade of decline.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
In December, we published “Youth Matters”, the first Government strategy in over a decade for young people up and down the country. It will, of course, run alongside other major Government investments, including the youth guarantee and the expansion of mental health support teams in schools.
Peter Swallow
Last week, I dropped into the Wayz youth centre in Bracknell to celebrate its 60th anniversary—that is, 60 years of supporting young people in Bracknell Forest, developing their skills and helping them find and use their voice. This Government are backing the youth centre with our national youth strategy, which young people from the Wayz contributed to. I am delighted that the Government have announced more capital funding to support youth centres after many years of neglect. What specific funding pots are available for the Wayz because when a youth centre is 60 years old, there is always a need to invest in the day-to-day upkeep?
Stephanie Peacock
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a strong champion for his constituency, and to Wayz for all its work over the last 60 years. The strategy is backed by £500 million of new funding, £350 million of which will be available till the end of March 2030, to refurbish or build youth facilities through our better youth spaces programme. We are committed to working with areas of greatest need across the length and breadth of England, and I will write further to him.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I have not personally had any discussions with my counterpart in the Hellenic Republic on the future of the management of the sculptures. The sculptures are legally owned by the trustees of the British Museum. The chair of the British Museum has been in discussions with the Greek Government about a partnership, including reciprocal loans.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and I should declare an interest as the chair of the British Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures over the last 20 years. The British Museum’s planned redevelopment will necessitate its board agreeing the relocation of many of its exhibits, including the Parthenon sculptures. In the light of that, it is suggested that the time is right for the museum, with the consent and constructive support of Government, to facilitate an exhibition of those sculptures in the Acropolis Museum in Athens where they can be displayed alongside other artefacts. Does the Minister agree that should such a project be agreed by the museum, it would enhance the reputation of the United Kingdom as it would be seen as a gracious act between two nations that are long-term international allies?
Ian Murray
It is clear that the UK and Greece do indeed have a strong bilateral relationship built on our shared history and values. We greatly value the friendship that exists between our people and our Governments. It is for the British Museum to seek to reach an agreement with the Greek Government on the loan of the sculptures, as the British Museum is operationally independent from Government, as he knows with his long track record on this. But if they do reach an agreement, the Government would not stand in the way of such a loan.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government are committed to ensuring that people of all ages have the opportunity to maintain an active lifestyle. Sport England invests over £250 million of lottery and Exchequer funding annually into grassroots sport to support people of all ages. That includes multiple campaigns designed to encourage active lifestyles.
Gareth Thomas
The clearly remarkable Fay Bond took up athletics at the age of 90 and won three gold medals last year at the US senior Olympics at the age of 101—the oldest of over 12,400 older athletes who took part. Given the many benefits of an active lifestyle in later life, when might the first UK senior Olympics take place?
Stephanie Peacock
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Team GB at the winter Olympics. It was a real pleasure to be out in Italy cheering them on in their most successful winter games yet.
I pay tribute to the lady the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We want everyone, whatever their age, to be able to be active, and we are always interested to hear ideas about future major sporting events.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Bridgwater is the home of carnival. At nearly 180 years old, ours is the oldest carnival in the UK. This fantastic cultural event promotes an active lifestyle among the whole community. However, every year the cost of complying with legislation makes it that little bit harder to continue. Will the Minister meet with me and members of the carnival to discuss what support might be available so that this fantastic spectacle continues for another 180 years?
Stephanie Peacock
I am aware of the issue and would be delighted to meet the hon. Member to discuss it further.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
We encourage local authorities to continue to work in partnership with key players in local arts ecosystems, such as Arts Council England, and make the most of the opportunities provided by the mayoral strategic authorities to deliver strategically for culture in their areas. Furthermore, the Government are providing substantial financial support to local governments, committing an additional £3.4 billion in grant funding by 2028-29. That commitment is underpinned by the creative industries sector plan, which includes a £150 million creative places growth fund to support it.
Olly Glover
Local councils in my Oxfordshire constituency work hard to secure public arts funding through developer contributions for our growing population. However, some existing cultural venues are struggling. The much-loved Vale and Downland Museum in Wantage is having to rely on one-off grants to plug funding gaps and has had an annual average deficit of £24,000 a year since 2020. In that context, what more can the Minister do to help our local councils to provide funding for museums and cultural venues in my part of Oxfordshire?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. Our museum renewal fund, worth £20 million, is supporting three museum groups in Oxfordshire, including Vale and Downland Museum in his constituency. Our new museum transformation programme, a 5% funding uplift for the ACE national portfolio organisation and the museum development network will further support the museum sector in 2026-27. Museums in difficulty are encouraged to reach out to Arts Council England, which can provide guidance and support. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to consider the town of culture competition, which has been very popular with Members across this Chamber, to see if he can get more funding in that way.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Stafford Gatehouse Theatre in my constituency is absolutely smashing it in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. It welcomed 150,000 people last year and is likely to welcome 170,000 this year. The pantomime alone welcomed 19,500 people—oh yes it did!
Leigh Ingham
Thank you. [Laughter.] Does the Minister agree that thriving venues in towns such as Stafford demonstrate the appetite for culture in our local places? What are the Government doing to support towns like Stafford?
Ian Murray
I thank the hon. Member for being a wonderful champion for Stafford and for culture and arts in Stafford. In February, we announced £1.5 billion over this Parliament for the arts everywhere fund, which is broken down to make sure that we can support infrastructure in every part of the country. The Secretary of State’s and Department’s commitment is to make sure that there is arts and culture everywhere for everyone, and the Department will do everything we possibly can to make sure that gets to Stafford.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for young people in her constituency. She will know, having worked with us to deliver the first national youth strategy in decades, that we are allocating over £500 million of funding for youth provision over the next three years. She will also know that, most importantly, the way in which we allocate funding is changing. Rather than imposing settlements on communities for things that they did not ask for and do not need, our funding is driven by the grassroots and what communities need. If they need a new building, transportation or different facilities—whatever it may be—we will pay for it.
Maya Ellis
I welcome the universal approach of our new youth strategy, but in my Ribble Valley constituency, in which communities are small and often far away from city-centre youth hubs, young people miss out on support. Their family may be just about managing, but dual-career households and long hours leave little time to take children to activities. This country has an inequality problem, but it also has a productivity problem. I have had welcome conversations with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how we can unlock real entrepreneurship, ambition and opportunity for young people, in order not only to reduce unemployment rates but to unlock and capitalise on the incredible energy and ideas of our young people. How will the Secretary of State ensure that, while we rightly support those most in need, we also provide all young people with third spaces for ideas and creativity?
Lisa Nandy
I would be very keen to work with my hon. Friend to ensure that we get the right funding for the right provision in her constituency. As she would expect, I am working closely with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that we hang on to young people from the earliest age all the way through to adulthood. I represent a very rural constituency, so I recognise the challenges that my hon. Friend talks about. That is why we are doing things differently, led by the grassroots. I would be very happy to talk to her about how we deliver for people in Ribble Valley.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about her version of support for youth services, but that is of little consolation to young people who cannot get a job because youth unemployment is up under this Government. Will she relay that message to the Chancellor?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman talks about my “version of support”; it is not mine, actually. This Government have put this generation of young people, who were so badly let down by the hon. Gentleman’s party over many years, back in the driving seat of their own lives. This is not my strategy; it is theirs, and we are determined to deliver on their promise.
It is a bit rich for Conservatives to sit there and talk about letting down young people, after the devastation that they wreaked for so long on a generation, and given that, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, we announced in the Budget investment to ensure that the 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, who the Conservatives had left on the scrapheap, now have guaranteed work, education or training as a right. What did the Conservatives do? They opposed every single measure in that Budget, they opposed all the ways in which we proposed to pay for it, and they labelled it a boost to welfare provision. He knows full well that it is the lifeline that young people have been waiting for.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Many Members from across the House have raised with me their deep concern following the broadcast of a highly offensive racial slur during the BBC’s broadcast of the BAFTAs. As Members would expect, I was in contact with the director-general immediately following the broadcast, and I am pleased that an investigation is now under way to ensure that this never happens again.
May I also take this opportunity to congratulate Team GB on their most successful winter Olympics ever? To update the House, since we last met, we have unveiled the biggest ever investment in the arts. This Government are committed to ensuring that the arts are for everyone, everywhere.
David Chadwick
Despite a spirited performance at the weekend, Welsh rugby is in crisis. Clubs are demanding a vote of no confidence, and supporters fear a stitch-up that wipes the Ospreys off the map, ending professional rugby in Swansea. Does the Secretary of State agree that the leadership of the Welsh Rugby Union has lost the confidence of the grassroots game, and should step aside?
Lisa Nandy
Rugby union plays a vital role in our national identity. It matters to hugely to many Members of this House, almost as much as rugby league—the finest form of rugby, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the serious concerns of Welsh rugby fans, including the hon. Gentleman. He knows that the UK Government have no role in the operations of Welsh Rugby Union. Welsh sports policy is the responsibility of the Welsh Government and Sport Wales, so I strongly suggest that he raise his concerns with them.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Spending on youth services in England saw a 73% reduction under the last Government. Too many areas like my hon. Friend’s then had no youth services. That is why our national youth strategy, backed by over £500 million, is reversing that trend, and I would be happy to discuss it further with him.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
As mentioned by the Secretary of State, this week’s BAFTA awards—a great celebration of British creativity—were marred by the unnecessary airing of involuntary comments by Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson. It appears a microphone was placed close to John, and some offensive comments were aired, despite a two-hour delay. This no doubt well-intended attempt at inclusivity has caused great anxiety to John and great offence to many others. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC and BAFTA must not only investigate this matter but apologise?
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for raising this and to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who I know has raised her concerns directly with the BBC as well. The shadow Secretary of State heard what I said a moment ago. I think it is fair to say that this Government and I were not satisfied with the initial response from the BBC, and we need to see much swifter action taken in these instances and action that results in this not happening again; I think we are all deeply concerned that there have been too many incidents of this kind.
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the sensitive way in which he raised this. We all want to make sure that the BAFTAs and all our award ceremonies are inclusive places where people with Tourette’s, who have been shut out of society for too long, can be fully included. The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), met BAFTA this week to talk about how we exercise a better duty of care to all concerned.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. When the Labour Government cut the budget for the listed places of worship scheme, it was suggested that we should not worry because it never runs out of money. Well, it has now run out of money. As the details for a new scheme have not yet been announced, uncertainty is growing, and vital repair work is being postponed or cancelled altogether. Will the Government follow the Conservative lead and commit to fully restoring the budget for the listed places of worship scheme and to releasing information about the new scheme as a matter of urgency?
Lisa Nandy
The shadow Secretary of State knows that this is important to this Government. These incredible buildings and places of worship stand at the centre of our communities, and it matters deeply that we preserve and protect them. But he will also know that there were serious challenges with the previous scheme, including the fact that his Government left the economy in such a parlous state that there was no funding available going forward, despite their commitments. We have committed to a new scheme that ensures we can get funding to not just those places that can already raise the money for their own buildings but those places where money is in short supply. We are designing that scheme and will bring forward details of it shortly.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Stephanie Peacock
I know this is a concern to Members across the House—I have met and corresponded with a number of them. It is an issue that is incredibly important to both me and the Secretary of State, who met with players impacted by this to hear their stories. I will be hosting a roundtable discussion shortly with the football bodies to explore what more can be done. Our priority is for the football authorities to provide greater clarity on the available funding and to ensure enough money is available to provide those impacted with the support they need.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Stephanie Peacock
Sport England is not losing its status; there is a consultation. The Prime Minister and I have met a number of times to discuss the issue. Having committed £400 million to grassroot sports, we do not want to see playing fields and grassroots sports reduced.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
It is not just about building homes and economic drivers; it is about building cultural and heritage communities as well. It is fantastic to see so many infrastructure projects taking shape across Cambridgeshire and Cambridge this year. Cambridge already has a fantastic cultural offer, with Arts Council England’s national portfolio programme already supporting organisations like the New International Encounter and Oblique Arts, both of which work with communities across the region. I encourage my hon. Friend to ask all of his cultural organisations to look at the £1.5 billion Arts Everywhere fund—that record funding was announced last month—and maybe the city or town of culture programme.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Richmond, North Yorkshire, is home to brilliant cultural assets like Richmond castle, the Georgian Theatre Royal, the Station and the Green Howards Museum. It has a unique place in our national story, with a history stretching back to Norman times and a record of successfully putting on community events, like MayFest. This gateway to the dales is also the UK’s most copied place name: it is the original Richmond but there are more than 100 across the world, from America to India. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Richmond Yorkshire Community Interest Company, which is putting a great bid together to be the UK’s town of culture?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for championing Richmond’s town of culture bid. I have been following the work of the community interest company with interest. It has brought together an incredible group of people and gathered huge public support for the bid. The question that the Mayor of Richmond asked recently was, “Why not Richmond?” I concur with those remarks and encourage the company to continue its work.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Stephanie Peacock
The “30 by 30” programme seeks to recruit 40,000 more cadets across the UK. We are working with the MOD to do that. They do incredibly important work, and my hon. Friend raises an important issue.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
On Saturday, the cream of UK music will gather in Manchester for the annual Brit awards, and I am sure the Secretary of State would like to wish everybody all the best for that. UK music has grown for the 11th consecutive year, and UK artists are starting once again to re-emerge in global markets, including through the success of Lola Young and Olivia Dean, but there are issues. Artist remuneration, touring in Europe and the threat of AI continue to emerge as threats. Will the Secretary of State continue to engage with the sector and ensure that all those issues are addressed?
Lisa Nandy
I am absolutely delighted that the Brits will be held in Manchester this year, and I will, of course, be in attendance. The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. Whether through our work on the voluntary levy to get funding into grassroots music venues or our work with the music industry to solve the challenges posed by the issues around AI and copyright, he is right to say that we need to work to support what is not just an incredible industry that brings joy to millions of people all over the world, but one of the UK’s best exports.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Northern industries built this nation, but the previous Government did not care about our industrial heritage, which is one reason why Newcastle’s iconic swing bridge no longer swings. On her recent visit, the Minister for Heritage encouraged us to take the steps necessary to safeguard its future, but what help can the Secretary of State provide to support the funding necessary to get the swing bridge swinging?
Ian Murray
I commend my hon. Friend’s campaign for Newcastle’s swing bridge in its 150th anniversary year. I know the Minister for Heritage, who sits in the other place, has been dealing closely with her on those issues. I understand that Newcastle city council is leading a feasibility study on returning the bridge to full operation, which should help us to understand if and how this magnificent grade II listed building and scheduled monument can be brought back to life. I share my hon. Friend’s aspiration to allow the bridge to swing.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
The Restoration and Renewal Client Board has recently published a report providing costed proposals for the R&R programme and a recommended way forward. The key recommendation is to commence a phase 1 works package, including enabling works and the preparation of temporary accommodation, which includes a long-term resilience Chamber. It has reduced the number of delivery options from four to two, with a final decision on a preferred option required by 2030. The next step is for parliamentary debates to be held so that Members of both Houses can consider the client board’s recommendations and decide how to progress. The R&R team holds regular briefings, tours and detailed Q&A sessions, which the hon. Gentleman may find of interest.
Charlie Dewhirst
The London 2012 Olympics took seven years to organise and cost £7 billion. The World Trade Centre rebuild in New York took seven years and cost $3.9 billion. The restoration of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris took less than five years and cost less than €1 billion, yet here we are, with the cheapest option available to us to spend £16 billion and move out for 24 years. I am sorry, but that really does stink. We need to look again at the entire proposals for the restoration and renewal of this place. Restoration is fine, and we should all operate in a safe workplace, but I ask the hon. Member to go back to the board and look again at this entire proposal.
Nick Smith
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should make much faster progress on this project. However, he talks about Notre Dame, which has a much smaller footprint than our Palace of Westminster. The bulk of the construction costs relate to the replacement and upgrade of mechanical power, water and heating infrastructure, improvements to fire safety, and the controlled management of asbestos and repaired stonework. Not enough has been invested in our palace over the years, and much more needs to be done. This needs to be done at a good speed, but I accept his point. Let us try to take Members of both Houses with us.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The Church remains a major investor in deprived communities. Funding for the period from 2026 to 2028 has reached a record £430 million, focusing on strengthening ministry and providing long-term support for the lowest-income communities. That is in addition to the £91 million already spent in the period between 2023 and 2025 in dioceses in urban, post-industrial and coastal communities. Just recently, at the last General Synod meeting, we marked the 40th anniversary of the landmark “Faith in the City” report into tackling structural deprivation.
Jessica Toale
Over the last few weeks, I have visited Winton and Parkstone community pantry at the Winton Christadelphian church, which is supported by FareShare, and the sanctuary project at St Andrew’s church in Kinson, which has a food bank supported by the Trussell Trust. Both churches go out of their way to support our community members in need. Will the hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to the churches and their volunteers? Will she outline what more they can do to provide support with the cost of living and isolation in our communities?
Marsha De Cordova
Churches are cornerstones of all our communities, and I congratulate the clergy, volunteers and congregation of St Andrew’s church in Kinson and the Winton Christadelphian church on their hard work and contributions to supporting the community pantry and the sanctuary project. Across the country, churches are delivering around 31,000 community projects, including 8,000 food banks, 4,000 parent and carer groups, 5,000 lunch clubs and 3,000 community cafés. These programmes offer practical support, companionship and advice to those facing hardship, demonstrating the Church’s ongoing commitment to serving and standing with all our communities nationwide.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
St Nicholas church in Shepperton in my constituency made an application under the listed places of worship scheme to get £16,000 of VAT back on essential repairs that it has made. It got an auto-reply saying that the scheme has been used up and that there is no money left. On behalf of the Church Commissioners, will the hon. Member entreat the Government to look again at that application and see whether the VAT can be reclaimed?
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
While church attendance statistics for 2025 are still being collated, early indications suggest an increase in attendance at Advent and Christmas services. Indeed, churches have reported fuller congregations for carol services, especially Christmas eve and Christmas day services. This is consistent with the upwards seasonal patterns seen over recent years.
Douglas McAllister
Long-term trends suggest a decline in regular weekly church attendance; however, there was a rise in church attendance across the UK this Christmas, and I enjoyed visits to various churches in West Dunbartonshire, not least the Hope Community church in Clydebank and Dalmuir Barclay church. Christmas and Easter are often the two occasions when people consider attending church, so what can the Church do to attract new worshippers as we approach Easter?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I say, anecdotal evidence suggests that attendance is growing, especially in urban areas and among young people. The Church of England is producing a large number of resources for major festivals, in addition to its regular Everyday Faith app—my hon. Friend should download it if he has not already done so—and the online services it already provides. The Church is also producing a variety of resources for the Lent and Easter period, including booklets and reflection activities for individual groups. In this Lent season and leading into Christmas, I encourage all colleagues across the House to consider visiting some of their local churches—including during this festive period, if they have not done so already.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for her response. Trends seem to indicate that among the young people of Generation Z, attendance at churches is growing, which is good news. We all know that the greatest story ever told is the birth of the Lord Jesus on 25 December, and the fact that he was crucified and died to forgive us our sins and get us to heaven. That is a wonderful story—the hon. Lady knows that, I know that, and indeed I think everybody in the House knows that. We should be telling many people about that. Trends seem to indicate that attendance is growing. Is that not good news for the greatest story ever told?
Marsha De Cordova
I could not have put it better myself. It is the best good news story which must be shared, and we will continue to lift up our voices and share that great story.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
Despite the horrific and truly devastating situation in Palestine, Christian communities continue to be steadfast and resilient in the face of war and destruction. Last month, the Bishops of Chelmsford, Gloucester and Norwich made a joint visit, which highlighted the severe pressures facing Christian communities across the region. Sadly, attacks and intimidation continue, including the destruction of farms and olive groves, and the Israel Defence Forces and settler militias shamefully attempted to obstruct pastoral visits by the Archbishop of York to Christian families on the west bank during his last visit. We know that despite all these atrocities, it is so important that we continue long-term engagement and supportive visits to the region.
Kate Osamor
The Israeli Government’s new vetting rules have halted much humanitarian work in Gaza. The Palestinian Church committee has urgently appealed to Churches worldwide to intervene so that aid can continue. With local churches and faith-based agencies stepping up their support, can the hon. Member update us on how the Church is strengthening that appeal and helping to ensure that Gaza is not left without vital assistance?
Marsha De Cordova
I commend my hon. Friend for being such a strong voice on this issue. The Church shares the concerns about the hostile new vetting restrictions and how they have disrupted humanitarian operations in Gaza—they are adversely affecting both church-based agencies and international aid programmes. The Church continues to work closely with the diocese of Jerusalem and partner agencies to ensure that aid reaches those who most need it. The Anglican presence in Gaza centres on the al-Ahli hospital, which despite significant damage remains one of the only functioning health facilities in north Gaza.
Patricia Ferguson
The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Cardinal Pizzaballa, recently said of Palestine:
“Peace and reconciliation are beautiful concepts, but they risk remaining mere slogans if they are not accompanied today by concrete actions, gestures and testimonies that physically demonstrate the possibility of rebuilding trust.”
Does the commissioner agree with me that Christian Churches are ideally placed to work with other faith communities to lead that rebuilding of trust?
Marsha De Cordova
The hon. Lady makes an important point; the issue is about how the Church works across faith-based organisations to be the leaders of peace. The Church works closely with the diocese of Jerusalem and the Anglican communion agencies, providing education, healthcare and employment across the region and in other countries, ensuring that there is co-operation across the entire Christian community.
As I said earlier, in Gaza, for example, the Church is working with the Anglican communion in supporting the al-Ahli hospital. I also point out some of the work that the Church is doing in the west bank. Assistance is being delivered through the diocesan schools, the Princess Basma Centre and local health centres, through financial support, advocacy and co-ordination, and the Church is working hard to maintain medical care, humanitarian assistance and pastoral support for all Christians and Palestinians affected by this crisis.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Members and their teams should be supported to manage and address the increasing volume and complexity of work being placed on us all. Managing email inboxes is a huge task, as we all know. The Parliamentary Digital Service has been working with Members to understand how we can harness technology to help us filter, prioritise and manage our correspondence and casework. I know that the Parliamentary Digital Service is happy to further support the hon. Lady in that work.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for that answer. I believe that Parliament can—indeed must—use AI to improve our productivity, but it must be used securely, ethically, effectively and in the public interest. A poll by Brunel University has said that 80% of the public reject the idea of AI assisting parliamentarians or replacing our judgment. What progress has been made on shaping Copilot—the only AI that we are allowed to use—to reflect Parliament’s priorities, rather than Microsoft’s? I am thinking specifically about inbox management, which I have raised and the hon. Member has mentioned.
Nick Smith
The hon. Member is right to keep on raising this issue. The foundation of the guidance to Members on the use of AI is that there needs to be a human in the loop. The Parliamentary Digital Service is in ongoing discussions with Microsoft to shape the use of Copilot to meet Members’ needs. Our digital service must continue looking at the potential applications of AI to support all our work, so that either Copilot or another solution from elsewhere can be tested for all our benefit.
If the hon. Member wishes, she can join our committee the next time we meet the PDS management team to look at how we can better support Members.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
The Client Board’s recent report recommends a way forward for restoration and renewal. It contains phase 1 works, including seven years’ foundational works for the full programme. These preparatory works can begin once we have approval from both Houses. A final decision on the preferred delivery option is required from both Houses no later than 2030. The main R&R works could begin in 2032.
Dame Meg Hillier
In modern times, this issue has been discussed since 2016; we are on our 10th anniversary of discussing what has actually been an issue for 40 years. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) about going back to the drawing board again. Does my hon. Friend have any idea of when the vote will be? If it is in 2030, that will be after the next election. I can see the same old arguments about having to revisit this being rehashed again and again, while the building remains riddled with asbestos and at risk of fire. Frankly, once the works begin, my staff and I will no longer be in the building because of safety issues.
Nick Smith
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. She is right to say that we must make progress, and we now have the costed proposals in front of us. The work is necessary. The home of our Parliament is not only an iconic building, but a UNESCO world heritage site. We currently spend £1.5 million a week on maintaining and repairing the Palace, and every year of delaying delivery has a considerable cost. We must move forward. I hope that the Leader of the House will let us know when we can discuss and debate this important matter.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The Church of England has expressed heartfelt sorrow and regret that anyone has been hurt. The National Church Institutions are engaging with a range of stakeholders, including, most importantly, those people who were directly affected.
Peter Swallow
On Tuesday, the Education Committee held a public evidence session on historical forced adoptions and heard how, over many decades, unmarried mothers were shamed and coerced into giving up their babies for adoption—a practice driven by the policies of the state and delivered by charities and religious organisations, including the Church of England. Do the Church Commissioners agree that the victims—mothers and adopted children—are owed a full and formal apology from the Church for its role in this scandal? I heard what my hon. Friend said, but only a formal apology will begin to heal the wounds of this horrible scandal.
Marsha De Cordova
The Church recognises the profound pain experienced by many mothers and adoptees affected by historical forced adoption practices, and it is sobering to hear the accounts from mothers and their children whose lives have been adversely affected by what happened to them in maternity homes, including those linked to the Church of England. I want to reiterate to my hon. Friend that the Church has expressed its heartfelt sorrow and regret that people have been impacted by that practice. If he is willing, I am very happy to meet him.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Given my hon. Friend’s journey time from Cornwall, I can understand why she asks that question. The Commission recently endorsed recommendations from our participation team to improve the school visit booking process and the use of our travel subsidy. Schools from her area will have extra time to apply. We want to encourage greater participation from schools furthest away from Westminster by increasing capacity through our education service.
Jayne Kirkham
I am so pleased that schools furthest from Westminster are going to be prioritised and given time to apply for parliamentary trips. It takes at least six hours to get here from Cornish schools, which means they have to take a number of days in London. That is why their visits are rare and often in the summer term, when they interfere less with formal exams. Could my hon. Friend confirm that children from remote and deprived areas will be helped to surmount the barriers they face in getting here?
Nick Smith
The new booking process, which will be launched in September, will ensure that regions are allocated visit opportunities to ensure that no region accesses more than its fair share. Consideration has been given to the circumstances of band C schools—those furthest from Westminster—which have a clear preference for summer-term access due to the long distances they must travel. The education team will weight band C visit opportunities to favour the summer term, so that the booking opportunities best meet those schools’ needs.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The Anglican communion is deeply alarmed by the worsening humanitarian catastrophe, which has been described by regional bishops as “almost unbearable”. Christian communities are among the hardest hit and are facing mass killings, sexual violence and famine. Millions of people have been displaced, and churches and properties have been seized, burnt and destroyed. The Archbishop of Sudan briefed MPs and bishops before Christmas, and said that the conflict has created the world’s largest hunger and displacement crisis.
Warinder Juss
Earlier this year I attended the Open Doors world watch list launch, at the request of my Wolverhampton West constituents, who are gravely concerned about the situation in Sudan. The event confirmed the extreme levels of persecution against Christians in that country, with reports of forced conversions, physical punishment, the destruction of churches and sexual violence. Given that the conflict seems to be getting worse, with the country rising nearly 10 places on the Open Doors watch list in the past five years, can my hon. Friend please outline what steps are being taken to supply international aid and support to Christians being persecuted in Sudan?
Marsha De Cordova
I, too, attended the launch of the Open Doors world watch list last month, and I agree that the testimonies shared by those who have fled persecution were powerful and moving. The Bishop of Leeds, who has visited Sudan extensively, has repeatedly raised the issues facing the Sudanese people in the other place and directly with the Government. He held a debate in which he specifically called on the Government and the international community to secure a ceasefire in order to ensure humanitarian access and protect civilians. The dioceses of Leeds and Salisbury both hold a formal companion link with the diocese of Sudan. The Church stands with Sudan’s Christian population and all those who are suffering, and calls for renewed global attention on this horrific conflict.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (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 next week 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 to the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill.
Wednesday 4 March—Estimates day (4th allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Defence, and the Department for Business and Trade. At 7 pm 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 a general debate on the contributions of Commonwealth troops in world war one, followed by a 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 provisional business for the week commencing 9 March includes:
Monday 9 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Tuesday 10 March—Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Wednesday 11 March—Remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Thursday 12 March—General debate to mark International Women’s Day.
Friday 13 March—The House will not be sitting.
Joy Morrissey
It is a pleasure to be doing business questions and responding to the right hon. Gentleman. He was a Chief Whip—a Whip, like me, but more grand—and he was much respected, revered and sometimes feared by Members of this House. I will be honest and say that even I was terrified of him, and we are not even in the same party. It is a pleasure to be here today.
As we reach the fourth anniversary of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, it is important that we restate our unwavering support for the people of Ukraine. We must never abandon them.
I know that it has been a challenging few weeks for Labour Members—we have all been there—who have come to realise what the British people have long understood, which is that we have a Prime Minister who has U-turned on every principle he held and every promise he made. He is a Prime Minister elected on a promise not to raise taxes on working people, and then he raised them. He is a Prime Minister who promised to be pro-business, and he has become the most anti-business Prime Minister of modern times. He is a Prime Minister who promised to raise standards in public life, but he is presiding over an ever-growing mountain of Government scandals. “The grown-ups are back in charge, no more sleaze”—how is that going for them?
While the Prime Minister stumbles on, his Ministers are out of control and out of their depth, and the British people are paying the price. Let me start with the Justice Secretary. This week we saw that he intends to pursue his reckless plan to cut jury trials: a principle that has existed for over 800 years; a principle that he wants to wreck without proper debate in the House. Will the Leader of the House give me a categoric assurance that we will have time in the House to debate the changes that the Justice Secretary wants to make before we get to May?
Let me turn to the Education Secretary, who is also the Equalities Minister. There can be no justification for the delay in providing guidance on single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court ruled a year ago that biological sex defines a woman—a fact that most people knew without needing a judge to tell them. I do not know whether the Education Secretary deep down still does not agree, but the inaction must end. Will the Leader of the House confirm when the guidance will be laid before the House, and grant a debate in Government time on the unacceptable delays and risk it has proved to women and girls?
Let me turn to the Chancellor. This week the Chancellor’s entrepreneurship adviser shamefully said that Britain does “not need more restaurants”, laying bare what we already knew: that this Government are determined to tax our hospitality businesses into extinction. Will the Chancellor apologise for her adviser and sack her, or back her and agree with her anti-hospitality stance? Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on our pubs and hospitality, so that Members—at least, those on the Conservative Benches—can show their support for the hospitality sector? We want to ensure that the crippling tax burden is removed from the hospitality sector.
It is now clear that we have a Prime Minister with an out-of-control Government buried deep in scandal after scandal, failure after failure and broken promise after broken promise; a Prime Minister without principle; a Prime Minister without purpose; and a Prime Minister without a future. The British people deserve better.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and for her warm welcome, but let me gently warn her that soft soap will get her absolutely nowhere.
Let me join the hon. Lady in expressing our continued support for Ukraine. This week marks four years since Putin’s full-scale invasion. The Government remain steadfast in our support for the people of Ukraine, as did the previous Government. This week we announced a landmark sanctions package against Russia. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to achieve a just and lasting peace. That underlines the importance of NATO and, frankly, the foolishness of any party in this House that wants us to leave NATO.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate Team GB on their most successful winter Olympic games ever, and send our best wishes to Paralympics GB ahead of the Paralympic winter games starting on 6 March.
I want to send my condolences to the family and friends of Harry Barnes, who passed away last week. He diligently served as MP for North East Derbyshire for nearly 20 years.
I also wish to send my condolences to the family and friends of Martyn Butler, the co-founder of the Terrence Higgins Trust. Martyn supported the trust for five decades and fought for LGBT rights. It is undoubted that his legacy will live on.
This week, Ofgem announced that electricity bills will come down for millions of households as a result of the action we took at the Budget. We have announced major changes to the special educational needs and disabilities system. We are putting children and young people first. Every child with additional needs will benefit from better, more tailored support, with SEND support in every school and community.
Finally, I want to wish all those celebrating a happy St David’s day on Sunday.
Let me now turn to the hon. Lady’s remarks. I will begin with what I thought were her fairly churlish remarks about the Prime Minister. She failed to mention that, because he is doing such a good job—[Interruption.] I am pleased that Conservative Members acknowledge that, because inflation is falling, interest rates have fallen six times since the general election, retail sales are up, wages are up and the economy is growing. I think that is a record of which we should be proud.
Let me turn to the Prime Minister’s integrity. I draw the comparison between the integrity of my right hon. and learned Friend and how the hon. Lady was one of the very last people in the redoubt with Boris Johnson. She did not join others in holding the former Prime Minister to account.
I have already announced Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill; there will be plenty of time for debate, and I will bring forward the next stages in the usual way. Similarly, on the guidance that the hon. Lady referred to, we will bring that forward—we have committed to that—and there will be time for debate on these important matters, but it is important that we get them right.
On hospitality, there will be further opportunities to debate such issues when the Finance Bill returns to the Chamber, but let me remind the House that under the previous Government 7,000 pubs closed. The hon. Lady referred to that as “support” from her party for pubs. Goodness me—how would it have been if it had not supported those pubs? We will not take any lessons about hospitality from the Conservative party.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
My constituent Bethany is 27. She has spent time in various residential care units and with at-home support provided by Worcestershire county council. During that time, she has experienced unexplained injuries and neglect, resulting in health problems and weight loss. Her family have submitted various complaints about that poor treatment, but the council will not provide a final response to their complaints and has not replied to my office’s multiple requests for that to happen. In fact, the council is still trying to reclaim fees from the family while the complaint remains unresolved. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how best to escalate that distressing case when the county council refuses to engage?
Sir Alan Campbell
May I first express my deepest sympathies for the case that my hon. Friend raises? His constituent, and indeed all our constituents, deserve better than what he has outlined. If he sends me the specifics, I will ensure that they are taken up with the relevant Minister.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in his comments about Ukraine. It is clear that Vladimir Putin underestimated Ukrainians’ resilience and Europe’s willingness to stand by Ukraine. He will find out that we will all stand by Ukraine right to the end of this war.
The cost of living has been piling pressure on people for years, and people have been plunged into debt. Bodies such as Citizens Advice and StepChange offer advice on how to get out of debt situations, and one thing they commonly raise with me—I see it in my inbox as well—is the aggressive debt recovery actions of those in the public sector. If people fall behind on council tax payments, councils are often quite quick to cancel their existing payment plans and order them to pay a fine. They also get to a stage involving bailiffs quite quickly—often within six weeks. This is different from what happens in the private sector, which is more heavily regulated and where there is a need to show more meaningful engagement with residents, offer payment plans, and get to court action much later.
I see this again in the case of the Department for Work and Pensions. We have spoken in this place about the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal and how those people were chased for payments, but in the last couple of weeks I have had examples in my inbox of somebody whose debt with the DWP rose to £10,000 due to errors on the Department’s part, and started being chased aggressively for that. Of course, the DWP can automatically deduct payments of up to 15% from someone’s universal credit almost immediately, leaving them with no understanding of what happened in the past, let alone how they will manage going forward. The Government are seeking new powers to go into bank accounts and take payments directly, which is extremely worrying given the errors that the DWP has made in the past.
This relates not only to the DWP, but to all public sector bodies, so I am not sure who is the relevant Minister, but I would appreciate it if the Leader of the House engaged with the Government to see if they can get more sympathy and understanding into the debt recovery process across public sector organisations.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks on Ukraine. It is important that every party in this House stands with Ukraine, and it is a pity and a disgrace that that view is not shared by everyone in the House.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter of debt recovery, because it must be fair to everyone; if someone falls into debt, they must be treated fairly and supported to get back on their feet. That is why we are reforming the enforcement sector to safeguard debtors and creditors alike while building a more sustainable future. It is a question of balance, because any Secretary of State has an obligation to protect public funds and ensure that, wherever possible, overpayment and penalty debt is recovered; it should, however, be recovered as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible without causing undue financial hardship to debtors. I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of Ministers, starting with those in the DWP, to ensure that they have heard what he has said today.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Coloma Convent girls’ school in my constituency, where students are campaigning on the vital issue of debt relief for developing countries and what this nation can do about it. They highlighted the stark reality that 3.3 billion people live in nations that spend more on servicing debt than on health, infrastructure and education. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the teachers, students and staff at Coloma for their work to highlight this issue, and will he make time for a debate on the growing global debt crisis and the UK’s role in supporting meaningful debt relief?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the work and campaigning of Coloma Convent girls’ school and will certainly join her in thanking the teachers and staff at the school. The Government fully recognise the pressure that many developing countries face, and we are committed to delivering an international financial system that supports development needs and helps countries to address their debt vulnerabilities. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears my hon. Friend’s words.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the next two weeks. May I make a plea to him—and to you, Mr Speaker—about the estimates day debates? We had seven excellent bids, from which we had to choose three, and time will be compressed in those debates. I hope that a very high bar for urgent questions will be implemented and that the Government will not put on statements on that particular day—
Mr Speaker
Order. Maybe I can help: don’t put in as many questions for the Government. [Laughter.]
Bob Blackman
I don’t think I have submitted a request for a UQ for a very long time, Mr Speaker.
Bob Blackman
I might do next week.
The business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday will be a debate on strengthening community cohesion, which might be quite appropriate after today’s by-election. On Thursday 5 March, there will be a debate on the importance of local museums, followed by one on World Book Day. On Tuesday 10 March, there will be a debate on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products. On Thursday 12 March, the Liaison Committee has a debate on Northern Ireland, followed by a debate on Government support for carnivals. On Tuesday 17 March, there will be a debate on productivity and economic growth in the east midlands.
Unfair service charges implemented by companies across the UK are frequently raised at business questions, but I think I have one that tops the lot. In my constituency, we have a development called Stanmore Place, which has a mixture of housing association-managed property and 798 private leased properties. It is managed by St Edward Homes, with a managing agent called Rendall & Rittner.
Due to its incompetence, R&R has failed to deliver the costs of heating for the shared services for the past 10 years. It has now decided to re-invoice individuals, who have paid their bills, saying—generously—that it will not invoice them from 2015 to 2021, but that it will invoice them from 2021 to 2026. Ofgem is apparently changing the rules so that this will not be allowed in future; companies will be able to go back only 12 months, which is reasonable. However, Ofgem is not making the change until 2027, meaning that in this particular case, and across the UK, we have a wild west show in back billing.
I know that the Government are looking at leasehold reform and service charges in particular. Could the Leader of the House therefore encourage Ministers to ensure that this practice is outlawed immediately?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman and his Backbench Business Committee for all their work. I am pleased to hear that a number of very good bids came forward for estimates day, so, to that extent, the system is working. However, as he will know, it is a question of balance. We want to make full use of the time on that day. Having three debates may be challenging in terms of time, but it certainly should ensure that we use the whole of the allotted time, which was not always the case previously. I heard his request about statements, which is a matter for the Government, and I will see what we can do.
Let me turn to service charges. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are determined to take action to address unfair and unjustified charges. We are committed to implementing the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 as soon as possible, because we are committed to ensuring that those who live in the leasehold sector are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. I will ensure that both Ofgem and Ministers hear the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and see whether anything can be done about timing, because I take his point very much.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Next week, SNP-controlled Falkirk council proposes to cut school bus services from communities such as Shieldhill, Hallglen and Maddiston—bus services that get bairns from some of our most rural and deprived communities to school on time. Hundreds of working parents in Falkirk responded to the budget consultation, as they are worried sick about the impact on their bairns’ safety, wellbeing and attendance at school. Will the Leader of the House join those families and me in calling on Falkirk council to reject this cut?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, my hon. Friend raises a very important issue. We all want children across the UK to have the best opportunities and start in life, so it is vital that important transport services are available for children to access education, particularly in rural areas. As I have said many times, the Scottish Government have a record funding settlement and they should make use of it. I hope that Falkirk council has listened to my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
At 3 o’clock on Saturday, Windsor & Eton football club will play the Ashford Town (Middlesex) team in the north of my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) is coming over with 100 of his closest friends. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging as many members of my Spelthorne constituency to get themselves to Ashford Town at 3 pm to cheer on the team?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that the day is a success. Of course, we want to encourage people to go along and cheer on and support teams, not least because many clubs face difficult financial circumstances, so getting communities behind teams is really important. The only thing that surprises me is that a Member of Parliament has 100 friends.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
On the last day before the February recess, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government released a consultation on regional strategic planning, including proposed maps for regions where a mayoral strategic authority has not already been established. I am extremely concerned that that amounts to imposing a devolution area on my region from Whitehall, but I have not yet been able to secure a meeting with the Minister in question to share my concerns. Will the Leader of the House speak to colleagues in MHCLG about arranging that meeting as quickly as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
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, and that it will be necessary to introduce effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. None the less, I will raise my hon. Friend’s point with the relevant Minister and ensure that he gets a reply and, if appropriate, a meeting.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The western side of my constituency is blighted by the dangerous A483, which runs from Welshpool in Wales through to Oswestry in my constituency. The residents of Llanymynech, Pant and Llynclys are particularly badly affected by safety issues. Everyone knows that the right solution is a bypass, but National Highways has come up with a solution to make the Llynclys crossroads much safer and to improve safety through Pant and Llanymynech, so that schoolchildren are not risking their lives every day by crossing the road to catch the bus. Can the Leader of the House tell me when we might see the road investment strategy 3 announced—when that statement might come before MPs—so that constituents in the western part of my constituency can start to feel hope that, for the first time in 40 years, somebody is doing something about the death trap that is the A483?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is right to raise this important matter. I cannot give her the answer that she is looking for this morning, but I will make sure that Ministers are aware of this issue and that she gets a reply directly from them.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
This week my home town of Luton celebrates a very important milestone as we mark the 150th anniversary of the borough and its elected council. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating this anniversary and paying tribute to our local councillors of all political stripes across the country for their democratic service and representation of their local communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in celebrating the incredible anniversary that she describes. Local councillors are vital to the work of local government and to supporting our constituents on all manner of issues, and I thank them for their work, not just in her area but across the country. However, let me just say that I am disappointed that we do not have a representative from Reform here today, because I would like to have heard from them what their party leader refused to say yesterday: whether or not there would be condemnation and the sacking of the deputy council leader in Lancashire for disgraceful comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet).
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, that the armed forces parliamentary scheme provides Members of this House and the other place with the unique opportunity to get a better insight into the military so that we are better informed in debates and decision making. Yesterday, Wing Commander Greg Smith finally retired from the RAF after not only 10 years of running the armed forces parliamentary scheme for that service but a very distinguished active service with the RAF fast jets in the cold war, the middle east and the Balkans, before taking on multinational operational roles with NATO. He then took on the most challenging role of all, which is, of course, herding Members of Parliament to bases in the UK and abroad. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Wing Commander Smith for his extraordinarily distinguished service and wishing him all the very best in his retirement?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to everyone involved in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I know that it has had a profound effect on colleagues over the years, and it is so important in informing Members of this House and ensuring that we are able to debate all armed forces matters with even greater knowledge. I am happy to wish Wing Commander Smith all the very best for the future, and I thank him for everything that he has done.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent Isabel Rose suffered a horrendous event in Hong Kong almost exactly two years ago. She was sexually assaulted and violently raped. She went to the authorities in trust to report this, but it was not properly investigated. Given the Government’s support for tackling violence against women and girls here in the UK, does the Leader of the House agree that it is time we had a debate in Government time about violence against women and girls more generally and the under-reporting of sexual assault, which is also under- reported in Hong Kong? Will he also flag this issue to Foreign Office Ministers?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am very sorry to hear of the case that my hon. Friend raises. The Government are absolutely committed to tackling violence against women and girls wherever it happens. There are opportunities to debate these matters, but I will certainly see whether there are further opportunities for my hon. Friend to raise her concerns. I will also draw this case to the attention of Foreign Office Ministers.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The England Beach Soccer association has an agreement with the Football Association, as its delivery partner into FIFA. However, beach soccer is not recognised as a stand-alone sport by Sport England, which means that it cannot benefit from funding, and it does not receive anything from the FA either. It is a growing sport, with 30 years of history behind it, and it is crucial, particularly in coastal areas where no facilities are required other than a beach. Will the Government consider setting aside time for a debate about the importance of open-air sport and about beach soccer finally getting the recognition from Sport England that I think—I am sure other Members agree—it rightfully deserves?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in praising those involved in beach soccer, not least because we have some fantastic beaches in my constituency. He may wish to seek an Adjournment debate to raise those important matters, but I will certainly draw them to the attention of the appropriate Minister. If the hon. Gentleman wants a meeting to go through the advantages of supporting beach soccer, he may be able to make his case there.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government will make time for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to report to this House on the findings of the best value process for the mayoral Tees Valley combined authority as the 12 months of the best value notice draw to a close? In that period, Mayor Houchen has been required to relinquish the chairmanship of three development corporations and the authority is seeing changes to all three statutory officers, with the outgoing director of finance referring to “informal agreements” between the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks and with interim officers resigning. Its external auditors, EY, have disclaimed the last two years’ accounts, with reports suggesting a further year of disclaimed accounts is likely. Given the serious and continuing concerns regarding finance, governance and audit, will the Government provide an opportunity for a full statement on the conclusions reached and any further steps proposed to secure best value and to restore confidence in and the future of the development corporations?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend sets out further disturbing news from Tees Valley. He described me earlier as a “pussy cat” on some matters; on these matters he has been a terrier over the years. He has pursued them on behalf of his constituents and the wider region, and he is absolutely right to do so. If he wishes to have a meeting to draw them to the attention of the Secretary of State, I will help him to arrange it. If the Secretary of State wishes to bring forward a statement on these matters, that is a decision for him.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Greater Cambridge shared planning service, which covers both South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridge city council, is an award-winning planning service that has one of the highest build-out rates in the country while maintaining high environmental standards, for which it is recognised by the Government’s Cambridge Growth Company. Yet right now, it faces a perilous situation, with unplanned speculative development, as a result of a ridiculous anomaly. Although the five-year housing land supply is a joint, shared target, the housing delivery test does not recognise the cross-boundary shared target, putting at risk that supply. I, together with all MPs for the area, wrote to the Housing Minister in January and we had a meeting in the first week of February. He assured us that he understood the urgency of the situation and offered us a swift resolution, but to date we have heard nothing. Will the Leader of the House help us resolve this matter swiftly?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly will try to do that. The hon. Lady is right to raise those concerns. Two things spring to mind: first, with the support of other colleagues who she says have similar concerns, she might seek an Adjournment debate so that they can express them directly to the Minister, or secondly, she gets the reply from the Minister that she is after. I will ensure that she does.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last weekend, the Wolverhampton Wanderers player Tolu Arokodare was subjected to appalling racist abuse on his social media profiles and three other premier league players shared similar experiences. I wrote to the Minister for Online Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), this week to request a meeting to discuss what can be done to stop this racist abuse of our black footballers so that the perpetrators are punished for their disgusting behaviour and social media companies take their share of responsibility. Will the Leader of the House please join me in condemning this horrible abuse and expressing full support and solidarity to Tolu? Will he also reach out to the Minister to ensure that the requested meeting is scheduled as soon as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in condemning the abuse that he describes and offering our support for Tolu. Nobody—no football player and, indeed, not anybody involved in sport—should be put through that. The Government’s stance is unequivocal: we stand for unity, not division. Racism, sexism and any other form of discrimination has no place in our society, which is why we are working closely with the national governing bodies for sport to tackle racism and discrimination. I will ask that my hon. Friend gets the meeting that he seeks so that Ministers can hear his concerns fully and completely.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
As winter takes its toll, many Members of this House will, like me, be finding their best angry faces and awkwardly pointing at potholes in their constituencies, but this year many residents are getting in touch with me to say that this is the worst they can ever remember them being. In fact, one of the potholes that is sparking quite a few emails to me is a giant one right outside Reform UK’s office in the Fylde constituency, which is becoming a little metaphor for the rocky road that Reform has had since winning control of Lancashire county council.
Reform promised to magically save hundreds of millions of pounds, to improve services and to cut council tax, but what have we seen so far? Council tax has gone up, and Reform went millions of pounds over budget within months of taking office and then it tried to settle some of that overspend by consulting on closing care homes, such as Milbanke in Fylde and Grove House in the Chorley constituency. Will the Leader of the House agree to have a Government statement on what support they will provide to these Reform-controlled councils, given that it clearly won control of them with no idea of what it was getting into or a plan of what to do once it did?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government have provided huge resource for local authorities to tackle potholes. The hon. Member is right that, given the fact that it has been a wet winter, potholes appear to be prevalent everywhere. It sounds once again as if this Reform council over-offers and underdelivers and, like other Reform councils, is providing poorer services and yet putting council tax up at the same time. I cannot offer him a debate or statement in Government time, but I hope that when electors in his area get the opportunity, they will make their views absolutely clear.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
We have a pothole epidemic in Hastings, Rye and the villages. After years of the Conservatives slashing council budgets, this Labour Government have given Conservative-run East Sussex county council a record cash injection of £21 million to fill those potholes. Despite that, potholes are causing chaos. They risk lives, cause damage to our cars and, as we heard at my public meeting on buses last week, make our buses break down three times as often in Hastings as anywhere else in the country because the roads are so bad. Despite the record cash injection, the council refuses to answer basic questions about how much of that £21 million will be spent in Hastings and Rye, which has the worst potholes. Does the Leader of the House agree that there are now no excuses for Conservative-run East Sussex county council? It must get on and use this money to fill those potholes, and also respond to my freedom of information request.
Sir Alan Campbell
Absolutely, the council should do that as a matter of urgency. It is a gross discourtesy to a Member of this House for any council not to take these matters seriously enough. It seems that we are not just criticising Reform councils on these matters; we are now quite rightly condemning Conservative councils. Where they are not listening to their residents, they should listen. As I said in my previous answer, a record amount is going in from Government to fix potholes. The money must be used effectively so that our constituents see those benefits. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House, and I encourage her local Conservative council to listen to her important contribution and the views of their community, and to get back to her with the information that she rightly seeks.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
It is absolutely right that student debt has been one of the main focuses this week. Students are graduating with an average debt of £53,000. That simply is an appalling and debilitating financial burden at the start of their working lives. But the Leader of the House will know that this is not the story in the whole of the UK; in Scotland, under the SNP policy of free tuition, students graduate with an average debt of £17,990—a third of what students graduate with in England. Will he ensure that that is pointed out when this issue is debated and student debt is referenced? I have heard about U-turns on student debt. If those happen, will he encourage his Ministers to look at the Scottish system of free education and ensure that graduates in England have the same opportunities as graduates in Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we inherited the current system from the previous Government. They designed it, they delivered it and they caused the problems that are there now. We are trying to put them right. We have made changes to try to make it fairer. We continue to look at ways of doing that, and we will look at examples wherever they happen to be. We are focused not just on that, but on improving the cost of living to benefit young people. I very gently say to the hon. Gentleman that of course the situation is different in Scotland, because money is available to put into it. I would simply ask him where the money comes from. We have put a record funding settlement into Scotland, and it is up to them how they use it, but I am afraid the idea that there is a magic money tree in Scotland is from his imagination.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I recently visited the Lancaster University School of Mathematics, which is based in Preston on the edge of my constituency, a brilliant new place for 16 to 18-year-olds to take A-levels in maths and maths-based subjects. In a world where we desperately need more maths and technical skills, it was truly a joy to hear that students who had previously felt unsupported in their passion for maths now had a place where they could thrive. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging my young constituents to consider this brilliant choice now on their doorstep, and will he consider a debate on how the culture of our educational settings is crucial to enabling the creative and entrepreneurial learning we need for growth in this country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will absolutely join my hon. Friend in encouraging her constituents to consider studying at Lancaster University and the colleges associated with it, as I did myself many—or, shall I say, many, many—years ago. We have conducted the first curriculum review in a decade, which includes high standards for every child in maths and other foundational subjects. The topics my hon. Friend raised will make an excellent topic for an Adjournment debate, should she apply for one.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
During the recent floods in Somerset, the Minister for Water and Flooding said that
“the Environment Agency has committed to reviewing the issues around water level management in Somerset”—[Official Report, 11 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 890.]
and that it will consider
“when pumps should be activated, whether the current trigger points are right, and whether installing permanent pumps in certain locations could offer better value for money in the long term.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 890.]
Given the agency’s decision to withdraw from main river maintenance, I ask the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time so that we can discuss these issues and the Environment Agency’s effectiveness at preventing flooding.
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committing resources to the alleviation of and protection from flooding, but it is important that we learn from local examples. I happen to think that the Environment Agency has been working full out in many areas over what has been a very wet winter, as I said before, but that does not mean it has got absolutely everything right. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking a meeting with the floods Minister to outline his local concerns and inform that debate, I will arrange that.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Leader of the House knows how proud I am to represent England’s most northerly city. It is a city that had not one, but two Roman forts. It has a wonderful Norman castle and a 900-year-old cathedral with the nation’s favourite stained glass window and retains its city walls and citadels. Nationalised beer was served there for over 50 years. It is the city that gave birth to the railway ticket and where the world’s oldest biscuit factory keeps our country fed on custard creams. Does the Leader of the House therefore agree that there could be no finer place than Carlisle to be the UK’s city of culture 2029?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, my hon. Friend is a strong advocate for her city of Carlisle. She paints a very attractive, and realistic, picture of a fantastic place. She referred to the 50 years of nationalised beer. It is fair to point out that it was a Conservative Government who nationalised the breweries in Carlisle, which I think is interesting—obviously not that interesting. The city of culture competition is a brilliant opportunity for our constituents to show their pride in their cities, as my hon. Friend pointed out. I wish all the applicants good luck, wherever they are, including Carlisle, because it is a fantastic city for all the reasons my hon. Friend listed and more.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Specialist hospitals—by which I mean major trauma centres, trauma units, cardiac centres, burns centres, stroke units and some children’s hospitals—are the main destinations for the most time-critical, seriously injured and ill patients. Those are the same patients that our amazing air ambulance services routinely treat and take to hospital. Will the Leader of the House speak with his Health and planning colleagues to ensure that helipads with 24/7 access are mandated for all specialist hospitals? The national guidelines for planning neither protect hospital helipads nor include hospitals and aircraft operators or ambulance charities as statutory consultees on development in proximity to existing helipads, which can affect their utility for safety reasons.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Lady in praising everyone involved in air ambulances, and in acknowledging the importance of the hospitals to which she refers. In fact, many newer hospitals have helipads—including Northumbria specialist emergency care hospital, which serves my constituency—but that does not apply across the board. She raises an important point, and I will draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Dan Blackman and in thanking all others at the Silklife church food bank, along with the other food banks and community groups across Macclesfield, including Cre8 and the CORE pantry, for their extraordinary dedication in supporting people who face food poverty? As Dan steps aside after six years of service, will the Leader of the House set out what the Government are doing to tackle food poverty, and wider poverty, including by increasing the national minimum wage, expanding free school meals and dealing with the cost of living for families?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Dan Blackman on his expansive dedication to his community, and in thanking all those involved in such important work in every community. Groups such as Silklife food bank support people in their time of need, and we are very grateful for that. Of course, we would like to be in a situation in which they were not necessary, but unfortunately they continue to be. The previous Government presided over the first Parliament in modern history to see a fall in living standards. This Government are determined to tackle poverty, including by lifting the two-child limit, expanding the warm home discount and extending the household support fund. In the meantime, I thank Dan Blackman and all volunteers for their work.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Lib Dem-run Bath and North East Somerset council is deeply concerned that the Government’s proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework will cap local ambitions on meeting net zero through sustainable development. National minimum environmental standards must not become a ceiling that prevents councils from aiming to go beyond the minimum. Will the Government make a statement to assure councils such as Bath that the new framework will not stymie the forward-thinking and innovative sustainable planning policy that many councils across the country want to pursue?
Sir Alan Campbell
Although I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, there is a balance to be struck on infrastructure planning, as I have said before. Our changes to the national planning policy framework are forecast to deliver £6.8 billion in growth and the highest level of house building in 40 years, and bring in a new approach to energy infrastructure. I understand the local concerns on these matters, and I will draw them to the attention of the relevant Minister so that the hon. Lady gets a response.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Solitary confinement beyond 15 days is considered psychological torture under international law. UN experts report that the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, has been held in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day, raising concerns about mistreatment. Reports suggest that he is losing vision, and is belatedly receiving treatment only after repeated pleas. His lawyers have petitioned the Supreme Court of Pakistan to transfer him to Shifa international hospital for specialised care. Given the serious concerns raised by my constituents, will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister what representations have been made to ensure that Mr Khan is treated fairly and with dignity?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. Pakistan’s judicial processes are, of course, a domestic matter, but we urge Pakistan to respect the fundamental freedoms of all its citizens, including Imran Khan. We are concerned by the use of military courts for civilians due to potential issues with transparency. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears my hon. Friend’s concerns and that he gets a response.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
In Birmingham, residents and I are appalled at Birmingham city council’s botched sale of the former Newtown swimming baths and New Aston House. A bid was put in for the property by a charity dedicated to educating, serving and uplifting the local community. The bid was approved by the cabinet committee, but that decision has now been overturned. I will not mention the names of any organisations, politicians or council officers, because it may become a legal proceeding, but I have it on good authority that this distortion of due process was a result of some politicians in Birmingham. I have never encountered anything of this nature in my 20 years of political and public life. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Nolan principles, so that we can discuss the ethical limits of members’ powers and the harm that can be done when party politics infringe on non-political local business?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises concerning matters. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate, where he can not only set out his concerns in more detail but get a response from the relevant Minister.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
This week, one of my constituents experienced a homophobic attack on Oxford Street from a shopkeeper who runs one of the American candy stores. This is a stark reminder of not only the rogue traders who are operating on Oxford Street but the ongoing presence of homophobia in our society. Will the Leader of the House help me to secure a meeting with the relevant Minister, to ensure we get rid of these rogue traders on Oxford Street for good?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for championing unity, not division, and working to make our high streets safer. All forms of hatred are completely unacceptable and have no place in our communities, and the Government are clear that those who commit hate crimes will face the full force of the law. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting she requests, but I also encourage her and other Members to attend the debate on community cohesion scheduled for next Tuesday.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
An important frontline healthcare company operating within the NHS in my constituency and across Somerset has relied on a certificate of sponsorship for a number of years to provide those services. An application to renew the certificate of sponsorship was made in the normal way, but because the company changed its structure a few years ago and there was a change in ownership, even though the qualified head of that company remained the sole director and beneficial owner, the Home Office has rejected the application, adding that there is no right of appeal. That could have a significant impact on healthcare services across Somerset. I have written to the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), and I would be extremely grateful if the Leader of the House helped to facilitate a meeting, so that patients across Somerset do not suffer because of an overly heavy-handed approach to the rules on certificates.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises a concerning matter, and if he lets me have further details, I will do everything I can to get him the meeting he seeks.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
A number of my constituents have been struggling with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, including several type 1 diabetic HGV drivers who have to renew their class 1 licences on a yearly basis. Every year the DVLA takes three to four months to process those applications. Licences expire, and they are relying on section 88 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to continue driving, but many employers will not take drivers on section 88, so they are losing income. The DVLA needs to look at either removing the requirement for annual renewal or speeding up that process, maybe by getting reports from GPs rather than private consultants. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a meeting between me and the relevant Transport Minister, so that we can discuss this further?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. The DVLA is delivering improvements for customers with medical conditions, including diabetes, but there is still a great deal to be done. Such delays can affect the lives of constituents—not just their ability to drive but their livelihoods—so I will ensure that she gets a meeting with the Minister, to outline her concerns.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Given that Sky Sports and TNT Sports subscription rates for commercial premises are tied to their rateable value, not only do pubs like the Crown in Eastbourne, run by Andy and Jo, face a business rates hike, they are also facing an unsustainable increase in the cost of their TV sports packages in the midst of the looming revaluation. Will the Leader of the House support me to secure a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss how we can better support our hospitality venues, including pubs, to protect the airing of live sport on their premises?
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
My constituents in Portsmouth have raised concerns about significant mark-ups on third party funeral services and lack of transparency in pricing. At a time of extreme grief, families should not have to worry about excessive costs or unclear pricing. In 2025, the Competition and Markets Authority recommended statutory regulation and price control in the industry. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on strengthening regulation of the funeral industry to ensure fair, transparent pricing and proper protection for families during what can be an extremely traumatic time?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter in the way that she has today. No one wishes to be faced with this issue, particularly at such a distressing time. The Government will set our their response to the Fuller inquiry in due course, including on the matter of statutory regulation. If my hon. Friend wants a meeting with the relevant Minister, I will seek to help her to arrange that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
During the recess last week, I had the opportunity to visit Iraq as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and I wish to take this opportunity to again raise the continuing plight of Yazidi families. More than a decade after the atrocities committed against the Yazidi community in Iraq, when 6,500 people were murdered and 2,500 people remain missing, some 96 mass graves remain unexhumed. Many victims have yet to be recovered, identified or returned to their families for proper burial. The lack of progress in addressing those graves continues to cause profound distress to survivors and relatives seeking closure. We in Northern Ireland understand that, perhaps in a smaller way, because of the disappeared. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what discussions the Government have had with the Iraqi authorities regarding the identification and the dignified return of remains, and what support the United Kingdom is providing to assist in these efforts?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. The Yazidi population suffered immensely, and the repercussions are still being felt today. Supporting the safe return of remains to families is vital. I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Foreign Office Minister, but I also remind him that it is Foreign Office questions next week.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Road safety is a concern for many of my constituents: those living on the Old Shoreham Road worry about dangerous accidents and near misses along the A283; the parents and staff at Swiss Gardens primary school are concerned about cars ignoring the school street closure; and the crossing in Broadwater, near Downsbrook and Whytemead primary schools, is considered so dangerous that the lollipop person was removed by West Sussex county council. I am glad that the Government are taking road safety seriously with our new strategy, so will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the School Streets Initiative volunteers for their work around Swiss Gardens primary school, and in calling on West Sussex county council to improve the enforcement of schools streets and to move the dangerous Broadwater crossing? Will he consider providing time for a general debate on road safety and how local authorities can be held to account on delivering safer streets for us all?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituents and he is right to raise the issue of road safety. As he has said, the Government are determined to take action on road safety. Our road safety strategy includes a plan to reduce deaths and serious injuries on British roads by 65% by 2035. I join him, as he requests, in thanking the School Streets Initiative volunteers, not just in his constituency but across the country, for all their work in helping with road safety. I hope that the other people who have an obligation to make streets safer in his constituency have heard his remarks today.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
As you know, Mr Speaker, the HealthBus Trust recently came from Bournemouth to Parliament and parked up its bus in Speaker’s Court. May I put on record my thanks to you for offering that opportunity? The HealthBus Trust provides direct, nurse-led care for people experiencing homelessness, but it needs access to local shared care records, including historical NHS records, to improve care and address complex needs. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the HealthBus Trust’s trustees and volunteers? Will he ask Ministers to give due consideration to how we reach the most vulnerable and hard-to-reach populations in the ambition of our NHS 10-year plan to get more care into the community?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important work of the HealthBus Trust, and I join her in paying tribute to its work. I will raise the point that she has drawn to our attention with the Health Secretary and ensure that she gets a response.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is well aware of the ongoing issues with Royal Mail and the concerns of many Members and constituents about the delayed delivery of hospital appointment letters and other important correspondence. The Communication Workers Union advises that the problem of delivery office staff turnover is worse in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. Does he share my concern that the imminent Scottish Parliament elections bring a fresh cause for concern? Voters anxiously awaiting their polling cards and postal ballots will be understandably concerned about the possibility of being disenfranchised by any delay. Does he agree that Members of the House should be reassured by Royal Mail that it has adequate staffing to discharge its responsibilities regarding the smooth running of May’s election?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. This is not the first time that we have heard concerns regarding Royal Mail’s performance, but she is absolutely right to draw specific attention to this concern in the run-up to the very important elections taking place right across the country. It is vital that Royal Mail delivers a reliable postal service to ensure that postal voters receive their ballots and are able to return them in good time. I have just announced the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, so there will be an opportunity to raise this matter during that debate. I know that Royal Mail takes an interest in these sessions, so I hope that it has noted her concerns, which I will raise directly with Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend or any other Members who have raised concerns about Royal Mail are aware, but Royal Mail has been called in by the Business and Trade Committee to account for its performance.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Transform Trade is a remarkable charity that promotes Fairtrade produce and supports producers and workers across the world, ensuring that trade is fair and respects both people and the planet. Founded in Gateshead as Traidcraft in 1986, the organisation will this year celebrate its 40th anniversary of campaigning for a fairer global trade system. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating it on 40 years of vital work and allow a debate in Government time about tackling trade exploitation and poverty?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in praising the work of Transform Trade and congratulating it on its 40th anniversary. Let me take this opportunity to thank the founders of Traidcraft and everyone involved over those four decades. It has been very important to her constituency, where it was founded, and to constituencies such as mine. The UK will continue to champion free and fair trade, and Traidcraft—now Transform Trade—has an important part to play in that. If my hon. Friend applies for a Westminster Hall debate on this matter, I am sure that it would be well attended.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I know from my own time in the air cadets, as well as from hearing recently from 348 Ilkeston squadron and TS Indomitable in Long Eaton, that the cadet movement is an incredible force for excellence in young people’s development. I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that the adult volunteers who drive the movement do amazing work, quietly building young people into pillars of their communities, but will he consider recognising those volunteers and the wider cadet movement by supporting the Government in organising a national cadets week?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to champion the work of cadets and the impact that they have on young people. I join him in praising all the volunteers who allow cadet forces to operate; they are so important to our local communities and are of such value to young people’s life chances. I can confirm that Ministry of Defence officials are looking at the viability of taking forward a national cadets week.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
Over recent weeks, students and graduates have written to me about the broken student loans system. They tell me about the mental stress caused by punitive interest rates, and that the planned freeze of the repayment threshold will impact their living standards when they aspire to earn more and spend more in the local community. Regional pay disparities have been a Government focus, so will the Leader of the House relay my concerns to the relevant Minister and encourage them to consider how the freeze will impact disposable incomes in Tyneside and across the north-east?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said previously, we inherited this system from the previous Government—they designed it and delivered it—and it is not working to the benefit of students. We are making changes to improve the system and make it fairer, and will continue to do so, but I will draw my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour’s concerns to the attention of the relevant Minister, because I know these matters are of such importance in her constituency.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Instead of fighting for Bournemouth in Poole-led Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, Liberal Democrats in Southbourne and—proving they are just like the rest—independents in Muscliff and Strouden Park voted to kill off a shovel-ready rail project that would have given disabled people, parents with prams and elderly people equal access to Pokesdown station. The independents and Liberal Democrats running BCP council voted to end their long and oft-repeated promise to fund a step- free Pokesdown station despite this Labour Government paying off £165 million of their historical debt, despite the fact that they have increased council tax to raise a further £5 million, and despite their core spending power going up by £56 million. I have been working with the community campaign to rescue this project. Will the Leader of the House support me in facilitating conversations with the Treasury and the Department for Transport, taking the conversations I have already had further so that we can achieve a step-free Pokesdown station once and for all?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution—he has raised this matter several times on his constituents’ behalf, and is fighting hard against the Lib Dem and independent funding cuts in his area. As he has said, rail plays a crucial role in connecting communities. Pokesdown station sounds like a very important part of that, so I will make sure that the relevant Minister is made aware of the situation, and will arrange a meeting so that my hon. Friend can discuss this matter in more detail.
Gibraltar Treaty
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the UK-EU treaty in respect of Gibraltar. First, I welcome the presence in the Gallery of His Majesty’s Governor of Gibraltar, His Excellency Lieutenant-General Sir Ben Bathurst. Given his previous commands, I also take the opportunity to wish him a very happy St David’s day in advance—dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus—which I share with all the House and, indeed, with the people of Gibraltar. It is also a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Speaker, given your own strong support for and associations with Gibraltar, not least in relation to the university.
After five years of tireless and complex work and dozens of rounds of negotiations, I am pleased to inform the House that we have published a draft version of the treaty. I am depositing a copy of the draft treaty in the Library of each House, together with an accompanying summary document. I am delighted that we have reached this moment, which heralds a new era of security, prosperity and stability for Gibraltar and the surrounding region and, crucially, protects British sovereignty over the Rock.
For more than 300 years, the Rock has been a hugely important part of the British family. Its people are British citizens, and our commitment to them remains absolute. This Government have taken seriously their responsibility to protect Gibraltar’s unique position and to secure post-Brexit arrangements that deliver on that responsibility. This draft treaty protects jobs and livelihoods for the people of Gibraltar and offers a stable framework for their relationship with the European Union, removing the uncertainty they have faced since Brexit. In short, it shows what real diplomacy and co-operation can achieve. It is the result of sustained and effective efforts on the part of the United Kingdom, His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, the European Union and Spain.
His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar have been at the table at every stage of the negotiations; nothing has been agreed without their full support. I place on the record my appreciation for the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their teams, who played vital roles in securing the best outcome. I also pay tribute to UK negotiators, including our teams in Brussels, Madrid, London and Gibraltar. Their diligence and diplomatic skill have ensured that this treaty protects UK sovereignty and delivers practical outcomes for citizens and businesses on both sides of the border.
Now let me reflect on some of the detail. Around 15,000 people cross the land border between Spain and Gibraltar every day—half of Gibraltar’s workforce. The treaty removes all checks on people and goods at that border; instead, dual immigration checks will take place at Gibraltar’s airport, with Gibraltar conducting its own controls and Spain, as the neighbouring Schengen state, conducting checks on behalf of the European Union, in a model similar to the French police operating at St Pancras.
Let me be clear: Gibraltar is not joining Schengen. Immigration, policing and justice remain the responsibility of its own authorities. British sovereignty over Gibraltar, including British Gibraltar territorial waters, is fully upheld and explicitly protected. Crucially, the United Kingdom’s military facilities and operations on the Rock remain under full UK control. The treaty also establishes a bespoke customs model that removes the need for routine goods checks at the land border and strengthens co-operation between customs authorities.
Gibraltar will align its import duty rates on goods with EU rates. That will allow people to cross the border with everyday goods, such as shopping, without declarations or additional charges, bringing an end to long queues for workers, businesses and visitors. Having been in those queues myself, I know that that will make a substantial difference. To be clear, Gibraltar will not apply VAT or any other sales tax, and its vital services industry will not be affected.
The result is a pragmatic agreement and arrangement that protects Gibraltar’s way of life, supports its economy and strengthens cross-border co-operation, while safe- guarding the United Kingdom’s sovereignty position. It also gives businesses the certainty that they have sought for many years, allowing them to plan and invest with confidence. The conclusion of the negotiations also reflects the wider, transformed change in tone and trust that this Government have rebuilt with our European and EU partners, including Spain—a crucial NATO ally and economic partner. It represents a new era of co-operation and delivery for growth and security.
As with the UK-EU summit last year, the agreement shows that a constructive, problem-solving relationship with the European Union can deliver real benefits for British citizens. We are publishing the draft treaty alongside the European Union while legal teams complete final checks and translations, so that all Parliaments with an interest can have access to it on the same timeline.
The publication of the draft today marks a milestone, but it is not the formal end of the process; the final version of the treaty will be laid in the UK Parliament for scrutiny before ratification, in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. We will continue to work closely with the Government of Gibraltar, the European Union and Spain as we move towards signature and implementation, and I will update the House as that work progresses.
In conclusion, this is a significant achievement for Britain, for Gibraltar and for our wider European partnerships. It shows this Government’s commitment to fixing problems, supporting our overseas territories, and defending Britain’s interests with clarity and confidence. With this treaty, Gibraltar can look to the future with certainty. Its people can be reassured that their way of life is protected. To quote the Chief Minister today, the treaty
“provides a springboard to stability, certainty and a modern partnership with the EU. And it does so without affecting our fundamental, inalienable right to remain British in every respect. Indeed, the Agreement makes absolutely clear that nothing in the Agreement or any supplementing arrangements shall affect sovereignty.”
In the words of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, our commitment to Gibraltar remains, as ever, as solid as the Rock. I commend this statement to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for bringing this statement to the House and for allowing me to have advance sight of it, but let me be clear: Parliament is reacting to events, rather than being respected as part of the process.
For weeks, detailed provisions of the treaty have circulated in the press before Members of this place have been permitted to see any legal text. That is not how serious constitutional business should be conducted. Now that we have the text, proper scrutiny must follow in this place and in Gibraltar. As we have consistently said, this must be a deal that the Government, the Parliament and, above all, the people of Gibraltar are comfortable with. It is right that the democratically elected Government of Gibraltar have led negotiations and prioritised a free-flowing border, but trade-offs come with that, and it is our duty to examine them carefully.
The sovereignty clause states that nothing in the treaty alters the respective legal positions of the UK or Spain, but sovereignty is not simply about words; it is about how arrangements operate in practice. What recourse does the United Kingdom have if there is an operational overreach by Spain, including in the exercise of border control powers within Gibraltar’s port and airport? Will British citizens be subject to the 90-day Schengen rule in Gibraltar? What is the reciprocal position for Spanish citizens, and what protections exist for British nationals with long-standing ties to Gibraltar who do not hold Gibraltar ID cards? What mechanisms are in place to resolve disputes when asymmetric decisions are taken at the border?
On customs, processing at EU-designated points in Spain and Portugal raises practical and constitutional questions. What oversight will the UK have, and what recourse exists if those arrangements fail to operate effectively? What protections are there for imports of British goods and for Gibraltar’s distinct economic model, particularly its financial services sector? Have the Government’s impact assessments fully examined UK-Gibraltar trade flows and potential adverse effects?
We must also address dynamic alignment. The treaty does not merely apply a fixed list of EU laws; it provides for future EU Acts listed in the annexes to be adopted and implemented, with serious consequences if they are not. Can the Minister explain clearly how this mechanism will operate, and how Gibraltar and the UK will avoid becoming subject to ongoing EU rule-taking without meaningful political control?
The treaty requires consistent interpretation of applicable Union law in line with case law of the European Court of Justice. In which precise areas will EU law bind Gibraltar’s domestic arrangements? What assessment has been made of the implications of future rulings for Britain’s national interest?
I must also draw attention to article 25 and its reference to the European convention on human rights. Will the Minister clarify how that provision operates within the treaty framework, and does adherence to the ECHR form a continuing condition of the agreement? No international agreement should pre-empt or constrain the sovereign right of this Parliament to determine the UK’s constitutional arrangements. Will the Minister confirm that under this treaty an EU national may have access to Gibraltar through the land border without restrictions, but a British national travelling from the UK could be banned from entering at the airport, including on the say of those carrying out Spanish border checks? More broadly, what domestic legislation will be required to give effect to the treaty, and will Parliament have the opportunity to amend it in the normal way?
On national security, Gibraltar’s naval base is of immense strategic importance. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance from the Dispatch Box that nothing in this agreement—now or through future implementation —can directly or indirectly impact the operations, freedom of action, access arrangements or security of the UK’s naval base in any way whatsoever?
Finally, process matters. Given the scale of the agreement, it is not possible to cover all its implications in this short exchange today. There are serious questions about the operation of the border and dual checks, the role of Spanish authorities at the airport, customs and taxation arrangements, business impacts, the adoption of future EU Acts listed in the annexes, ECJ interpretation and the domestic legislation required to implement the treaty. The Minister has said that it is a draft, so when does he expect it to be finalised? When will the CRaG process begin? There has been talk of early implementation, with Gibraltar suggesting 10 April. Can the Minister please clarify that? There must be time for the CRaG process, and it must be meaningful. Provisional application on 10 April must not reduce parliamentary scrutiny to merely a rubber stamp. Gibraltar has stood resolutely British since 1713, and its people have repeatedly affirmed that choice. Any treaty must be examined line by line by this Parliament.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the shadow Minister for her questions. I have to say that I have been rather disappointed by the tone today, and indeed the tone taken in the media over the last few days on these issues, not least as I provided a very full briefing to the shadow Foreign Secretary in advance. The idea that we have not been communicating about this treaty is simply not correct. In a spirit of generosity, I am happy to offer further briefings for the shadow Minister and the shadow Foreign Secretary in order to go through any detail in the treaty they would like. There is nothing to hide. We welcome their scrutiny, and we welcome the scrutiny of this House.
The shadow Minister asked about the timeline. Of course, there is a process in this place, but there are also processes in the EU. We are committed to that and to laying the finalised text after signature of the treaty, which we expect to take place next month. Of course, it will then go through the appropriate processes in relation to CRaG.
The shadow Minister asked about sovereignty and about recourse and dispute mechanisms. First, I need to make it absolutely clear that sovereignty was never on the table in these negotiations. It is not in doubt. That is an absolute, and this agreement safeguards that. There is a range of recourse and dispute resolution mechanisms attached to the treaty. She is welcome to go through those; I am happy to explain them in more detail. We have very much kept to the double lock, which we set out at the start of the process.
The shadow Minister asked about the 90-day rule. British citizens are not free at the moment just to turn up in Gibraltar without going through immigration checks; they are already subject to a 90-day rule. That is important to clarify, because there seem to have been some misunderstandings of that in relation to all our overseas territories recently. There is not an automatic right, and Gibraltar of course maintains immigration and security checks.
The shadow Minister asked about customs. Gibraltar is not joining the customs union, but it is entering into a bespoke customs arrangement with the EU to ensure, crucially, the fluidity of goods. It has chosen to enter into those arrangements, and it is obviously for it to decide what alignment it needs for that. Again, I think that reflects a wider challenge: the Opposition would rather stick with the ideology of the Brexit years than make pragmatic arrangements that deliver for the people of Gibraltar or indeed the people of this country. Crucially, the agreement is about facilitating trade. It is about facilitating the flow of goods and removing the checks and delays that have caused such frustration in the past.
The shadow Minister asked about the ECJ. I am happy to speak to her further about that. There is full detail in the treaty. She asked about the ECHR. Of course, we comply with the ECHR, as does Gibraltar and, indeed, Spain and the EU. We do not shy away from that, notwithstanding the reforms that we are seeking in the wider debates going on outside this place.
The shadow Minister asked for an absolute assurance about our military activities at Gibraltar. I can absolutely assure her that nothing, either now or in the future, will fetter our ability to operate unimpeded in the way that we, and indeed our allies, have done from the base. That was an absolute condition that we set. I am pleased with Spain’s very co-operative approach. It is a key NATO ally, and we co-operate with it in the defence and security of Europe. I am glad that we now have a co-operative and positive spirit of engagement not only with Spain, but with the EU and a range of partners.
Fundamentally, this agreement is good for Gibraltar, it is good for stability, it is good for prosperity and it is good for security. It is supported by the Government of Gibraltar, which was our primary concern throughout this process as well as protecting UK interests. I think we should all respect and get behind the Government of Gibraltar in support of this agreement.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, I welcome this statement and place on record my strong support for the ratification of the treaty. This agreement represents a practical, well balanced and forward-looking settlement for Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and our European partners. Crucially, the deal has the clear backing of the Government and the people of Gibraltar, and that point should carry significant weight across this House. We should be guided not by abstract political positioning, but by the lived reality of the community whose prosperity and security are directly affected. The treaty protects United Kingdom’s red lines. Sovereignty remains unchanged and was never in question. British jurisdiction is respected and Gibraltar—
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlingto and the Wolds) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way? [Laughter.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. That is not good form. Ms Martin, you are not meant to give way when you are asking a question, but I assume you have finished your question.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I think the question is done. I call the Minister.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks with eloquence and expertise on these issues as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar. She is a staunch defender of the people of Gibraltar, and of their rights, sovereignty and future prosperity. Like many Members of the House, she has visited Gibraltar with me. She has seen the reality on the ground, the difficulties resulting from the current arrangements, and the fears for the future. She is absolutely right that this Government are supported by Gibraltar. The treaty is good for the people of Gibraltar. I welcome her support and that of the all-party group on this matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for contact about it in the preceding days.
The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. That was a shameful dereliction of their duty to protect Gibraltarians and the business community there. Now that we have a draft deal in place, we look forward to full scrutiny of the treaty in this House. It must meet a number of key tests.
The first of those tests is the question of sovereignty. The new agreement must leave no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty in Gibraltar. That is vital, given that we know from past experience that the Spanish Government are willing to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of any future possible unilateral action, giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Will the Minister confirm that the deal includes provisions for the agreement’s termination in the event that the UK and Gibraltarians view it as no longer being in our shared interest, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty?
The second test is whether the deal gives genuine effect to the self-determination of the Gibraltarian community. Nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians, so will the Minister confirm that the Gibraltarian Government have led the negotiations and that their interests have been front and centre in them?
The final test is whether the deal actually works for the Gibraltarian economy. It must support jobs and economic growth in the territory. Will the Minister make available to the House the Government’s impact assessment of how the deal will support economic growth and jobs there?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his constructive approach and support. He is absolutely right to set out concerns in those three areas. I can absolutely assure him on all three points. I have been very clear about the sovereignty provisions. They are there in the explanatory documents, explaining that the deal does not affect our position on sovereignty. The sovereignty of Gibraltar is protected. There are dispute resolution mechanisms and termination provisions, and I am very happy to brief him and other Members further on them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about self-determination and the principle of nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. I can absolutely assure him that that is the case. Gibraltar was at the table throughout the negotiations. We have had a very constructive engagement with the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their whole team throughout the process. We were very clear that we would not enter into an agreement that did not have their full support. That is a very significant matter for the whole House to consider as we move forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the deal working for Gibraltar’s economy and growth. I can absolutely assure him that it does, with very pragmatic changes that will deliver for businesses. They will deliver for the free movement of goods, they will ensure that Gibraltar’s important services sector can continue to thrive without impediment, and, crucially, there will be the mobility of individuals across the border. Indeed, there is also an important provision on the ability for—subject to commercial decisions—flights to arrive from inside the EU into Gibraltar airport, which they are currently unable to do. That will be good for jobs, tourism and growth in the whole region.
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on impact statements. They will undoubtedly be in the purview of the Government of Gibraltar to do those assessments, but I will happily provide him with further information.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I put on record that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on Spain. I congratulate the Government on this significant agreement. Can the Minister confirm that it provides additional safeguards to Gibraltar’s sovereignty, while creating new economic opportunities? I think he was alluding to that with the airport. I thank him for the hard work he and colleagues have done in rejuvenating our important relationship with Spain, which is a key NATO ally and our seventh-largest trading partner.
While I am speaking, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for her commitment to the self-determination of the people of Gibraltar? For my part, when I visited Gibraltar last year and met community leaders, including senior business leaders, I was very struck by how low the stock of the Conservatives had fallen with the people of Gibraltar. I think the Conservatives have some bridges to mend.
Stephen Doughty
I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Spain. He is right that we have entered into a new era of co-operation with our friends in Spain on prosperity, on security and in many other areas. That in no way affects our commitment to stand by our red lines and principles in these negotiations. It shows that when things are approached with trust and respect, we can achieve what we need for the people of Gibraltar and the people of the United Kingdom, and see a flourishing relationship with our friends in Spain and, indeed, the European Union.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
As a former Royal Marine, Gibraltar has a special place in my heart—we have “Gibraltar” emblazoned above our globe and laurel crest for the valiant efforts of former bootnecks in 1704. Having transferred seamlessly through Gibraltar on previous operations, I know how important it is to be able to transfer kit and equipment. The agreement seems to indicate that Gibraltar will be subject to Spanish export controls relating to defence equipment and dual-use technologies. Prior to agreeing the text, did the Minister consult the armed forces leadership in Gibraltar to ensure that service personnel can still carry on their duties, with kit not subject to Spanish export controls?
Stephen Doughty
I assure the hon. Member that we have worked closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. I thank him for his previous service and indeed that proud history in relation to Gibraltar. I once saw the original reports from Trafalgar in an old edition of the Gibraltar Chronicle when I was in the Garrison library in Gibraltar. We are all well aware of that incredible history.
I assure the hon. Member that nothing in the agreement will fetter any ability of UK military forces to conduct operations; I assure him about those interests. I will not go into detail at the Dispatch Box, for obvious reasons, but I will be happy to explain to him privately some of the important provisions that we have in place to ensure that can continue.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The people of Gibraltar have had 10 years of uncertainty since the Brexit vote, so I congratulate His Majesty’s Government, and indeed the Government of Gibraltar, on working so hard to get the treaty over the line. When I visited Gibraltar last year as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I was really impressed by our military personnel there. I was glad to hear what the Minister said about making sure none of that will be affected.
As I passed through, I also saw the fairly new airport and how empty it was. I was therefore glad to hear the Minister talk about the possibility of more flights coming through. Can he say more about how travel will be improved for the people of Gibraltar, and indeed for people across Europe—including our country—coming to visit Gibraltar?
Stephen Doughty
As I said, I can assure my hon. Friend on the important provisions we have in place in relation to our military facilities. He rightly asked about transport and travel. The immediate benefit will be the end to the huge queues we have previously seen across Gibraltar’s border with Spain. That will be good for the whole region, and for economic benefits for the whole region.
My hon. Friend specifically asked about the airport. He knows that for years there has been a block on flights between Gibraltar and the EU. The treaty will now enable commercial flights—obviously subject to commercial decisions—between Gibraltar and EU member states, which will enhance Gibraltar’s status as a tourist destination and boost prosperity and opportunities across the whole region.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I hope the Minister will forgive me for not having read the tome that he has next to him. I want to probe him further on dispute resolution. A lot of hassle—criminality, really—happens in the Gibraltar seas. What co-operation may be in place between the Spanish Government and the Gibraltarian Government if resolutions cannot be found on the laws of the sea for some of the things that happen? The Minister spoke about resolutions in the treaty between Spain and Britain, but what will be the processes if the Gibraltarian Government do not feel that criminality is being acted on with appropriate speed?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Member asks an important question. The security of not only Gibraltar but the whole region is important to both the people of Gibraltar and the people of Spain. We have close co-operation between the Royal Gibraltar police and authorities and Spanish law enforcement, and this agreement will strengthen that co-operation. The Royal Gibraltar police will continue to be responsible for the safety and security of Gibraltar, but there are a range of provisions, including in relation to co-operation in the maritime domain and the safety and security of the whole region, that I am confident will improve co-operation on law enforcement, again to the benefit of residents on both sides of the border.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. What role will Parliaments have in the ongoing oversight and scrutiny of the operation and implementation of the Gibraltar agreement? Will the Government commit to having a vote in both the UK Parliament and the Gibraltarian Parliament?
Stephen Doughty
Matters for Gibraltar’s Parliament are obviously matters for that Parliament, but I can assure the hon. Lady that this treaty will go through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process in the normal way in this place. I wanted to take the important step of coming here to make a statement today, even with the draft treaty, to ensure that there was full scrutiny and that we get away from some of the nonsense that we have seen in the media about us somehow hiding this process from Parliament.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I was honoured to represent Gibraltar during my 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament, so I know how important their British identity is to our fellow citizens living there. I am pleased that the treaty was negotiated with and agreed by His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, but can the Minister confirm that Gibraltar’s Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty and that we will have the opportunity to know that Parliament’s views before we vote in this House?
Stephen Doughty
It is my understanding that there will be a scrutiny process in the Gibraltar Parliament, although ultimately that is a matter for that Parliament. I know that this treaty has enjoyed lengthy discussion in Gibraltar. We have certainly worked closely with His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar at every stage of the process, and it is for them to go through their processes there—I understand that the Chief Minister has been making statements today. I am sure that we will have the chance to consider what the Gibraltar Parliament says. The hon. Gentleman should be assured that I have also met the leader of the opposition in Gibraltar, and we engage across the political spectrum there.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Even though he has been a very naughty boy, I call Charlie Dewhirst.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only apologise for being a naughty boy.
Hon. Members will remember that in 2001 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, entered into negotiations with Spain over a joint sovereignty agreement with Gibraltar, which resulted in a referendum in which 98.5% of Gibraltarians rejected that deal. Although the Government of Gibraltar welcome today’s treaty, which I am sure is well intentioned, the Minister will no doubt understand that there may be some concern with that history and the involvement of Spain in the operation and governance of Gibraltar. Can he therefore reassure the House, the United Kingdom and the Gibraltarian people that any future changes to the current treaty and any further alignment with the EU will be done only with the agreement of the people of Gibraltar?
Stephen Doughty
I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman of that. We were not willing to enter into an agreement that the Gibraltarian people were not content with. That is the principle of the double lock, which we have stuck to throughout this process. It is 2026, not 2001. We are confident that this deal protects our interests and the interests of the people of Gibraltar.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his strong words. I am reminded of a wee saying that my mother used to use when I was young: once bitten, twice shy. With that in mind, I must ask the Minister a question. As a nation, Northern Ireland finds itself a slave to European diktats, with our state aid hampered, our trade disrupted and our democratic rights to representation withheld. I am therefore concerned for the Gibraltarian people, who are good friends of Northern Ireland—we have had a relationship over many years. I understand the difficulties they could face while the agreement does not make certain things clear. Will the cold hand of EU back-door unification come first before the Gibraltarian people? Their sovereignty must be able to stand against any EU aggression. I seek an assurance from the Minister—an honourable man who is much liked by everyone in the House, and by me in particular—that British citizens in Gibraltar can stand against EU back-door control of Gibraltarians, as indeed the EU has already done against us in Northern Ireland.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows that he is hugely respected, by me and others in this House. I can assure him that we were not willing to enter into an agreement that the Government of Gibraltar were not content with. Obviously, it is for them to decide the arrangements that they want to put in place to ensure their prosperity going forward. They are fully supportive of this agreement, which we think will be good for jobs and business in Gibraltar, good for the people of Gibraltar and, indeed, good for the prosperity of the whole region. I think it reflects a spirit of pragmatic co-operation with the EU, which we strongly welcome.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he reassure the House that the team who have negotiated the draft treaty that he has brought before us today have had nothing to do with the team that negotiated the disastrous Chagos deal? That deal is, I believe, as of yesterday, on pause, although No. 10 appears to be gainsaying that slightly now.
Stephen Doughty
I have answered many questions in this place on Chagos, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that read-across between these processes is completely erroneous. This is an agreement that is good for Gibraltar. It has been agreed by the Government of Gibraltar, and we have worked closely with the EU to ensure that it works for the prosperity and security of the people of Gibraltar. As I have said many times, it is hugely unhelpful to draw false comparisons between Chagos and the British Indian Ocean Territory, and indeed other overseas territories. Indeed, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has specifically cautioned against doing so—the hon. Gentleman might want to listen to him.
Maccabi Tel Aviv Fan Ban
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Home Affairs Committee. Dame Karen Bradley 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. Can I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, and not the relevant Minister? Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this statement.
The banning of away fans at football matches is highly unusual in this country. The imposition of such a ban on fans from another country is almost unprecedented. The fact that the ban was on fans of an Israeli club playing at a venue situated among sizeable Muslim communities added a level of political sensitivity. That is why the Committee took the unusual step of writing to the then chief constable of West Midlands police to seek an explanation. We were surprised by what this simple request eventually exposed.
Our report covers conclusions about three organisations: West Midlands police, which is responsible for providing advice to the safety advisory group of Birmingham city council; the SAG itself, both in Birmingham and more generally; and the Home Office, including its liaison across Government. I will take them in turn.
Our inquiry uncovered serious failings in the way that West Midlands police gathered and presented information and intelligence in advising on this fixture. While the fixture was rightly identified in advance as high risk, and the initial assumption was for away fans to attend, consultation was limited. The police relied to a disproportionate extent on a single conversation between a chief inspector from West Midlands police and the Dutch police about the behaviour of Maccabi fans at a match against Ajax in Amsterdam in November 2024. The Dutch police strongly disputed the WMP version of events, which included claims that 500 to 600 Maccabi fans were involved in disorder that targeted local communities, that they had links to the Israel Defence Forces, and that they threw local fans in the river.
We cannot be sure what was said in that conversation because, unbelievably, the meeting notes were destroyed by West Midlands police. We now know, however, that some of the information relating to the conduct of the Maccabi fans was generated by artificial intelligence—Microsoft Copilot, to be precise. The use of AI by West Midlands police was under consideration at the time, but was not authorised at that stage. What we found extraordinary, though, is that the information used to support such a significant decision—whether from AI or elsewhere—was not cross-checked with other sources.
Not only did WMP fail to do due diligence on the information that it presented to the SAG, which was responsible for taking the decision to ban away fans, but it failed to prepare properly to give accurate information before the Committee. The then chief constable told us explicitly that AI was not used by West Midlands police, and that the reference to a match against West Ham— a completely fictitious game that was cited as one of the reasons for banning the away fans—had resulted from a Google search. He had subsequently to apologise that that was not the case. Precisely how West Midlands police managed to generate inaccurate information using AI to inform the intelligence picture related to this match is the subject of an ongoing inquiry by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, so I am sure we will hear more on that in due course. Although we accept that the former chief constable did not deliberately misinform the Committee, he should have ensured that he came armed with the facts rather than with complacent platitudes followed by humble apologies.
However, it is not the issues relating to competence that are the most damaging to the reputation of WMP; it is those around balance—balance in the information presented to the SAG, which consistently emphasised the unique risk from the Maccabi fans and downplayed the risk emanating from local communities in Birmingham. Intelligence around elements in these communities threatening to “arm themselves” against Maccabi fans was not relayed to the SAG.
There was also imbalance in community engagement. WMP acknowledged that it failed to engage with the Jewish community early enough, in contrast with a full programme of engagement with other communities. It apologised for that and for managing to mislead the Committee on the extent of engagement, and acknowledged the damage done to relations with the Jewish community in the west midlands. We welcome the commitment of the new acting chief constable this week to continue WMP’s efforts to rebuild trust with the Jewish community and, more broadly, to address each of our recommendations. I cannot stress strongly enough how vital it is that the Jewish community in Birmingham and the west midlands are able to feel trust in their police. At the moment, they simply do not.
As I have indicated, responsibility for the decision to exclude the Maccabi fans ultimately rested with Birmingham city council, through the provision of a safety certificate for the event. The role of the SAG was to provide specialist safety advice regarding the event. In reaching its conclusions on advice relating to public order, SAG is heavily reliant on the advice of the police. We reviewed the content of all three SAG meetings that provided advice on the fixture. Having done so, we were not surprised that the chair of the SAG wrote to WMP seeking further clarity on the rationale for the ban on away fans. There were clearly some who were uncomfortable with that decision—not just Aston Villa, who said they were happy to host away fans, and the leader of Birmingham city council, who expressed to us both his discontent with the decision and his respect for the operational independence of the police and the integrity of their advice.
In respect of the role of the SAG in this decision, we concluded that it failed to apply sufficient challenge to the clear recommendation of WMP regarding the banning of away fans, and that it lacked the capability to balance the interests of local communities and those of the police against broader national and international considerations, given the unusual sensitivities surrounding this particular fixture. We welcome the review of guidance to SAGs being undertaken by the Cabinet Office, and we recommended in our report that that should consider whether an escalation process is required to handle such rare but highly consequential circumstances.
As part of its review of the governance of SAGs, the police should review the presence of elected politicians on what are essentially safety-oriented committees. As I have said, it is unusual for there to be a political context to SAG decisions, but that was the case here. Although we did not see evidence of political pressure regarding the decision to ban away fans—we simply do not know what conversations went on behind the scenes —we did note that the Muslim councillors on the SAG, who had publicly stated views on whether the match should take place at all, had “a disproportionate opportunity” to influence the decision of the SAG. We concluded that elected politicians should not sit on SAGs.
Finally, we scrutinised the role of the Home Office in the decision-making process, and that of the Government. Strictly speaking, there should not have been a role for the Government in a decision taken at local authority level on the operational advice of the police, but No. 10 recognised at an early stage the political significance of the match and asked the Home Office to be kept informed of developments. There was also a Department for Culture, Media and Sport interest, as that Department has lead responsibility for the safety of sports grounds.
This was a test of the ability of the Government as a whole to identify whether they should have a role in the decision and, if so, to share information internally to enable any intervention to be made in a timely and effective manner. I am afraid to say that that test was failed. The Government were informed on 6 October—a month before the match—that a ban on away fans was the likely outcome of the SAG process. It was the “working assumption”. If the Government did not find this outcome politically palatable, you might think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that they would take prompt action to avert it—for example, by providing the necessary additional resources to enable the fixture to be policed safely and go ahead. No such attempt was made. The Home Secretary and Ministers were not told definitively that there would be a ban on away fans, but we know that she was briefed that it was a possible option. Home Office officials were aware that a ban was the likely outcome. We still do not know precisely when Ministers in the Home Office, DCMS and No. 10 were informed of this.
It was only on 16 October, when the decision was announced, that the Government intervened—in the form of a post on X by the Prime Minister, saying that it was the wrong decision. Only at this point did officials begin exploring options with the police to enable away fans to attend.
The Home Secretary argued that respect for the operational independence of the police did not allow earlier intervention, but this principle was inconsistently applied. If the Government could intervene publicly after the decision, could they not have intervened privately before the decision? We concluded that they could have done so in a way that respected the operational independence of the police and reduced rather than inflamed tensions.
In the event, Maccabi Tel Aviv did not take up their allocation of tickets and the issue went away, but not without considerable damage being done to the reputation of WMP, to trust in the police by the Jewish and other communities in Birmingham, and to the integrity of decision making around the policing of football and sporting events. We welcome the review of this decision-making process announced by the Government and have urged them to look again at a previous review of the policing of football by Baroness Casey. We look forward to examining the results.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee and her team for their work. I agree with all of their conclusions. On her last point, about who knew what when, does she agree that it is now very clear that the Government were not co-ordinating effectively, that they seemed to be asleep at the wheel, and that Ministers and/or officials at the Home Office and DCMS were clearly not co-ordinating with each other on what is transparently a very sensitive issue, because they knew about the possibility of the ban weeks before the decision was made and appear to have done absolutely nothing?
Dame Karen Bradley
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question, and I agree with what he said. I will give the Minister for Policing and Crime, who was new in her post, credit for coming in front of the Committee and giving us a full account of what happened, but having been a Minister in the Home Office, I cannot believe that somebody did not spot the possibility of this problem and that alarm bells were not ringing. An earlier intervention—privately and behind the scenes, not impacting on operational independence—could have averted this whole problem. It could have been done without anybody knowing that there was a working assumption to ban the away fans, and the match could have gone ahead in the normal way.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I have raised concerns about Jew hatred in this country several times in the House. As I have said previously, I give credit to the Prime Minister for driving out the antisemitism in his party, in which, between 2015 and 2019, antisemitism and Jew hatred were given a safe space.
May I make reference to another political party in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am sure that you were as shocked as I was to read in a Sunday newspaper that there is effectively Jew hunting taking place in this country. In that context, we must be sure that our Jewish communities and our Jewish constituents can have faith in the authorities and the police. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether she found evidence of antisemitism specifically playing a part in these decisions?
Dame Karen Bradley
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He makes an incredibly important point, which was really the basis of many of the questions that the Committee put when we took evidence in person. The suspicion was there that the decision had been taken not because of worries about violence from the Maccabi fans, but because of their religion. It has to be said that two weeks later, another match went ahead at Aston Villa with away fans—against the Swiss team Young Boys—and there was significant violence, but nobody suggested that those away fans should not attend. We were very concerned.
We could not find actual evidence of antisemitism, but the very fact that we had elected politicians who were campaigning not just for a ban on away fans, but for the whole match to be cancelled, sitting on the safety advisory group, which provided the advice to Birmingham city council on the safety certificate, has to be cause of great concern. I know that it has given great concern to the Jewish community across Birmingham who are in contact with me. I urge all safety advisory groups to make sure that there cannot be any inference of political interference—that nobody can think that there is political interference. The groups have to be fully transparent, and everyone has to appreciate and understand why decisions are taken.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she and her Committee have done on this report. To my knowledge, this is the first time artificial intelligence has hallucinated and given a response that has been used by a public body to make a decision. To my right hon. Friend’s understanding, has West Midlands police learned from this mistake and removed this type of sloppy analysis from its decision-making process?
Dame Karen Bradley
That would be a question for West Midlands police, but my hon. Friend is right. There obviously is a role for artificial intelligence in many areas of public life, including policing, but when any of us searches for something and artificial intelligence provides information, we should not neglect to double-check the information, click on the links it provides or make sure that we talk to the right people about it.
The West Ham match that was cited as part of the reason for banning away fans and for tensions being identified never happened. Why did someone not pick up the phone to the Metropolitan police and ask what its experience had been at this fictitious match? They would pretty quickly have discovered that the match never took place and that it was not a genuine fixture.
I do hope that West Midlands police and all police forces have learned lessons from this. I must say, I have spoken to other forces that have been incredibly helpful, including the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who came in front of the Committee. They have been clear that they would not allow this to happen. I do hope that West Midlands police has learned its lesson.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I first of all thank the Chair of the Committee for the report. Sport is always a method of bringing people together, but on this occasion it failed miserably as a result of the conduct of certain police elements that distorted the occasion of a Maccabi Tel Aviv football match. What did the Committee say should happen to those in senior roles who did wrong or who deliberately thwarted the law?
Dame Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is right that sport has a role to play in bringing us together. We have just seen at the winter Olympics the joy that the athletes feel and the sense of pride in the country at the success of Team GB. It is one of those areas where there should not be political tensions or issues. It should be viewed joyfully, and fans should be allowed to enjoy their teams playing. That is something that we do so well in this country, and that is why this incident is such a stain on us. Throughout the years we have managed to facilitate away fans attending games and enjoying those fixtures in a safe way. Football is not what it was in the past; it is a family game now. I go to football matches with my son all the time. I enjoy the atmosphere and I enjoy the fact that it is somewhere families can be. It is a great shame that that did not happen.
The hon. Member asks specifically about senior members of the police. The then chief constable has now retired, but once the conduct inquiry has completed, further action might be taken.
Point of Order: Rectification Procedure
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Louie French on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure to declare.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when tabling three written parliamentary questions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, two written parliamentary questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and one written parliamentary question to the Treasury. When I tabled the questions, I inadvertently failed to declare relevant interests: the receipt of hospitality from the Jockey Club and from Ascot Racecourse, and a charity donation from the Betting & Gaming Council. This was in breach of the rules, and I apologise to the House for this inadvertent error.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. There will be no further points of order on this issue.
Backbench Business
St David’s Day and Welsh Affairs
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered St David’s Day and Welsh affairs.
It is a real privilege to open this debate as we come together to mark St David’s day and discuss Wales’s past, present and, critically, its future. I may not use my full 15 minutes to speak, because other colleagues will want to speak in this important debate. This is my seventh St David’s day debate and my second as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I thank my colleagues the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who sadly is not in his place today, for helping to secure this debate.
It continues to be an honour to Chair the Welsh Affairs Committee and to facilitate the effective cross-party working that makes the Committee so special. We work together to achieve the best for Wales, and I must thank all current and former members of the Committee for their valuable and constructive contributions over the past year. I particularly commend the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for her practical support of Welsh cakes for our Committee meeting yesterday—they were very useful. I would also like to pay tribute to the fantastic team of Clerks, led by Alison Groves, who support the Committee. We simply could not function without them and are incredibly lucky to have such a diligent and skilled team assisting us.
It has been a busy year for the Committee since our last St David’s day debate. We have four ongoing inquiries, with two reports set to be finalised in the coming months. We also published the conclusions of our inquiry into farming in Wales in November, and following it, the Treasury made very welcome changes to the thresholds for agricultural property relief and business property relief.
Let me move on to the namesake of this debate: St David, who adorns the entrance to this Chamber coming from Central Lobby. He faced adversity from an early age, having been born in the middle of a violent storm as the child of an act of rape. Nevertheless, he would rise to become the first Bishop of Mynyw and establish new churches throughout south Wales, 50 of which are still named after him. St David is commemorated as a great orator and preacher who spread the Christian message. Indeed, one of his recorded miracles was forming a hill beneath himself as he preached to a large crowd to enable them to see and hear him more clearly.
As a nation, we are proud of our rich and storied past, kept alive by our vibrant oral tradition. The Eisteddfod each summer forms a key celebration of this oral tradition, our Welsh culture and the Welsh language by attracting 170,000 visitors each year. From the chapels to the miners’ welfare halls, Wales is renowned for being a land of song. Regardless of the rugby score—we are trying to forget some of the latest scores—Members can be sure that we are the loudest and proudest on and off the field. Our choirs are not only a source of national pride but often the bedrock of community solidarity.
Wales has an enduring history of valuing fairness, solidarity and respect—values passed down from generation to generation and shaped by our history, but employed time and again in our everyday lives. Indeed, before there was an NHS or a welfare state, Welsh communities came together to ensure dignity and respect for all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate; she is right to praise St David’s day, and everyone is here for that purpose. While we can be Welsh, Northern Irish, Scottish or English, what brings us together is this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and our Gaelic cousins in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of that. I commend her on her speech today, and I am sure others will also make good contributions. We are always better together. Does she agree with that?
Ruth Jones
The hon. Member is quite right; we are always better together. As a Gaelic colleague, I welcome him to this debate today and I look forward to his contributions later on.
St David was known for his austere lifestyle, surviving on a vegetarian diet of mostly leeks and water. I am not necessarily advocating that today for all here, but his resilience has come to symbolise Wales’s resilience in the face of social challenge, including inequality and social disadvantage. Wales has strong communities that are rooted in the place where they live. This is a legacy of our rich working-class heritage—a pride in place founded upon pride in work. Wales played a leading role in Britain’s last industrial revolution as a centre of heavy industry, including mining, quarrying, smelting and steelmaking. This was recognised by our communities.
In continuing this place-based story, I welcome the Government’s focus on restoring pride in place and driving investment into our former industrial communities. Welsh councils are set to benefit from £280 million of Pride in Place funding, alongside over £30 million of capital funding to invest in Wales’s public realm.
While manufacturing might have defined Wales’s past, it will also shape its future. Wales is still a proud manufacturing economy, and manufacturing continues to be the biggest contributor to the Welsh economy in terms of output, employing over 150,000 people. This makes Wales an outlier in the UK and an international leader in advanced manufacturing. Whether it be aerospace, automotive, defence or electronics, we know that Wales is leading the way.
I am extremely proud that my constituency of Newport West and Islwyn is an exemplar in many of those industries of the future. Duffryn is home to the world’s first compound semiconductor cluster, which includes Vishay, IQE, Catapult and KLA. Just across the road, Airbus is innovating cyber-security solutions for aerospace, and Safran provides deluxe seats and even beds for airlines. In Blackwood, General Dynamics is busy outfitting the future of Britain’s mechanised defence forces, and in Marshfield, Microsoft and Vantage are building a number of data centres as part of the new South Wales AI growth zone.
As Wales positively embraces the fourth industrial revolution, I welcome the efforts by the Welsh and UK Governments to address the adverse impacts of the last. As a former physiotherapist, I have treated miners with lung conditions such as pneumoconiosis and silicosis, so I know how profound and lasting the impacts have been. The human and environmental impacts have been great and long-lasting, and we are not going back there.
In Islwyn, I am proud to represent a former mining area that will greatly benefit from the Government’s decision in the autumn Budget to return £2.3 billion to former British Coal staff. Those pensions are long overdue and I welcome their return. Though the pits may be gone, the bonds of solidarity and community spirit embedded within Islwyn are still clear for all to see. A prominent example of that is the Cefn Fforest Miners Institute. First built in 1935 and funded by contributions from local coalminers, it has been lovingly restored by the village. It reopened in November after being closed for 15 years and now acts as a renewed hub for the community, hosting shows and events. At the same time, I pay tribute to the fantastic Cross Keys silver band, which was formed in 1902 by the local mining community and is still going strong today. I would recommend any concerts they provide—really, I would.
I welcome the strong, co-ordinated response by the UK and Welsh Governments in putting forward a record combined £230 million over the next four years to improve coal tip safety. The new multi-year approach being taken by both Governments was much needed.
The Welsh Affairs Committee has been looking in detail at prisons, probation and rehabilitation in Wales. That is an area of significant public policy concern in Wales because we have the highest incarceration rate in western Europe, with 177 Welsh residents in prison per 100,000 of the population. The Committee was pleased to receive oral evidence from the Prisons Minister, Lord Timpson, who I know is committed to driving forward work to address reoffending and improve our prison system. As part of our inquiry, we have looked at a wide range of issues, including prison management, housing and education support, as well as the provision of healthcare and services in the Welsh language.
The Committee has also considered the specific experiences of women in the criminal justice system, but of particular concern has been the ongoing management of issues at HMP Parc following the 17 deaths there in 2024. We will continue to scrutinise the working arrangements there to ensure the safety of inmates and staff alike. Despite our inquiry being ongoing, the Committee has already had some early wins, with the Ministry of Justice agreeing to our request for the publication of an annual Wales-specific justice dataset, the first of which was published in September.
I will close by talking of the future and the big choices facing the people of Wales in just a few months’ time. In May, Wales faces a profound choice about its future: to move forward with a clear plan and a track record of delivery with Eluned Morgan and Welsh Labour, or to turn inward and embrace a politics of grievance and division. While Wales relied on devolution to protect itself from the worst of the Conservative and Lib Dem austerity for 14 years, that period thankfully has ended and Wales can face the future and invest. We now have a Labour Government at each end of the M4 working together for Wales, providing a record devolved financial settlement for 2026 and year-on-year increases in borrowing powers for the Welsh Government, delivering on our manifesto. That means an additional £6 billion of funding for our schools, hospitals and public services.
In the Senedd, that record funding is being put to work. Waiting lists in Wales have fallen for the last seven months in a row and are the lowest they have been in three years. We are seeing serious long-term investment in improving literacy and numeracy in our schools, and significant additional support for local businesses seeking to grow. Just last week, we saw our two Governments in partnership announce the end of the historical under-investment in Wales’s railways, with a shared ambition for £14 billion-worth of upgrades across north, south, mid and west Wales, including new stations at Newport West and Cardiff Parkway, near Marshfield in my constituency.
This week, the House voted to abolish the cruel two- child limit, which is set to benefit almost 70,000 children across Wales, including over 2,000 in my constituency. From April, that change will slash child poverty in Wales by 10% overnight. None of that is an accident; it is the product of a joint vision of a fairer future for Wales, rooted in social justice and delivering the jobs, transport and opportunities people need to thrive. The path of progress may be slow and difficult, but that does not make it any less valuable. Now is not the time to put the partnership at risk, just as we are beginning to see good news and developments across Wales.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate on St David’s day to take place, and I look forward to hearing the contributions of other colleagues. Diolch yn fawr.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for opening the debate, and indeed for her work as the chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee. As she mentioned in her speech, we work as a team for Wales on the Committee, and it is good that we have this opportunity today not only to speak about the work of the Committee, but to talk to the wider House about the wonders of Wales and how great St David’s day is.
St David is famous for having said that we should do the little things, and it is in that spirit that I will dedicate my speech to small businesses, which, as is the case across Wales, forms the backbone of our economy. In my constituency of Ceredigion Preseli, as much as 81% of businesses are classified as small, making it the small business capital of Wales—an accolade that we are very proud to hold. Thirty-five per cent of those businesses are in the agricultural, fisheries and forestry sectors, and some 15% are in hospitality and tourism.
Although the winter months are always quite difficult for those industries, in recent weeks I have had a chance to meet a number of small business groups from Aberystwyth in the north of my constituency to Fishguard and Goodwick in the south. Unfortunately, they have all told a tale of the difficulties and challenges they face as small employers. I want to draw the House’s attention to the cumulative pressures that are having a severe impact on their ability to trade and to continue in business.
Businesses cited the impact of rising energy costs, higher employment costs and the burden of increased business rates. That is not a problem that is unique to Ceredigion Preseli, with the Federation of Small Businesses having found that to be equally true across the whole UK. Indeed, according to recent FSB research, from April this year the typical high street business will face an estimated £25,000 in extra unemployment costs and £1,600 in higher energy standing charges. We all agree that that sort of incessant rise in costs for small businesses is simply unsustainable. Unfortunately, too many are now citing that the pressures have become so acute that 35% have said that they are planning to close or contract over the coming year. That would be devastating for economies across the United Kingdom, but specifically so in the small business capital of Wales that is Ceredigion Preseli.
In the spirit of doing the small things and in advance of the spring statement next week, I draw the attention of the House to some measures that those businesses have suggested the Government could take to help them build a firmer and more prosperous future. On energy costs, businesses with an annual electricity consumption of around 40,000 kWh, which is a typical small restaurant, gym or café, are currently looking at a potential rise in their standing charge of some 40%. One proposal that the Government could entertain is to mirror the support that they are offering on household bills—the 75% reduction in renewable obligation costs—to non-domestic bills. That would offer much-needed support to many of the businesses in Ceredigion Preseli.
Another point that they wanted me to raise was the rising pressure of employment costs. Between January of last year and April this year, an employer with nine people on the national living wage will see their annual employment costs increase by an equivalent of 12.9% and the employer national insurance bill over that two-year period would have increased by 46%. One proposal these businesses have suggested that the Government could entertain next week is to uprate the employment allowance, so that it continues to cover the employer national insurance contributions of four employees on the national living wage. That would offer great support to the businesses I have spoken to in Ceredigion Preseli.
The final thing is business rates, and colleagues from across the House will have had a lot of concerns on this appear in their postbags and inboxes in recent weeks. It is for the Welsh Senedd and Welsh Government to look at the reliefs and how they offer additional support to small businesses. The one thing it would be worth this House and Government considering is the way in which the valuation process operates. One common concern is that the process lacks transparency and clarity as to how valuations are calculated. Some businesses in hospitality and trade, for example, cite that their rates are primarily driven by turnover as opposed to profitability, whereas in retail it is primarily fixed on the square meterage of their shops. This inconsistency is troubling, and the lack of clarity of how the Valuation Office Agency, as it was, has come to make the calculation is causing a significant degree of concern.
I turn to the measures that could help businesses in the tourism and hospitality industries. The VAT rate, currently set at 20%, has long been a concern for these businesses. Again, they would be grateful if the Government could look again at the rate. Decreasing it to 15% would offer them much-needed breathing space to withstand some of these increased pressures and costs, but also the opportunity to invest in their businesses and their staff—something we all want to see if we are to bring about economic growth across the land. Indeed, other countries have shown that a reduction in the rate of VAT for tourism and hospitality can bring significant benefits.
I also want to raise the removal of the automatic 10% “wear and tear” tax allowance for childminders, which will come into force from April. Childminders in my constituency have long used this provision to meet the costs of the inevitable damage, and maintenance costs, that arise from hosting their businesses in their homes. They have told me that the move to this new system is forcing them to reconsider their ability to continue in this critical sector. If the Government could look again at that, I know that a lot of childminders in my constituency would be grateful.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member not agree that we have the green shoots of recovery already in the economy? We have interest rates going down and retail sales up. The recent massive £14 billion investment in rail will help every single small business and every single person across Wales.
Ben Lake
I agree with the hon. Member that the investment in rail will do a great deal of good for businesses in her constituency. Of course, it is sadly not the same for mine due to historical structures of the railway network—the hon. Member nods. The fact of the matter is I only have three stations, and they are all terminals, so sadly the investment that has been announced will not quite reach us yet, but I hope that in due course we will receive further announcements of investment in the Cambrian and west Wales lines. I would very much welcome and applaud the Government if they were to do so.
For rural areas such as those of the hon. Member and mine, the outflow of young people is a big concern. In my part of the world, the 6% decline in the overall population from the last census is a real worry for us. That is why it is so important to ensure that we support these small businesses.
It would be remiss of me not to brandish my constituency’s links with St David. He was, of course, born just to the south of my constituency boundary in the area of St Davids, but he was—according to legend—raised along the Ceredigion coast. Of course, as the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn mentioned, he performed one of his most famous miracles in the village of Llanddewi-Brefi. If I needed to really underline his Ceredigion credentials, he was the grandson of a Ceredigion king. Perhaps it is because of that that we have so many St David’s day events across Ceredigion Preseli, from parades in Aberystwyth, Cardigan, Fishguard and Goodwick, as well as in the towns of Lampeter, Tregaron and Aberaeron. The ladies of the Celtic longboats at Aberporth did the voyage from Aberporth to Llanon, the village named after St David’s mother, Non. Of course, there are the cawl evenings held across my constituency and the eisteddfods—this weekend in Swyddffynnon and Crymych, but also in schools across the constituency.
I would like to place on the record my gratitude to all those community volunteers and champions who have put on these events and who ensure that St David’s day is a joyous occasion. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus iawn.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this St David’s day and Welsh affairs debate. I will raise a number of issues affecting my constituency.
I was so pleased that this Labour Government are making huge steps in tackling child poverty. The removal of the two-child cap represents the biggest action to tackle child poverty in any single Parliament. My constituency has some of the highest levels of child poverty in Wales, and this single act will lift around 2,600 children in my constituency, and nearly 70,000 children across Wales, out of poverty. The previous Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), came to meet local organisations and charities as part of the Government’s consultation on the child poverty strategy last year. The single message from that event was that the removal of the cap would be the most important thing to tackle child poverty locally. It is a huge step forward and shows the difference of a Labour Government in action.
In the Budget debate in November, I mentioned the high fuel prices in my constituency, and in Merthyr Tydfil particularly. I first wrote to fuel suppliers around two years ago, highlighting that fuel prices in Merthyr Tydfil were around 10p per litre more expensive than anywhere else across the valleys. In fact, fuel here in London is cheaper than in Merthyr Tydfil. In 2024, I wrote to all the fuel suppliers locally, highlighting the unfairness of their prices. I also wrote to the Competition and Markets Authority asking it to look into the matter, and so far it has not felt the need to act. All the while, my constituents are paying over the odds, and some have questioned whether some local suppliers are colluding to keep prices higher than they need to be.
In January, I met Asda to stress that its Merthyr Tydfil store was selling fuel at 8p to 10p per litre higher than any other nearby Asda store—in fact, 10p higher than the Asda store in the Aberdare part of my constituency—and higher than any other store in south Wales. To be fair, Asda agreed that its prices were high and agreed to reduce them. Within three days of that meeting, it dropped its fuel prices in its Merthyr Tydfil store by 5p per litre. That is a step in the right direction—absolutely—but it is still higher than elsewhere. Meanwhile, prices at other petrol stations, such as Esso, Texaco and Applegreen, continue to be significantly higher than elsewhere.
For many of my constituents, if they need to go out of town for work or leisure, they do not fill up locally any more. Many people work locally, though, and many older people may not have a choice and end up paying over the odds. Given the deprivation and levels of child poverty that exist in Merthyr Tydfil, it is immoral that fuel suppliers continue to appear to rip off local people. This is not a short-term situation; it has been the case for almost two years now.
In the Budget, the Chancellor introduced the fuel finder scheme, which forces suppliers to publicise their fuel prices within 30 minutes of increasing them or, for that matter, decreasing them. That will help consumers find cheaper fuel, but sadly, consumers in Merthyr Tydfil do not have too many options, other than travelling to other towns and villages to fill up. By raising this issue today, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be able to add her voice to the call on fuel suppliers to do the right thing by my constituents and act in a fairer way. While we as MPs do not have the authority to tell private suppliers what they can charge for their products, by calling this out for what it is, I hope that suppliers will recognise that they need to act, and I hope that the CMA will also come to the table to take whatever action it can.
My constituency is home to General Dynamics where the Ajax vehicles are being assembled. Recently, the Ministry of Defence conducted investigations following noise and vibration concerns from Army personnel. While I and the Government rightly prioritise safety, we need an outcome soon, as the 700 workers in my constituency need assurances on their future and the future of that work. The £50 million Wales defence growth deal signed by the Secretary of State, the Defence Secretary and the Welsh First Minister just last week signifies this Government’s intent to invest in defence. I very much welcome that investment, which also provides yet another example of two Labour Governments working together to create jobs and prosperity for the people of Wales. I am keen to ensure that my constituency continues to play a part in supplying defence capabilities for the nation.
In the 19th century, Merthyr Tydfil, at the height of the industrial revolution, was the largest iron-producing town in the world. The ironworks in my constituency supplied cannons and cannonballs to the Royal Navy, and in the 21st century the workforce at General Dynamics are keen to continue in that tradition. I hope that we can soon move on with Ajax and secure and grow the much-needed jobs in my constituency and across the south Wales valleys.
There is much to be positive about this St David’s day. This Government have delivered the largest budget and spending review settlement since devolution, providing the Welsh Government with a record £22.4 billion a year on average, and the Welsh Government are investing in public services and driving down waiting lists. After years of under-investment under the Tories, the NHS is improving across Wales and right across the UK. As we have heard, waiting lists in Wales have gone down for seven consecutive months, and out-patient appointments are increasing all the time.
The increased national minimum wage and living wage have given a pay rise to 160,000 Welsh workers. For the second year in a row, the state pension is due to increase. From April, the full state pension will increase by 4.8% to £241. Also welcome is the decision to right a historic wrong with the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme— a real boost to hundreds of ex-miners and their families who will benefit in my constituency.
The last issue I would like to talk about is tourism and the role the valleys play in attracting visitors to Wales. Although tourism is largely devolved to the Welsh Government, there is a role for the UK Government too. In my area, to name a few attractions, we already have Zip World, BikePark Wales, the Summit indoor climbing centre and the new Old Drift wellness centre, which I visited during the February recess. The centre includes a sauna room, but also outdoor tin baths with cold water, which I did not partake in because it was around 2°C and raining. However, there were people enjoying that facility, and the centre is becoming a real attraction in the local area. I am told that that new venture is getting visitors from across Wales and beyond. I very much welcome that new addition to the constituency.
Members may know that earlier this year, Merthyr Tydfil county borough council agreed planning permission for Rhydycar West, a £300 million project that will create the UK’s largest ski slope and a tropical waterpark. That has created huge excitement locally and will also be a very welcome addition to our tourism offer.
The Abernant tunnel is a historic disused railway tunnel built in the 1850s as part of the Vale of Neath railway that links both parts of what is now my constituency, Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare. It has huge potential as a tourist attraction and a new walkway and cycleway link in both communities. Both Rhondda Cynon Taf council and Merthyr Tydfil council are keen to develop its potential. I am working with them to offer support. The tunnel is currently owned by the Department for Transport, but discussions are currently under way to transfer ownership of the tunnel to convert it into a tourist attraction and cycle and walkway.
Cyfarthfa castle is an iconic part of Merthyr Tydfil’s industrial past. It was the home of the Crawshay family and the base for their ironworks, which transformed Merthyr Tydfil during the industrial revolution. Last year, the castle celebrated its 200th anniversary. It received a very welcome royal visit from their Majesties, the King and Queen, on the King’s birthday last November, when the King cut a cake in the shape of a castle that was made by a local person. It was very impressive, I must say—it was a pity to cut it. His Majesty enjoyed the cake, as did all the other people there.
Sadly, the castle and museum are in need of significant repairs. The local authority and the Welsh Government have made financial contributions, and urgent work is under way. A heritage lottery bid is in progress and other forms of funding are being considered. As I said, tourism is mainly devolved to the Welsh Government, but the UK Government may have an interest too, because they occasionally support projects across Wales. Hopefully, all efforts can be looked at to safeguard this historic castle for future generations. It truly is an iconic focal point in the town of Merthyr Tydfil.
In closing, St David said, “Do the little things.” Lots of little improvements, and indeed larger ones, across Wales are gradually improving the lives of my constituents and many others across Wales.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare did not suggest an awayday in the tin baths for his party—maybe next time.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am co-chair of the anti-pylon group in Llanarthne and the president of the Farmers’ Union of Wales in Carmarthenshire. From the Arglwydd Rhys of Dinefwr’s first Eisteddfod, which was held in Aberteifi in Ceredigion, to the Rebecca riots, the coal mines and the tin and copper works of decades past, my constituency of Caerfyrddin is marked by history. We are proud of our shared stories, our communities and our beautiful landscape, which we do our best to protect.
I was elected in July 2024 on the back of a local campaign against new electricity infrastructure, not because we are nimbys—I will get that in straightaway—but because we found a factual, feasible alternative that put our land and our communities first: undergrounding the cables instead of using pylons. Three years on, we are still working hard to persuade the Labour Welsh Government that this is the way forward. When we started this journey, the cost comparatives were around seven to 10 times more expensive. The latest figures are around three to four times more expensive, and in Norway one study says that undergrounding is an average of 1.8 times more expensive than pylons. In just three years, the comparatives have drastically reduced, but all costings are time and project-specific.
Plaid Cymru’s policy on new infrastructure is clear: all 11kV to 132 kV lines should be underground unless there is a specific reason that cannot happen, for example that they go through peatlands, where a 10-metre pole would be used. All the usual impact assessments would also need to be considered, as per current planning policy: visual, ecological, language and community. We would work with communities, not against them, while safeguarding our heritage, chain of castles, ancient hill forts and viaducts. This is our land and our history that we need to protect.
It is not just pylons. Over 400 wind turbines are planned to be built across my constituency and the neighbouring constituencies of Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe and Ceredigion Preseli. The turbines are huge—up to 230 metres tall. The London Eye over the river is 202 metres high. The turbines are even taller than that and 400 of them are planned across the horizon in my constituency. Plaid Cymru supports green energy that delivers real benefits to our communities, but the transition must be shaped around people and place, not imposed at a scale that alienates those being asked to host it. Instead of concentrating development in vast projects that dominate our landscapes, a Plaid Cymru Government would prioritise community-centred solutions. We would refocus efforts on community energy and introduce retrofit standards to upgrade more homes more quickly.
Green energy in Wales is a success story and our communities understand the need for it. Indeed, most people are passionately committed to playing their part in the transition. My concern is that the sheer scale of these proposed developments, combined with the bullish approach taken by some developers, risks undermining the good will and the positivity that has defined Wales’s green energy journey so far. This extractive economy needs to change and, again, we have a solution. Having a 10 km gap between each wind farm would significantly reduce the number and still generate more than enough electricity. That would safeguard some villages in my constituency, including Pencarreg, Cwmann, Ffarmers and Pumsaint, and up towards Mynydd Mallaen. Two huge wind farms are already licensed in the Celtic sea, and the Crown Estate is proposing another three, so we know that we will generate far more electricity than we need. I ask gently whether we need to spoil our more rural landscapes by placing turbines in areas in which people still live, still farm the land and still have vibrant Welsh-speaking communities. Do we need 400 turbines in one relatively small area?
Speaking of rural communities, the next battle on our hands in Caerfyrddin is to secure a banking hub in Rhydaman—or Ammanford. The last bank has closed. To be honest, I do not blame Lloyds, which had remained when others had long gone. However, I just wish that we had been able to secure a banking hub before they had closed. Although 23,709 people live in the Ammanford area, only 7,444 live around the high street, so we fall short of the 10,000-person threshold for a banking hub. As we all know, the valleys are part of and merge into our post-industrial towns—the two cannot be separated—and that is certainly true of Ammanford. Blaenau, Llandybie, Saron, Penybanc, Glanaman, Brynamman and many others all form part of Dyffryn Aman.
Deprivation is high, unemployment is high, and there is a significant lack of opportunities. Since Lloyds closed at the beginning of January, on Fridays—market day—residents queue outside the post office to access cash. They are mainly elderly and the digitally excluded, and are unable or do not wish to use a laptop or tablet. Some older constituents go to extreme lengths just to access their own money by paying extortionate amounts for a taxi into town, and giving the driver their card and PIN to get cash out of the ATM for them.
LINK might say that the nearest ATM is close enough—and it is for those who are fit, mobile and able to get there independently—but that simply is not the reality for many elderly or disabled residents who cannot make that journey safely, easily or affordably. There should be access to cash for all, so I have started a petition to set up a banking hub, and I would be grateful if the whole House shared it. I will be in touch with the Financial Conduct Authority to arrange a meeting to discuss that further. I have no doubt that I will work closely with the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who have secured banking hubs in Ystradgynlais and Caergybi respectively. Post-industrial town such as Rhydaman need our support. I ask Members to share my petition; let us get as many signatories as possible.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I am very close to the hon. Lady’s constituency, so a banking hub in Rhydaman would benefit my constituents too. I thank LINK for working with local councillors to bring banking hubs to Mumbles and Gorseinon. I think she will be successful in her bid to secure a banking hub in Rhydaman.
Ann Davies
We are working closely with LINK and the FCA to get as much information as we can to secure a hub. That is what our communities need. They deserve to be able to get to their cash safely.
My community means everything to me. The interwoven history and heritage of Caerfyrddin run through my veins. As I have said before, I have moved only 4 miles in my entire life, and I have no intention of moving any further than that—I love where I live and I love the people there. It is a privilege to live there, and, like others, I want the best for my patch, so I was delighted when a new post office was opened in Whitland after a sustained period of absence.
When we consider access to cash, let us look for opportunities to place a post office within local shops, convenience stores and even pubs. That increases footfall and gives businesses an opportunity to increase turnover and expand naturally. A few villages in my constituency are currently looking for that opportunity. One of them is the township of Laugharne, which is of course famous for the Dylan Thomas boathouse—it is where he wrote “Under Milk Wood”, and he and his wife Caitlin are buried in the churchyard there. These are inevitably decisions for the local community, and I hope that they find a resolution soon.
As David’s last words were “Do the little things”—gwnewch y pethau bychain—I ask for large organisations, such as LINK, the FCA and the Post Office, to collaborate closely with our communities to ensure that access to cash is a reality for everyone. Rural communities are unique, and what works in a city or a large town does not automatically work there. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.
That brings me back to my community. Caerfyrddin is filled with castles, history and heritage, but it is also filled with talent, entrepreneurship and vision. Let us harness those qualities and work together to help the places that we are so proud of to thrive and prosper, in line with what our communities need, want and deserve. Let us do the “pethau bychain” together.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I do not want to disappoint you, Ms Davies, but I cannot sign your petition, because I have my own petition for a banking hub in the town of Crowborough, which colleagues are more than welcome to sign.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I wish a happy early St David’s day to all. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), on an excellent opening contribution to the debate.
We will all say it:
“Be joyful, keep the faith and do the little things”.
Those were the final words of our patron saint. The Prime Minister repeated them in his remarks at the St David’s day reception at No. 10 on Monday, which was an excellent event. It afforded us the opportunity to invite people who do extraordinary things in our constituencies. I brought along Mark Seymour, who, alongside his team in Newport, runs the Sanctuary project, which works with refugees and asylum seekers.
In that vein, I want to begin by recognising some more extraordinary Newportonians who perform small, kind and positive acts that help make our community what it is. First, I pay tribute to my constituent Martyn Butler, who sadly passed away last weekend. Martyn was a co-founder of the Terrence Higgins trust, setting up one of the first AIDS helplines in 1983 using his home telephone. His tireless work, right up until his death, to raise awareness of HIV testing and pre-exposure prophylaxis helped to contribute to the 20% fall in new HIV cases in Wales in 2024. More people than ever before are being tested. That legacy will be felt for generations. We send our love to his family—he was a lovely, lovely man.
Emma Webb is a bereaved mother whose daughter took her own life in 2020 aged just 16. From the depths of her grief, Emma has spent every day since campaigning to raise awareness of suicide prevention. She has walked hundreds of miles with a life-size model pony, raised thousands of pounds and worked relentlessly to save lives. I thank her from the bottom of my heart.
I have also had the pleasure of welcoming 11-year-old Sophia from Newport East to Westminster this year. She lives with juvenile arthritis and uses her incredible energy and infectious positivity to raise awareness and improve support for children like her. She will clearly rule the world; she is a brilliant example to us all. The great privilege of this role is meeting and working with such remarkable people who show so much resilience.
It is that resilience that has carried out city through challenging times. After more than a decade of austerity, I am glad to see that the damage done by the Conservatives is beginning to be undone. The recent announcement that work will begin this year to build two new railway stations in Newport East has been warmly welcomed by businesses and residents alike.
Catherine Fookes
My hon. Friend mentioned her new railway stations. She used to be the MP for part of my constituency, and I want to pay tribute to her. Will she join me in welcoming the new Magor and Undy railway station? I want to say a big thank you to her for all the work she has done with the Magor Action Group on Rail to make that station a reality.
Jessica Morden
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous, and indeed for the work she has done to carry that on—she has been relentless in this Chamber, at every single opportunity—and the fantastic Magor Action Group on Rail, which it is a privilege to work with. Well done to them.
I was also pleased to see the proposed Caerleon station included in the rail vision for Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn has been very supportive of that, as has our MS, Jayne Bryant. I commend the TRACS—Towards Restoring a Caerleon Station—group for its commitment to securing a station for the town, and I support it all the way.
This investment of many millions of pounds—part of a £14 billion commitment to rail in Wales—is just one example of how the people in Newport East are feeling the benefit of two Governments working together. That is really important. Another example of that, due to a good settlement, is the fact that the Labour-run council in Newport, under the energetic and resourceful leadership of Dimitri Batrouni, has this week announced the biggest investment in roads, infrastructure and schools in living memory, with a £40 million commitment. That includes £15 million to repair and resurface our roads and pavements, all of which are showing the impact of 14 years of Tory austerity. There is also half a million pounds for our city centre’s invaluable grassroots sports clubs, match funding for teams like Newport County and the Dragons, more funding to tackle fly-tipping and much more. Those are the kinds of priorities that residents tell us matter to them, and this action is due to the massive 6.1% funding increase from the Welsh Government, thanks to the Chancellor’s decisions flowing down to them. That partnership working is really important.
Crime and antisocial behaviour in our city centre remains one of our top concerns, so I was really pleased to hear from Gwent police that reported crime has fallen over the past year, with shoplifting down 20% across our city and antisocial behaviour seeing a steep decline during November. That is due to increased investment from the UK Labour Government, the hard work of Gwent police and the extra measures it is deploying, including the new Project Vigilant scheme, which will help to protect women and girls who are out and about in the night-time economy in our city centre. I commend that really good initiative. Gwent police has also confirmed that, by the end of March, every single neighbourhood policing team in Newport will be up to full establishment, delivering on a key and very important manifesto pledge, so I commend that.
The news of £20 million of Pride in Place money for Newport has been warmly welcomed, allowing us to invest in regeneration of the city centre and surrounding areas. That complements the work already going on in the city centre around the leisure centre, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn would agree is going up at an alarming rate, and the ongoing restoration of our Newport transporter bridge, which benefited from a further £5 million of UK Government funding. It is the Friends of Newport Transporter Bridge annual general meeting tonight, and my hon. Friend and I hope to get there in time.
I support Newport city council’s expression of interest for the town of culture competition, and particularly Caerleon’s bid. As one of the most significant and best understood Roman legionary sites in the former empire, with a strong community, it would be a really worthy winner, so let us hope that happens. [Interruption.] I hear a bit of competition there.
Turning from Newport’s significant history to its really promising future, the UK Government’s announcement of the AI growth zone represents a really exciting prospect for our city that we want to grasp. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn said, we have globally significant tech companies already based in Newport, including KLA and Vishay, which were here yesterday for an event. Further investment in sites and jobs is really welcome, particularly given that we are the fastest growing and the youngest city in Wales, with the fastest growing population of under-16s.
Sitting at the heart of cwm silicon, Newport is not just part of the new industrial revolution; it is driving it. With a strategic location, vital grid connections and a talented workforce, we have all the assets that modern industry is competing to secure. Of course, all this development and new infrastructure needs steel—I always have to mention steel—so I look forward to seeing the Government’s steel plan when it is published in the next few weeks. As always, I pay tribute to those who work in the steel industry in Newport East.
Its people, its geography, its grit and its determination set Newport apart from anywhere else, but it has something else: momentum. Under the inspired leadership of our council, and with support from the UK Government and the Welsh Government, we are seizing the opportunity of the moment. Newport is ready for this moment. Huge investments are coming, innovation is accelerating and the city’s strong communities are leading the way. We are not looking back. We are not about the politics of grievance and division; we are positive and ambitious for the future of Newport, and we will take every opportunity to build it.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
A very happy St David’s day to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone here. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) on taking the initiative for this debate. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity in the St David’s day debate to highlight some of the very positive steps that this UK Labour Government are taking to drive economic growth in Wales, create more and better jobs, and help people cope with the cost of living crisis.
Of course, it is our job as politicians to face up to the problems and tackle them, but too often we overlook the success stories—the real drive and determination of factory managers and business owners whose enterprises are doing well in spite of what are often challenging circumstances. Just in the last couple of weeks, I visited three such businesses. It was inspiring to see Shufflebottom Ltd in Cross Hands. Well known locally for its steel-framed agricultural buildings, it is now winning contracts for school buildings, the Ministry of Defence and leisure centres, including the splendid new Pentre Awel building in Llanelli, a Swansea bay city region project financed by both the UK and Welsh Governments.
Then we have Dave Timbrell-Hill, whose Beer Park located at Dafen trade park in Llanelli—
Dame Nia Griffith
I know my hon. Friend knows it well. Beer Park was named last year as the best independent beer and cider retailer in the UK, and it was shortlisted again this year for the prestigious drinks retailing awards.
Then we have DesignYO!, a design company that has gone from being a work-from-home start-up to taking on another full-time employee and opening premises in Llanelli town centre. Those are three very different businesses, but each provides quality goods and contributes to our local economy.
We must be under no illusion that the task we faced after 14 years of Tory austerity, which saw not only swingeing cuts to our public services but wage freezes and benefit freezes, coupled with the Tory cost of living crisis, has made life very, very difficult for my constituents in Llanelli. Time and again, I hear from people across my constituency that the cost of living crisis is their biggest concern, as they work every hour they can and still struggle to make ends meet. Tackling that cost of living crisis is an absolute priority for both the UK and Welsh Labour Governments. That is why it is so important that we have put up the national minimum wage and the national living wage. It is important to ensure that work pays, and workers need and deserve those increases. Moreover, we have made a particular increase to the 18 to 20-year-old rate as a step towards bringing it up to the rate for 21-year-olds.
I am delighted that we are now removing the two-child benefit cap. I had the privilege of working on the child poverty taskforce. We looked at the full range of possible ways of taking children out of poverty, and this is the most effective change we can make. The imposition of the two-child limit by the Conservatives when they were in power has pushed hundreds of thousands of children into poverty, damaging their health, education and life chances. In Llanelli alone, an estimated 2,200 children will benefit from the change, giving them the foundation they need to succeed in school and go on to get secure, well-paid jobs.
We are also uprating the universal credit standard allowance by 6%, the first ever permanent real-terms increase, benefiting some 320,000 households in Wales. We are keeping the triple lock on the state pension, meaning that it will increase by 4.8% this April, raising incomes for 700,000 pensioners in Wales. We are sticking to our pledge of no increases in income tax, employee national insurance contributions or VAT. Furthermore, we have seen many cuts in interest rates, bringing down the cost of mortgages and business loans.
I welcome the decision by this Labour Government to save householders some £150 on their domestic energy bills from April this year. That will be particularly beneficial to those who rely heavily on electricity, such as those whose homes are not on the mains gas network, of whom there are many in the more rural parts of the Llanelli constituency. Let us not forget that the Welsh Government have rolled out the universal free school meal programme for all primary school pupils in Wales, which is a real help to many families.
The UK Labour Government are ending Tory austerity and providing the Welsh Government with the best settlement since devolution—some £22.4 billion on average for each of three years—so that they can plan ahead and begin to rebuild and improve public services, but that will take time. In some instances, additional work can be started immediately but in other areas, such as specialist areas of the health service, more personnel will have to be recruited in order to speed up the process of bringing down waiting lists. I appreciate that we all want to see waiting lists come down more quickly, but it is no mean feat that they are now consistently falling. Whether it is creating more and better paid jobs, filling potholes, bringing down waiting lists or tackling the cost of living crisis, I know that our two Labour Governments, in Westminster and Cardiff, are relentlessly focusing on improving people’s lives.
We must also remove barriers to people’s getting to work, one of which is lack of transport for them to get from where they live to where they work. I welcome the UK Government’s massive investment in rail in Wales, but Welsh Labour and the UK-wide Labour Government are also absolutely committed to investing in our bus services so that people can get to job opportunities. This is not to be anti-car—far from it; we recognise how vital car transport is, particularly in rural and semi-rural areas, and we have frozen fuel duty for two years running and now petrol is the cheapest it has been for five years—but it is to recognise that we need good bus services, too, and to understand that many households do not have access to a car at all or, if they do have a car, that different members of the family need to go in different directions to work or leisure activities.
Our bus services, particularly in semi-rural areas, have been badly eroded over the years. First, we had the Tory privatisation of bus services, which led to companies prioritising only the more profitable routes; then we had Tory austerity, which cut local council budgets, leading councils to cut back on subsidies for less profitable services; and then we had covid, and some services have struggled to pick up since that time. I very much welcome the initiative introduced last year by the Welsh Labour Government to enable 16 to 21-year-olds to pay just a £1 flat-rate bus fare, which is so important to help them get to education, training and job opportunities. If Labour is returned to government in the Senedd elections in May, we are absolutely committed to enabling all adults of working age to pay a flat-rate bus fare of £2.
Hand in hand with that is our election commitment to provide over 100 new bus routes across Wales. The Welsh Government have already passed legislation to bring bus services under public control, and we in south-west Wales will be one of the first areas where that will happen. If Labour is returned to government at the Senedd elections, the public will have an opportunity to be involved in shaping our bus services. I have already talked to First Bus and officers at Carmarthenshire county council about this future model.
I do not want to pre-empt what services the public will want, but I know, for example, that many residents in Tycroes would like a bus service from Ammanford to Llanelli. That could be one of the new routes, but, likewise, the public could have views about timetabling, evening services or frequency. What about Sunday services? Our Sunday bus services seem to reflect a bygone era, when everything was closed and people just walked to chapel, but now shops and hospitality venues are open, sporting events happen, and it is a popular day to get together with family and friends. People need buses to get to work in those places, and to go and enjoy them.
What is important is that Labour is committed to increasing these services and to giving local residents opportunities to shape the services of the future. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for securing a good Budget settlement for Wales and allowing the Welsh Government to prepare these sorts of plans. If Labour is in government after May, I very much look forward to the additional bus services.
I will finish on a note about the Pride in Place programme. I very much welcome the funding that has been allocated to Llanelli. At some £20 million over 10 years, it will help us to regenerate Llanelli town centre and the area around it, and to create job opportunities. This is a real chance for Llanelli people to shape the town’s future, because it is Llanelli people who know what is best for Llanelli. We will want to hear from everyone who lives or works in Llanelli, or would like to have more reason to come into the town centre and the surrounding area: local businesses, residents, education establishments, third sector organisations, public sector, private sector, young people, older people. We really want to make the most of this opportunity. Once again, I thank my colleagues in Government for giving us the investment that we have needed so badly in Wales.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Thank you very much for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker—diolch yn fawr iawn. I thank the hon. Members for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), for securing this important debate and for their vocal championing of Wales. I particularly thank my hon. Friend for her stewardship of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Let me also take the opportunity to pass on my best wishes to colleagues from north Wales who, through no fault of their own, could not be here today, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) and my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) and for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes).
On this day last year, I was proud to speak in my first St David’s day debate, and a lot has taken place since then, including record investment in Wales, both internationally and domestically; record investment in rail for a modern Wales; a pay rise for 150,000 Welsh workers; and Pride in Place funding, to which I shall return shortly. We will lift 450,000 children out of poverty in this Parliament, including 69,000 children in Wales and 3,180 in my constituency of Cardiff West. We also have a new team at the Wales Office: I welcome the Under-Secretaries of State for Wales, my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and for Bangor Aberconwy, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for the great work she did in that role.
Since the debate last year, I have been proud to introduce my Registration of Birth, Deaths and Marriages (Welsh Language Provision) Bill. In a nutshell, it is about giving people living in Wales and Welsh people living in England the right to have their or a family member’s birth or death certificate issued in Welsh or English, or bilingually, after registration. If no preference is given, such birth or death certificates should be issued bilingually by default. As for marriage certificates issued in Wales, those too should be issued bilingually by default.
All that was a policy aim under the previous Labour Government, and it is a policy that still has cross-party support. However, rather than that being the default position, in 2026, Welsh people are left to fight for those rights. That cannot be right in a modern Wales—a Wales proud of its language and a population proud of its country. I am grateful for the conversations I have had with the UK Government about my Bill, and I can assure my constituents that those conversations continue. In so doing, I want to take the opportunity to thank my constituent Afryl Davies for bringing the matter to my attention, and for channelling her grief about the tragic loss of her husband into trying to bring about change for the better on this very important topic.
We know that Wales regularly punches above its weight in music, arts, culture and sport—
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
Our Welsh culture and community are a huge part of our heritage. However, decisions being made by the Welsh Rugby Union—specifically the chairman, who does not understand either our Welsh communities or our culture—are putting that heritage at risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that those decisions are putting wallets before Wales and threatening to rip out the heart of our Welsh rugby union?
Mr Barros-Curtis
While I will always say that Cardiff Rugby is a brilliant team, I take very seriously the campaign that my hon. Friend and other colleagues have fought on this issue. I too care about the future of our sport, especially when it comes to rugby, so I commend her for her ongoing work in this area.
As I was saying, we know that Wales regularly punches above its weight in music, arts and culture and sport, in invaluable contributions to our society such as birthing the NHS, and in the collective defence of all four of our home nations. Last week, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I was privileged to be able to spend some time with our troops in Norway and the Arctic circle. The strategic defence review highlighted the necessity of our strategic and operational focus in the High North; thousands of our troops are rising to that challenge every day, and I pay tribute to each and every one of them.
I spoke with many officers while I was there for the week, including troops from Cardiff—Welsh men and women serving together as part of our collective defence. We have officers from all four home nations, not separated by their nationality but united by our common values—values that Wales evidences every day. We are a modern nation that is diverse and outward-looking. There is no better example of that than in my own constituency, with its variety of cultures, communities and languages; people can walk the streets and, within a couple of metres, hear Welsh, English and Bengali. I was pleased to discuss this point, and how we all have a responsibility to work to emphasise our common humanity over division, recently with the leaders of City Church Cardiff in my constituency.
This modern Wales should be celebrated. While we are far from perfect and there are great improvements to be made, we have come a long way from the days, described by our First Minister, when rocks were thrown at school buses on their way to Welsh language schools. Some would like to take us back there, whether by dismissing our language and culture as trivial or by trying to divide our communities with hatred and pitting us against each other. We must never submit to such division and separation.
It was the Labour party and Welsh Labour Members of Parliament who drove the debate for devolution. It was the Labour party that established the office of Secretary of State for Wales. It was the Labour party that, at long last, as the party of devolution, brough the then National Assembly into being. The Labour party’s commitment to devolution is rooted in its belief in Wales and the Welsh people and in our confidence as a nation to shape our own path when we choose. We reject the idea of being treated as an afterthought, as some would prefer, or isolating ourselves completely by taking the route of separation, as others would have it.
I said that I would return to Pride in Place. When I began campaigning for Pride in Place funding to be invested in Ely and Caerau in my constituency, I did so because I knew that those communities wanted greater investment. I am immensely proud that this UK Labour Government have committed up to £20 million of Pride in Place funding to Ely and Caerau. This is a moment of real significance for our area and a clear signal that the Government are serious about backing communities that have too often been let down by politicians of all stripes.
There are those who talk down Ely and Caerau, judging without any real attempt to get to know the communities, but they are wrong. Ely and Caerau are full of good people doing remarkable things for their community, often with limited resources and against significant odds. Time and again, I see residents stepping up, volunteering their time, supporting their neighbours or running sports clubs. It is a privilege to learn from them every day and to represent them in this place.
Without a doubt, part of the reason for correcting historical under-investment through this programme lies in the wider funding context that Wales has faced over the past decade. Previous UK Governments reduced funding to Wales, which had a significant knock-on effect on Welsh Government and council budgets, and communities such as Ely and Caerau inevitably felt the impact of those decisions. The UK Labour Government have recognised that and delivered the largest real-terms funding settlement for Wales in its history of devolution. This Pride in Place funding is so important to restore opportunity, rebuild local infrastructure and ensure that communities receive the investment that they deserve. That is why Pride in Place funding matters.
I firmly believe that when people feel good about where they live, they feel better about themselves. If we are serious about improving health outcomes, supporting people into work and raising aspirations, investing in the quality of local neighbourhoods is essential. This £20 million investment will help to provide the spaces, confidence and opportunities that people need to thrive. One of the best things about the Pride in Place programme is that it is not politicians, councils or Governments who decide where the money will be spent, but the people themselves. My constituents have my assurance that I will work at speed to collaborate with them so that they can inform us about where and how the money should be spent.
Our nation has come so far in 27 years of devolution. In my eyes, devolution has always been, and will always be, a process. This week, a new moment in that history was marked, as Senedd Members returned to the newly renovated Chamber—the Siambr—as our country prepares for its next chapter of devolution following May’s elections. In May, Wales has the opportunity to reject division and separation and support the power in partnership between our UK and Welsh Labour Governments, and I trust that it will do so.
To you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone celebrating our nation’s holiday, in Cardiff West and beyond, I wish a dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) on securing today’s debate and thank her for all her work as the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
In last year’s debate, I spoke about the pride that I feel in representing Glyndŵr, the area that I have lived in my whole life. While it is a great honour to do so from these Benches, I am always at my happiest in my work when the train pulls up in Chirk or Ruabon, at a factory in Glyndŵr, on a farm in Montgomeryshire or meeting people in the towns and villages and hearing about their concerns and aspirations and how best I can help them. Although I could speak for hours on the historical significance of that great pre-Marxist socialist Robert Owen and Newtown, or the unique place in world history that Bersham holds, I will focus on what has been achieved by our Labour Government since last St David’s day.
On 1 April 2025, our first Budget came into force for Wales. We saw pay rises benefiting 160,000 workers in Wales, significant uplifts for people aged 21 and over on the national living wage, and a double-digit percentage pay rise for 18 to 20-year-olds on the national minimum wage. We had a record-breaking devolutionary settlement for Wales. I was especially pleased with the £25 million allocated for coal spoil tip safety, which is especially important for the Pentre Bychan side of Rhostyllen, with its closeness to our big spoil tip. Non-doms were made to pay tax. We had huge tax increases on private jet owners and a windfall tax for greedy energy companies.
What about the forthcoming Budget, which was announced in November? We have the implementation of a mansion tax, a 67% increase in taxes on online gambling companies and the jewel in the crown that is the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. That will lift more children out of poverty in the life of this Parliament than has happened in any other Parliament since records began in 1961. Do not be deceived by the naysayers: the majority of the families in Wales who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child benefit cap are in work. This measure alone will improve the lives of 2,270 children affected by the limit in Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, and 69,000 children in Wales as a whole. In Wales, we have greater poverty and deprivation than in England, and measures to tackle wealth inequality will always have my full-throated support. That is what I came here to do.
Let me turn my attention to Welsh rail. The £14 billion commitment from our UK Labour Government to Welsh rail will be transformative. I was overjoyed at the news that Deeside industrial park will get its own railway station, as many of my constituents commute to it; some 135 constituents in Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr work for Airbus. The changes at Padeswood will lead to increased frequency by separating freight from passengers, with more trains to Liverpool and the north-west of England and much less time taken to get there. Designs are also being drawn up for disabled access at Ruabon station. People in my constituency already have to travel far further than most to access work and opportunities, and this will make a massive difference.
My constituency, the birthplace of British ironmaking where the cylinders of James Watt’s steam engine were built, will now once again be connected by rail to where the growth is—where the jobs and opportunities are. Yes, we should celebrate the rich histories of our Welsh constituencies, but we should also be celebrating what we have been able to achieve for our constituents, only 19 months in and with just one Budget implemented. Diolch yn fawr.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
“Gwnewch y pethau bychain,” were the famous words of St David, meaning, “Do the little things.” I do hope I have not mangled the pronunciation too much; dw i’n dysgu Cymraeg—I am learning Welsh—so I am getting there. That is the message that many of my colleagues have talked about today: take those compassionate daily actions, even if they do not feel like much in the moment. Our community in Monmouthshire put this into action hugely in our response to the dreadful flooding that affected us as a result of Storm Claudia in November last year; everyone did their bit, big or little. I thought I could not be any prouder to represent my constituency, but I have been proven wrong. Seeing our community pull together was yet another brilliant reminder of the privilege it is to represent them; they are resilient, generous and determined.
The flooding in Monmouthshire was devastating. Hundreds of homes and businesses were flooded, and they are still dealing with the after-effects, including anxiety every time it rains—which as we know, sadly, has been pretty much all day, every day recently. Particularly among our older community, there is anxiety about when, if ever, they will get back into their homes or residential spaces. People who have replaced every single thing in the ground floor of their flat or house are anxious about maybe losing it once again in a future flood.
Let me take the House back to the early hours of the morning on that November day. What was described by constituents as a tidal wave came down Drybridge Street and Monmouth’s high street, leaving shops and houses badly damaged, a stinking mess, and a fine brown silt everywhere. Osbaston, Overmonnow, Little Mill and Rockfield Road were affected, as were parts of Abergavenny. For some, this was not novel; sadly, the communities in Skenfrith and on Forge Road in Monmouth flooded yet again, as they have every single year for the past few years. It was awful, but from that awfulness rose an astonishing response. It was not only the council, charities and emergency services that intervened immediately and did those little things; it was volunteers, ordinary members of the local community who heard the calls for assistance and answered them. Pets were rescued by Sara from Paws pet shop, and an elderly resident was also rescued by boat from Chippenham Court by Sara. I want to say a massive diolch yn fawr iawn to our emergency services, and to everybody who helped and continues to help.
However, recovery is incredibly long and arduous. The media have most definitely moved on, but the people who live and work in Monmouthshire—especially in Monmouth—are still struggling, particularly with their mental health. Businesses have seen insurance costs jump, in one case from around £1,000 a year to £20,000 a year. As such, I am exceptionally relieved that additional funding was made available for the first stages of recovery, in part through the mayor’s fundraiser, which she set up and which people donated to, not just from the local area but from all around the world. Of course, I am also grateful for the emergency funding from Monmouthshire county council and the Welsh Government, and thank goodness for the £1.5 million Pride in Place funding from this UK Government. Alongside the Welsh Government’s town transformation grant, it will help to regenerate some of those areas affected by the floods. I was also delighted and very thankful that our Secretary of State came to visit and see for herself the community support in action, and the high street and what was going on there.
In yet another show of resilience, businesses have been fighting to reopen as quickly as possible, and I am proud to say that Monmouth is very much open for business. Salt and Pepper, one of our lovely coffee shops, was quick to get back on its feet, thanks to the owner Catherine and her fantastic team, as was Bar 125. These became a visible sign of resilience in the town centre. Bee Beautiful nail bar is back—I had my lovely nails done there—and Harts of Monmouth, which was established over 50 years ago, showed real determination by continuing to trade from the first floor of its premises the weekend after the floods while flood repairs were still under way downstairs. Alex Gooch’s artisan bakery is now selling from a converted horsebox outside on the pavement while the damage in the shop is assessed.
However, many places are still on the journey to reopening. The Robin Hood Inn, Monmouth’s oldest pub, remains closed; despite the challenges of repairing that listed building, it is working hard to reopen. Handyman House and the Bridges community centre are also working on their recovery after their premises were badly damaged, so now we need to apply that lesson—“Gwnewch y pethau bychain”—once again. I invite any of my constituents who can, as well as those living just outside Monmouthshire’s bounds, those from further afield and all fellow Members of this House, to please come and visit Monmouth. Come to our high street; come and have a coffee, have some lunch, and buy some gifts in our wonderful independent shops that need our support. I know you will be given a brilliant welcome.
Finally, I wish a happy St David’s day to all in the House.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my lovely little badge. Everybody has been calling it a gingerbread man, but it is actually a handmade felt Welsh lady to celebrate St David’s day, made by somebody from Penyrheol primary school in my constituency.
I am going to talk about something quite niche today. I probably will not take up too much time, but I want to draw the House’s attention to a serious and entirely preventable animal welfare issue that is affecting our coastlines, particularly in Gower. It is the harm caused to seals by discarded flying rings. Once lost to the wind or tide, these lightweight toys frequently end up at sea, where they become deadly. Rescue centres are increasingly treating seals with flying rings embedded in their necks—injuries that cause severe tissue damage, infection and, in most cases, death.
These seals, the grey seals, are a very rare species, and are found off the coastline of Gower. Gareth Richards, my constituent, is the founder of Gower Seal Group and vice-chair of the UK’s Seal Alliance. There is quite a lot we could do, because these flying rings are imported into the UK in their thousands and sold in many retail outlets for as little as £1. They are often left discarded on our beaches or near waterways, where they end up in the ocean. To a curious little seal, these floating flying rings—our toys or playthings—are seen as attractive, as any child would find a new toy, but soon that natural curiosity of maybe a few seconds will turn into a lifetime of pain. When the flying ring is in their neck, it will grow into the skin over time. It is really awful, and I have seen some terrible pictures.
It is difficult to rescue or disentangle seals that are trapped in such rings, and those fortunate enough to be rescued require many months of rehabilitation at a specialist wildlife rehab centre, such as those provided by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals at one of its four centres located across England. As an aside, we do not have a specialist RSPCA centre in Wales; it has to utilise one of those four centres, with the nearest to Gower located in Taunton, Somerset. A single seal caught in a flying ring will cost the RSPCA up to £15,000 during its time in rehabilitation before it is fit and healthy enough to be let out into the wild again. That is a massive expenditure for a charity that relies on public donations. To put that in context, one flying ring costs the retailer a wholesale unit price of 33p, so it is costing charitable wildlife centres 45,450 times more than the cost of one of those rings to rehabilitate just one seal.
However, there is a solution. I am very proud of Swansea council, which unanimously voted in favour of a motion to voluntarily ban the sale and use of flying rings in Swansea via one of our councillors, Councillor Andrew Stevens, who supported the application. Neath Port Talbot council and Vale of Glamorgan council have also voted for such motions. That shows the grave concern about the sale of flying rings. I would like the Secretary of State and the Minister to help me and Members across the House to get all 22 unitary authorities in Wales to ban flying rings, which would make Wales the first country in the world to ban them. Other unitary authorities across the UK, such as Cornwall and several on the Norfolk coast, have banned them, and action from other councils is pending. We can do this.
There has been a huge amount of media coverage of the issue—from mainstream BBC and ITV to BBC Wales, ITV Wales, Radio Wales and programmes such as “Countryfile” and ITV Wales’s “Coast & Country”. There is significant public interest in the campaign. There is also a petition from the Save Our Seals from Flying Rings campaign.
Many major retailers are really leading the way—Tesco, John Lewis, Pets at Home, Halfords and Sainsbury’s, as well as a number of smaller retailers. Retailers in Gower, particularly on the coast, have been absolutely fantastic in supporting the campaign. Vets are taking part, as well as Kennexstone caravan park and Pitton Cross farm in particular. People can also read the children’s book “Sammy and the Flying Ring”, written by Sandy Brown and illustrated by E.J. Henderson.
Anyone planning a trip to the beach, whether they live in Gower or not, should buy a traditional frisbee, which were created in the 1930s and are fantastic. Do not buy a flying ring. It is a big ask for the Secretary of State to get the local authorities on board and make us the best in the world. Grey seals are the sentinels of the sea: a globally rare species found off the Gower coast, which is a unique destination—not only because it was the first designated area of outstanding natural beauty, but just because it is a great place. Did hon. Members know that seals swim 60 to 80 miles in just one day? There are no boundaries on these flying rings—they should be banned.
Earlier, I bigged up some of the major retailers. I would like to call out Asda and Home Bargains. They are two of my favourite places to go and shop, but they have not banned flying rings. I call on the Secretary of State to urge them to be more like St David: do the little things, and save the seals.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a real pleasure to speak in my second St David’s day debate in this Chamber. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), Chair of the Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for securing this debate today.
The story of St David began about 1,500 years ago, when, in the wake of the Roman empire’s departure from Britain, a unique Welsh identity began to take shape—one identity around community, language, culture and a resilience that lives on today. There is no better place to see that identity in action than Wrexham this weekend. At 12.40 on Sunday, the bells will ring out from St Giles church, marking an end to the traditional St David’s day church service and the beginning of our now regular St David’s day parade. The parade will be led by the Cambria band. It brings an array of colour and music to our streets, with community groups, schools and other organisations all playing their part. All weekend, there will be special events, including St David’s day markets in Queen’s Square and the surrounding area, where our fantastic local businesses and independent traders offer delightful products, food and drink, including what I am sure are the best Welsh cakes across the whole of Wales.
Andrew Ranger
It’s a close-run thing.
There is also a range of interactive and engaging cultural and educational activities for everyone to enjoy and take part in. Wrexham is bidding to become the city of culture in 2029 and our annual St David’s day celebrations, which are now embedded in our city and growing every year, demonstrate so much about what makes Wrexham a welcoming place for everyone.
Last summer, Wrexham was the very proud host of the National Eisteddfod, reportedly attracting around 160,000 visitors over its week-long celebration of Welsh arts and heritage, drawing people from across Wales and the UK to enjoy all that Wrexham has to offer, as well as the plethora of fantastic events on the Maes. This year is also Wrexham’s “Year of Wonder”, marking 150 years since a significant number of events happened in what was then our town, back in 1876. That included the establishment of the Football Association of Wales. There was an art treasures exhibition, which shone a spotlight on Wrexham for the rest of the country. The first National Eisteddfod to be held in Wrexham also happened in that year.
You would not expect me to speak about Wrexham, Madam Deputy Speaker, without mentioning a certain local football team that you may have heard of. Another reason to celebrate: this year, it has reached the fifth round of the FA cup for the first time in 29 years. We will be welcoming Chelsea in the next round, in a week or so’s time. We have past history of causing upsets against top-tier teams from London—I won’t mention which.
We are also sitting in the play-off spots of the championship. It is a real football fairytale story, if ever there was one—back-to-back promotions and all that success. That has made a real difference to Wrexham: how we think about the place where we live and how we welcome people there from all over the world. We cannot walk around Wrexham now without bumping into Americans, Australians, South Americans or people from Europe. It is absolutely fantastic; things have changed in the last four or five years.
Beyond the pitch, the Wrexham Association Football Club Foundation is impacting young lives through its programmes such as the Street Dragons and the Young Leaders programme. To continue this sporting theme, I also welcome recent confirmation from the Welsh Minister for north Wales, Ken Skates, that north Wales will be joining discussions alongside the northern mayors in England about a possible joint Olympics bid for 2040, in which Wrexham’s very own StōK Cae Ras would be a possible venue, along with many other venues across the whole of north Wales, north-west England and right across the other side. Let us go for that bid—we can do it, with the north of England and north Wales working together in partnership. We can build on the success of 2012 in London and do it even better.
I turn back to 500 A.D. As many Members have mentioned today, one of St David’s most notable remarks was about doing the little things. In 2026, that phrase still holds dear in Wales: a nation of community, where people look after not just themselves but their neighbours too. People may try to divide us, but they will fail. That is at the core of our Welsh Labour politics. We believe in partnership working, which we saw at its best only last week with the announcement of the seven new railway stations across Wales—including the one at Deeside industrial park, which will make such a difference to people in Wrexham getting to and from work and other places.
Alongside the improvements to the Wrexham-Liverpool line, there is the electrification of the north Wales main line and ambitious plans for North Wales metro. The £14 billion investment from the UK Government will be truly transformative for communities, our economy and the future of Welsh rail. We have seen many other further investments in Wrexham and across north Wales; they are transforming jobs, education, opportunity and north Wales as a whole. We talk about the AI zones, the small modular nuclear reactors in Ynys Môn, the Flintshire and Wrexham investment zone and Pride in Place, through which a total of £21.5 million has been invested in Wrexham. Local people will decide how money is spent, for the best of Wrexham.
A big key to our Welsh identity in Wrexham and north-east Wales is our very proud links between north-east Wales and north-west England. That is about work, family, social life and culture—a two way relationship that we are stronger for, not poorer. At the heart is how the Welsh Government have delivered since devolution: small things—maybe big things—such as free prescriptions, keeping and not cutting student maintenance grants, the bus fare caps discussed today and the first wellbeing of future generations Act in the UK, never forgetting that a decision, however big or small, is important for what it does for the people of Wales. As we once again gather to celebrate our national day, I will remember to do all those little things. Of course, I wish everyone a dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus—a happy St David’s day.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Wales is ready to move on from 27 years of failure and a century of Welsh Labour dominance. Labour’s failures in Wales represent the greatest failure in democratic governance anywhere in the world. Wales lies at the bottom of every British league table: it has the lowest education scores, the lowest wages and the longest waiting times. What explains this complete failure of democratic governance? Welsh politics has been too chummy, with people moving freely between journalism, public affairs and political parties. Wales has lacked proper scrutiny. It needs fresh thinking, which is why Wales needs Welsh Liberals.
I wish to be clear: for over 100 years, Welsh Liberals fought for Home Rule, Cymru Fydd and a Welsh Parliament. Devolution is a sacred flame that we will follow, but the Labour party has done irreparable damage to it. Recent polling shows that only 36% of people in Wales think that devolution is worth it. Why is that? Why has Welsh devolution failed to improve outcomes? First, Wales should have powers equal to those of Scotland, because we are an equal nation and should be treated as such. The galling gap exists most obviously in the funding and powers made available for rail and those of the Crown estate. Until the Westminster Government acknowledge that Wales gets a raw deal, this constitutional question will rumble on, fanning the flames of populism and nationalism.
Andrew Ranger
In the hon. Member’s response to our Labour Government’s record-breaking £14 billion commitment to Welsh rail, he stated that there was no mention of the electrification of the north and south Wales main lines in the plan. I assume that he has now had a chance to read the full Transport for Wales vision document, which does in fact include that. Would he now like to take the opportunity to row back on his previous comments and instead welcome the benefits that his constituents will incur from it?
David Chadwick
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and I am coming to that.
Secondly, we need a Government with plans to empower people across Wales. Devolution was intended to bring power closer to people, but the Welsh Government has instead hoarded power in Cardiff. We need a Government in Wales who trust councillors and council officers to make their own decisions, without demanding that the Welsh Government sign off on minor changes to bus routes; a Government who do not try to hide behind a £2 million a year Future Generations Commissioner; and a Government who ensure that health boards are truly accountable to the people they serve. In short, to put things right, Wales needs more than just a change of Government; we need a change in the style of government. Most importantly, people need the truth from us—politics depends on it. What happens to the spirit of democracy when people are not told the truth? It erodes trust, leading to populism.
Last week, the Government sought headlines by saying that they were spending £14 billion on Welsh rail projects. Well, Labour knows, and we know, that they are not doing so. What did that announcement achieve, other than creating further distrust in politicians? This will be their legacy: a Wales that is so tired of broken promises that people have stopped tuning in or turning up.
The Government are not the only ones who have broken their promises. The Brexiteers told Wales that leaving the European Union would save our steel industry, save Welsh farming and boost our international links. Ten years on, our steel industry is on the brink of collapse, Welsh farmers are being undercut by lamb imports from Australia and New Zealand, and Welsh universities are cutting jobs. The Brexiteers cost us the last decade, and Reform cannot be trusted with the next. If this Government wish to see off the threat from Reform and restore some faith in democracy, they must do two things: first, fix our health care system, and secondly, grow the economy. I will start with healthcare.
At the start of this Parliament, we were told that the two Labour Governments would work together. The Government said that they would use spare capacity in England to drive down waiting lists in Wales, and that proposal was welcome. Cross-border healthcare has long been an everyday reality for my constituents. My predecessors, Richard Livsey and Roger Williams, fought to ensure that Powys patients could go to Hereford hospital for treatment. But last summer, faced with a mounting deficit that is now approaching £50 million, Powys teaching health board asked English hospitals to slow down treatment times for Powys patients. Waiting times for some procedures have now doubled.
On Saturday I spoke to Dorothy Griffiths, who has been waiting since June 2024 for a knee replacement, and she is not alone. Patients who could have had hip or knee operations months ago have been left in pain because no one will take responsibility for ending this cruel policy. Nobody waiting for a knee replacement gets better with time, and the financial, physical and emotional costs will only mount. I have pressed the Welsh Office and Welsh Government Ministers for a plan to end the pain, but it is clear that there is no plan. Denying healthcare to people who need it is a moral outrage.
Growing our economy is how we can pay for the NHS that we need. Agriculture, heavy industry and tourism are key sectors of the Welsh economy. The Welsh economy is driven by small family-owned businesses, and I wish to emphasise this point: the best long-term approach to tackling poverty in Wales is to build an economy with good jobs. Businesses are allies in the war on poverty, not foes, yet rather than seeing those sectors as an asset, this Labour Government have all but declared war on them. First, despite the low earnings of Welsh farmers being well known to anyone who knows anything about farming, the Government launched a tax raid on family farms. Secondly, they introduced a jobs tax and rateable value changes for pubs, restaurants and hospitality venues, prompting closures and lost jobs across Wales.
Thirdly, there is the great betrayal of our steel industry. Before the general election, Welsh Labour MPs lined up in front of signs saying that they would “Save Our Steel.” They had a manifesto commitment to spend £2.5 billion on rebuilding our steel industry. Then they let the blast furnaces be turned off and said there was nothing that they could do. Yet months later, when the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe were under the same threat, Labour intervened and nationalised the steelworks. It was one rule for England and another for Wales.
We were told during that debate that a steel strategy was forthcoming. In September last year, I asked the Government where it was. Their answer was that it would be published by the end of the year, but it still has not been published. Why not? How much money has been spent on shoring up the English steel industry in the meantime? Will the Government commit to spending that £2.5 billion in Wales? If they do not, our economy in south Wales will be in danger of withering away, and the anger that will follow will wash Labour Members away. They must fight their colleagues for that funding.
There is huge demand for the skills that exist in south Wales, particularly around Neath Port Talbot. Welders are in big demand and can command six-figure salaries. We need an abundance of welders to build the big infrastructure projects that we need on time and on budget, and therein lies the opportunity to tackle poverty and build the industries of the future. Let us get Welsh children welding.
I support the Government’s aim of building supply chains and providing green jobs, but they must hurry up, because Wales is missing out. The tidal lagoon project in Swansea bay, which the Conservatives cancelled, would have created thousands of jobs, generated tons of green energy and given us an industrial lead. The Liberal Democrats agree with the Government that green industrial leadership is ours for the taking. Take offshore wind: Wales has the coastline, the ports and the industrial skills to lead the renewable transition, but parts of the supply chains have now been built elsewhere, which means that Welsh companies will have to import steel to build the necessary parts. We should not be importing steel into Port Talbot—that defies all logic. The Government have given themselves a deadline of 2035 to get floating offshore wind ready. What are they waiting for? This sluggish attempt at industrial development is costing us jobs.
Dame Nia Griffith
Does the hon. Member not recognise that there have been two very successful auctions for offshore floating wind, and the electric arc furnace has already started to be built in Port Talbot? We have the development of the ports in Milford and Port Talbot, plus the defence college and the associated factories that will go with that industry, plus the amazing semi- conductor industry, which I do not pretend to understand. Yes, of course we want welders, but we also want people highly skilled in the many new technologies that we are already bringing to Wales. He just does not seem to be living in the same country as the rest of us.
David Chadwick
It will be news to people in Port Talbot that the electric arc furnace is ready, because that is not what they are seeing on the ground. It is not ready. They were told it would be ready in 2027, but now we are hearing that will not happen until possibly 2028. This failure in industrial development is costing us jobs and damaging Welsh communities.
I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned the Crown Estate, because the Crown Estate should have been forced to prioritise domestic supply chains, as has happened in the Netherlands and Germany, in its offshore leasing rounds. That is why devolution of the Crown Estate matters. It must be held accountable for its actions in Wales, and for its utter failure to build Welsh supply chains using Welsh businesses. I would like to distance myself from my predecessor, who said in this place that
“moving away from steelmaking would not have a direct impact on national security.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 849.]
I disagree, and I think it shows that the Conservatives do not understand Wales and never have done.
Finally, the Welsh Liberal Democrats believe that the green transition must be a Welsh jobs strategy. That means anchoring supply chains here, and investing in steel capacity, heavy plate manufacturing and port infrastructure, so that Welsh communities benefit directly from the energy revolution happening off our shores.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker, and dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus—a happy St David’s day—for Sunday. It is a delight to be in the Chamber, a year on, for another discussion about wonderful Wales. All of the Members who have spoken have shown a deep affection for this truly special place, and in that spirit I am absolutely delighted to contribute to this vital debate and pay a heartfelt tribute on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
I thank the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), for opening the debate so strongly and for the great work that she and her Committee are doing. She was absolutely right to say in her conclusion that the future of Wales and big choices will come up in May, and every single vote matters.
I have told this House on many occasions, and I am pleased to affirm it once again today, that my love and passion for Wales endure and are long-lasting. It has shaped my life in every way. It gave me life chances and a determination to succeed. Some of my happiest memories are from my nearly 10 years of living and working around Swansea. It was lovely to hear the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) talking about future sporting aspirations and the impact of US football. My time in Swansea was long before Snoop Dogg, but I hear there was one heck of an atmosphere this week— I had family there, and they had a great time. On the sporting front, which was raised by the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), the clouds on the horizon for rugby in Wales are not necessarily what we would have expected this time last year.
The hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) rightly raised the impact of Storm Claudia on her constituency, particularly those parts that were flooded. My heart goes out to those who are still living with the effects, and I was pleased recently to meet many of her constituents and those affected. They are living with this and are terribly worried about it, and I am sure they will have been pleased not to have been forgotten in this debate.
When the Leader of the Opposition asked me to look after Wales for her, I was ecstatic, because my opportunity to champion Wales continues. Much of my experience was pre-devolution, and I was reflecting during this debate on the opportunity I had at the Government Dispatch Box, working with my Welsh colleagues, of whom I hope to have many more in the future. When I was a Minister in the Wales Office, with my friend Alan Cairns, we abolished the tolls on the Prince of Wales bridge, and that is one of our legacies. There is this feeling that nothing happened for 14 years, but guess what happened on the bridge? We made life easier for everybody crossing the border, so there is some positivity.
Members have mentioned the challenges facing the NHS in Wales. Everybody knows somebody waiting in pain and in vain in Wales, including perhaps in the families of those of us in the Chamber. Yes, waiting lists are improving, but they are still outrageously high. Nearly one in four people remain stuck on a waiting list. We hear the cross-border stories, and we recognise the challenges when the NHS in England is involved. People are often told to hold back because the additional treatment cannot be followed up, and that is absolutely wrong.
There is the ongoing Betsi Cadwaladr scandal, and with the NHS still limping from one scandal to another, it is absolutely right that these scandals are tackled. Something needs to happen between Westminster and Cardiff Bay, because it is heartbreaking that hundreds of thousands of mothers, fathers, grandparents, children and loved ones living with ongoing pain feel that they are voiceless. It is unacceptable that, despite two fabled Labour Governments at either end of the M4, responsibility is still not being taken for those public services.
It is vital that, 27 years on, we look at what has happened with the powers devolved to Cardiff Bay. As we have heard, it is Welsh Labour, ably assisted by Plaid and the sole Liberal Democrat in the Senedd, that is responsible for the challenges we have seen in health, education, transport, schools, economic development—you name it—although we would not have recognised that from some of the speeches this afternoon.
I have mentioned the tremendous work of the last Conservative Government, and it was the record sums in investment that saved Welsh steel in Port Talbot and plotted its future. As the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) rightly said, the electric arc furnace is going in, but that needs to happen on time, as promised to the community. We also saved 100,000 jobs with our furlough scheme and launched two freeports and investment zones. In fact, Members have pointed out many of those policies this afternoon. The problems holding back Wales have been caused not by the excellent people of Wales, including our excellent doctors, nurses and teachers—I have family members who are superb and passionate members of the teaching community— but, frankly, by the arrogance sometimes coming from Cardiff Bay.
The sanctity of our schools and the opportunities for young people have not escaped Labour’s clutches. I note that the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), is now in her place, which is perfect timing. In mathematics, science and reading, schools in Wales continue to sit at the bottom of the PISA scores for the whole United Kingdom, as has been the case for a decade. It is absolutely wrong that we are not doing something about that.
Labour has now turned its attention to private schools. The ideological decision to hammer private schools with 20% VAT on fees is destroying jobs and livelihoods in Wales, and putting more pressure on state schools. I have been warned by anxious headteachers in the independent sector that nobody in the Wales Office or in Cardiff Bay is listening to their pleas. These schools may collapse soon, but they are key employers, often in rural areas, and they are vital for people’s pay packets and for communities.
Gerald Jones
The shadow Minister is talking about public services in Wales. Would she care to reflect on the 14 years of austerity and the damage that the Conservatives, along with the Liberal Democrats, did as the architects of austerity to Welsh public services, which we are rebuilding?
Mims Davies
We left office with the best readers in the western world, apart from in Wales. I think this trope about those 14 years is deeply unhelpful. Eighteen months on from entering government, it is now Labour that is in control. It wanted the levers—get on with it.
While my constituency is obviously not in Wales, it is the home of the Caravan and Motorhome Club. We talked about tourism and the importance of the economic situation, and we heard from some Members concerns about the economy. The club has 1 million members, and 15 of its campsites and motorhome sites are in Wales, supporting the three beautiful national parks and five areas of outstanding natural beauty.
The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) talked about grey seals and flying rings. I had no idea what they were, but they are posh frisbees. Asda has been called out twice in the Chamber this afternoon to get a grip of them. I congratulate her on her important campaign.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, highlighted the power of our Union. All our nations make up the great United Kingdom. The danger is that, in May, we could be sleepwalking into separatism. I hope that that has been drawn out strongly enough in this afternoon’s debate.
That leads me to the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake). He talked about Welsh wonders, which I think we can all agree on, and the power of small business and tourism. He told the tale of businesses struggling to trade, the insecurity of higher energy prices and business rates, and the challenges to the high streets in his constituency. I am very much looking forward to pictures of him parading for St David’s day and making it so joyous. Did he mention a cawl-eating competition? I think I have been in many of them myself.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) rightly called out the cost of fuel and asked for the CMA to get involved, and Asda was called out. I am not sure that tin baths and tourism are a happy marriage, but Zip World certainly sounds great.
The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) spoke about the importance of new electricity and the reality of green energy for the people of Wales. People are being overlooked when it comes to vast projects, and absolutely—I agree with her—they need to be heard. Two banking hubs are coming to my patch—yes, I am showing off—but keep pushing, because they are well worth it and they mean so much. She also rightly highlighted talent, which is everywhere.
The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about Newportonians. May I please pass on my condolences on the passing of Martyn Butler? He was a fantastic advocate for the Terrence Higgins Trust, and he did so much around HIV testing and PrEP. I am very sorry to hear of his passing.
On transport in Wales, a lot of figures have been bandied around. I have the same view as the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick). Let us see the reality, because that is extremely important.
Before I conclude, I want to highlight the Labour UK Government’s decision to allow their colleagues in the Welsh Government to include glass in their deposit return scheme from 2027. That will have serious ramifications for the whole of the United Kingdom and jeopardise the integrity of our internal market. With all other areas of the UK not including glass in their DRS, there could soon be a significant new trade barrier for Wales and, as a result, a significantly less competitive market. This decision will not do.
We need to keep Wales in the United Kingdom. We need to stop attempts to divide us. That means voting for the Welsh Conservatives in May and, in doing so, backing our family firms and farms, and stopping wasteful and unnecessary spending—plenty of money has gone to Wales, but spent wastefully. Wales needs more doctors, dentists, nurses and teachers. We have a health emergency; we need to put the NHS first and focus on the long waits. We also need to scrap the default 20 mph limit and look at a proper road building programme.
I hope my speech has not sounded defeatist or pessimistic; it is just that I and the whole Conservative and Unionist party know that after 27 years of Labour, Wales deserves better.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for proposing today’s debate, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it, and everyone who has taken part in it.
In preparation for closing the debate today, I reflected on last year’s Welsh affairs debate. Still then less than a year into the new Labour Government, I updated the House on some of my priorities for Wales, but also those across the Government. I spoke of our plans to end Tory austerity, with investment in Welsh public services and infrastructure; to seize the golden opportunity of Wales’s new green industrial revolution in floating offshore wind and new nuclear; to rectify historic under-investment in Welsh rail; to deliver an industrial strategy with key Welsh sectors at its core; and to do whatever it takes to protect Welsh steelworkers and build a strong future for Welsh steel. It is fair to say it has been a very busy year. The UK Government and the Welsh Labour Government have worked together to deliver huge change on every one of those priorities and more.
Take, for example, this Government’s announcements in the past week alone. On Tuesday, we launched a new £11 million fund to help businesses affected by the steel transition at Port Talbot, to create new jobs and attract investment. Some £122 million has now been allocated by the transition board. I promised that the Government would do whatever it took to protect Welsh steelworkers and we will always keep that promise.
On Wednesday, the Prime Minister, the Transport Secretary and I were at Transport for Wales’s headquarters, with the First Minister and the Welsh Transport Minister, Ken Skates, to announce a generational commitment by the UK Government to deliver our long-term plan for Welsh rail as quickly as possible, building on the nearly £445 million announced last year. After years of under-investment by previous Conservative Governments, this is a plan to deliver the rail network Wales deserves, with up to £14 billion of projects in every corner of our country: seven new stations, including the first new station in north Wales for many decades; extra capacity; and more and faster trains, transforming the experience of passengers. That commitment will unlock 12,000 jobs in rail and our industrial parks, better connecting people with the tens of thousands of well-paid jobs we are creating across Wales.
On Thursday I was at Cardiff castle with the Defence Secretary to sign the new £50 million defence growth deal for Wales, with the Welsh Government. That will back our growing Welsh defence sector, drive innovation and create even more high-skilled jobs, using our increased defence spending as an engine for economic growth.
Jo Stevens
No, I am going to carry on, because I do not have much time left.
Just before Christmas, we announced one of the biggest public investments in Welsh history: the siting of the UK’s first fleet of small modular nuclear reactors at Wylfa, creating 3,000 direct jobs and thousands more in the supply chain. After a decade of inaction from the Conservatives and the inability of Plaid Cymru to agree among themselves whether they support nuclear or not, I am beyond proud that this Labour Government have made that game-changing commitment to Ynys Môn and the whole of north Wales. We have secured the most successful auction round in European history, backing the Awel y Môr offshore wind farm in north Wales, and the first floating offshore wind project in the Celtic sea, Erebus, to support thousands of jobs in our renewable energy industries.
On tackling the cost of living, which lots of hon. Members mentioned, our relentless focus saw wages rise faster in the first 10 months of this Government than in 10 years of Conservative rule. Interest rates have been cut six times, meaning significant savings in mortgage payments for Welsh households and businesses. The lifting of the two-child limit will benefit 69,000 children in Wales. Well over a quarter of a million families in Wales—320,000 of them, in fact—will benefit from the first ever sustained real-terms increase in the universal credit standard allowance, which will help many working families.
Our support for communities in every part of Wales includes over half a billion pounds for the new local growth fund to create jobs and put more money in people’s pockets; £143 million for the Welsh Government to ensure that coal tips remain safe, supporting families living in the shadow of the tips; and bringing economic growth and employment opportunities to some of the most deprived communities in Wales. There have been a lot of mentions of Pride in Place funding: with £280 million for 14 communities, as well as at least £1.5 million for every single one of the 22 local authorities in Wales through the Pride in Place impact fund, we are putting decision making about communities in the hands of communities. In addition, this year all our Welsh police forces will receive a real-terms funding increase to help them keep our streets safe.
As we have heard, Labour is the party of devolution: we delivered it, we have protected it and we are enhancing it. We have updated the Welsh fiscal framework and worked with the Welsh Labour Government on the future of water regulation and devolution. We are devolving employment support funding and delivering in partnership our economic trailblazers and city and growth deals. We have restored the Welsh Government’s decision-making role over the local growth fund. Just two weeks ago, I announced plans to devolve new powers for the Senedd to create a vacant land tax to encourage house building.
Hon. Members across the House will know that the ultimate proof of that successful partnership between our two Governments is seen in the nearly £6 billion of additional spending power that the UK Labour Government are providing to the Welsh Labour Government. Through the largest funding settlement in real terms since devolution began, we have ended Tory and Liberal Democrat austerity, making sure that Wales is funded properly and fairly, and enabling the Welsh Government to invest in our NHS and schools and across our public services.
We are now less than three months away from the Senedd election, at which Wales faces an important choice. Together, the UK and Welsh Labour Governments are strengthening public services, building new infra- structure, creating new jobs, increasing wages and tackling the cost of living. We can continue to build the next chapter of Wales’s future with two Labour Governments focused entirely on the real and pressing priorities of the people of Wales, or that future can be put at risk with the division and destruction of Reform, or distraction and separation from nationalists. We on the Labour Benches will continue to campaign in the months ahead to secure the next chapter of Wales’s future with Welsh Labour.
We had some fantastic contributions to the debate. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), gave a wide-ranging speech covering the Welsh cakes made by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), churches, choirs, the NHS, Pride in Place and pride in work. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) spoke about his campaign for fair petrol pricing in his constituency. To me, the higher prices he referred to appear completely unjustifiable. I wish him lots of luck with that good campaign.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about how Newport is definitely on the up. It is Wales’s fastest growing and youngest city, in large part thanks to the dynamic leadership of its Labour council, its MPs and its MSs. My hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) spoke about the impact of the UK Government’s child poverty strategy measures and policies on tackling the cost of living.
My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), spoke powerfully about his ten-minute rule Bill and the right to have birth, marriage and death certificates issued bilingually, as well as about the Pride in Place programme in Ely and Caerau. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) talked about the incredible community response to the floods in her constituency caused by Storm Claudia. It was a real privilege to meet many of her constituents when I visited straight after the floods.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) gave, as she said, a niche speech on flying ring toys and their impact on grey seals on the beautiful Gower coast. That campaign sounds like a good one; I would be happy to have a conversation with her after the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), who always gets in a mention of the football club, also talked about north Wales joining forces with northern England to bid for the 2040 Olympics. That is an exciting prospect, befitting of north Wales’s ambition and sporting prowess and a great example of the potential of collaboration across the borders of our Union.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. All of us here are committed to serving our constituents, and we are dedicated to the continuing success of Wales. This week, on the 10th anniversary of Wales Week London—I know that many hon. Members across the House will have been to its events this week and will do so next week; it is a fantastic platform for promoting Wales not just across the United Kingdom but globally—I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all hon. Members and everyone across Wales a very happy St David’s day on Sunday.
Ruth Jones
It has been an honour to open and close this debate. I thank everybody who made a contribution. I will not go through the list as the Secretary of State just did that admirably, but each Member spoke with passion and pride about their constituency and highlighted the great aspects of the people and the places within their constituencies. Sadly, none of them can compare with Newport West and Islwyn, but well done for trying.
We have also been educated. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you might have missed the references to St David when we learned about his diet, where he lived and what he did. We also had animal welfare lessons from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), which we will all go away with, about the flying rings. None of us will buy those ever again.
It is really important that we have been here for the debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, you were not in the Chair when the previous Deputy Speaker was invited to the tin baths of Merthyr, but I am sure you would be welcome to go along as well. We will all be there to cheer you on as you get into that ice-cold water—it will be lovely, I am sure.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I am so proud that our country can be spoken about so well and so warmly in this Chamber. I thank everybody. It remains only for me to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy St David’s day—dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered St David’s Day and Welsh affairs.
Mims Davies
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you please advise me on how I can seek clarity, given that we have the Secretary of State for Wales here in the Chamber? I have been seeking clarity on which financial year each tranche of rail funding is expected to be spent in. That has been challenged by the media and indeed by hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon. I seek clarity on where the £14 billion figure comes from and whether it is governmental. Could you please advise me?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The point that she raises is a point of debate rather than a point of order.
Bereaved Children: Government Support
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We come to the Backbench Business debate on Government support for bereaved children. I call Christine Jardine to speak for up to 15 minutes.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for bereaved children.
First, I thank the Backbench Business Committee and all those who supported my application for the debate, not just on my behalf because we have the opportunity to discuss this issue, but for many thousands of children and young people in this country who feel that their voices are not heard, that they are not being listened to, and that we are not hearing what help they need in what, for some, will be the darkest times they ever experience.
I am grateful to this Government because, since they came to power, they have shown some appreciation of the problem—more than their predecessor—which is reflected in the fact that their strategy for young people mentions the need for support. However, there is so much more that needs to be done. This is an issue that affects this country on many levels: the human, the personal, the social and the economic. I will come to the economic issue later.
First, I will take a moment to explain how I came to this point and why this issue matters so much to me, and why I understand how it matters to others. My dad was just 44 when he collapsed one Saturday morning just before Christmas and died. It was a heart attack. Without any warning, our comfortable, happy, working-class family was plunged into uncertainty.
My sisters were eight and 13. Having turned 20 just the week before, I thought I was an adult; it was only years later that I came to appreciate the impact it had on me, and, indeed, on all of us. I had instantly become not just the second adult in the household, but, in reality, the second parent. When my own daughter was eight, and then again when she was 13, I struggled with watching her with her dad, realising—probably for the first time—exactly what my sisters had lost and had been through, and what my mother had dealt with.
Then—irony of ironies—when my daughter was the same age as I had been, almost to the day, her father died of a sudden, unpredicted heart attack. I saw that she was not quite an adult, and realised that neither had I been. In helping her cope, I saw yet another aspect of our family’s dynamic and challenges from a new perspective.
The moment when it came home to me that something had to be done about this on a wider scale was when I talked to my youngest sister—the one who had been eight when dad died. She asked me if I remembered that we had not had any support from any organisations—from anyone. She pointed out that that was because before he died, we had never been on the radar of social services or needed support, so at that moment they did not know that we needed it. There was no support mechanism to help mum and to discuss the sort of emotional challenges we would face, because nobody was really aware of who we were and what we needed.
In a lot of ways, it is exactly the same today. The organisations and charities are there and they want to help, but unless someone is on the radar of social services, those organisations and charities have no way of knowing who needs help, where they are and how to contact them. It is very difficult for families in distress to figure out exactly where to go and how.
It is more than three years since I first raised this issue in the House and called for a protocol or a process to identify those young people at the point of their loved one dying. There is genuinely support across House, from individual MPs and from the all-party parliamentary group on grief support and the impact of death on society. We have had debates and I have had meetings with Ministers. Everyone is supportive—it is just the action that is missing.
Too often, I have been told that schools and GPs are there to help. Yes, they are; they do a great job. However, bereavement affects every aspect of a child’s life, not just school. The campaign “Grief Matters for Children” has shown that children who are bereaved are at an increased risk of depression, anxiety and physical health problems, have lower academic attainment and are over-represented in the criminal justice system. Yes, GPs and schools are vital, but they are not there at weekends, at Christmas, during school holidays or late at night when children need someone to talk to. What if a child moves home? What if it is an estranged parent who dies, and the school does not know?
One of the main issues is that where there is support, there is huge variation in the provision of services across the UK. Services have developed in an ad hoc way, and there are inequalities in provision. Many struggle for funding, and large areas of the country are still without services that support children. Even in areas that do have a service, there are long waiting lists or travel times, and services’ survival is precarious. The pandemic made it worse: waiting lists for child bereavement services were increasing, and there were already concerns about access, which the pandemic only exacerbated. We need to do more.
That brings me back to how we know where there are children to help—the protocol and the process that I have called for. We do not collect data; we have no way of knowing. It would be simple: when someone dies, the registrar could just take a note if a child or children are affected. That would be a chance to signpost support to the family with relevant local information. We could give families the opportunity to opt in to a real-time referral pathway, similar to those for families bereaved by suicide.
Local data on the number of children and young people bereaved could be combined with activity data from local services to identify what proportion of children and young people are getting support. Data on which children and young people have been bereaved could be linked to other datasets such as those on the use of health services. The understanding of the impact of bereavement on children’s health and their futures could be much improved just by taking a note when someone dies. That knowledge of where children are, who needs help and what help they need would make such a difference.
Of course, we also need to make sure that children are getting the right help. When they were asked by the UK Commission on Bereavement what they needed, half of the bereaved children and young people who shared their experiences said that they got only a little or no support from their education setting after their bereavement. The commission recommended that all educational establishments have a bereavement policy, including staff training and a process for supporting bereaved children and their families. What a difference that would make. Winston’s Wish, the charity, led the “Ask Me” education campaign, which takes this a step further by asking all schools to sign up to a manifesto to pledge to see each bereaved student as an individual and ask the simple but powerful question, “What do you need? How do we support you?” Given the critical role that schools play in children’s lives, the fact that we already acknowledge that they do so much work, and the fact that the answer is always to turn to those schools, what are the Government doing to improve the consistency and tailoring of bereavement support in educational establishments in support of pupils’ wellbeing and learning?
Can we finally make sure that, after 20 years, grief education becomes a vital part of the national curriculum and attempts to get us over our national aversion to talking about grief? If we do not start talking about grief more openly and regularly, we will never begin to tackle the problems that it creates in society. We know that children who suffer bereavement and do not have support in coping with the trauma will likely have problems in later life. They are more likely to have difficulty forming relationships, more likely to get into trouble and more likely to live in poverty.
Various reports, including one by Sue Ryder, show that grief costs the UK economy an estimated £23 billion a year. We could help to mitigate that. We could take preventive measures that protect children and safeguard a healthy economy in the process. The situation has not been helped by the change in bereavement payments to families and the fact that they have been frozen for the past nine years. I ask the Government whether they will address that particular shortcoming. Will they fix it?
When I started to get involved in this area a few years ago, one charity that works with adults bereaved as children warned me that I might be opening a can of worms. I did not think so, but now I am not so sure. Meeting young people who faced losing someone close and felt that they did not have the support or the understanding that they needed has been both inspirational and heartbreaking—inspirational in seeing how they have coped and heartbreaking in knowing that they have lost an important emotional and economic anchor in their lives. Sometimes it is the only emotional anchor. No moment drove that home to me more than a meeting in Parliament where I met representatives of Winston’s Wish and some young people. One girl thanked me for everything I was doing and said, “But you understand, don’t you?” And I do, but I am not the only one. I also know that my sisters and I were very lucky. We may not have had the official support that we needed and that all young people deserve, but we did have support. Too many children today will face the trauma that we and hundreds of others have faced without support. An estimated 127 children go through it every day in this country. Every 20 minutes while we have been in this Chamber, someone has lost a parent.
Above all else, those children ask us to ask them what they need, and then to make sure that the authorities, ourselves included, provide it. They want us to make sure that no child in this country feels alone, unsupported or lost without the friend, sibling or parent that they have lost. I ask the Government to make sure that they get that help.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing this debate. We all know that there is no good time to be bereaved, no convenient moment to lose a loved one, and no guarantee that we are equipped to cope with loss at any time of life, but to lose a loved one as a child must surely be one of the most isolating experiences imaginable. Their friends have not encountered anything like it, and the adults in their life might not feel confident in knowing how to help them. From chairing the APPG on grief support, I know that as a society we remain woefully underequipped to handle grief among adults, let alone children who are navigating loss in childhood.
Bereavement that is left unaddressed can lead to serious problems at any time in life. For children, those problems are only magnified. It is well documented that grief that is left unresolved can lead to a pathway towards unemployment, crime, imprisonment and homelessness. If grief occurs in childhood, the effects can be lifelong and snowball into problems that can start to feel impossible to overcome.
Charities across the sector point to the lack of data as the starting point for our failure to properly support children who experience grief in childhood. We simply do not know how many children encounter bereavement. That means that we do not know where to target support or what the scale of the problem is. When support can be given, it is incumbent on all of us to encourage open, honest and frank discussions about loss. The work of charities such as Cruse and Winston’s Wish is incredible, but we should not have to rely on a postcode lottery of local organisations or the variable levels of staff training across our schools and colleges. Teachers need to know where to access dedicated support as soon as they need it, and they need training to help children when they need it the most.
There are, of course, many examples of good practice in supporting bereaved children across our schools, and I want to draw attention to the incredible work that has taken place at Oakwood primary school in my constituency. In the autumn of last year when the staff and students at Oakwood were faced with the tragic consequences of a car accident that led to the death of a classmate, they addressed the bereavement head-on, led by their incredible headteacher Vanessa Thomson. A garden of remembrance was created, and students were encouraged to speak out about their feelings with their teachers and each other. Encouraging conversation in this way and providing a dedicated space to grieve and talk about loss goes a long way to moving away from a culture of silence around death. Encouraging conversations about loss must be at the heart of any policy intervention in this area, and the work at Oakwood should act as a great example to others.
I hope that, by continuing to draw attention to the importance of supporting bereaved children through debates such as this and the work of the APPG on grief support, we can continue to improve the support available to staff, students and parents. This should start with collecting the basic data, which will enable us to get a better picture of what is needed and where.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I would like to add my personal thanks to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) not just for securing today’s debate but for being such a powerful champion of this cause. I came to it myself through leading a petitions debate. The hon. Member took part in it, which I really appreciated at the time.
I introduced that debate as a member of the Petitions Committee, but it opened up my own experience. As Members may know, part of preparing to open a petitions debate is meeting the petitioners. For this debate, in December 2024, the petitioners were Mark Lemon, who is leading a petition to collect data, which has been touched on, and John Adams, who is leading a petition to make bereavement part of the national curriculum. I spoke to them and they both had their own stories, just like the hon. Member for Edinburgh West and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), who touched on some of the experiences she has heard about too. It reminded me that this can touch us in many other ways.
In my case, my dad got throat cancer when I was in my teens. He passed away when I was 20 years old. I was mostly away at university at the time, but I had a younger brother who was 15 when my father passed, and I did not really appreciate at the time just how hard it was on him. My mum was overcome with it all and he did not have the life that I subsequently was lucky enough to have. He had it hard: he was out of school and had some tough years, and he is no longer with us. Looking back, it would have made a real difference if the support that some people have, some of which has improved over the years, had been there.
There has been progress, and around the country there are many fantastic organisations. We have heard about Winston’s Wish, which took part in and supported the petition debate that I led. In my constituency, there is a charity called Stand-by-me, which has been fantastic. I met representatives at a summer fair in Knebworth, where I also met a mum and her young daughter Evie. They showed me what could be done. Evie had support from the charity and also became a young ambassador, which is about kids getting support from other kids who have been through it. That is great; however, we have already heard that that support is patchy around our country. I am really glad that there has been progress.
Of the two petitions I mentioned, the Government have listened to the first, which was about having bereavement on the national curriculum. The Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), was at the debate, took that on board and it has now happened—we now have that in the relationships, health and sex education strategy. However, it has to be implemented, so I will ask the Minister: how is that going? How are we monitoring it, are schools taking it up and are we giving the schools what they need?
On that second petition about collecting data, how can we know the problem we face if we do not know the extent of that problem? How many children are out there and, for whatever reason, they or their families are not reported through the system? How can we make it easier for that to happen? Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man or woman to change that approach. We can do it—where there is a will, we can do it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West made the point that there has been progress, but I ask this Government to go even further. There are kids out there who need that support and we must do all that we can, in this place and elsewhere, to provide it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for her powerful speech introducing the debate and for all her work on this subject.
It is normal in debates in this Chamber to bring the stories of our constituents to illustrate the issue, but today I am going to share my story as well. In 2002, I had a five-month-old baby and a two-year-old toddler, and my beloved husband was diagnosed with terminal oesophageal cancer. A year later, he died, just a week before Ellie’s fourth birthday and Laura was 17 months old. You cannot explain to a baby or a four-year-old what death means. One day their parent is there, the next he is gone. I remember Laura, who had just learned to say the word “Dadda”, going round the house opening the doors, going “Dadda, Dadda”, because she could not find him. I did not really know anything about the impact of bereavement on children, but in the last 20 years, I have learned quite a lot.
In the UK, around 120 children are bereaved of a parent every day—[Interruption.]
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, and we are all honoured to hear it.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention.
In the UK, around 120 children are bereaved of a parent every day. By age 16, approximately one in 20 young people in the UK will have experienced the death of a parent. I became the chair of the Widowed and Young organisation and met loads of kids and their parents through that work, many of whom I am still friends with today. I saw the impact on scores of children who had lost their mum or dad. Thousands more in the UK have lost a sibling, which is also a profound grief for children, which is little understood. I saw these children grow up and adjust to their lost; the progress they made and then the setbacks; the challenges with attachment, loss, fear and abandonment; the issues with friendships and relationships; struggles with school; dangerous coping mechanisms and risk-taking in teenage years; mental health challenges; anger; intense emotions and anxiety. Just for the sake of my daughters, that is not all related to them.
While children are navigating all of that, the challenge of becoming a single parent at exactly the same moment that you are bereaved cannot be overstated, and that is compounded exponentially when the bereavement is sudden and unexpected. The day my husband died, my children came home from nursery and needed me to be the same reliable, loving, stable mum they knew—up at 7 the next day needing their breakfast, and so it went on. There is not much time to navigate your own grief in all of that.
On top of that is the loss of income. The challenge of holding down a job, bringing in a wage, while being a grieving single parent to grieving children is immense, as are the unaffordable costs of childcare that enable you to go to work at all. But in a way, I was lucky, because I was bereaved before 2017 and I received the widowed parent’s allowance—a payment that was funded by the national insurance contributions that my husband Nick had made during 20 years of full-time work, contributions designed to pay into a system that is meant to pay out when needed. He will never receive a state pension.
What difference did the widowed parent’s allowance make? It made all the difference. It allowed me to work part time. It allowed me to be present for my children, to help keep them stable while the world around them felt unsafe and scary. It made a part-time income go further. It helped pay for childcare and a few out-of-school activities so my children could live the same life as their peers. It also helped pay for the holiday clubs that they had no choice but to go to so that I could go to work —and they did not always want to.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
In 2024, my constituent Claire lost her husband—a personal tragedy. Overnight, she became the sole parent to her three-year-old son. [Interruption.] Sorry, this is personal as well. I was going to talk about me, but I am not going to talk about me. She rightly points out that the fixed 18-month limit on bereavement support payments creates a financial cliff edge for widowed parents, to which my hon. Friend has already referred. Does she, and the Minister too, agree that the grief, permanent loss of income and parenting responsibilities to all children, particularly very young children, do not end at that arbitrary 18-month period, that cut-off point, and that it should be rethought?
Caroline Voaden
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; I could not agree more.
In 2017, it all changed: the previous Conservative Government replaced the widowed parent’s allowance with the bereavement support payment—an 18-month flat-rate payment paid regardless of the child’s age. That decision drew cross-party criticism and was opposed at the time by us, the SNP and Labour MPs. It severed the historical link between national insurance contributions and long-term family protection. It created measurable disadvantage for widowed parents and bereaved children. The bereavement support payment has not been uprated since it was introduced, and it remains at 2011 figures. The very minimum we are asking for today is for the Government to uprate it in line with inflation, and I ask the Minister to respond to this call. However, I want to see the Government go further and consider calls from campaigning organisations, such as WAY, to reinstate a bereavement payment that lasts until children leave school, to iron out the disadvantage that children are under from the moment they lose a parent.
Grief does not last 18 months; bereavement lasts a lifetime, and for children it comes back again and again in huge, destabilising waves every time they reach a different stage of growth and understanding of what death really means. Believe me, you have to keep going through it again and again as they get older, explaining exactly what death means—“No, he’s not coming back”—what they did to his body, and all that stuff. It goes on right the way to adulthood. Parents navigate this through a child’s life. Adding the extra strain of financial worries on to a widowed parent makes a difficult job far harder and puts a bereaved child into an even more dangerous place.
Lucy from West Sussex is 31 and a teacher. Her husband died aged 36 from sudden adult death syndrome in January 2023—out of the blue, with no warning. Her children were nine, six and three when their dad died. She said:
“Losing one income overnight has a huge knock-on effect. Combined with rising living costs, there are times I genuinely struggled to afford food. I always made sure my children ate, but that often meant skipping meals myself or relying on the cheapest food just to get through the week. I’ve had to use food banks.
Even now those payments would still make a meaningful difference to us as a family—not as a luxury, but as support that recognises what has been lost and what continues long after the funeral.”
We know that poverty is directly linked to poorer life chances, reduced attainment in school and more vulnerability to harms, and there is a societal impact to this too. Taking it to its very extreme, there is an association between bereavement and negative outcomes, so it is perhaps unsurprising that bereavement is prevalent among people in custody. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies has reported that 41% of young offenders have experienced the death of a parent as a child— a rate significantly higher than for the general population. Other research shows that up to 90% of young men aged 16 to 20 in specific institutions have suffered at least one bereavement, with many experiencing multiple traumatic losses.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said, we do not do grief well in this country. It is still often something to be brushed under the carpet. I know from my personal experience that it makes people embarrassed and awkward. It is something to be avoided, not talked about. We desperately need grief education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West said, because it could be transformational.
On top of our financial calls on the Government today, we support the Winston’s Wish “Ask Me” campaign to make nurseries, schools, colleges and universities places where grieving students feel seen, understood and supported. Right now, at least one child or young person in every classroom across the UK is grieving the death of a parent or sibling, and 72% of students who were bereaved while in education said that they had never been asked what support they need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West said, they need to be asked, “What do you need, and how can we support you?”
I remember vividly having to go through the story of my children’s bereavement again and again with different teachers every time they moved up in school or moved to a new school, to make sure they were aware that the children had lost their dad when they were very young. I often felt that the teachers just did not understand the impact, or how the loss could manifest itself at different ages as they grew.
Emmeline told me that her brother died aged 10 after a long illness. She said:
“I was 11 and my sister was 13. We said goodbye to him in the hospital, but it didn’t feel real, and when he died, we had so many unanswered questions that we didn’t feel able to ask for fear of upsetting our already grief-stricken parents. Although family members, teachers and our friends were kind to us, we weren’t offered counselling or professional support—I doubt it existed then—but in hindsight, this was something we really needed.
I had struggled with the grief for years and as an adult sought counselling to unravel those feelings, to learn how to cope with them when they resurfaced and understand the impact losing my brother had on me.”
The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) referred to that in his very powerful speech.
“I am sure had this help been available when I was younger, I would have been able to express my grief more openly and come to terms with it much earlier.
I can completely see how losing a close family member could negatively change the course of a child’s life and in some cases, impact society itself.”
For people who work with children as teachers, care workers, youth leaders or wellbeing professionals, understanding developmental grief is essential. Grief is not rare; it is a common childhood experience that shapes how children see themselves and the world. I know that we are asking a lot of schools at the moment, with big changes on the horizon once again, but it is a small but absolutely fundamental ask of nurseries and schools to take the time to understand how grief affects children and how they can be supported. Schools must have the tools to signpost families to support organisations.
I absolutely agree with the calls for data to be collected on how many children have suffered such bereavements, which could be done through registrar offices. Until we understand the problem, we cannot begin to fix it. I was going to ask the Minister to talk to the Department for Education—I was not sure who would respond to the debate—but he is from the Department for Education. Can we discuss how to implement better understanding of developmental grief across the education lifetime, and find a way to collect data through registrar services? Will he talk with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about uprating bereavement support payments in line with inflation, and begin the conversation about reinstating a bereavement payment that lasts until children leave school, in order to give them the best chance of overcoming the impact of the death of a parent?
Bereavement is a long, complicated and difficult journey. Members can see that, even after 23 years, it is still very, very real for me. Adding financial hardship to that journey is unjust and discriminatory, and it is time that it ended.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
May I say what a privilege it has been to be part of this debate, and how much I admire all those who have spoken about their personal stories? I do not underestimate for a second how difficult it is, but suffering a catastrophic event and trying to make other people’s lives better is about the most admirable thing someone can do.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for putting it in place. She is so self-evidently right in what she says: there needs to be a general strategy, and we need data to be made available. It is worth thinking about why those things have not happened to date, and making suggestions about how we can overcome those barriers in future.
Governments have historically been bad at cross-departmental data collection, as we know. That has been grappled with over time, but there has been no clear solution to date. I have seen such working function more effectively on occasion, such as in cross-departmental working committees on something specific. I offer that up to the Minister as a suggestion that might work. For example, in recent years there have been changes to implement a “no wrong door” policy on reporting a death. That took a lot of time. Previously, when reporting a death, as I am sure many in this Chamber have unfortunately had to do, people had to go to multiple Government Departments before the death could be recognised. That has been changed for the better, and I hope that something similar could be adopted in this case.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), whose APPG does incredible work on these matters, mentioned good practice in schools. We should think about how to collate it more systematically. We are quite effective when it comes to education policy, through the Education Endowment Foundation, which picks up what works from an academic perspective and shares good practice among schools. By and large, that is missing in the special educational needs and disabilities space, but it is also missing here. We have heard about good practice, which I am sure exists up and down the country—the hon. Lady mentioned Oakwood primary school—but there is nowhere to share it effectively. Will the Department think about how to take that forward? I am sure that there will be guidance, and I am just as sure that it could be made better.
On overall data collection, when a death is reported, it is linked to one individual rather than to a wider database. Change will need to be made on that, and the referral to the pathway is critical, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said. She also mentioned that that now happens in cases of suicide. I hope the Minister will take that up today, because we have seen that it can work. It may take time, and I think we all acknowledge that government is difficult—it is not easy to wrangle different Departments together—but that could definitely be taken forward.
Before preparing for this debate, I had not realised what the figures are for the outcomes for bereaved children, and I was quite shocked. If we have not gone through this catastrophic event, it is too easy to overlook the impact it has on young people. The statistic that the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) gave about the number of offenders who have suffered a bereavement was shocking. I hope and believe that this will be even more grist to the mill for the Education Minister to try to deal with this, because it is one of many areas across Government where early intervention—helping people—is not only the right thing to do but will benefit us and wider society.
What we have heard today is that many children who go through this have amazing families—we have some examples of those amazing families here today—and they have people around them who will support them, help them and do whatever they can to ameliorate this catastrophic incident. But that is not true of every family. Of course, the state will miss things, but if we can set up a system that minimises the impact of this catastrophic event on young people, that is the right thing to do.
I am very grateful to be part of this House today. It is these types of debate that take place in a relatively empty Chamber on a Thursday afternoon that can really make a difference to young people across the country. We have a very good Minister here, and I am sure he is about to tell us how he is going to sort this all out after many years. I commend the many voices who have spoken up today, and I am grateful to have been here for it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government to such a constructive and heartfelt debate. I thank everybody for their contributions, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing it and for her opening speech, in which she reflected not only her own personal experience but her long-standing efforts to champion these issues on behalf of so many children and families outside this place. This House is better for it.
I will turn to a few of the contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) highlighted the brilliant work being done by Vanessa Thomson and her team at Oakwood primary school in her constituency, which reflects the importance of what happens in classrooms and the essential role that teachers play. I will say a bit more about that later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) spoke about his experience of meeting petitioners Mark and John and the power of people sharing their experiences, which is probably the thing I will take away from this debate more than anything. He also shared his very painful experience of losing his younger brother. I am sure that his brother would be very proud of him, hearing the speech he gave today.
Finally, the hon. Member—my hon. Friend—for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) talked about her personal experience and those of her children, and in particular the long tail of the effect on families of losing a loved one, needing to navigate that alone and the isolation that must come from that. The point that she made on bereavement support was valid and well made. That is not within my gift as a Minister at the Department for Education, but I would be very happy to facilitate a meeting with the Minister who is responsible for those issues.
As we have heard, bereavement cuts across all our lives and is something that we will all experience—it is universal. Responsibility for bereavement crosses boundaries between Departments, and I am pleased to be responding to the debate on behalf of the Government as the Minister for Children and Families. Grief comes to all of us, although we experience it uniquely and at different times. Loss can be particularly hard for children. It is therefore vital that young people are helped and have someone to turn to for support when they need it.
Given my role as a Minister at the Department for Education, I will start and focus most on the role of schools, where the Government have taken important steps to support bereaved children. On 15 July last year, we published revised relationships, sex and health education curriculum guidance, with a focus on supporting young people to develop resilience and to live healthy, full lives. During the consultation process, we heard that the RSHE curriculum should do more to recognise bereavement. We have listened carefully, including to many of the organisations referenced by Members today. As a result, for the first time, the guidance contains new content about coping strategies for dealing with issues such as anxiety, and specifically covers issues such as loneliness and bereavement.
As a society, we should become more open to discussing loss, as Members have said, and the guidance is an important step towards opening up that conversation with our young people in a sensitive and early way. Teachers can also draw on a wide range of external expertise and resources to help tailor their lessons. I want to express my gratitude to organisations such as the Anna Freud Centre and the National Association of Funeral Directors that provide invaluable support to children and young people coping with loss and bereavement.
In developing the guidance, we worked closely with experts on childhood bereavement, including the Childhood Bereavement Network. I am extremely grateful for its help, as well as that of all the other organisations and individuals who contributed to the guidance. I also want to thank individuals including Caroline Booth, who my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) drew to my attention.
Schools can choose to adopt the revised RSHE statutory guidance now and, in response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, will be required to teach the new content from September this year. The roll-out of the new guidance has been supported by many of the organisations that helped to develop it, which are working on quality materials for teachers to use in our schools. Schools also have a wider role to play in supporting the resilience and mental health of children and young people. That is why we have made mental wellbeing, as well as health education, compulsory for all pupils in state-funded schools.
Pupils should be aware that change and loss, including bereavement, can provoke a range of feelings, that grief is a natural response to bereavement, and that everyone grieves differently. Pupils are taught how to recognise and talk about their emotions, including having a varied vocabulary of words to use when talking about their own and others’ feelings, and how to judge whether what they are feeling and how they are behaving is appropriate and proportionate. Pupils are taught to discuss their feelings with an adult and seek support. They are taught where and how to seek support, including whom in school they should speak to if they are worried about their own or someone else’s mental wellbeing or ability to control their emotions. The Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, and will provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school by expanding mental health support teams, so that every child and young person has access to early support to address problems before they escalate.
Of course, for whatever reason, young people may not always want to access support at school, so it is important to look for ways to better help young people to access alternative sources of support, including the fantastic support available in the charitable sector. Members have mentioned a number of organisations, which I congratulate on the work that they do across the country. To name just two that have not so far been mentioned, officials in my Department recently met representatives of Scotty’s Little Soldiers, which provides support to children and families of the armed services, and Sibling Support, a UK-wide charity providing critical help to children who suffer the heartbreaking loss of a sibling. Last year, we added new links to key gov.uk pages for those who have suffered a bereavement that previously included no reference to children. I thank the Childhood Bereavement Network for its support, with the Department, in ensuring that that happened.
The shadow Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), mentioned the importance of cross-Government working. We have continued to ensure that consideration of children remains a priority for the cross-Government bereavement working group, which is chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care and takes its membership from a broad range of Departments. The group meets quarterly and continues to consider options for improving services for all bereaved people, including bereaved children.
The group was formed following the UK Commission on Bereavement report in 2022, “Bereavement is Everyone’s Business”. In November 2025, the UKCB steering group, including members from the Childhood Bereavement Network, attended a meeting of the cross-Government bereavement working group to share progress on its report’s recommendations and discuss further work. Furthermore, during National Grief Awareness Week in December, Baroness Merron attended the annual meeting of the UKCB commissioners, which was chaired by the now Archbishop of Canterbury, Dame Sarah Mullally, to discuss progress on implementing the report’s recommendations and hear from adults and children with direct experience.
In summary, bereavement will come to all of us—very sadly, for some it will be when they are still young and figuring out the world. I know that all those who have spoken today and the many experts and charities working in this area share a commitment to ensuring that every child is aware of and able to access the support that they need to navigate some of the most difficult times that they will ever experience. I thank everyone for contributing to the debate, and for being prepared to share very personal and moving stories; I hope they feel that everyone in the Chamber was willing them on to do so. Again, I pay tribute and give deep thanks to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West for her passion and her continued campaigning in this area. I look forward to working with her in the future to make progress in this essential field.
Christine Jardine
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and spoken so movingly and powerfully about their own experiences and the experiences of those they have spoken to. I also thank the Minister for laying out the steps that the Government are already taking to move towards the better understanding and support that we have all talked about.
If I may say so, I think the shadow Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), summed the debate up best. It is on occasions like this, when there are no party divisions and we talk to one another as individuals about a problem that affects us all and the people we know and represent, that we see the best of this House. If any children who are grieving are watching, they will hopefully think that we have taken a first step in listening to what they have been telling us and are moving towards what they need to support them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for bereaved children.
AEA Technology Pension Scheme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD) [R]
Let me start by setting out some context and background to how we got to the AEA Technology pension scheme scandal. I will set out the moral case for redress, sum up some of the independent evidence supporting the pension campaigners’ cause, and address some previous comments made on the issue by the Government and some amendments relating to it that are currently going through the House of Lords.
I hope that we can begin on a subject of agreement. I hope that we all recognise the vital importance of pensions as part of our financial and life planning system and the importance of having a pension system in which everybody can trust. I hope the Minister will agree that that is particularly important, given that a Money and Pensions Service survey in 2024 found that 29% of 18 to 25-year-olds in work have never contributed to a private or workplace pension.
The AEA Technology pension scandal is a profound injustice that has affected thousands of individuals and families across the country. In 1996, the commercial division of the UK Atomic Energy Authority was privatised to become AEA Technology. The Government gave Parliament a number of assurances about its employees’ pensions, which led to 90% of employees transferring their pensions over. The assurances included one from Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who said in 1995 that
“employees of other parts of the authority which may be divested need not be concerned about their future pension arrangements. It is the authority’s clear policy, irrespective of employment law, that employees who move to the private sector should be able to join a pension scheme which is broadly comparable with the authority pension scheme. Indeed, to do otherwise might mean that employees had a claim for constructive dismissal.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 1995; Vol. 566, c. 1289.]
However, the new scheme turned out to be less favourable. While the UKAEA scheme had a specific provision that the Government would pay the benefits if the scheme did not, it turned out that the new scheme had no equivalent provision.
At privatisation, the Government transferred less than half of the accrued pension contributions into the new AEAT pension scheme, underfunding it from its inception. In 2012, AEA Technology entered a pre-pack administration. The underfunded AEAT pension scheme was in deficit and was transferred into the Pension Protection Fund. The employees paid into the UKAEA scheme for pensions linked to the retail prices index, but the PPF provides no inflation protection at all for the pensions those employees earned before privatisation. They now receive about 50% of the pensions they were promised. This is particularly galling for AEAT closed section pensioners, who paid extra pension contributions—30% more than in the open section—specifically to purchase RPI indexation.
At the time, the Government actuary assured people in writing that they would receive the same pension benefits from the new scheme, and specifically advised them not to consider the security of their pensions in making their decisions. Alongside this, there is strong evidence, which I am sure the campaigners would be willing to share with the Minister, that the Government transferred less than half the proper sum into the new scheme at privatisation. They kept about £200 million. Campaigners believe that had the proper sum been transferred in 1996, it is unlikely that the scheme would have been underfunded and wound up in 2012. There is a strong moral case for redress. Ultimately, for hundreds of pensioners, in my constituency and across those of my colleagues, the retirements they saved for have been blighted.
I want to say a little about why this particular pension case is unique and unusual and contains factors related to actions of the state, because I am aware that many such cases come across the Minister’s desk. Both I and my colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), have heard from our constituents about the devastating effect this scandal has had on their retirements. I spoke with campaigners in my constituency just a few weeks ago, and they told me that their plans to provide for themselves and their dependants at the end of their lives were shattered. They have lost a huge fraction of their pensions, and they told me that they feel that recent Budget changes will make very little difference to them. They have spent years pushing on this issue, only to have been failed time and again by successive Governments. On top of that, it has been estimated that around 200 of the affected campaigners have died.
Many independent reports have supported the pension campaigners’ cause. In 2023, a National Audit Office report clearly demonstrated that the Government Actuary’s Department failed to inform closed section pensioners about the loss of Treasury backing when transferring their benefits from the UKAEA pension scheme to the AEAT scheme. Later in 2023, a Public Accounts Committee investigation found that pensioners had not only been misled, but lost money as a result. It also found that no Government Department had taken responsibility, and that pensioners had been passed “from pillar to post”, as well as having no route for appeal.
In 2023, the Work and Pensions Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), concluded that the Government should report back on how they intended to ensure an adequate means of redress for the pension scheme members. The then Under-Secretary of State for pensions, Paul Maynard, accepted the Committee’s recommendations and began to communicate with the Cabinet Office on the matter, only for that to be abandoned with a change of Government. The current Government have not accepted the findings, and have stated, without particularly clear justification:
“There are no plans to offer specific redress to AEAT members.”
The Government have often claimed that the matter has been “thoroughly investigated” by previous Ministers. The pension campaigners and I feel that that is not the case.
Similarly, the response that I received to a letter from November requesting a meeting with the Minister to discuss this issue—I am grateful to him for making time to meet me—stated:
“there are no plans to put in place a further review…the Chancellor announced at the Budget that this government will introduce pre-1997 indexation into the PPF and FAS to address this matter, and that AEAT members will benefit from this measure”.
However, my constituents feel that those recent changes will make very little difference compared with what they have lost. Again, they have produced calculations to illustrate that; I am sure that they would be happy to share them, should the Minister be interested.
Perhaps more concerningly, the Department for Work and Pensions and its Ministers have repeatedly insinuated that the matter has been investigated by various ombudsmen. The truth is that no ombudsman has ever investigated the information on pension options given to scheme members by the Government and their agents in 1996.
The Pensions Ombudsman refused to investigate on the basis that the Government Actuary’s Department is excluded from its remit. The Financial Ombudsman Service cannot deal with defined-benefit pension schemes, so this did not fall within its remit either. The Pensions Ombudsman said that it could take action only if the PPF board had made a mistake, which it had not.
As the Minister will be aware, the Pension Schemes Bill is currently being debated in the House of Lords. The noble Baroness Ros Altmann, who we can all agree is widely recognised for her expertise on pension matters, recently made a strong statement supporting the AEAT case to the Lords Committee on the Pension Schemes Bill. She proposed a solution by which schemes such as AEAT’s could leave the PPF with full compensation. The Lords Minister, the noble Baroness Sherlock, rejected that proposal. The noble Lord Palmer of Childs Hill tabled amendment 218 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology.
Numerous insinuations have been made in the House of Lords, such as those made by the noble Baroness Sherlock, claiming that the 1996 Government Actuary’s Department note highlighted the risk that the scheme might fail. For the pension campaigners, that is simply not correct: the words “risk” and “fail” were not used at the time in the Government Actuary’s Department note in connection with the AEAT scheme.
In conclusion, I want to put forward three key problems to the Minister today. First, the pensioners received poor information from the Government on their pension choices at privatisation. The information that they were given was not accurate or complete, and that precluded them from making an informed choice about whether to accept the privatisation of the pension alongside their employer. Secondly, the Government retained a large proportion of the funds that should have been transferred to the new pension scheme. Thirdly, the PPF is making a large profit on the assets transferred in from the AEAT scheme, while members are receiving 50% of the benefits that they spent many decades paying for.
My affected constituents, alongside campaigners from across many constituencies, have five questions for the Minister. I hope that he will be able to answer this afternoon; if that is not possible in some cases, I hope he will be willing to make a commitment to write to me with his findings.
First, why has the current Pensions Minister refused to provide redress for AEAT pensioners without giving reasons why, even though a thorough investigation by the Public Accounts Committee concluded in their favour and the Pensions Minister at the time accepted that conclusion and indicated to the Work and Pensions Committee that he was keen to resolve the situation?
Secondly, how are the Government to be held to account for the wrongdoing that has ruined the retirement of elderly AEAT pensioners, many of whom, very sadly, have passed away without justice, given that the previous Administration accepted the objective, non-political findings of the Public Accounts Committee?
Thirdly, why do Government officials, particularly in the Department for Work and Pensions, repeatedly make insinuations to the effect that the AEAT pension situation has been thoroughly investigated by previous Ministers when the evidence does not support that assertion?
Fourthly, why is the Government’s position on AEAT pensions the exact opposite of that taken by the right hon. Member for East Ham when he was Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee?
Fifthly, will the Minister require or request that the Government Actuary’s Department publish its calculations —not just the assumptions underlying its calculations—of the sum transferred to the AEAT scheme at privatisation, on the basis that GAD presumably calculated what the cash equivalent transfer sum required by the Pension Schemes Act 1993 would have been?
I hope we can all agree that it is vital that people invest in their pensions during the course of their working lives, so that they can have confidence in their wellbeing and livelihoods when they reach retirement. That is particularly important because of the figures I cited at the beginning of my speech, which reveal a worrying lack of investment in private or workplace pensions. This is not just about redress for the AEAT pension campaign, although that is the most important thing; this is about showing that the Government believe in the integrity of pension schemes and are committed to making sure that everybody has faith in those pension schemes. It is so important for people to invest in them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing today’s debate, and endorse his opening remarks about the general importance of pensions. We should all think that, but Pensions Ministers should certainly endorse wholeheartedly what he said. He and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions, and he has spoken clearly and passionately about it today, as always. We all absolutely understand why it has such resonance, particularly for his constituents.
I express my sympathy for all the AEAT pension scheme members. All of us would hate to see our employer enter administration and our pension scheme enter the Pension Protection Fund. I meet a wide range of individuals who have been through that exact experience, and many of them rightly bring the same kind of passion to their cases as he has done. That is particularly true of many of those with pre-1997 accrued pensions, as was the case for many members of this scheme.
The hon. Member is right to say that there was a particular focus on securing better indexation at the point of transfer, so I can understand why these pensioners feel that they have not secured what they had hoped for. It is also particularly true for those with accrued public sector pensions that transferred into private sector schemes at the point of privatisation. We are discussing one of them today, but it is far from the only one—Carillion is obviously the highest-profile case in the recent past. That can no longer happen, given the changes that have been put in place. At the point of privatisation, we will no longer see accrued pension rights transferred into private sector schemes. This is a real issue, but that exact situation cannot occur in future.
As we have heard, this matter has a long and complex history. The company was privatised 30 years ago, in 1996. On the hon. Member’s questions about the value at transfer, the reassurance I can offer—I know it will not be enough for his constituents and others who have raised the case with him—is that the transfer value was agreed by the trustees. It was not proposed by the firm or the Government at the point of transfer, and the financial assumptions that underpinned it were common at the time.
Unfortunately, as we have heard, AEAT entered administration in 2012, which resulted in its pension fund scheme entering the PPF. Of course, that was when the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition Government were in office. It is not for me to speak for the coalition Government, who included a Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister, but they responded to the grievances raised by pension scheme members by maintaining that all legal obligations had been fulfilled and that the safety net existed through the PPF. I understand that that is not the position of the hon. Member, but it was the position of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition Government at the time.
The hon. Member has raised two big-picture concerns, to which I will try to do some justice. One is about the income levels that scheme members are living on, which is the most immediate and important thing, and the other is about the consideration of this case by appropriate bodies. On the first of those, AEAT members receive compensation from the PPF, which is a well-established compensation scheme that provides a vital safety net. I do not want to underplay that, because the world before the PPF saw members exposed to much more risk in the case of insolvency. We do not want to underplay the importance of the PPF compensation route, but there have been concerns about the lack of indexation of pensions accrued before 1997, which in this case applies to all the pensions accrued prior to privatisation.
Unlike previous Governments, we have listened to those concerns and are acting. The Government have brought forward legislation in the form of the Pension Schemes Bill, which the hon. Member mentioned. It will introduce annual increases to compensation payments that relate to pensions built up before 6 April 1997 where the schemes provided for this. I can confirm that AEAT members will benefit from the changes to the PPF, because their scheme provided for such indexation, as we have discussed. That will make a real difference in the years ahead by making sure that we do not see further erosion of the value of their pensions due to inflation.
Turning to the second issue raised, the hon. Member is aware that this matter has been considered by a range of different Government and parliamentary bodies since the insolvency in 2012. That includes the Public Accounts Committee inquiry, which he mentioned. All I would say is that the first recommendation of that inquiry was that we address the issue of pre-1997 indexation within the PPF. The answer to his first question is that we have taken those inquiries seriously. That is one of the contributing factors to our acting now, unlike previous Governments, to address the issue of pre-1997 indexation in the PPF.
This issue has been debated twice previously in Parliament, although it is a decade since it was last discussed, so I am sure scheme members will be glad to see the hon. Member bringing it back before Parliament. It has obviously been raised in other debates. Most recently, I have been involved in discussions of it during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill, during which hon. Members on both sides of the House raised it, including on Report on the Floor of the House just a matter of months ago.
Multiple ombudsmen have considered specific complaints —the hon. Member is right to say that they have considered specific complaints, not the case as a whole—and in the majority of those cases, they have come to a view, not said that it is out of scope. One did such a thing, but in general they have considered the specific complaints raised and brought them to a resolution, although obviously not always in the in the way that some people would prefer.
More generally, my reflection is that I understand the temptation to call for more reviews in this case, because scheme members—and I have spoken to some myself—do not feel fairly treated. I understand that, and it is right that hon. Members come to the House to raise such effects on their constituents in debates like today’s. However, the Government’s view is that the best thing we can do is not to promise further reviews, but to act. The most important way in which we can act, given the circumstances, is by addressing the lack of pre-1997 indexation for AEAT members.
Olly Glover
I understand what the Minister is saying about pre-1997 indexation, but that is not the primary issue. The calculations by the campaigners about the difference this makes to their losses is that it is trivial—very small. I do not have the exact percentage, but it is probably a 5% difference, or something along those lines. I am very happy to share that with the Minister. That does not address the key issue, which is that Government guidance was incorrect at the time, and that led people to make decisions on the basis of wrong information. I suggest to the Minister that pre-1997 indexation is a different issue.
Torsten Bell
I recognise the point the hon. Member is making, which is that the nature of insolvency and entering into the PPF will have made more of a difference than future PPF accruals. However, had a previous Government—for example, the one that included the Liberal Democrats—introduced pre-1997 indexation a decade back, it would have made significantly more than a 5% difference. That would have made a very large difference to the pensions that AEAT members are living on today.
I am responsible for what the Government are doing about indexation now, and it is a lot more than 5%, because even in just the last years inflation has been running at particularly high levels. I do not agree with the hon. Member’s calculation, but I do agree with him that that is definitely not the entire story. I totally understand that members’ feeling about the advice they received back in the 1990s is at the core of their view that they should never have been in a situation where their pensions were transferred out of the public sector in the first place, and he is right to say that that issue is different from the indexation that occurs within the PPF.
I am merely pointing out that the reviews the hon. Member has mentioned, including that of the Public Accounts Committee, focused on the issue of indexation. My best bet is that, if the Government were not acting on this issue, it would have been one of the issues he raised with us here today, but he is completely right to say that it is not everything. I have said what we are doing to address the lack of indexation: we are acting where previous Governments failed to do so, and acting because we can all put ourselves in the shoes of pensioners who have not seen their pension incomes live up to what they were expecting, through no fault of their own.
Let me close by again congratulating the hon. Member on securing this debate and for giving us the opportunity to speak on such an important subject. I appreciate that I cannot and have not offered everything that he and, indeed, AEAT scheme members would want, but this Government are making real, concrete changes to better protect the pensions of those members from inflation in the years to come. That cannot right all of their feelings about what has happened in the past, but as I say, this Government are choosing to act rather than promising another review in the months and years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Postal Services in Inkberrow
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
Backbench Business
(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
Eating Disorders Awareness Week
(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
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Eating Disorders Awareness Week 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. This year, Eating Disorders Awareness Week is centred on the theme of community. Over the past six years, as chair of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group, I have witnessed the power of community at first hand. Our APPG has grown into a determined group of MPs, campaigners, clinicians, researchers, families and, crucially, people with lived experience. I thank my colleagues across the House who continue to work constructively on this issue. I also pay tribute to Hope Virgo, our tireless secretariat, who has turned lived experience into sustained strategic campaigning. Of course, I also thank Beat, the eating disorder charity, without whose tireless campaigning Eating Disorder Awareness Week would not even come before this Parliament.
Despite the tireless campaigning and the greater awareness of this tragic illness, however, I must confess to deep frustration. Over those six years, things have not improved; they have worsened. The number of children and young people treated for eating disorders has risen by around two fifths since the pandemic. The 2019 health survey for England found that the proportion of adults with a likely eating disorder had risen from about 6% in 2007 to 16% in 2019.
Adults in England wait up to 700 days, almost two years, just to start treatment. Not only are we failing to treat people quickly enough; too often we fail to identify them at all. Of the estimated 360,000 children and young people affected, only about 55,000 were identified by GPs in 2020, and even fewer accessed specialist care. Only a fraction of adults receive a formal diagnosis. That is the devastating reality facing eating disorder sufferers across the country.
Our APPG is therefore calling on the Government to introduce a dedicated national eating disorder strategy. At the last debate on this issue in September, the Minister for Care expressed concern about a “proliferation” of documents and strategies. He said that he was “not convinced” that adding stand-alone strategies alongside guidance and plans would improve outcomes. Eating disorders are among the most complex and deadly mental health conditions. If ever there was a case for a dedicated cross-departmental strategy, this is it. Without a unified strategy, we are left with fragmented guidance and piecemeal reform that fail to match the scale and seriousness of the challenge. I repeat our call today: it is time for a dedicated national eating disorder strategy.
When we think of community, we often think of our friends, neighbours and colleagues, but for many young people, community is no longer primarily physical; it is digital, and the community that they encounter online often reinforces their problems rather than helping them to recover. Platforms are saturated with pro-eating disorder content. That includes misleading nutritional advice and distorted body image ideals. One alarming trend is in so-called recovery accounts: rather than providing helpful advice to sufferers, they often share tips on hiding behaviours from staff or how to minimise meals.
Research by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate reveals something deeply concerning. When researchers created simulated 13-year-old users on YouTube, the platform’s algorithm recommended harmful eating disorder content in one out of every four videos they watched—one in four. But it gets worse: when these harmful videos were reported, nearly three quarters of them were not removed. Even after being flagged, most of this dangerous content stayed online. This is not simply about individual users; it is about algorithms amplifying harm. A single pause on a video can trigger a stream of increasingly harmful material. Even when users block accounts or report content, similar posts rapidly reappear under a new hashtag.
In September, the Minister for Care rightly acknowledged that the Government must address the underlying drivers behind the rise in eating disorders, including the online environment. I welcome that recognition, but I am concerned that he pointed to the Online Safety Act 2023 as an example of how this can be addressed. After the global ban of #SkinnyTok, new hashtags emerged almost immediately, after which the same harmful content was posted. We must focus on the algorithms that amplify harmful content. Through Ofcom, the Government must hold social media giants to account when their platforms repeatedly allow harmful content to circulate. Relying on the victims of such content to report continuously and become the regulators cannot be right.
If there is one lesson that the APPG has learnt over six years, it is that eating disorders are profoundly misunderstood, and that misunderstanding costs lives. Early warning signs are often missed, leaving families to navigate complex and frightening conditions without guidance or support. That lack of training translates directly into delayed recognition, unsafe discharge decisions and prolonged suffering. In 2017, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman warned of avoidable death and systemic failings in NHS eating disorder services. It called for improved training, better co-ordination and cross-organisational learning. Nine years later, we are still seeing the same failures.
Across England, many of the specialist community eating disorder teams lack a consultant psychiatrist. Vacancy rates for consultant posts remain high. There is guidance available, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ medical emergencies in eating disorders guidance, but it is inconsistently applied. Where training is offered, it is patchy, inconsistent and too often voluntary.
Last year, I was contacted by the family of Ruby Hamill, a young woman with a history of severe anorexia nervosa. While held on remand at HMP New Hall, she collapsed after being unable to eat for almost a month. Despite her known history of anorexia, she received no eating disorder treatment in prison. She was later treated for refeeding syndrome, a life-threatening complication, after being granted humanitarian bail. Thankfully, Ruby survived, but she nearly died in the care of the state due to an absence of clear, mandatory standards and properly trained staff.
Frontline staff need practical, evidence-based training. They must be able to recognise early warning signs and know how to ask sensitive questions, communicate without reinforcing harmful thinking and escalate concerns safely. Proper training saves lives. If we are serious about tackling this crisis, we must equip frontline staff with the skills and knowledge they need to help people effectively.
Training alone, however, is not enough. Even the most skilled professionals cannot protect patients within a system that lacks clear, enforceable standards on timely access to care. For children and young people, there is a waiting time standard—95% of urgent cases seen within one week, and routine cases within four weeks—yet that is not consistently met. For adults, there is no waiting time standard at all. Recent data shows that median waits are 42 days, with some waiting many months, even more than a year, for assessment or treatment. During that time, physical health deteriorates and hospital admissions become more likely.
Access to quality care is a postcode lottery. Only one in six integrated care systems currently provide sufficient intensive community or day treatment for both children and adults. I welcome the commitment to expand intensive community and day services, but we must not allow community care to be a pretext for the erosion of specialist in-patient units. Specialist in-patient services stabilise those who are critically unwell. They offer a range of expertise that community teams cannot always replicate. Yet we do not currently have enough specialist beds for the acute level of need that exists.
At the same time, our research has found some deeply concerning discharge practices. Recent freedom of information requests to all trusts across the UK found that people with eating disorders are often being discharged with a BMI of under 15, and in some cases far lower. I am concerned that we are discharging patients who are medically unsafe simply because beds are scarce. If community and day services are to succeed, they must be properly funded and able to intervene early, so that everyone can receive quality care closer to their home. When people receive timely and evidence-based support, the need for intensive in-patient or day treatment can fall by around a third. That reduces risks for patients and long-term pressures on NHS services.
We cannot solve this crisis by shifting care around the system. We must build capacity across the whole pathway—early intervention, community provision and specialist in-patient care—so that access is determined by need, not postcode.
In October last year, our APPG published a report on preventing deaths related to eating disorders. It made for harrowing reading. Although some areas of the UK showcased pockets of good practice, the evidence is clear that unsafe discharges are still far too common and that the system fails to prevent avoidable deaths. People with anorexia are five to six times more likely to die—through physical complications, or suicide—than the general population.
In many cases, deaths from eating disorders are misrecorded or omitted from death certificates, with death instead being attributed to organ failure or suicide. As a result, we do not even have exact statistics for eating disorder deaths, which means the true scale of the crisis remains unclear. If we cannot even accurately record how many people are dying from these illnesses—these eating disorders—how can we possibly begin to address the scale of the problem?
The APPG has repeatedly called for a confidential inquiry into eating disorder deaths, which would be similar to the inquiries into maternal deaths that already exist, so that patterns can be identified and lessons learned. We know what we need to do. We have a strategy planned and—through the APPG—we have experts who are willing to support this work.
In September last year, I asked for a follow-up on what the Department is doing to ensure that eating disorder deaths are recorded accurately on death certificates. I was promised an update from the Minister for Women’s Health and Mental Health on progress in this area. I waited for weeks. It was only after I raised the matter in the main Chamber that I eventually received a written response, which stated that the issue did not lie with the Department of Health and Social Care but with the Ministry of Justice, and that I would be contacted shortly. Why did it take weeks to give me that information? That was in November, and I am still waiting. I still have not heard from the Ministry of Justice.
I appreciate that Ministers face competing pressures, but this issue is about accurately recording avoidable deaths. It should not require repeated parliamentary interventions for an MP to finally receive an answer to their question. I ask the Minister in Westminster Hall today: when can I expect an answer and when will families receive the transparency they deserve?
In 2020, it was estimated that eating disorders cost the UK £9.4 billion annually. That is just the cost for the NHS. It is not the full cost of what eating disorders cost us as a society, including the cost to life and to family, and the stress caused by someone waiting years and years for treatment, or being finally treated successfully, if they are treated at all.
Between 2015 and 2019, however, research into eating disorders received only around 1% of UK mental health research funding. We are spending billions on managing the consequences of this problem, while investing only a fraction of that amount in understanding the causes and improving treatments. We cannot reduce long-term costs if we continue to under-invest in research. In line with the Government’s focus on early intervention and prevention, the current situation must change.
The eating disorder community is strong, passionate and determined. Our goal is to grow the community beyond those who are already engaged with it, to reach those who do not yet recognise the symptoms, and to engage those who think that eating disorders are “someone else’s issue”, because they are not. No one should be dying of an eating disorder in 2026. No parent should be forced to fight the system while fighting for their child’s life. No person should be told that they are “not ill enough” to deserve care.
We need a dedicated national eating disorder strategy. We need sustained and proportionate research funding. We need mandatory workforce training. We need a waiting time standard for adults. We need accurate death recording and a confidential inquiry into all eating disorder-related deaths. We also need stronger online regulations. We know what needs to change, and the APPG stands ready to work constructively with Ministers to deliver it. There is no time to waste.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. If anyone requires any assistance during the course of this debate, please see the Doorkeeper.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is, as always, a special pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. You always seem to do the Thursday afternoon debates and, by and large, I seem to be here too—but that is by the way. Some might say, “Well, where else would you find him?” But there we are.
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). In the time the hon. Lady has been here, she has been very much a hard advocate on this issue. Every one of us recognises her commitment and leadership on this matter. I put on the record my thanks to her for what she has done, what she continues to do and, indeed, if God spares her, what she will do in the future as well. It is really important.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak up a little? I think people in the Public Gallery cannot really hear.
Jim Shannon
Of course. I do not think I need to do the introduction again; I will leave it at that.
I want to tell a story—the hon. Member for Bath already knows it—about one of my constituents. I was elected in 2010, and in 2012 two of my constituents, a mum and a dad, came to see me about their daughter. They were both police officers and I knew them extremely well; I knew them through a friendship we had outside the police, but also because they were officers I would contact as an elected representative. Their daughter— I am not going to mention her name, nor theirs—had severe bulimia. She was a lovely looking young girl, by the way, and very bright, but she had a real problem.
This is the true story of that family’s journey. They came to me worried sick about what was going to happen with their daughter, what they could do and what could be done. Along with them, I approached the Health Minister in Northern Ireland at that time—Edwin Poots, my party colleague—and told him the story. We did not have anything in Northern Ireland to address issues relating to eating disorders, so we had to come here to do that. I remember meeting the parents in Central Lobby in 2012, and them telling me that the Minister in Northern Ireland, Edwin Poots, had been able to transfer that young lady to St Thomas’ hospital—just across the river—to get the help that that young lady needed.
It is a transformational story, because by doing that, they saved that young girl’s life—and they did not just save her life. I know her well. One day, I was canvassing down in Millisle at the edge of my constituency. I knocked on the door and there she was, with two young children. That intervention by the Health Minister in Northern Ireland helped to save her life and to give her a life for the future. It is an example of what can be done if everyone works together to ensure that things go the right way. I will also say unashamedly that, while it was down to the NHS intervention, the prayers of God’s people undoubtedly saved that young girl’s life as well.
I want to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland. I gave that example because it shows how we worked in Northern Ireland and with the health service here to give that young lady the support to start her life, which ultimately led to her husband and then her children. Official figures show that people referred for eating disorder support in some areas face significant waiting times, with people experiencing delays as part of broader pressures on mental health services.
The hon. Member for Bath referred in her speech to mental health issues; those are some of the things we have to try to overcome collectively. In addition, mental health waiting times have been deemed unacceptable, and there has been a failure to publish comprehensive waiting-time data. I do not think there are many debates where the issue of data is as important as it is in health. The data tells us the direction we need to go in and gives us the evidence to put together a programme of response, and to find a better way of doing things. There has been a failure to publish waiting time data for child and adolescent mental health services, which is critical in supporting young people—more often than not, it is young people who suffer.
I also want to raise the impact of social media on people who suffer with eating disorders. In the last year we have seen a drastic rise in advertising related to weight-loss jabs. It is fair to say that they are easy to get and use, they are somewhat affordable, and they offer a quick fix or change. Although the premise of weight-loss injections is good, and the intention is to get people to a healthy weight, for those with eating disorders they have the potential to undermine awareness of healthy nutrition, exercise and mental health support. It is important that they are not seen as another way to try to get that perfect body, if I can use that terminology.
Social media can be toxic enough, and I worry very much about the young girl who is struggling with the likes of anorexia or bulimia, who idolises the “perfect body” achieved through weight jabs and so on, and who almost dies trying to get there. Is there any control over who can access weight-loss jobs? Can we get a better idea of their intentions, or of some of their problems? Many advertisements do not adequately convey the medical risks, the contradictions or the need for supervision, leaving vulnerable users to try treatments unsafely. Those with eating disorders may misinterpret ads as offering a safe method to lose weight quite quickly, thereby increasing the risk of physical and mental health complications.
Eating Disorders Awareness Week, which the hon. Member for Bath has kindly given us the chance to participate in with this debate, reminds us that behind every statistic is a person. I gave the example of the young person I knew, and their success story; there are many other successes, but sometimes, with sadness, we recall those people who do not make it. In Northern Ireland, long waiting times, limited specialist services and rising demand mean that too many people are not getting help when they need it most. At the same time, toxic social media content and the relentless pressure to conform to unrealistic body ideals are fuelling anxiety, low self-esteem and harmful behaviours, particularly among young people.
Throughout the time I have got to know him, the Minister has always been very responsive to our requests in these debates. There is a lot of pressure across all of the United Kingdom in respect of anorexia and bulimia. Has the Minister had a chance, in the short time he has been in post, to have a discussion with the Health Minister back in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, about how we can better work together to try to address these issues? I am conscious that most of the treatment probably happens here; some of it can be done in Northern Ireland, but services there cannot catch and keep up with the level of problems. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that those who are struggling can access the support they need, both here and further afield in my own Northern Ireland.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
You will not be surprised to hear that it is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.
I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for the way she introduced the debate and for her leadership of the APPG on eating disorders. I join her in thanking Hope Virgo for all the work that she does. In many ways, eating disorders can be a hidden condition—even a secretive condition—but Hope really does give the topic the publicity that otherwise it would not get. Hope has been through a lot, and I would not wish what she has been through on anyone, but we are lucky that she is the campaigner she is.
Wera Hobhouse
It is also worth mentioning the many people who have come forward to bravely tell their stories, raise awareness and take away the stigma. We know how much courage it takes to come forward. I want to collectively thank everybody who does that. We need more people to come forward and talk about their experiences, but I thank everybody who has come forward.
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. I do not attend the APPG as much as I should, but when I do people tell amazingly personal stories about what has happened to them, not only as survivors but as people who have lost loved ones. It can be very emotional for people, but it is important that we share the stories and experiences. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), because he has been a fantastic champion in the House of Commons. I am surprised that he is not here, but I expect he has a good reason. Maybe he is watching.
I want to focus on the role of community. We are trying through the APPG to create a sense of community. We all accept that proper community support is hugely beneficial to those with mental health issues generally. Through my membership of the APPG, and my work as an MP more widely, I have become much better informed about what community looks like for those with eating disorders. The support of a community, whether it be family, friends, school or a support organisation, is a wonderful thing for anyone struggling with their mental health. It is so often the first support network that someone will reach out to, and families and friends are there to catch their loved ones in the most difficult times.
Community care is often the best approach to eating disorder care. Beat’s “There’s No Place Like Home” report highlights the importance of expanding access to intensive community and day treatment for eating disorders. In many cases, it could be a lifeline for those struggling, allowing them to access a support network nearby, rather than being sent to treatment facilities sometimes hundreds of miles from their homes. However, effective community care can seem a long way off when the existing services for eating disorder treatments are so stretched right across the UK.
I want to talk a little bit about Scotland, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) is the Minister. The crisis in young people’s mental healthcare in Scotland is acute. CAMHS in Scotland are overwhelmed, and constituents contact me every week about their difficulties accessing services. My staff have to tell me to be careful not to raise people’s expectations, because the service is so overwhelmed. I have met staff who work in CAMHS and they are working so hard. I pay absolute tribute to them. They just need more resources.
I spoke to the chief executive of NHS Lothian specifically about the support for people with eating disorders, and she was very frank. She had just come into post and said that she thought the service was at the absolute minimum acceptable level. Perhaps I should not have welcomed that, but I did, because the starting point for fixing a broken system is to accept that it is not working. I welcome the fact that she did not try to gloss over it.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another big consideration is the mental health toll on people who work in eating disorder services and know that they cannot provide an adequate service to the many people who suffer? What are we doing for the people who work in these services and who want to do the best they can but simply cannot because of a lack of resources?
Dr Arthur
The workforce plan is key to resolving that, although I do not know an area in the NHS that has too many staff and wants to redistribute them. It is a huge challenge and we have to address it. Again, the starting point is to acknowledge that there is an issue and offer staff support where we where we can.
I raised this issue with NHS Lothian’s chief executive because—this was partly me exploiting my position— I had a close family member who had been dealing with an eating disorder. She was given an appointment to meet the service, and I was so frustrated, because it was months and months into the future. I waited patiently— I am a patient person—and my hope built up and up as we got closer to that day, but when we reached it, and my loved one went to the appointment, it was merely an assessment of whether a person needed proper support. I felt completely deflated. Hopefully, people are not still going through that.
In these times of crisis, it is all too often communities and families who are left to step up to provide what care they can. I have met parents in my constituency who are doing their absolute best for their children. I met one woman—another anecdote, I am afraid, Ms Vaz—who told me that her daughter was so weak that she had to phone an ambulance to take her to hospital. When her daughter arrived at the hospital, the medics said she was too weak to be removed from the ambulance and had to treat her there. The nature of the condition can often be secretive and very hidden until it is—hopefully not—too late.
Parents doing their absolute best is not enough, and professional medical help is required. Both the UK Government and the Scottish Government must go further to ensure that treatment is more readily accessible for those who can no longer rely solely on the support of their loved ones—I will come back to that. However, when considering the idea of community around eating disorders, we must also consider the online world and its ability to create a space for more dangerous communities.
Pro-eating disorder content, as referred to by the hon. Member for Bath, exists across the internet, from independent forums to social media sites that we all use daily. Those groups or posts provide “thinspiration” and tips on how someone can starve themselves or make themselves throw up. They glamorise the awful illness that eating disorders are, introducing them to previously well children and young people who might not have considered them, exaggerating conditions and sometimes normalising them.
This became particularly concerning during the pandemic, where we also saw a massive growth in eating disorders among the male population, as many young people were left isolated from their peers, turning to online communities. Instead of support, all too often they found content that damaged their mental health and isolated them further from the people around them. It is hard to understand just how disturbingly common such content is. Figures from April 2025 show that more than a quarter of young people have been exposed to eating disorder content online, which is likely an underestimation. That sits alongside the one third of children who have seen self-harm and suicide content online.
Social media sites are feeding young people this content from a never-ending algorithm, which we also heard about from the hon. Member for Bath. More children are likely to consume the content because of social media and its algorithms. The more they continue to see such content, the more they consume it, and the more they consume it, the more they continue to see it, creating a greater relationship with those harmful online communities.
The proliferation of this content is the result of passivity from tech firms, and in part, their profit motives. One study shows that Meta derives an annual $2 million in profit from pro-eating disorder content on Instagram. With content creating such profits, it is hard to see why social media sites would have ever self-regulated to ensure that content was hidden from children.
I met Meta this week, not to talk explicitly about eating disorders but to talk about the proposed ban on social media for under-16s. I can see that it is something the company feels challenged by, because it is concerned about a loss of income—not from people under 16, but from losing them as users as they move into adulthood. I hope, perhaps blindly, that there is an opportunity to work with those companies to ensure that the ban works properly. I support a ban on under-16s’ access to social media, and I know that my constituents do as well. We must also work with charities in this sector to make sure that the ban works.
I welcome the Online Safety Act and its commitment to ensuring that children see less harmful online content. Many constituents have contacted me since the summer raising concerns about the Act and what it means for their use of the internet as adults—often men, as hon. Members may not be surprised to hear. I understand the wider flaws, which I think were raised by the hon. Member for Bath when she spoke about their impact. While it is not perfect for eating disorders and suicidal ideation content for children and young people, it adds quite a lot of friction and makes it harder for young people to access that content. The Act is not perfect, but it is definitely a step in the right direction, and is a key part of protecting young people and reducing their exposure to harmful content, including eating disorder content and other negative influences.
I have only one more anecdote, you will be glad to hear, Ms Vaz. When I googled content about eating disorders and the Government policy on the train this morning, I was pleased to see Google was good at putting a warning in place, telling me that I might want to phone a particular helpline or contact a particular service to talk about eating disorders if that was why I was googling them. I was impressed by that and it is a good example of how tech companies, while they are quite often the bad guys, can do good stuff in this space as well. We must continue to ensure that communities supporting those with eating disorders are supported by proper medical care where necessary, and do all we can to remove harmful content.
I am sure this is not the first time that the Minister has attended a debate in Westminster Hall, or even in the main Chamber, in which the Government have been asked for a strategy, more staff and greater clarity about what they do. I know that he cares about this subject and that the Government are doing work in this area, but the calls for a strategy make sense because it would help to pin that work together and give us clarity about the next steps. I look forward to hearing the Minister sum up.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for introducing the debate and for her enormous dedication and hard work on this vital issue over many years.
I would like to talk about the themes that have arisen from constituency cases that my team and I have encountered and supported. The key concern is not the clinical aspects of care but the delay and fragmentation of the ownership of care. Life-threatening conditions can drift. Gaining access to care, support and treatment often involves a Kafkaesque labyrinth of dysfunctional process and procedure, and referrals and re-referrals between a range of teams in the complicated organisation that the NHS is. We need independent specialist assessments, safe interim arrangements, and timely and accountable co-ordination of care.
Some people wait more than eight months for an answer either way regarding whether they are eligible for treatment under the current criteria. That can further compromise their confidence in coming forward and asking for support. It can have a huge personal cost, impacting people’s ability to drive or work, reducing life expectancy and creating long-term medical complications, which add to wider pressures on the NHS. As in other debates that we have about healthcare in this country, this issue highlights an area where, if we get the start of the process right with early, preventive interventions, we will be able to help individuals and alleviate some of the pressure on critical care services.
Wera Hobhouse
It is worth mentioning again that if a person with an eating disorder does not get treatment, it takes them three times as long as they have been suffering to recover. If they have suffered from an eating disorder for three years, it takes them nine years to fully recover. We know from other health services that early intervention is key, but it is particularly important for eating disorders because the longer they are left, the much longer the recovery process is. Some people never recover and it is a life sentence.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend again shows her wealth of knowledge and experience of this topic. Some of the cases that my team and I have supported have involved people who have been living with eating disorders for decades. I have also seen cases where the transition from support services for children and young people into those for adults has been managed badly. That is not unique to eating disorders; it is a wider issue in mental health provision.
As we have heard, eating disorders can have a devastating impact. They rob people of years of life, wipe out adolescence, remove educational and social opportunities, and leave many isolated and unable to cope. Eating disorders are one of the deadliest mental health conditions and constitute a significant health crisis. Cases of eating disorders have surged, with hospital admissions doubling in a decade. It is a huge concern, in the face of that crisis, that eating disorder services are being cut in much of the country. Over half of the country’s integrated care boards have cut real-terms spending on children’s eating disorder services in the last financial year.
I am proud of the leadership that parliamentarians such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath and Baroness Parminter in the other place have shown on this issue, including working with campaign groups such as Dump the Scales. The scandal of people being told that they are “not thin enough” for medical help must end. Far too many people cannot access the services they need.
I welcome recent guidance from NHS England on how to design eating disorder services to support children and young people better, but we need to do more than tinker around the edges with updated guidance. We need a meaningful national strategy to transform these services, with more specialist support, and we need to build a culture across the health service and beyond that recognises the complexities of eating disorders and the terrible dangers they pose.
Lending urgency to that is the fact that the target of 95% of urgent cases receiving treatment within a week, and routine cases receiving it within four weeks, is routinely being missed. From September to November last year, only 78% of urgent referrals and 82% of routine referrals started treatment within the target timeframe. That is why I am very happy to support a wider Liberal Democrat campaign for investment in community health services and prevention, including better specialist support for people with eating disorders. As we heard from my hon. Friend, early intervention can greatly reduce the number of people who are suffering.
We are also campaigning for regular mental health check-ups—the concept of a mental health MOT—at key points in people’s lives when they are most vulnerable to mental ill health. Like others who have spoken, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. So many people are suffering, and lots of people are trying to help—that is not the issue. We need to make the overall system work much better, with all its different component parts working towards the goal of supporting people.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate and for her dogged campaigning, her tireless work as chair of the APPG on eating disorders and her excellent opening speech.
I welcome Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and the important role that it plays in drawing attention to one of the deadliest and most harrowing conditions. I recognise and draw attention to the eating disorder charity Beat, which offers invaluable support for those with eating disorders, and the carers and healthcare professionals who provide support that, in many cases, can be lifesaving.
Anyone with personal experience of eating disorders will know just how devastating they can be. They rob young people of the formative years of their life, put immense strain on families and carers, and have long-lasting physical and psychological impacts. I was shocked to learn that hospital admissions for eating disorders have doubled in the last decade. A development as stark as that demands robust action and investment. At the same time, over half of the country’s integrated care boards have cut children’s eating disorder services. Children and young people cannot be allowed to slip through the net because of underfunded services.
The National Audit of Eating Disorders found huge disparities in the levels of support available for children compared with adults who have eating disorders. Adult community teams face an 89% higher demand than teams that support children and young people, with adults waiting twice as long for assessment and over 10 times as long for treatment. For a condition that progresses devastatingly quickly, early intervention is crucial.
The Liberal Democrats welcome NHS England’s recent guidance on improving the design of eating disorder services and community-based support, but that support cannot fulfil its potential without investment and a meaningful strategy to tackle the problem. I add the calls of my party to those from the Members who have made excellent speeches in today’s debate.
In Shropshire, I was pleased to see recent improvements in waiting times for children and young people awaiting treatment for eating disorders, with 96% of patients seen within four weeks. That has come from a fairly low standard, so it is a huge improvement, and I congratulate everybody involved. However, a quarter of children and young people referred to mental health services as a whole did not receive contact within the four-week waiting standard, and 19% were not seen within 18 weeks. Those waiting times are unacceptable. Urgent mental health problems are exactly that: urgent. Time is of the essence when tackling an eating disorder, and delays in assessment and treatment carry serious dangers.
I know from constituents who have gone through the process of trying to access treatment for their children just how difficult it can be to get support on time, because services are underfunded, waiting lists are long and resources are stretched. I have heard from parents of daughters whose condition was not deemed serious enough for them to be referred to an eating disorder clinic, despite their having a dangerously low weight and BMI—they were told, essentially, that she needed to be thinner. I do not need to explain just how problematic it is to imply that someone’s condition must get significantly worse before they can be seen.
One mother’s tale of struggling to get support for her daughter is too harrowing to report in this debate, but her cry for help speaks volumes:
“Please help us…I am scared and desperate.”
When patients do access treatment, gain some weight and are discharged, many are not given the continued mental health support they need to prevent relapses of the condition. That cannot go on.
We must not underestimate the impact of eating disorders on entire families. Patients require around-the-clock care in many cases to ensure that they receive the support and nutrition they urgently need. One self-employed single mother who wrote to me about the delays and failures she had encountered when seeking support for her daughters had to forgo her income to care for them. We need far better support for unpaid family carers struggling to support their loved ones with eating disorders, and we must ensure they have the training and advice they need to be able to provide the help that is so urgent.
The Government’s primary course of action for easing this burden should be to provide patients with the support they need, when they need it. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for proper investment in community mental health services, prevention and specialist support for eating disorders. We are campaigning to establish mental health hubs for young people in every community and to have a dedicated mental health professional in every primary and secondary school and regular mental health check-ups for the most vulnerable.
Our Opposition day debate on Tuesday called for action to ensure that cinema-style age classification ratings are applied to social media sites to prevent children from being subjected to the worrying proliferation of harmful content promoting eating disorders, which, as we have heard, can be so pernicious and damaging. I urge other parties in this place to put aside the politics of that and to support our calls—as many children’s charities do—to ensure that an appropriate safeguarding regime is put in place for children’s use of social media.
The Government must improve early access to mental health services so that cases can be caught early, before they become critical. Can the Minister commit to preserving the mental health investment standard and reinstating targets for the treatment of mental health issues, especially for young people, so that we can do that? The stories we hear from families and patients of their experiences of eating disorders are heartbreaking. We must treat these conditions with the urgency they deserve.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this important debate and on her work in this area.
Eating disorders are deeply complex conditions. On the surface, disordered eating can take a variety of forms, including restricting the amount or the type of food eaten; binge eating large amounts of food in a short period and then purging that food through forced vomiting; excessive exercise; and laxative misuse to avoid weight gain. Beneath that surface lay a horde of drivers, such as control, shame, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, poor body image, and mysophobia, which is also known as germophobia.
The covid pandemic provoked intense scrutiny of germs and cleanliness, took away people’s control over when they could go out and when they could see their friends, and drove their activities from the personal to the online, so it comes as no surprise that it saw a spike in eating disorder referrals. By early 2021-22, 3,400 people were treated for an eating disorder, compared with 1,900 in the same period in 2019-20.
The last Government introduced the mental health investment standard to increase mental health spending in local health systems, and it also included a pledge to increase mental health spending as a proportion of total health spending every year. With mental health accounting for over 20% of demand for health services, and a 2021 report finding that eating disorders cost the UK economy a £9.4 billion per year—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Can I ask you to speak up, please? People in the Gallery cannot hear.
Dr Johnson
I am sorry.
The last Government’s work to channel more resources into mental health could not have been more welcome. This year, 2025-26, will be the first since 2016-17 that mental health spending has not risen as a proportion of health spending. That contravention of the mental health investment standard has raised alarm bells at the Health and Social Care Committee. Can the Minister enlighten us as to why the Government have decided to break the mental health investment standard after nearly a decade of progress? Does he think the percentage is now about right? Does it concern him that some ICBs have cut funding for mental health services? How does he expect that to impact on patients suffering from eating disorders?
I am particularly concerned about the impact on children and young people, and I declare an interest as a consultant NHS paediatrician. Some 6.4% of adults have a diagnosed eating disorder, but 12.5% of 17 to 19-year-olds have been diagnosed with an eating disorder since 2023. That amounts to one in five girls in that age group—four times the prevalence in boys. What specific action is the Minister taking to improve early intervention?
The previous Government got the ball rolling on establishing mental health support teams in schools, and had reached 35% coverage by the time of the general election, with a commitment to increase that to 100% of schools and colleges in England by 2030. Does the Minister plan to build on that work? What further action is he taking to improve links between eating disorder services, schools and families to ensure a joined-up approach to accessing specialist help and early diagnosis, which, as we have heard, is critical?
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) spoke of the challenges of transition. As a paediatrician, I see the challenges of transitioning many paediatric and adolescent conditions between children’s and adult services, but can the Minister say what he is doing specifically for those transitioning with eating disorders?
In my role as chair of the APPG on emerging drugs and online behavioural trends, I know the effect of social media on children’s and young people’s behaviours. Researchers from University College London, who examined evidence from 50 studies in 17 countries, found that social media usage is linked to eating disorders in young people, as it viciously promotes the idea that it is essential to be thin and fit, triggering a potentially extreme preoccupation with body image, weight and shape. Those obsessions are compounded by AI content, which can depict simply unachievable so-called perfection. As the hon. Member for Bath said, there are harmful videos online, with algorithms driving that harm, and those who look at these things seeing them more and more.
I recently held a policy debating competition among year 10 and year 12 students in my constituency, where students chose the topic of debate. Many of them spoke in favour of a social media ban for children as young as 16. It is a difficult issue, and that is not a perfect solution, but having just got a new mobile phone myself, I wonder why, when someone buys a phone, it cannot be set at a fixed age that can be changed only by the adult who pays the bill. A change in the law to restrict social media for under-16s would help to reduce that problem. I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that.
NHS guidance on eating disorders for ICBs has been raised in the debate. The NHS has refreshed that guidance, which is welcome, but patients will feel the difference only if it is actually implemented. The Minister has confirmed that there will not be a dedicated strategy for eating disorders, and there is no mention at all of eating disorders in the 70,000-word 10-year plan. Is the Minister confident that the refreshed guidance for ICBs will be sufficient on its own to improve care for people with eating disorders and to get waiting lists down? Does he have a strategy for how it will be enforced?
We have talked about the effects on families and carers. What action is the Minister taking to engage families, carers and supportive charities in plans for care? What support is available for parents, carers and siblings?
Workforce is key to delivering this strategy. We know that waiting times for eating disorder treatment are getting worse; analysis from Beat found that, in some cases, people with eating disorders face a three-and-a-half-year delay between falling ill and starting treatment. For someone with an eating disorder, that is three and a half years deeper into the illness. As we have heard, that makes it all the more difficult to treat the patient effectively and quickly pull them out of that difficult, dark place. What steps is the Minister taking to increase workforce capacity to help treat these patients and restore some stability and normality to their lives? I feel as though I ask this question every time, but the NHS long-term workforce plan is still not with us, having been delayed from last year, so when will it be published, and what tangible action will it take to boost the NHS eating disorders service?
It is not just about hiring more staff; it is also about where we are hiring them. That is important work, but more needs to be done to build on the progress. The Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership produced a highly detailed report about in-patient eating disorder service provision in the UK. As expected, there were blackspots for those vital services in many rural and coastal areas, such as in Lincolnshire. For adults and families in constituencies such as mine, where the closest service may be an hour’s car journey away, accessing eating disorder services is remarkably difficult. The Government have been insistent that rural and coastal areas will not be left behind on healthcare, but the blackspots tell us otherwise.
Dr Arthur
I thank the hon. Member for giving way—I have to say that she is one of my favourite Tories. Does she agree that there is a real inequality here? A one-hour car drive is a challenge, but if someone does not have a car, it is even more difficult. If they have a child, they might have to take a day off work to take them somewhere. So getting services, or capacity in the community, closer to people should absolutely be the ambition, shouldn’t it?
Dr Johnson
I completely agree. This is not just about people who have a car; for people who do not have a car and who are reliant on public transport, it can be even more difficult. People also struggle to take time off work because of the financial cost. For those who do have a car, there is also the cost of the petrol or diesel to get to the appointment. I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on what he is doing to ensure that the neighbourhood and community slant of the three pillars of his health improvement plan are working in that regard.
As the hon. Member for Bath said, in-patient services are limited in capacity. In my paediatric practice, I have seen patients waiting on acute general paediatric wards—sometimes for several weeks—but those are really not the right place for them to be cared for. Could the Minister update us on what he is doing about increasing capacity in regional services?
I would like to speak a little about two other types of eating disorder: avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder and Prader-Willi syndrome. ARFID involves limiting the amount or variety of food consumed. It is not just picky eating. I have seen a teenager who lives on just plain pasta, nuggets and chips, and a younger boy who lives on a single flavour of one brand of milkshake and no solid food at all. That can be driven by fear and sensory and other issues. What is the Minister doing to make sure that services are available for these young children? NHS England’s refreshed eating disorder guidance recommends:
“ICBs should develop and deliver ARFID care pathways”.
What steps is the Minister taking to improve early diagnosis of ARFID, and what work will be done to train primary carers to identify it in children and adults, particularly in cases of neurodivergence?
Prader-Willi syndrome is a rare genetic disorder causing excessive appetite and overeating, which can lead to dangerous weight gain and restricted growth. Around 2,000 people live with Prader-Willi syndrome in the UK, and there is no cure. It is not mentioned in the NHS guidance, so what work is the Minister doing to ensure that people suffering from PWS have access to the care they need? What steps are we taking to expand genetic testing at birth to identify PWS and improve early access to treatment for these patients?
To sum up, mental health challenges are on the rise, and eating disorders are no exception. I urge the Minister to implement a clear approach to tackling eating disorders for adults, children and young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is an honour and a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing today’s debate and raising this important topic—as she always does. I also pay tribute to her for her long-standing advocacy on this topic and for all the work she does in the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group. She is joined today by a number of hon. Members from across the House, who have made thoughtful contributions.
One hon. Member who is conspicuous by his absence—he has already been mentioned, and I informed him in advance that I would mention him too, Ms Vaz—is my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley). He is my friend, and he is conspicuous because of the tireless work he does and the way he advocates for persons with eating disorders. I know that that is born out of personal interest and pain. We miss his presence here today and send him our good wishes from across the House.
It is important that we are having this debate today to note Eating Disorders Awareness Week. This year’s theme rightly places the focus on the power of community, which speaks to a simple but profound truth: no one should face an eating disorder alone. Recovery is not only about clinical treatment, vital though that is; it is also about the networks of support that surround that individual—not only health professionals, but mums, dads, grandparents, siblings, friends, teachers, colleagues and many others.
Wera Hobhouse
One of the most harrowing things that we hear again and again when taking evidence in the APPG is how families feel completely abandoned. People have to give up work, often over years, because they are meant to care for someone with a severe condition and they do not have the capacity to do so by themselves. It is only when that condition is finally so bad that the loved one is then readmitted to hospital. That revolving door must end. The human cost to that tragedy—apart from the cost to the NHS—must end. It is absolutely tragic and wrong.
Dr Ahmed
I wholeheartedly agree. The Government are committed to ending the revolving door for many conditions—this is an exemplar, in many ways—by joining up care and the streams of information that underpin it. One of our main commitments in our 10-year health plan is to have more joined-up care, to move it from sickness to prevention and to move from hospital into community, where that join-up can happen.
This community can thrive only when it is built on a foundation of timely, effective care. That is why we are focused on reforming eating disorder services so that people can access help when they need it, not after their condition has escalated. That approach underpins the new NHS guidance for children and young people’s eating disorder services, published last month, which is clear that care should be timely, joined up and delivered as close to home as possible.
As many here know, demand for mental health support, including eating disorder services, rose sharply during the pandemic, and the rise has been sustained thereafter. Although services remain under significant pressure, as a result of the additional investment there are some green shoots in system capacity and capability to better meet rising demand and reduce the waits that hon. Members have described.
In December 2025, 83.3% of routine referrals to children and young people’s community eating disorder services and 78.8% of urgent referrals started treatment within four weeks and one week respectively. That is a marked improvement in performance, compared with the situation six months earlier. In June last year, only 72.2% of routine referrals and 63.7% of urgent referrals were seen within four weeks and one week respectively. Although those are encouraging signs, I am under no illusion: too many children and young people are still waiting far too long for support. That is exactly why further reform and delivery are needed.
The Government’s long-term approach to mental health reform is set out in the 10-year health plan, which is clear in its direction. It shifts care from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention and, of course, from analogue to digital, which will be so important when it comes to having joined-up care. I assure hon. Members that those shifts are not abstract principles, but practical changes that are already being embedded. I know that they matter deeply for people living with eating disorders, and the families and loved ones who support them.
But I recognise that plans alone do not deliver care. Delivery depends on people and having the right workforce with the right skills in the right places. That is why, on top of the workforce plan that will come to fruition in late spring or early summer, we are investing in the workforce. We are committed to providing an additional 8,500 new mental health professionals across child and adult mental health services, to cutting waiting times and to ensuring that people access treatment and support earlier than ever before.
We are also working to strengthen skills and capability across the system. NHS England has introduced comprehensive training to ensure that staff across mental and physical health services can recognise eating disorders early and respond safely and effectively. That training supports clinicians working not only in the community but in primary and, crucially, acute care settings, where I used to work. I often saw such patients on my acute general surgical receiving ward rounds. The training includes specialist programmes, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ eating disorders credential, expanded access to family-based therapies, cognitive behavioural therapy for eating disorders, and dedicated training on ARFID, which the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) mentioned. That work is about giving staff the skills, confidence and, crucially, clarity they need to deliver safe, high-quality care and reduce some of the avoidable harm that we have discussed today.
I am pleased to say that funding for children and young people’s eating disorder services has increased significantly, from £46.7 million in 2017-18 to an actual spend of £106.3 million in 2024-25. With that extra funding, we have focused on enhancing the capacity of community eating disorder teams across the country, because we know that timely, effective care leads to better outcomes, supports recovery and helps to prevent conditions escalating to the point at which hospital admission becomes inevitable.
When admission is necessary, stronger community care can reduce length of stay when it is safe. We recognise the concerns that in-patient capacity remains under pressure in some parts of our country. There are reports of individuals being discharged at very low body mass due to bed availability, as the hon. Member for Bath highlighted. Discharge decisions must always be about clinical judgment and patient safety, not capacity constraints. NHS England reassures me and continues to work with providers and integrated care boards to ensure that sufficient specialist provision and safe step-down pathways will be in place.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The Minister’s speech is very interesting. He talks about an increase in capacity, much of which will require workforce. I noticed that when he mentioned the workforce plan, he said “spring or early summer”, which is a change from his previous wording, which was always “spring”. Is that a sign that it is being delayed further?
Dr Ahmed
As always, the hon. Lady reads too much into my words. I am a Scot, so for me, spring and summer sometimes mean the same thing—and indeed winter. I can reassure her that there was no subtext to that nuance earlier in my speech. We remain committed and are on track to deliver on the workforce plan.
We recognise concerns, of course, and NHS England is addressing them. Prevention must be central to how we respond to eating disorders, particularly for children and young people. That is why we are also providing £13 million to strengthen the role of mental health support teams in schools and colleges through enhancements, so that concerns about disordered eating and body image can be identified and addressed much earlier. Acting sooner improves outcomes, reduces the need for more intensive treatment later and helps to ensure that our young people get the support they need, at the right time.
We are encouraged by the progress being made, but I am under no illusions. I know that sustained improvement depends on clear, consistent expectations for high-quality care across the whole pathway. That is why, alongside the 10-year health plan, we are developing a modern service framework for severe mental illness, which I can reassure the House will include eating disorders, to help to reduce avoidable harm from them and improve outcomes for persons affected by them. However, to get it right, we need expert input across the system, so my noble Friend Baroness Merron, the Minister responsible for mental health, will be hosting a roundtable discussion with eating disorder charities, clinicians and those with lived experience, to ensure that the modern service framework delivers meaningful improvements for people with eating disorders, with lived experience at the heart of it.
We have spoken, rightly, about online safety issues as they intersect with mental illness and eating disorders. As a parent, I of course remain deeply concerned about the widespread availability online of harmful material promoting eating disorders, suicide and self-harm, which can be far too easily accessed by people, including young people, who may be vulnerable. The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 makes platforms—including social media, search and pornography services—legally responsible for keeping people, especially children, safe online. All providers must mitigate the risks of illegal harm on their services, and all providers of services likely to be accessed by children must take steps to mitigate their risks to children, especially as regards content related to eating disorders.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister is very generous with his time. I mentioned this issue in my speech and I see it across the board, not just with regard to eating disorders. The Online Safety Act provides that Ofcom can intervene, but only if the content is reported, so we are relying on often very vulnerable people to report something before Ofcom intervenes. That cannot be right. There has to be a stronger emphasis on the social media platforms actually taking down accounts very quickly and, as I have also said, ensuring that they do not just reappear under a different name.
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Lady makes a really valid point. She will know, as I do, that the regulation of these platforms in relation to children’s access is a live issue at the heart of Government at the moment. She is right: the current provisions are not strong enough to be adequate safeguards. We do need more proactive intervention from our technology partners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology takes that very seriously and is pushing very hard on it in relation to not only harm in this space, but harm in general, for children online.
Ofcom ensures that services uphold these duties, including for smaller online sites. Its small but risky services taskforce has assessed 20 services relating to this harm, over half of which have been at high risk for eating disorder content. I am happy to write to my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on the back of this debate, to learn from them what further action specific to eating disorders is coming down the pipeline, and I can relay that information to hon. Members assembled in this Chamber today.
I also share the deep concern about reports of people with eating disorders being offered end-of-life care.
Dr Arthur
Before we move on to end-of-life care, I welcome the great offer that the Minister has given to reach out to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to better understand what they are doing on digital platforms. I expect that many of the people who are going to respond to the consultation around the banning of social media for under-16s will come from the healthcare profession, because of the connections between mental health and eating disorders and the use of these platforms. Will he be proactively asking for action to make sure that young people are protected? That would also mean more resources for people who have eating disorders, because hopefully fewer people would be coming forward.
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Being proactive and following the evidence should be our north star when we are formulating policy; I know that is true of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has been explicit about eating disorders and end-of-life care. Anorexia nervosa is not a terminal illness in its own right. The college’s guidance on medical emergencies in eating disorders was developed precisely to ensure that preventable deaths become a thing of the past. NHS England is clear that no patient with an eating disorder should routinely be placed in palliative care. Our focus must always be on treatment and recovery, and underpinned by the hope of recovery.
We also share concerns about the accurate recordings of deaths where eating disorders may have been a contributing factor. The hon. Member for Bath outlined some of her frustrations regarding correspondence with the Ministry of Justice and I would be happy to take up that call on her behalf to make sure that she gets the correspondence that she is entitled to. The statutory medical examiner and coroner system provides a clear framework to ensure that deaths are properly investigated and recorded so that lessons are identified and patient safety is strengthened.
Although it is for the coroner to exercise independent judicial discretion to determine what is recorded as the medical cause of death, I can reassure hon. Members that the coroner’s office has been undergoing training to ensure that the recording of deaths associated with eating disorders is done more accurately and proactively. Accurate recording matters, and we will continue to work with our partners, including colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and clinicians, to ensure that not only are the statistics captured, but the learning underpinning those statistics is reflected in genuine improvements to care.
Eating disorders are serious and complex mental illnesses that can affect anyone at any age and in any community or family. They require timely treatment, skilled professionals and sustained support thereafter.
Helen Morgan
The Minister is probably about to draw his remarks to a close, but can I press him again on the mental health investment standard, which should ensure that the proportion of NHS spending on mental health goes up every year? In the last year for which we have numbers, it had gone up as a proportion of ICB spend, but had fallen as a proportion of overall NHS spend. Can the Minister commit that the Department will not be abandoning that standard, and that we will see mental health spending go up each year?
Dr Ahmed
I can certainly commit to the hon. Lady that mental health spending in real terms will go up every single year. It went up by £688 million in real terms this year. The good nature of this debate permits me to push back only gently against the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who talked about spending in the NHS, but I do feel I need to push back a little: one of the reasons why that percentage in statistical terms is lower, but the spend in real terms is higher is because we had to spend so much more money—the record £26 billion that was afforded in additional spend by the Chancellor in the Budget—in other parts of the health service to compensate for the decay and decline in the NHS over the last 14 years. But the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) has my commitment to the overall philosophy that mental health spending will increase year on year.
As I was saying, eating disorders are serious and complex; over and above skilled professionals, they also require compassion, understanding and collective responsibility. Through the 10-year health plan, we are shifting care closer to home; strengthening early intervention; expanding the workforce where necessary, such as with community mental health workers; improving standards and investing in the community services that make recovery possible. We are also equipping staff with the right training, protecting young people online—while continuing to improve and explore the mechanisms through which we can do that—and working with experts and those with lived experience to ensure that the reform we are choosing to pursue delivers real and lasting change.
We know that the policy framework alone is never enough. Change also depends on the voices of campaigners, including many who join us here today, clinicians, families and those who have shared their lived experience. I can assure everyone that their advocacy continues to shape this Government’s approach, and it will continue to do so.
To those living with an eating disorder, and to the families supporting them, I want to say this: “You are not invisible. You are not alone.” This Government are committed to building a system that responds with urgency, expertise and compassion. Our task—across this House and beyond it—is to ensure that when someone reaches out for help, the system we create is ready to respond with urgency, expertise and, crucially, hope. I once again thank hon. Members for contributing to this debate and I look forward to continuing this work with colleagues from across the House.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank everybody who contributed to this debate in such a thoughtful way. First and foremost, my thanks go to the tireless campaigners—the people with lived experience and their families, who have shared their stories over so many years, and say to them, “Without you, Eating Disorder Awareness Week would not exist.” Awareness has definitely improved, but I repeat my frustration that even so, the outcomes for many people suffering from this tragic and devastating condition have not improved.
I know this now not-so-new Labour Government have a massive task in front of them to transform the NHS. If their 10-year health plan were to be meaningful at all, everything in it could absolutely be applied to eating disorder services: shifting from crisis treatment to prevention; shifting to community care; shifting to parity of mental and physical health. It is about all those things. If the Government want to show their strategy is working, they can show that through eating disorder services and the improvement of outcomes.
Currently, the tsunami of need is not met by the services that we have, and that needs to shift. Last year, I said I was hopeful that 2025 would be the year in which we changed something. I have not seen that. I will not make that same prediction for 2026, but I will say to the Government, “Please listen very carefully to our call for an eating disorder strategy.” I believe that joined-up thinking would make a real difference and that the Government could show, through the improvement of eating disorder services and final outcomes for those who are affected by this devastating condition, that their plan is working.
The Government must develop a strategy and implement the 10-year health plan for eating disorder services. If we see the outcomes and we can measure them properly, I believe that the Government will be turning a corner for the NHS as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Eating Disorders Awareness Week 2026.
Independent Faith Schools: VAT
(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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of VAT on independent faith schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I hope that this debate will go well. I welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to engaging with her. I have given her a copy of my speaking notes; the last two pages are my asks. I also thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), who is here as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who I think has been elevated to the role of Opposition spokesperson for this debate.
It is a real pleasure to raise the issue. It is certainly not the first time that we have discussed this move by the Government, which was announced when they came into power. I note that in the Public Gallery we have Dr Garrie-John Barnes, the new chief executive officer of the Christian Schools Trust; Steve Beegoo, the head of education at Christian Concern; and three people who are staff and parents at a small Christian school in Reading that is having to close because of the VAT and business rates relief policies. They are among the instigators for this debate, which I have secured on their behalf and on behalf of many others—I will outline who they are as I make progress through my speech.
For the record, my private secretary is also here: the lady in the corner of the Public Gallery. She writes all my speeches. I think people say, “My goodness, she’s overworked,” and she probably is, but there you are. She is not often here, but she is here for this debate and I thank her.
Although my sons and grandchildren all went through the publicly funded school system and have excelled in their own right, I have met many people who have made the difficult decision to pay towards their children’s education, not because they can afford to do so, but because their personal faith is at odds with the many moves away from the moral values and ethics that they cherish. That is their motivation, and that is why we are having this debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me and other hon. Members the chance to contribute to it.
The idea that independent schools are for the ultra-wealthy is simply not true. I secured this debate for my Strangford constituents who attend the Bangor independent Christian school in the neighbouring constituency of North Down; for international students who attend Rockport, outside Belfast; for those who attend Holywood Steiner school; and for those who attend Jewish schools or Muslim schools. I do not need to agree with the theology to agree that pupils’ parents should have a school choice that reflects treasured, essential values.
I have been in touch with the Independent Schools Council, which represents about 1,400 schools across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those 1,400 schools represent roughly 80% of all UK pupils who attend fee-paying schools. According to the ISC’s most recent annual census, 663 of the schools among its membership have a religious affiliation or ethos, meaning that 47% of the schools that the ISC represents are faith schools. That reinforces my belief that we need to ensure that the Government look past the view that this is about rich parents, and that they understand the bigger faith picture. I hope to focus on that faith picture, as I hope other hon. Members will.
Overall, about 370,000 pupils attend an independent school in England with an identified religious ethos. That equates to some 60% of pupils at independent schools. It is not a small figure, and I say respectfully that it cannot be ignored. We need to address the issue. Although the majority of those schools are of Christian denomination, the independent sector also provides essential provision to minority faiths.
I talked to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) today. He wanted to be here, but he has an event at 5 o’clock and it would have been too tight to attend this debate and then get to Birmingham. I think he is somewhere in Birmingham today.
About 20,000 pupils attend Islamic faith schools. The importance of faith schools is clear. All schools must follow the Equality Act 2010 and welcome every pupil, but issues around curriculum, diet and religious holidays can make it difficult for more religiously observant pupils to be accommodated in mainstream schools. Many independent faith schools therefore provide access to education in a religious context that is not always possible in the state sector. That can be Muslim, Jewish or Christian.
Fees in many independent faith schools are less than the state pays per pupil—circa £8,000—and in some cases community fundraising efforts support those who are less able to pay for education. For example, the average annual fee for Islamic schools in the ISC is about £3,000 per year. Chinuch UK is an organisation that represents some 20,000 Haredi Orthodox Jewish pupils attending 65 schools across the United Kingdom. On average, those schools typically ask for a voluntary contribution of less than £100 per week. The Christian Schools Trust represents 25 schools charging between £3,000 and £8,000 per year in fees, often with high levels of bursary provision. That gives us a bit of background, factually and financially.
The ISC has been tracking the impact of VAT on the sector as a whole. Although it may take a few years for us to see the full impact, it is clear that there has been an initial impact. Opposition to the VAT on independent schools, particularly independent faith schools, has been an aggravating factor for the parents back home in my constituency whose children attend the independent faith school in Bangor. They are not rich people. They are working people who scrimp and save to put money aside so that they can ensure that they will be in a position to provide the faith education that they wish for their children.
Although the data cannot be broken down to measure the impact of VAT on faith schools specifically, case studies make it clear that the impact has been felt strongly. On pupil movement from the independent sector to the state sector, the Treasury impact assessment of VAT states that
“a greater degree of impact may be felt by faith school pupils if they cannot be placed in an alternative school with the same religious denomination.”
I say respectfully to the Government that their policy has, in a way, discriminated against those from independent schools who might have, and probably do have, a religious denomination that they wish to adhere to and stay with.
The result has been that since the general election in July 2024, 110 independent schools have closed, of which 10 have been involved in mergers. There has been an impact on about 9,500 students, including almost 2,500 with special educational needs and disabilities. New independent schools that have opened are predominantly SEND schools, while those closing are mostly mainstream schools. Overall, we are seeing a net loss of mainstream provision. Whereas some of the new independent schools setting up are specifically looking after children with special educational needs, a great many others have been disaffected and have nowhere for their faith and educational and religious viewpoint to be retained.
In the schools that remain open, there has been a drop of 25,000, or 5.2%, in the number of students since 2023, according to the ISC’s September pupil numbers survey. The September 2025 pupil numbers survey showed a fall in pupil numbers of 17,000, or 3.6%, in the past academic year alone. Those stats show the unfortunate impact of what is happening, which is that having to pay VAT is putting many independent faith schools at a disadvantage. It is also notable that the September pupil numbers survey continued to show a larger fall in intake years, with reception and year 7 numbers down closer to 5% in the last academic year.
Although there might be some debate about the extent of the impact of VAT on pupil numbers, the fall is out of step with the normal trend of our pupil surveys and confirms the decline shown by the Department for Education’s figures and by the ISC census published in spring 2025. It is a trend that has happened directly because of VAT on independent schools. It puts them at a disadvantage, leaves them disaffected and confirms the decline. That cannot be ignored. What was portrayed as a tax on the rich has instead turned out to be a tax on those with a strong faith.
No one would expect me, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, to highlight the shortfall in religious freedom in other countries without highlighting a decision in this country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that is having an educational impact on those of a strong faith, whether that faith is Christian, Muslim or Jewish. My job as chair of the APPG is to highlight that in a way that I hope will come over strongly and show what the effect has been.
The decision to apply VAT to independent school fees was projected to raise some £1.5 billion annually. Although raising revenue is important—nobody denies that it is critical for the Government to raise revenue to pay the bills and pay for public services—we must ensure that the policy is proportionate and does not unintentionally harm those it was never meant to target. I do not doubt that the Government did not set out with the intention to effect the changes that are clearly happening in independent faith-based schools.
This debate is not and has never been about elite institutions charging some £30,000 a year for fees. I am talking about parents and young people such as those in my constituency who travel to the Bangor independent Christian school. They are not rich. They scrimp and save. They do not take holidays; they put their money aside so that the child can have an education at a faith-based school that can hopefully be of benefit to them.
This debate is about low-fee independent faith schools, many of which charge under £4,000 annually and which serve modest income families in Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities. For those families, faith-based education is not a luxury but a deep necessity. In many areas, there is no equivalent provision in the state sector that reflects their religious ethos. Alongside other hon. Members—including you, Sir Alec, based on comments that you have made in the Chamber—I want to protect that religious ethos on my constituents’ behalf.
The Independent Schools Council has proposed a simple and fair solution, which is my ask for the Minister. She will find it on pages 6 and 7 of my speaking notes. I am very conscious that we are asking for something that the Minister may not be able to confirm that she can do. My request is that she ask the responsible Treasury Minister to look at the comments and the solutions that have been put forward, which I believe may be helpful. I always try to be constructive, as you know, Sir Alec—I set out what I am trying to do in any debate to which I contribute in this House—and I ask for that in return.
The Independent Schools Council has proposed a simple and fair solution: introduce a VAT registration threshold for independent schools charging below the state-funding benchmark of £7,690 per pupil. If that could be considered, it would be a step in the right direction, as it would enable small independent faith schools to move forward in a positive fashion. The proposal is not a novel concept: the VAT system already includes thresholds to protect smaller entities from disproportionate burdens, and over half of UK businesses operate below the VAT registration threshold. Those are examples of this working, and of how it can be done. Again, I ask the Minister to refer this solution to the correct person in the correct Department to ensure that it can be done.
Only around 270 independent schools—roughly 10% of them—would qualify under the ISC’s proposal, but it would make a difference, as it would enable smaller schools to survive and come out on the other side. About 54,000 pupils would benefit, and the VAT revenue loss is estimated to be £32 million, which is just 2% of the projected £1.5 billion that the Department will get from putting VAT on independent school fees. However, if even a small percentage of those pupils transfer to the state sector, the cost to the Treasury rises sharply. That is a negative side to the policy. If there are no independent faith schools, pupils will have to go into the mainstream, and if they do that, the cost factor rises. If all those pupils were absorbed into the state sector, it would cost more than £415 million annually, even before accounting for infrastructure expansion.
In fiscal terms, the exemption is modest; in social terms, it is significant. This threshold would protect low-income families, preserve community-based education, maintain educational diversity and avoid putting unnecessary pressure on the state system. Those are some benefits that could be derived from moving towards the VAT registration threshold of £7,690 per pupil, under which a percentage of independent faith schools would qualify and 54,000 pupils would benefit. It would also not put the same pressure on the educational system as doing nothing would. In my opinion, and that of some of the experts and some of those in the Gallery, implementation would be straightforward. School fee information is publicly available, Ofsted already inspects fee policies and anti-avoidance safeguards are in place.
This is not about special treatment or asking for something that nobody else should get; it would enable people to have their faith, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Jewish, and to have their children educated in the school they wish, without it costing them the earth. It is about proportionality and fairness.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I appreciate the solution that the hon. Gentleman is presenting for faith-based schools, but does he accept that any tax on education is wrong in principle? Would he support my party’s policy of reversing the burden of VAT for all independent schools?
Jim Shannon
This debate is quite clearly on VAT on independent faith-based schools, but I do support that principle and have voted accordingly in the Chamber, as has been recorded. I am today putting forward the case for independent faith-based schools and asking for them to be considered differently, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
This issue is about proportionality, fairness and protecting vulnerable communities from unintended harm. The Government may not have accepted or understood the harm that this would cause, but there is a way of preventing it. I put that suggestion to the Minister. I believe that we can meet our fiscal objectives without undermining access to faith-based education for families of modest means.
Those are the people I know, the people from my constituency who send their children to independent, faith-based schools. They are the ones who have asked me to bring forward this debate. People here in the Public Gallery represent some 1,400 schools across the United Kingdom. We speak for people with a Christian faith, a Muslim faith and a Jewish faith—I make that quite clear. I urge the Minister and the Government to consider a targeted VAT threshold, to reflect economic realism—that is what we want to try to do—and social responsibility.
I am pleased that the Minister is in her place; this is the second time this week that she has come to Westminster Hall. I look to her respectfully and graciously to enable those conversations within the Cabinet, and to right the wrong that has been done.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing forward this debate.
It is well established that the Liberal Democrats oppose taxing education, whether that is independent, faith or non-faith schools. We did not support the Government’s decision to end the VAT exemption for independent schools, nor them treating such schools differently from other independent education providers for VAT purposes. Neither did we support the Government’s policy to remove private schools’ charitable business rates relief of 80%, for those that are charities.
Our position applies equally to all independent schools, but I acknowledge that for many parents, choosing a faith school is not primarily a financial calculation; it is an expression of deeply held conviction about how their children should be raised, and about community and belief. The Government should be mindful of how the policy bears on those for whom a faith education is not a luxury but a matter of conscience. It must be the choice of parents to decide where their children are educated. We understand that the choices parents make have many reasons, and it is parents’ right to make such choices without being subject to further taxes.
I have heard from several of my constituents on this issue, none of them wealthy but all of them working hard and wanting to do the very best for their children. Some, alongside many others across the country, have struggled to find a local state secondary school place for their child and have been offered one many miles away. That has meant that they have had to resort to private school, while they sit on long waiting lists for places that will never become available, leaving them under considerable financial pressures.
Many other parents have been failed by the school their children attended, which has not provided the support that they need. They have been forced to move to the private sector, again at considerable cost. That has not been a choice, but something they feel has been forced on them, because of issues with the school system. Any parent making that choice, however, for whatever reason, should certainly not be penalised with more taxes.
It must be noted that parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities often turn to independent schools, because support is not available in local state schools. Independent schools educate more than 100,000 children with SEND. That number tells its own story.
In the past year alone, 100 independent schools are reported to have closed their doors and a further 26 are predicted to follow this year. A small number of those were part of the natural churn, but the majority were not. They include primary and secondary schools, sixth-form colleges and special educational needs schools. The Liberal Democrats remain concerned that such ongoing closures will have a knock-on effect in some areas of the country, which will see an increase in pupils applying and entering the state school system. In Kent, for example, nearly 100 state school inquiries were made in just 48 hours, after the independent Bishop Challoner school announced its closure. The state school system is already struggling with large class sizes, declining teacher numbers and increasing numbers of pupils with SEND. The Government cannot expect the state sector to absorb the pressures that these increased numbers will bring.
The Liberal Democrats, however, do believe that independent schools benefiting from VAT exemptions should give back to their local communities. Indeed, many already do, through shared facilities, joint programmes and genuine partnerships with neighbouring state schools. We want to see that best practice become universal, with investment proportional to school size and fees, and schools expected to demonstrate their contribution through the inspection process. Faith schools in particular often have a strong tradition of community service that goes well beyond the school gates. We should recognise that and see it built upon.
The Government must look seriously at the negative impact of VAT on faith and non-faith independent schools, the impact on the state sector, and the very real financial burden on families who have already paid tax into the system. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address the concerns expressed today.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. This issue is very close to my heart, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing it to Westminster Hall. I see how the issue affects my constituents, and the Conservatives care very much about it because it goes to our fundamental values. Do we believe that people should have individual choice—parental choice—for where they send their child to school, or should the state control everything?
This feels like a very vindictive tax, there to punish those who want choice in religion and in education, and have aspiration for where they send their child. This tax does not punish the wealthy; it punishes those who are working to barely get by. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, it punishes those who are saving up, not going on holidays, and sacrificing everything to send their child to the faith school that they choose. That may be because of their religious belief or because that school offers additional SEND provision that they cannot get in a mainstream school. I know parents who have sent their child to a school that is not of their faith because it is the only alternative to bullying or other challenges that their child is facing in school.
These schools have been a lifeline for so many parents. Parents have come to me with tears in their eyes, saying that they can no longer send their child to the best school for them, because the state has said that they do not deserve to go to that school, as they do not have enough money to pay for the extra tax. It is a vindictive tax. We are the only European country that is taxing education. How can that be right? This limits choice. I believe in personal choice, competition, and letting people make their own decisions on where they send their child to school. This policy restricts that. It means that more children will flood into the state sector and compete for SEND places. Many children will be unable to find another school of the same denomination and practise their faith.
I am glad that the Conservatives have pledged to reverse this policy, because I do not think we are a country that wants to limit personal religious freedom, personal choice and parental aspiration. The state does not always know best. If your child has autism, is being bullied, or is not getting the faith education that they need in the state sector, that is what independent faith schools exist for. If you wish to sacrifice your income and other comforts to send your child to that school, it should be your choice. As Conservatives, we believe that the policy should be scrapped, and we will continue to advocate for that.
I know that Members have many fun and eventful things to do today, so I will conclude. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for bringing this debate to the House, because it is important that we do not forget the impact this policy will have in the next few years. Sacrifice is no longer enough for people who desperately want to educate their children in a way that we took for granted 20 years ago. We took for granted that our child could be raised in the Jewish faith, in Islam—[Interruption.] Is there a time limit, Sir Alec?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
No, but you should be addressing the Chair.
Joy Morrissey
I am sorry—you are right, Sir Alec. The impacts of this policy are something that we have to continue to raise throughout our time in Parliament, until the next general election. We cannot forget that this should not stand; we need to reverse the legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank all hon. Members for attending, and particularly the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for his characteristically engaging speech. I am grateful for the suggestions that he made, which have all been noted. I also congratulate his staff member, who is in the Public Gallery, on her super-human efforts with the volume of wonderful speeches she produces. It was great that the hon. Member was able to congratulate her as well. While I perhaps did not agree with the content of the speech given by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), I admire the speed with which she assembled it here today.
Education matters. It sits at the very heart of this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity, ensuring every child, wherever they live and whatever their background, has the best possible start in life and access to a high-quality education. Our priority is clear: to raise school standards for every child. I believe that this is a priority shared by colleagues across the House, as is clear from the speeches in this debate.
The Government value the contribution that faith schools make to our diverse education system. Faith schools, whether private or state funded, have long played, and continue to play, a really vital role. We continue to work closely with faith school providers, representative organisations and local authorities to find ways to support private faith schools. The Government respect parental choice, and faith schools in the private and state sectors will remain part of that choice.
The truth is, however, that we inherited a dire fiscal situation from the previous Government, and families, including those in faith communities, were dealing with sky-high interest rates, underfunded public services and a broken NHS. That is why we have taken some fair and necessary decisions on tax, which will stabilise public finances and secure the additional funding required to deliver on our commitments to education and young people. The measure that we are discussing will raise essential revenue that will be invested in our public services, such as the £1.7 billion increase to the core schools budget in 2026-27, taking core school funding to £67 billion compared with £65.3 billion in 2025-26.
The Government carefully considered a range of representations made by faith schools, including a proposal for a low-fee carve out. However, the Government concluded that in line with the principles of protecting revenue and fairness, faith schools should remain in scope of the VAT policy. We understand that some parents make the decision to send their child to a private school because of its particular faith ethos, and because they feel that a particular type of school is better able to meet their child’s needs than their place in the state sector. It is the case, however, that all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place should they require one, and of all the faith schools in England, around one third are state funded.
We are also supporting faith groups in their engagement with local authorities to explore options for those private faith schools that are interested in joining the state-funded sector. Where there is a sustainable need, local authorities can bring schools serving particular faith communities into the state sector as voluntary-aided schools, and the school must meet all required standards within the state-funded sector. Since the introduction of the VAT policy, we are aware of one private faith school that has joined the state sector as a voluntary-aided maintained faith school, opening in September 2025.
Furthermore, not all income received by smaller faith schools will be subject to VAT. Some faith schools are likely to be less impacted by changes to private schools tax, where some of their income is derived from other sources, such as voluntary donations or support from religious organisations. That is because VAT is out of scope for donations that are freely given and where there is no reciprocal obligation. That means that some private faith schools may be affected proportionately less than others.
All private schools, including private faith schools, can decide for themselves how to manage the additional cost of VAT. There are a variety of ways in which a school may choose to do that. For example, they may reduce their surpluses or reserves, make savings on non-essential expenditure or, like any VAT-registered organisation, reclaim input VAT on their costs.
Jim Shannon
Respectfully, it is not about how the schools can do things; it is about the parents who make that sacrifice so that their children can get to those schools. I suggest—the Minister has it in front of her—a simple solution, which is to introduce a VAT registration threshold that is below the state funding benchmark. I understand that the Minister does not have the final say, but my No. 1 request would be for her to ask the relevant Minister whether they would consider reviewing that idea as a possible solution. I think I gave the figures for the savings and costs. If everybody went to state schools, it would cost even more. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Sir Alec, but that is the point I am trying to make.
Olivia Bailey
The hon. Gentleman made his case well in his speech earlier, and he makes it again now. The Government have carefully considered the options that he has put forward today. I have heard all of his points and they have been noted by my officials.
Private schools have steadily increased average fees by 75% in real terms since 2000, and that has not affected pupil numbers. Fee increases can also reflect wider cost pressures beyond VAT and business rates.
The Government are closely monitoring the impact of VAT policy on the private school sector. We remain confident in the estimates made when this policy was introduced, which said that the number of private school closures was expected to remain relatively low and influenced by various factors, not just by the VAT policy. On average, 74 private schools, including independent special schools, have closed per year over the past 20 years. However, only 60 private schools closed in academic year 2024-25, which is the school year that the VAT changes were introduced. That means that school closures announced thus far remain firmly within historical patterns and sit comfortably within our expectations. Indeed, even after the VAT policy came into effect, private schools continued to open in England. In the same time period—between 1 September 2024 and 31 August 2025—106 private schools registered and opened.
We are confident that the state sector can accommodate any additional pupils, including any pupils transferring from private state schools.
Sir Ashley Fox
The justification for this tax given in the Labour party manifesto was to raise revenue to employ more teachers in the state sector, yet we now know that in November 2025, there were 1,400 fewer teachers than 12 months previously. Can the Minister tell us where the money has gone?
Olivia Bailey
I will. I am just coming on to that, if you will bear with me. I am grateful for that. [Interruption.] Did I do something wrong, Sir Alec? I apologise.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
Order. The word “you” has crept into a couple of speeches today. I am not responsible for any decisions, so please, let us not use it. I give everyone a timely reminder that we do not use the word “you”.
Olivia Bailey
It is a very timely reminder. I am grateful to you, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for his intervention. He raises an important point. I have just skipped through my notes, and I realise that I will not be coming on to that point; I have, in fact, already covered it. I will just repeat that we are managing to increase the schools budget significantly as a consequence of this policy, which has also raised significantly more than our initial estimates. We are also recruiting teachers, on which more detail was published in our schools White Paper earlier this week.
In closing, I once again thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate, and I thank Members from across the House for their contributions this afternoon. As they eloquently outlined in their speeches, independent schools, including faith schools, make a valuable contribution to our diverse education system. The Government have made necessary and fair choices to safeguard the public finances, invest in our public services and increase funding for our schools. We will keep working with faith groups, school leaders and local authorities to ensure that every child in this country has access to a high-quality education.
Jim Shannon
First of all, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue, and I thank all Members for their contributions.
I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for his contribution; the Liberal Democrat policy on this issue is quite clear, as I knew before the debate—the Conservative policy is also quite clear. The debate focused on faith-based schools, and it is very important that we consider them in this sector, as I believe they are feeling the pain more than most. The solution that has been put forward should be looked at and taken up, if at all possible. The hon. Gentleman said that 100 independent schools closed in the last year and as many as 26 could close in the year to come, and his last remark asked the Government to look seriously at the financial burdens on schools.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), in an intervention, was very clear that he perceived this—I believe it to be the case—to be an attack on education, and I think he referred to choice of education. Again, whenever we have voted specifically on independent schools, I have been very clear where my vote would lie. I ally myself with the hon. Gentleman and what the Conservative party has put forward.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), for her passionate contribution; she reaffirmed today what she has said in the Chamber before. She has heard from many parents who, on behalf of their children, want the ability to choose what school they should attend. In my earlier comments, I referred to FORB issues, and I believe what we see today in the United Kingdom is unfortunately an attack on those with faith, whether they are Christians, Muslims or Jews—that is an issue. The hon. Lady also reminded us not to forget the sacrifice that parents make for their children, and she urged us to reverse this policy.
I also thank the Minister for clearly outlining the Government’s commitment to education; she outlined the financial budget and the Government’s focus, as well as the massive SEND issues in both England and Northern Ireland. I know the Minister told me that the Government have considered VAT registration. However, if the funding benchmark is set at £7,690 per pupil, and if all the independent schools were to close, all their pupils would have to go into mainstream schools, which just could not cope. The figures we have presented today indicate that some 270 schools would qualify, and 54,000 pupils would benefit. The revenue loss would be reduced from £1.5 billion to £32 million. I think that those figures indicate an opportunity to review this.
I say that respectfully to the Minister, as it is never my form to attack anyone or run them down—that is just not how I do things. I always try to put forward a solution, and I think we have introduced one today for independent faith schools. I thank all Members and the Minister for their contributions. I also thank Hansard for all the writing they do—I know we all keep them busy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of VAT on independent faith schools.
Written Statements
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
British Steel
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.
The Government’s priority remains to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces at British Steel. Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe, ensuring uninterrupted domestic steel production and monitoring the use of taxpayer funds.
On funding, the position remains that all Government funding for British Steel will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out at spring statement 2025. To date, we have provided approximately £370 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials and salaries. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26.
We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of the site. Once a solution is found, we will terminate the directions issued to British Steel under the Act and make a statement on the need to retain, or repeal, the legislation. As we have stated previously, our long-term aspiration for the UK steel sector will require co-investment with the private sector. Across the steel sector, private sector involvement enables modernisation and decarbonisation and safeguards taxpayers money.
Impact assessment relating to the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025
The impact assessment relating to the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 published on 22 January focuses on the rationale and impacts of the Act, namely providing optionality to address the risk that financially distressed owners could trigger unmanaged closures of major UK steel assets leading to irreversible loss of domestic steelmaking capability.
The IA can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/steel-industry-special-measures-bill-2025-final-impact-assessment
[HCWS1366]
Implementing the Employment Rights Act: Further Consultation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Our plan to make work pay will modernise our employment rights legislation, extending the employment protections already given by the best British companies to millions more workers across the country. Strengthening this underlying framework will help build an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work.
We are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure all stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure and to help us implement each in the interests of all.
Following the launch of consultations on trade union recognition, fire and rehire, agency work, tipping, and flexible working earlier this month, we are today launching consultations on trade union detriments and collective redundancy. Alongside a programme of direct stakeholder engagement, these consultations will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice.
Consultation 1: trade union detriments
The Employment Rights Act 2025 establishes stronger protections from detriments for workers taking industrial action, in order to ensure they are treated fairly and respectfully. It prohibits the use of “detriments of a prescribed description” for the sole or main purpose of penalising, deterring or preventing a worker from taking part in official industrial action.
The power in the Act enables the Government to make regulations to either prohibit all detriments, or to prescribe the detriments that are prohibited. The consultation will seek stakeholder views on the benefits and challenges of these two options. It will run for eight weeks and close on 23 April 2026. Following consultation, the Government will develop their final policy position, with the intention to make regulations and deliver the resulting policy by October 2026.
Consultation 2: collective redundancy
The Government are consulting on the threshold number that will trigger collective redundancy consultation where employers propose to make a large number of redundancies across their entire organisation. We wish to set this number at a level that offers protections for working people, while avoiding scenarios where larger employers find themselves left in a constant state of consultation.
The consultation will seek views on the methods that may be used to set the threshold, and on the level at which the organisation-wide threshold could be set. Specifically, it will seek views on the proposed options, including their impact on employers, the extent to which they protect employees, and whether there are any other options for the threshold or method.
This consultation will run for 12 weeks and will close on 21 May 2026. Following the consultation, the Government will consider the responses carefully before developing a final policy position. Any changes will be delivered through secondary legislation, with regulations expected to enter into force in 2027.
Next steps for consultation
This package of consultations sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. They are critical to shaping the practical implementation of the legislation, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and worker right. These consultations will help us make work pay for both.
[HCWS1365]
Public Service Pension Scheme: Indexation and Revaluation 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Public service pensions are a cornerstone of the remuneration package for hard-working people across our public services. Ensuring that they maintain their value over time is essential to delivering dignity in retirement for current and former public service workers. Scheme Police Firefighters Civil Service NHS Teachers LGPS Armed Forces Judicial Revaluation for active member 5.05% 4.8% 3.8% 5.3% 5.4% 3.8% 4.8% 3.8%
Legislation governing public service pensions in payment requires them to be increased annually by the same percentage as additional pensions (state earnings-related pension and state second pension). Public service pensions will therefore be increased from 6 April 2026 by 3.8%, in line with the annual increase in the consumer prices index up to September 2025, except for those public service pensions that have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro-rata increase. This will ensure that public service pensions take account of increases in the cost of living and their purchasing power is maintained.
Separately, in the career average revalued earnings public service pension schemes introduced in 2014 and 2015, pensions in accrual are revalued annually in relation to either prices or earnings depending on the terms specified in their scheme regulations. The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 requires His Majesty’s Treasury to specify a measure of prices and of earnings to be used for revaluation by these schemes.
The prices measure is the consumer prices index up to September 2025. Public service schemes that rely on a measure of prices, therefore, will use the figure of 3.8% for the prices element of revaluation.
The earnings measure is the whole economy year-on-year change in average weekly earnings (non-seasonally adjusted and including bonuses and arrears) up to September 2025. Public service schemes that rely on a measure of earnings, therefore, will use the figure of 4.8% for the earnings element of revaluation.
The effective date of revaluation listed in the order is 1 April 2026, but some schemes have chosen to move their effective revaluation date to 6 April 2026 in order to manage interactions with the annual tax allowance.
Revaluation is one part of the amount of pension that members earn in a year and needs to be considered in conjunction with the amount of in-year accrual. Typically, schemes with lower revaluation will have faster accrual and therefore members will earn more pension per year. The following list shows how the main public service schemes will be affected by revaluation:
[HCWS1367]
NPT Review Cycle: United Kingdom National Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Today the Government are publishing the United Kingdom’s updated national report under the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The report reviews the UK’s progress against the treaty’s three mutually reinforcing pillars—disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy—and demonstrates our commitment to fulfil our obligations under the treaty.
The UK’s enduring commitment to the NPT
The UK was an original signatory of, and remains committed to, the NPT. We reaffirm our obligations under the treaty, including our undertaking—shared by the other NPT nuclear weapon states—to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament, consistent with the maintenance of international peace and security, always guided by the UK’s national interests and defence and security.
A more contested and volatile world
Russia’s aggression, strategic competition among major powers, advances in disruptive technologies, and challenges to the multilateral system have sharpened nuclear risks and made deterrence, defence and resilience ever more important for our national security. The 2025 strategic defence review and the national security strategy provided a comprehensive review of the strategic environment and the adaptations the UK must make to safeguard our national security.
Disarmament, transparency and risk reduction
The UK remains committed to the ultimate, long-term goal of multilateral disarmament, which we believe can best be achieved by a step-by-step, verifiable approach to disarmament consistent with the global security environment. This includes practical work on nuclear disarmament verification, risk reduction and transparency where it supports stability. Nuclear deterrence will remain the bedrock of our national security as we are confronted by more serious and less predictable threats.
Non-proliferation and safeguards
The International Atomic Energy Agency has a more important role than ever to ensure states can take advantage of the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear technology and prevent its misuse. This balance is delivered by adherence to the IAEA’s system of comprehensive safeguards agreements and the additional protocol, strengthened export controls and assistance to enhance the security of nuclear materials worldwide.
Peaceful uses and nuclear responsibility
The UK will continue to advance the peaceful applications of nuclear science and technology—in medicine, agriculture, food security, climate change mitigation, adaptation and civil nuclear power—consistent with the NPT and in close co-operation with the IAEA and international partners. Access to the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies is a benefit that should be afforded sufficient importance, attention and resource.
Conclusion
The Government will work constructively with all NPT states parties ahead of the next NPT review conference to ensure the treaty endures as the irreplaceable foundation of the global nuclear order—reinforcing non-proliferation, enabling the responsible, peaceful uses of nuclear technology for the benefit of all and supporting disarmament progress where conditions allow. The UK national report is available on gov.uk, and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1368]
Gender Recognition: Data Linkage Study
(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 have laid the Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2026 in Parliament. The order will come into force on 20 March 2026.
This Government have always made it clear that anyone accessing gender services deserves high-quality, evidence-based care and support. Laying this order will facilitate delivery of the data linkage study and is another step to achieving our manifesto commitment to implement recommendations of the independent Cass review.
The study was planned to take place during the lifespan of the Cass review, and a statutory instrument was brought forward in 2022 to protect those disclosing protected information for the study. However, it is well documented that some clinics did not share data to allow the study to commence and the study was therefore not completed as planned. Further to this, it is the Government’s view that the 2022 order now needs to be updated to sufficiently protect those who will now be sharing information for the purposes of the study.
This order will revoke the 2022 order and will ensure that information that may otherwise be protected under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 can be lawfully disclosed for the specific purpose of the data linkage study. This order makes technical changes to reflect that NHS England is now delivering the study, that the study is being completed as a recommendation (rather than during the lifetime) of the Cass review, and to update the list of organisations contributing to the study.
The data linkage study is a retrospective study based on an analysis of routine data collected for a cohort of adults who, as children, were referred into a former model of NHS gender care, the Gender Identity Development Service. The study requires no active patient participation and instead relies on an analysis of information already held within health records and other nationally held databases. The study aims to learn more about the needs of individuals referred to GIDS, their healthcare experience, and associations identifiable in the data which may tell us more about the intermediate outcomes for this cohort.
Since assuming responsibility for the data linkage study, NHS England has taken time to undertake due diligence work on the data sources critical to the study, and to work with organisations to refine the planned approach to data sharing. Some small but important improvements have been proposed in the study design that will better support the collaboration of organisations on whom the study team will be reliant for data, including adult gender clinics. It is my clear expectation that all relevant organisations will now provide the data required to complete this study.
Alongside the laying of this order, updated data linkage study research approvals are also in progress. As with usual research practice, the finalised data linkage study protocol will be made public once independent research and ethical approvals have been appropriately secured, at which point the study can begin.
We are determined to continue our work to improve the lives and healthcare of transgender people in this country. We will continue to implement the recommendations of the Cass review.
[HCWS1369]
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Leaman
Duty Relief Exemption: Small Parcels
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the new tax on small parcels entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain as a result of the EU’s change to the duty relief exemption.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore)
My Lords, the Government are committed to the smooth flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework. The Government are aware of the EU’s plans to remove its relief for low-value imports from 1 July 2026. The facilitations under the Windsor Framework are unaffected by this change, meaning that goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland can continue to move under the UK Carrier Scheme and the UK Internal Market Scheme without the need to pay duty.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. Responding recently to two questions from me and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, he said that we would continue to engage with the EU. Now that the regulations have been published just two weeks ago—written in the normal EU way that is quite difficult to understand, but I am sure the Minister does—can he clarify for us whether the new rules will operate subject to EU regulation 2023/1128 such that any trusted trader on the UK Internal Market Scheme need not pay any duty? Can he also clarify whether the duty will be paid by the person sending the parcel in GB, the person receiving the parcel in Northern Ireland or both? Does he agree that we need detailed clarification on this? People are very worried about it—maybe wrongly, maybe rightly. Will the Minister make sure that there is clarification on exactly how this is going to work and how it will affect people in Great Britain sending parcels to their relatives in Northern Ireland?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, I can give the noble Baroness the clarification she seeks. The answer to the first question she asked is yes. As I said in my opening Answer, in May last year the Government introduced important new arrangements for freight and parcel movements to ensure that goods can continue to move smoothly from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. These facilitations under the Windsor Framework are unaffected by the EU’s change to its duty relief exemption. Goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland can continue to move under the UK Carrier Scheme and the UK Internal Market Scheme without the need to pay duty.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his detailed and clear response. Does he agree that one should be very careful about what you argue and campaign for, because sometimes you get what you want? Does he agree that those who argued for the hardest possible Brexit got the Windsor Framework? I agree with that.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that back in 2016, Sir John Major and Sir Tony Blair very clearly said that Brexit will present very specific challenges for Northern Ireland, given its land border with an EU member state and the importance of safeguarding the Good Friday agreement. Unfortunately, many of those concerns were dismissed, but now that the reality of Brexit does not match up to the fantasy version that other people imagined, they seek to blame others for the consequences of their own actions. My noble friend is equally right, though, that the Windsor Framework is the best possible solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be pleasantly surprised to hear that I agree with him: the GB-NI movement of goods is covered by Article 5 of the Windsor agreement. The issue is about the movement of goods into Northern Ireland post 5 July, when the EU rules change. Can he clarify whether the €3 charge and the €2 handling charge will be applied from 1 July, and will that money go to the EU, not the UK? Furthermore, can he explain why France and Italy are bringing in these changes now, and the UK is having to wait until 2029 to implement this revenue-generating initiative?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, I can. The noble Lord asks about goods sent from the rest of the world; the EU has only just published its legislation—sorry, it was the EU handling fee that he asks about. Although the EU has published its legislation relating to the matters I was describing previously, it has not yet published its legislation relating to the EU handling fee. We are obviously aware that the EU is considering plans to introduce a handling fee for every consumer parcel imported by November this year. It has not yet finalised its plans or published final legislation, so we have not yet carried out an assessment of its implications at this point.
The noble Lord also asks about our own reforms, which I know he has championed for many years. As he knows, the Chancellor announced at the previous Budget that the Government will remove low-value import relief by March 2029 at the latest, but it is important that we consult on those arrangements and how they will affect retailers. That consultation will close next month, on 6 March.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has already agreed with our view that this situation is really caused by the appalling nature of the deal that the Conservative Party negotiated on Brexit. Does he also agree that it demonstrates that the rapid agreement of a customs union and other alignments with the EU would not only have huge financial benefits to the United Kingdom but smooth out issues like this that were caused by those in Northern Ireland who advocated for Brexit in the first place?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that I absolutely agree with his analysis of the problem, and I greatly admire the consistency with which he has pursued his policy for a customs union. The points he makes are obviously factually correct. This Government are pursuing an EU reset. The UK and the EU have agreed to negotiate an SPS agreement, which aims to significantly reduce barriers to trade in agri-food goods, support simplified movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the EU, and boost our exports. Negotiations that we are taking forward on electricity and emissions trading will have a similar effect on businesses trading with Northern Ireland and the EU.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the answers that he has given thus far. He mentioned the EU reset negotiations. Can he tell us whether this issue is part of those negotiations and, more generally, what the timetable is for the outcome of the negotiations? Is the pursuit of free, untrammelled internal trade within the United Kingdom something that he and other Government Ministers have at the forefront of their consideration, given that the current restrictions are doing enormous damage to business and consumer confidence in Northern Ireland, as illustrated in the recent report by the Federation of Small Businesses, which I urge every Member of this House to read in detail?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he makes. As I said, the EU negotiations will cover an SPS agreement, which will have significant advantages for trade and the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the EU, and help boost our exports. Similarly, the negotiations on electricity and emissions trading will have beneficial effects for businesses trading with Northern Ireland and the EU. On his question about the Windsor Framework, goods will continue to benefit from the Windsor Framework facilitations, including manufactured goods which are not within the scope of new agreements that we are taking forward with the EU. On the recent report on the Windsor Framework from the Federation of Small Businesses, as the noble Lord knows, the Government recently accepted all the recommendations made by my noble friend Lord Murphy in his Independent Review of the Windsor Framework. This included recommendations that align with the points raised by a wide range of stakeholders, including those set out by the Federation of Small Businesses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Returning to the issue of small parcels, we must ensure that all those concerned are aware of the rules governing trade with Northern Ireland, including all exporters into Northern Ireland, families sending parcels and, of course, Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, who will bear the cost, with the revenue going to the EU. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government are on top of all this and will introduce the new sets of payments—the £3 duty or the £2 handling charge—alongside existing rules in a clear, unbureaucratic and timely manner? It is unclear for the individual just what they have to do.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Government are on top of it, perhaps slightly more so than the noble Baroness, given that her question was incorrect. I have already clearly said that these facilitations under the Windsor Framework are unaffected by the EU’s change to its duty relief exemption, and therefore there will be no need to pay duty.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, what is ultimately at stake here is the stability of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. The EU, to its credit, stretched itself in the lead-in to the Windsor Framework, opening negotiations with the Truss and Sunak Governments. A moment was reached that allowed the Windsor Framework to be part of that process and to return the functions of the institutions. Since then, the EU seems to have returned slightly to its older ways—a series of interventions that are causing destabilisation and strengthening the forces in Northern Ireland that are politically opposed to the Good Friday agreement. In dealing with the EU, will the Minister please make it clear that the survival of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement is fundamental, and that actions that strengthen the support of those hostile to the Good Friday agreement should be avoided at all costs?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Absolutely. We are fully committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market. The Windsor Framework is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. We will work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, businesses, political parties and civic society in Northern Ireland—to achieve this aim, taking into account the implementation deadlines.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask His Majesty’s Government with which organisations they are consulting regarding the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is following the process in the Equality Act 2006 and is consulting the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. As set out in the Act, the EHRC operates independently of the Government and is responsible for drafting the code and consulting such persons it thinks appropriate. It consulted on the code from 2 October 2024 to 3 January 2025, and again from 20 May 2025 to 30 June 2025 on updates to the code.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. By law, the Secretary of State has only two choices: to either lay the code before Parliament or send it back to the EHRC. She has dithered for five months over this binary decision about 11 pages that are at issue. If kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, this Government would be favourite for the gold medal. But this is serious: thousands of organisations are desperately waiting for the code of practice to make sure that they comply with the law. When will they get it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let us be clear, the updated code was received on 4 September. The draft updated code is undergoing review by policy and legal teams in the Office for Equality and Opportunity. We are reviewing the draft code with the care that it deserves. Any suggestion that the Government are delaying the code is totally inaccurate and unhelpful.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches next.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The Minister will be aware that organisations such as the Women’s Institute and Girlguiding have described their current difficulties arising from the draft code as costly and difficult. How will the Government and the EHRC reduce anxiety about the code, so that organisations can act proportionately, inclusively and realistically, rather than facing an uncertain situation in which the main beneficiaries are lawyers and plumbers?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a valid point. The EHRC submitted its draft code to Ministers, and we are reviewing it, as I said before, with the care that it deserves. It is crucial that providers have legally robust guidance on how to apply the Equality Act, which is why we are considering the draft code properly. The code will have implications for service providers up and down the country. It is vital that we get this right.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Conservative Benches next.
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful to the Chief Whip. The Minister will remember that on 2 February I asked him to confirm whether the Government were in full compliance with the law, as set out by the Supreme Court, across all the public services and functions that they deliver. He gave an unequivocal, one-word answer: “absolutely”. I tabled a Written Question the following day, asking him for the evidential basis for that assertion. That Question is now nearly 10 days overdue, so this delay thing seems to be catching. When will I get an answer to that Question, and is the Minister still prepared to stand by his assertion that the Government are in full compliance with the law across all the public services and functions that Ministers are responsible for delivering?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I will repeat my answer: absolutely. I also responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who asked a supplementary to the Question. I have taken the precaution of reading the letter received by Maya Forstater, the CEO of Sex Matters, which sets out the reasons for our review of the code. Obviously, the Government are absolutely committed to complying with the law and the judgment of the Supreme Court. There is no doubt about that. But what we want to do, and as we are doing with the EHRC code, is to review all policies. The policy in the code is not about just one issue: it covers a whole range of protected characteristics. Some of the people who are most concerned about the implications of this are people with disabilities. We should be very careful of saying that we must do something straight away. We are complying with the Supreme Court judgment, and we are not going to deviate from that.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, in the Good Law Project v the EHRC, Mr Justice Swift described the statutory framework as providing a minimum requirement and not a “ceiling”. How will the Government work with the EHRC to ensure that the code reflects this proportionality-based structure?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. The really important thing here is our focus on getting this code right. There are implications for a whole range of businesses and people up and down the country. We have set out our expectations that service providers follow the law, as clarified by the For Women Scotland ruling, and seek specialist advice where necessary. But it is for that reason, and that potential legal challenge, that we need to take time to get this properly right, so that the code can be adopted by everyone with confidence that they are following the law.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
We have had the shabby spectacle of the Government disingenuously arguing against their own regulator’s interpretation of the law in the High Court this past November. On 13 February, those arguments were comprehensively defeated and the EHRC unambiguously won the case on its interpretation in the interim update. Will they now come clean and say that they have no interest in defending women’s rights, and write to the EHRC, as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, has said, to say they will not lay the code—or at least lay it forthwith, so that everyone can see the arguments contained in it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question at all. We have a statutory duty, as does the EHRC. The EHRC is independent of the Government, but the Secretary of State has an obligation. As one noble Lord said, we will consider the code and either reject it or accept it. We are working with the EHRC to publish the code as speedily as possible. We want to avoid the very cases—whether it is the Good Law Project, Sex Matters or anybody else; there are lots of cases going on—as it is the people on the ground who suffer. We want to get it right and we will do so.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is nothing shabby about taking your time to get right a consultation that affects so many people who face difficulties and who are often treated as inhuman minorities in this country. Therefore, I say to my noble friend the Minister, given that there are disputes across multiple settings, when will the Government consider it necessary to provide a clearer steer, working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, rather than allowing proportionality to be defined incrementally through the courts? I believe, in the end, that does not really help anyone.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what my noble friend says. I understand his concerns; I do not think it is good practice to have legal challenges. They do not actually resolve anything. What will resolve things is to get the code accurately and robustly reviewed and properly published. The updated code is, as I have said, undergoing review by policy and legal teams in the Office for Equality and Opportunity. This is a lengthy and legally complex document which will impact service providers up and down the country. Rightly, we are carefully considering it. It is crucial that providers have legally robust guidance on how to apply the Equality Act, which is why we are considering it very carefully.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
If the noble Baronesses can be quick, we can get the Front Bench in and then the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
There are hundreds of documented NHS trusts which still have unlawful policies with regard to the provision of single-sex hospital accommodation. The NHS policy annex B continues to authorise the placement of biological men on women’s hospital wards. Will the Government act now and instruct these organisations to follow the law? If they continue not to, can they explain when they will act?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat what I said to the noble Lord. There are many policies in existence that will obviously need to undergo review as a consequence of the Supreme Court judgment. That review will have implications, for not just sex but all the other protected characteristics. Many of these policies cover a whole range of issues. The fundamental point, which I made to the noble Lord, is that the Government and all government departments will comply with the law. That is my answer to the noble Baroness.
Fire and Rescue Services: Clean Energy Projects
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consultation they have carried out with the fire and rescue services in England regarding clean energy projects such as battery storage plants; and what assessment they have made of the combustibility and flammability of such projects.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
The Government work closely with the National Fire Chiefs Council on battery fire safety. In October 2025, Minister Shanks held a round table on battery safety with industry, regulators and academics, including NFCC representatives. In the last five years, there have been four grid-scale battery fires in Great Britain. Analysis from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero suggests that these fires appear less likely than fires in non-domestic buildings.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but it is unacceptable, given the fire risk posed by something as highly combustible, flammable and at risk of thermal runaway as these battery energy storage facilities, that fire and rescue services should not be statutory consultees to the planning application. To look at one constituency alone, the former Vale of York constituency that I represented, there are BESS plants to be built in Scotton and Lingerfield, Bedale and South Kilvington. That will put enormous stress on the fire and rescue services of north Yorkshire, which last year had to deal with one of the most aggravating and long-term wildfires that we have seen to date. Will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that, forthwith, in any current planning application, fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees, so that they can advise on the fire risk of each individual site with a view to mitigating the fire risk?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The Government already have moved to make sure that the fire services and developers are closely involved in applications as far as large batteries are concerned. The planning practice guidance has been updated to ensure that developers consult fire services in the pursuit of their applications. The fire service itself considers that to become a statutory consultee would prove enormously bureaucratic and additional to its particular work, and is in line with that particular planning practice guidance update.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the national Building Safety Regulator and the former London Fire Commissioner. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. Given the comprehensive new guidance that the Government have published with the National Fire Chiefs Council in December 2025 to directly address the issue of battery energy storage system consultation with fire services, if I was in my former role I would certainly agree that we would have preferred that, rather than the bureaucracy of being a statutory consultee. However, on a related matter, what action are the Government taking following the serious substation fire at Heathrow Airport, which my colleagues at the time fought for many days under very dangerous circumstances, and which closed the airport? Could my noble friend provide an update on how his department intends to implement the 12 recommendations arising from the subsequent National Energy System Operator investigation?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend, to whom I pay tribute for his enormous service in the fire service over a number of years, really ought to be the person who knows what he is talking about on this subject. He refers to the fire in North Hyde a little while ago, which, as noble Lords will know, caused considerable problems at Heathrow Airport in 2025. That was subject to a NESO investigation into the circumstances around that particular fire, which related to faulty maintenance in a substation. As a result of that investigation by NESO, the Government have accepted all the recommendations that were put forward in the report and are working closely with other government departments and the energy industry in implementing the 12 recommendations and 20 related actions, detailed in the Government’s response to that investigation. Among other things, that ensures a joined-up approach across organisations to improve energy resilience, emergency response and recovery. The majority of actions are forecast to be delivered by the end of 2026.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, long-duration energy storage is an extremely important part of our energy transition, providing much-needed stability to our future energy systems. Falling prices and evolving technology are also helping. I welcome the Minister’s response, and we recognise that robust safety systems are in place. However, Ministers have previously spoken of considering additional measures to enhance the regulation of the environmental and safety risks of BESS. Does the Minister feel that more work is needed to reassure the public on public safety concerns?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The Government are actively exploring additional measures to manage safety risks on the grid-scale battery energy storage sites. That is important in the context, as the noble Earl mentions, of the substantial expansion that there will be in batteries as an essential part of the UK’s balancing energy system for the future. In August, Defra published a consultation on modernising the environmental permitting regime for industry, which included proposals to include BESS within scope of environmental permitting regulations. The Government are currently reviewing industry feedback and will publish a response in due course. That would require battery developers to demonstrate to the Environment Agency how specific risks were being managed while also providing for ongoing regulatory inspections of battery sites.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my directorship of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. When I was the MP for South Thanet, we had a proposal for one of these battery farms—let us call them that—in the constituency. I wrote to Kent Fire and Rescue Service with my concerns, and it wrote back with its own. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh quite rightly states, fire and rescue services really have very little part in the process. I ask the Government to consider a statutory Section 106 requirement applying to each and every one of these battery farms, so that they have to pay for the specialist equipment that local fire and rescue services need to put such fires out. Once they start to go, there is very little that you can do with usual water systems to put them out. It requires specialist equipment and, not least, a local evacuation, because the fumes that come off these lithium-powered fires are very serious and deleterious to health.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I think that we should get this into some proportion. As I have said, the number of battery fires over the last five years is four. The percentage of fires that you might encounter in an industrial premises or commercial premises is higher than the proportion per thousand of battery fires. Battery fires stand within the general problem of fires across industry. As far as the extinction of those fires is concerned, there is protocol already in the fire service about how to deal with those particular fires. It is a process of enabling burnout, so that the battery does not self-reignite. The noble Lord is correct to say that there are issues relating to battery fires, particularly the ability of that battery fire to reignite itself even in the absence of oxygen. There is a protocol now to surround the fire with safety measures and allow it to burn out. That, as far as the fire service chiefs are concerned, is a perfectly adequate and safe response to those fires.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister revisit his figures on battery fires? On 6 September 2024, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, led an outstanding debate in your Lordships’ House on lithium-ion battery safety. Superb contributions were made across the House, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. Since then, battery fires in bin lorries and at waste sites in the UK have reached an all-time high—not four, but more than 1,200 in 2024. That is an increase of 71% from 700 in 2022, which was described by the Environmental Services Association as an “epidemic”. Will the Minister take this opportunity to go back to his department and agree that, at a minimum, we need the fire service, the Environmental Agency, and the Health and Safety Executive to be statutory consultees for all planning and new stand-alone battery energy storage systems? There is urgent action required in this sector.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I do not intend to go back to the department and tell it that its particular concerns are wrong. What we are talking about today are fires in large stand-alone battery storage plants, of which there have been four in the last five years. If the noble Lord would like the individual addresses and locations of those four fires, I have them here. It is not the case that this covers every battery fire there has ever been. We know that certain batteries—for example, illegally imported batteries in scooters—tend to be a little less safe than other batteries. There is proper concern about some areas of battery safety and maintenance, but not about this particular sector, which is very well regulated and safe now. As I have set out today, there have been further measures to ensure that the safety and integrity of those stand-alone batteries is maintained.
New Housing: Flood Risk
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to mitigate the risks arising from new housing being built in areas of medium or high flood risk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that inappropriate development in flood risk areas should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. If necessary in such areas, development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The framework also requires any development which could have drainage impacts to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. We are consulting on a clearer, more rules-based framework, including a dedicated chapter on flood risk.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The framework may suggest that, but reliable figures from the insurer Aviva reveal a trend of more and more new homes being built in medium and high flood risk areas, up from 8% 10 years ago to 11% last year, and potentially rising to 15% of new homes by 2050. In addition, of course, the Flood Re insurance scheme does not apply to houses built after 2009 and is due to end in 2039. Will the Government publish their own figures on this worrying trend, and what will they do to ensure progress towards reducing housing construction in flood risk areas?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications comply with Environment Agency advice, so we are making progress with this. I accept his point that it is very important, as we continue to work towards our target of 1.5 million new homes in this country—desperately needed because of the housing crisis—that we continue to push forward with the National Planning Policy Framework guidelines that homes should not be built in flood risk areas. The sequential test still applies to new-build homes and the planning applications for them, as does securing high-quality sustainable drainage systems to support flood risk management. It is impossible to push forward with this without sometimes using areas that might be at risk of flooding. The important thing is that the mitigation is put in place properly when that happens.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, given that flood risk and housing demand are only going to increase, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to allow flooding and housing to coexist? Are they considering the urban planning model of sponge cities, using nature-based solutions such as permeable pavements, planted roofs and urban wetlands to absorb, store, purify and reuse rainwater to mitigate both flooding and drought?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I had heard about that very interesting concept. We need to make sure that all steps to mitigate flood risk are taken, even in areas that are not subject to traditional flood risk. The increase of surface floodwater is an issue and we need to make sure that, where possible, permeable surfaces are laid down. It is very helpful that both the building guidelines and the National Planning Policy Framework direct as much attention as possible to make sure that applications mitigate the flood risk when they come forward and that buildings are built with that mitigation built in.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s White Paper A New Vision for Water gives a case study on page 40 of how a housing development was stalled on a habitat site with protected species. The Government’s water delivery taskforce was able to unblock it, resulting in 4,000 houses being built. Unblocking challenges could result in additional flooding, endanger protected species and ultimately result in new home owners being refused access to Flood Re, which has only 15 years left to run. How will the Minister ensure that this does not happen?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question that we cannot protect the biodiversity arrangements at the same time as dealing with flood risk. Defra established the water delivery taskforce to make sure that water companies delivered on their planned investments to provide water and wastewater capacity. The Government have worked hard to secure £104 billion of private sector investment into this and, in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, we will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the whole system. That will make it fit for decades, leading to clean rivers, stronger regulations and greater investment. We are focusing on both the provision of good water supplies as we build the homes that we need and protecting biodiversity. These things go hand in hand; they are not mutually exclusive.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I do not want to get into the water reform Bill too much—it is a terrible Bill and the Government ought to withdraw it—but on this issue of flood risk, the fact is that houses are still being built on places that risk flooding. Some of the solutions are much wider than just putting a few ditches around the housing project. We must think very big when considering floods, because we have to look uphill and downhill. At the moment, I feel that some of the measures are very limited in scope. Do the Government agree?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not agree with the noble Baroness. Some amazing work has been done by the development industry to tackle and mitigate the risk of flooding. I have been to visit sites with very attractive-looking sustainable drainage systems; they not only deal with the issue of surface water and floodwater but provide fantastic environmental features for those estates. That encourages people to get involved and—to speak to the previous questioner’s point—encourages biodiversity, as well as tackling the flooding issues. Developers are doing that. We need to make sure that we share the work of those providing the best practice in this area and that everybody is working to enhance that best practice.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the time is right for a review of the Flood Re programme? As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it does not apply to buildings which were built after 1 January 2009; it also does not apply to blocks of flats that have more than three dwelling units within them or to buildings that have any elements of small or micro-commercial businesses within them. These are all things for which it would be very helpful to have the availability of the Flood Re insurance, which is a very good programme. Is it time now for this to be looked at very hard?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We know that Flood Re has provided cover for 346,000 household policies and 650,000 properties have benefited since the scheme’s launch, so I agree with the noble Earl that it has been a very valuable scheme. We know that all homes built since 2009 are excluded from Flood Re, as that would be inconsistent with current policy. With the planning policy, we are trying to make it clear that inappropriate development in flood plains should be avoided and, where development is necessary in a flood risk area, it should be made flood resistant, resilient and safe for the lifetime of the development.
Build Back Better is the UK home insurance sector initiative, which I am sure the noble Earl is aware of, and is designed to help home owners recover from flooding in a smarter way. It enables eligible policyholders to access £10,000 to install flood measures during repairs over and above the usual cost. We are looking at supporting those who have been at risk of flooding and, through the National Planning Policy Framework, making sure that we absolutely reduce that risk to a minimum.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, flood risk management is a complex issue that requires co-operation and collaboration between developers, local authorities, insurers and home owners. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that institutional knowledge and specialist risk management expertise is not lost during local government reorganisation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that my colleagues in local government, who address these issues every day through the planning system, as the noble Lord will be well aware, are more than alert to this issue. When the new authorities are set up, they will have more resilience in their planning functions because there will be fewer of them and they will be able to focus on planning issues using the capacity funding that the Government have put into planning. As importantly, there will be a strategic level enabling planning across a combined authority area, which will make sure that issues of flood risk are taken into account right from the strategic level to the local plan. We are developing our new National Planning Policy Framework and making sure that it supports local authorities to do just that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the sequential test. She will be aware that that was overturned recently in the case of Gladman in the High Court. Will her department respond to that case and ensure that the sequential test is met in every case?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That High Court judgment has been raised in recent debates on the English devolution Bill. I cannot comment on specific cases, but the case does not disapply the strong protections in the National Planning Policy Framework relating to development in areas of potential flood risk. The sequential test is a procedural step to assess relative degrees of risk and is used to steer development to areas of lower risk where possible. However, where development is necessary in such areas, the framework is clear that it should proceed only if made safe for its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, which is the other danger. I reassure the noble Baroness that the sequential test remains firmly in place as part of the planning process.
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Statement from the Minister in the other place that this dreadful surrender Bill is being paused pending further discussions with the United States. My amendment of a few weeks ago, which the noble Baroness described at the time as “wrecking”, called for exactly that, so it is great that the Government now seem to be in the same place. Does she agree that, had the Government followed the logical sequence of agreeing their new treaty and then amendments to the 1966 treaty with the US before progressing with this Bill, they would not be in this embarrassing position today?
On the subject of pauses, will the noble Baroness pause the no-fault eviction of the group of Chagossians who have returned to take up residence on one of the outer Chagos Islands? Throughout the passage of the Bill, on many occasions she rightly expressed her sadness and shame at the way that a previous Labour Government had evicted the Chagossians from their homes. We will now see just how sincere she was in those comments by whether this current Labour Government carry out another forceful eviction of British citizens from a British territory. Finally, does she agree that the current international crisis and the possible use of Diego Garcia for military strikes against Iran demonstrates the vital strategic importance of the base and why we should retain it under British sovereignty and UK control?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the people who have found their way to some of the outer islands should not be there. It is not safe for them and they do not have permission. It is not legal for anybody to visit those islands without a permit. They do not have such a permit and they should leave immediately. It is deeply irresponsible that they are encouraging others to join them and there is a risk to life in doing so. I hope that they leave of their own accord safely, but promptly.
The noble Lord is right that this base is of vital strategic importance. It is an expression of our incredibly close security and defence relationship with the United States, which is why we have gone to such lengths to secure the future of the base.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the House will note the fact that Conservative MPs, Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, all of whom proclaim to love their country, actively undermine it when they are in the State Department and the White House. However, given President Trump’s statement, it is now necessary for us to be presented with what would be a binding decision with the United States, our key ally in the use of the military base. If there is a pause, does the Minister agree that this is an opportunity for there to be a statutory right for the Chagossian community with regards to resettlement, active participation from the Chagossian community on decisions that affect them, greater clarity on the value for money for our taxpayers if there is to be a long-term treaty, and a greater role for this Parliament in holding any government to account over the lifetime of that treaty?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is very important that we lay out clearly the costings and the value for money points are answered. I am happy that the Government have committed to doing that and will continue to do so.
On the participation of Chagossians, we have discussed this at great length in the past, and for very good reason. We are able to find ways, together with Mauritius, to make sure that Chagossians are properly represented and able to exert influence within the treaty around the trust fund, their ability to resettle in the future, who is entitled to do so and all these issues. It is probably a good idea for us to continue those conversations to make sure that is done as well as it possibly can be.
On the stability of the US position, I take the point. We had secured very clear and firm support for the deal from Secretary Rubio and President Trump. We continue to have close, intense conversations with our dearest allies and partners about the consistency of this decision, in order that we may be able to move forward with this treaty which, as I have said, secures our ability to operate together with the United States from Diego Garcia.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, on that very point, the Minister said on 12 occasions—and I have a list of them—that the treaty can only go ahead with US support. Well, the US President said last week that this is a “blight on our great ally” and the UK should not give up Diego Garcia. The following day, the President’s senior press officer, Karoline Leavitt, was asked by the BBC whether the President’s statement was now official policy and she said that it certainly was official policy. Can the Minister tell the House what her plan B is?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our plan is to proceed as I have said, which is to speak with our friends, allies, partner, close friend in Washington to establish a stable position. As I have said repeatedly—and it is good to know the noble Lord has been listening and counting so assiduously—it is true that this is all about securing the base for the United Kingdom and the United States to operate together.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the imperative about what happens to the base is the national security of our country, not only for those of us in our generation but for the generations to come in the next hundred years or so? Does she agree that noises off can be distracting and misleading and, at the end of the day, we have to make up our own minds?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We do need to make up our own minds and we have done so, but I do not think it is realistic to proceed in a way that does not involve the support of our allies in the United States who pay for the base and its operation, and with whom we work so closely. The noble Lord is right about noises off, and sometimes you do have to wonder about the motivation of some of those conducting themselves in that way.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, given what the Minister has just said about “our dearest friends and allies”, would the single most sensible gesture to our dearest friends and ally not now be to put this pause on to permanent hold?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness will forgive me for not wanting to disclose in this forum the very detailed nature of the conversations we are having with the United States, but it is not for any of us here to tell each other what the best thing to do for the United States would be; it is up to them to talk to us privately at this stage about how we should be proceeding to secure the base.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why do the Government think the international courts can make us give Diego Garcia away to Mauritius when there are very clear defence opt-outs from their jurisdictions in the relevant treaties?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is good to see the noble Lord here in his place—he has not been part of the discussions we have had up to now. If he had been, he might have found some useful exchanges across this Chamber on that very topic. We think there is a legal basis for the decisions we have made. Although noble Lords opposite may disagree with that, there is at least consistency in our position. I am genuinely fascinated by what the previous Government thought they were doing, negotiating around a dozen times, if, as they maintain now, they thought there was no legal jeopardy around the future of the base.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, next.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I did say the last time we debated this issue, as the Minister probably remembers, that there were consequences to ignoring the voices and the rights of self-determination of the Chagossian people. We now find ourselves in a situation where they have taken matters into their own hands and have gone to the archipelago. Surely it is now long past the time when we need to kill this treaty.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I respect the noble Baroness’s steadfast support for the Chagossian community, but as she will know, there is not one single view among the Chagossian community or Chagossian groups, and there are several which support this new agreement. It is not good that people have found their way to this remote island, which is not suitable for habitation. They are putting their own lives at risk, and, more importantly, encouraging others to put their lives at risk too—and they should leave promptly.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, on 5 January, when debating the Diego Garcia Bill, I asked the Minister this question:
“Is there any legally binding agreement between the UK and the United States that it”,
that is, the United States,
“will continue its use of the base or have need of its use for the 99-year duration of the treaty?”—[Official Report, 5/1/26; col. 957.]
The Minister did not answer then. Perhaps she could answer now, because it seems the UK should be aware and assured that the United States is committed for the whole length of the treaty, the 100 years.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is very important that we have an agreement with the United States about the continued use of this base, because it matters so much to our security, and the United States feels the same about it. There is no difference between the United Kingdom and the United States about the need to continue to have that base and to operate it together; we are in complete agreement on that. Where we are coming to talk to them now is about the nature of that agreement and these issues around sovereignty. We will do that, and we will get these issues resolved so that we can move forward.
Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, any suggestion that there have been insufficient transitional arrangements for the ETA system is surely for the sky. The scheme was introduced three years ago but was not made mandatory, to allow for people to adjust. It is absolutely right that the Government are now making this system mandatory and that dual nationals should have to enter using British passports—I am with the Minister on that. My question is: now that we have this system in place, how will the Government utilise the information for stronger immigration enforcement?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. As he knows, this position was introduced by the previous Government, and I am very pleased that we have been able to see it through. He asked how we will use this information for important border control. The whole purpose of the system is to have border control. As he probably knows, today we have had some new figures on immigration positions. They show that asylum hotels are at the lowest level for 18 months, which coincides with the UK Labour Government; the asylum backlog has fallen for the fourth quarter in a row to 64,426; and small boat arrivals are 9% lower than the peak in 2022. This is part of a government strategy to control our borders and ensure that they are firm. I welcome his support not just for this measure but for the wider government agenda.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am not sorry but pleased to disrupt this cosy consensus because, honestly, the Government’s temporary mitigation measure is no good at all. It leaves discretion to carriers on what evidence to accept for entry, resulting in, as was said by my friend in the other place, Manuela Perteghella, who tabled this Urgent Question yesterday,
“chaos for law-abiding British citizens”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/26; col. 351.]
and the separation of families. Why can this Government not do what Canada did: delay enforcement and create a low-cost, temporary authorisation? Why do this Government not do something similarly common-sense? We understand that controls should be properly enforced, but, for goodness’ sake, leave a breathing space for people for whom the impact is very personal.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, rightly said, this scheme has been in planning for three years; it was introduced by the previous Government and we have seen it through. There is always going to be a deadline at some point in any scheme, and the deadline for the introduction of this one was 26 February—today. What we have tried to do is to ensure that, if there are individuals who are impacted today, this week or in the near future, there is a temporary mitigation so that carriers may—at their discretion, as the noble Baroness said—accept an expired UK passport, alongside a non-visa national third-country passport, as evidence of British nationality.
Dual nationals may also ask their carrier to contact the Home Office’s carrier support hub, which is available now. Dual nationals overseas may also wish to contact the embassy. There is provision for urgent travel without a British passport in certain circumstances, as set out on GOV.UK. If there are particular problems, my colleague the Immigration Minister will hold drop-in sessions in the Houses of Parliament next week and the week after. Now that the scheme is available, dual nationals who wish to come to the UK can apply for either a British passport or a certificate that is a lifetime allowance on that dual-national approach.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his answers so far. He will recall that I have written to him on several occasions about an anomaly in the electronic travel authorisations that results in an impediment being placed in the way of the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. The majority of people who come from the United States to Ireland come through Dublin Airport and thus travel to Northern Ireland, adding to our local economy and revenue. However, the issue of ETAs presents an impediment and inconvenience. Therefore, will my noble friend and his ministerial colleagues in the Home Office look again at this issue to see whether an exemption is possible?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful and can reassure my noble friend that the Government wish to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from inward tourist economy issues. We have, in discussing the proposals to date, worked with a range of partners, including the Northern Ireland tourism association, to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated effectively and ultimately will not prove a barrier to people wishing to come to Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom to support their tourism objectives. We have looked at, and will look at, with the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency the impact of this issue, but I say to my noble friend that I cannot offer an exemption for visitors to Northern Ireland, because that would undermine the rationale of the scheme as a whole, which is to strengthen our borders, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the rules say that the personal details on the two passports must match, but Britons in Greece are among the those highlighting the fact that this is extraordinarily discriminatory against women, given that, for example, in Greece—and this applies to a number of other countries—there are rules about the name they must have on the Greek passport. If they are married to a Greek, they must have their maiden surname as well. The Minister may say that the Government have said that, under extraordinary, exceptional circumstances, the two names do not have to match. Can he confirm that that applies in this case, where people have no choice but to have two different names on their passport? More than that, can he guarantee that every agent for every airline and other travel company will understand that when people turn up to travel?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will look at the specific instance that the noble Baroness has mentioned with regard to Greece, because that has not been drawn to my attention to date. I will contact her directly. We have made a strong effort, since the last Government introduced the principle of this, to inform and work with carriers to ensure that they understand the situation. Without repeating what I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, if she reads Hansard tomorrow, she will see that there are a number of mechanisms whereby individuals who feel they have a problem now in this temporary period of transition can follow that up with a range of authorities to make sure they get proper access. As ever, when a date is introduced, there will be a little friction, because that is always the case. But, in the long term, the ETA arrangements and the ability to provide stronger borders is a task worth working for.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, further to the point raised by my noble friend, the Minister himself confirmed that the Home Office’s current arrangements are that, “at their own discretion”, carriers “may” accept “some” expired British passports as appropriate documentation. Does he not accept that that is the worst of all worlds and that dual nationals will have no idea which carriers are going to accept the documentation, and under which circumstances? Given that he has admitted that there is a transitional period, would it not make a great deal of sense for the Government to tell all carriers that they can accept expired passports for a set period of time?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The scheme has been introduced this week, as the noble Lord will know. The friction that may occur on occasions now is because people do not understand or are unaware of the results. But we have made a strong effort to make sure that carriers know that they can accept expired passports. Again, I advise individuals who wish to travel to the United Kingdom to contact the carrier to see whether their documentation is in order in this period when the scheme has been introduced. There are a number of measures, even at the point of refusal, whereby an individual who has been refused at a gate can contact a number of things, which I do not wish to outline because of time. The noble Lord will know, and be able to read in Hansard, about those that I have just mentioned, which are available. The feedback we have had so far is that there is a limited number of concerns in the initial introduction, and I will obviously monitor that over the coming weeks.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the UK Government’s trade envoy for Australia. This issue is causing considerable consternation in Australia, a country with which we are developing our defence, security and other relationships, to the benefit of the wider world. It seems slightly extraordinary that an Australian who is not a British national can much more easily gain entry to the UK than one who is, even if it is a residual matter and they do not have a passport. Should we not be looking at ways to facilitate this? The Passport Office, when we had difficulties two or three years ago, moved at pace and had people here to deal with the cases. Should we not be doing that in Australia and encouraging movement between our countries rather than creating an incident?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Any Australian dual national who wishes to prove their British nationality can do one of two things. They can apply for a British passport, which is usually a nine or eight-day wait at the moment, or they can even get one speedily if they need to: that can be done. They can also apply for a certificate of exemption, which is a lifetime exemption that can be attached to their Australian passport and will allow them to travel to the United Kingdom without the need for an ETA. That is a reasonably sensible approach to make. It is a short-term thing. Now that the system has been introduced, any Australian citizen who wishes to travel to the UK can either get a certificate, get a British passport or travel here, and if they travel here and are refused, in the meantime there are a number of mechanisms—I outlined them to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—that they can adopt. However, in the long term, this ETA scheme is a sensible thing to do and I commend it to the House.
Resetting the UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ricketts
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Affairs Committee Unfinished Business: Resetting the UK-EU relationship (1st Report, HL Paper 202).
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, before the first debate gets under way, I want to highlight the four-minute advisory time for Back-Bench contributions. This is designed to ensure that the debate can finish within three hours, in line with the usual timings for Thursday debates and so that the House can rise at a reasonable time this evening. I therefore urge noble Lords to keep their remarks within four minutes to meet those aims.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to lead this debate on the report from the European Affairs Committee, which it was my privilege to chair until last month, when I handed the baton to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I am glad to see such a distinguished group of people in the Chamber to debate this report, which shows how salient the issue is right now. I thank the Government for getting their response to us in a timely way, which enables us to hold the debate now in good time and at an important moment.
This was not an entirely straightforward report to produce. We thought it was essential that the House have an overall assessment of what used to be known as the reset, which is, after all, the Government’s flagship policy towards the EU. As the only committee of Parliament conducting systematic scrutiny of the Government’s European policy, we concluded that we were the right people to do it.
It was a long inquiry which covered a wide range of complex issues. We found it quite difficult to get our heads around exactly what the reset covered, since the Government did not produce a White Paper on their negotiating objectives. Initially, we had only the Labour Party manifesto to go on. We also found that we were aiming at a moving target, because in the course of our work, the range of the reset increased. A number of important areas were added at the May 2025 UK-EU summit.
Members of the committee held deep and very different convictions about what the reset should cover, and indeed on whether it was necessary at all. Although we strove to find a consensus, that proved elusive. We therefore took the unusual, although not unprecedented, step of voting on the committee’s report. As a chair, I would always prefer to have a reconciliation of differences, but if that is not possible without a meaningless fudge, I think it more useful to the House to have different views clearly set out. Members will have seen that in appendix 9 of the report there is an alternative summary and the outcome of the voting on it.
Given all those circumstances, I am very grateful to all the members of the committee who contributed through this long inquiry. We all owe a particular debt of gratitude to our committee staff: Jarek Wisniewski, Brigid Fowler, Tim Mitchell, Tabitha Brown and Luisa Jaime Nunez, assisted by our press adviser Louise Shewey. I also want to thank our national parliament representative Jack Sheldon and his assistant Maherban Lidher for the vital work they do in liaising between this House and European parliamentarians.
The Government are right to have dropped the misleading term “reset”. The UK-EU relationship will be a continual process of adjustment and adaptation. There is no end point. Even since we finished our report three months ago, there have been further significant developments, driven largely by the increasingly stark reality that we Europeans can simply no longer depend on the US as our ally.
I will not try to summarise the detail of the snapshot that we gave in our report as of last November. I want to focus on the issues that will arise in implementation of the various agreements now under negotiation, and then to range a bit more widely to consider where we go from here, especially in the light of the Prime Minister’s interesting Munich speech of 14 February.
Let me start with security and defence co-operation with the EU. This is, of course, the area where progress is most urgently needed in the face of Putin’s war in Ukraine, now entering its fifth year, and Trump’s total unpredictability. Our report welcomes the security and defence partnership which the Government concluded at the 2025 summit, but that is only an enabler. Closer consultations are useful, of course, but translating them into real improvements in military capability is much more difficult. That was all too obvious when the negotiations for the UK to participate in the €150 billion SAFE defence investment programme broke down in December. The sticking point, as noble Lords will remember, was a completely unreasonable EU demand for an entry fee running to several billion pounds. This was a remarkably short-sighted EU position, given the geopolitics, and one with which many member states were unhappy. Since then, there have been suggestions in the media that the Government plan to reopen discussions, with the aim of participating in SAFE on more reasonable terms. Can the Minister tell us whether that is the case?
Staying with our report, we also looked at the area of police and law enforcement co-operation. The key here is more automation and streamlining of data sharing between law enforcement communities. A specific example arises when the Government have to decide whether to participate in the updated version of the Prüm database, which will have facial image data as well as the existing database of fingerprints and DNA. That will be an important decision that I am sure Parliament will need to scrutinise carefully.
On the economic issues, most of our witnesses supported the Government’s manifesto commitment to negotiate agreements on sanitary and phytosanitary checks on food and animal products, and on the emissions trading system. Our witnesses were also clear that the electricity trading scheme proposals outlined in the trade and co-operation agreement simply would not work. They therefore supported the idea of exploring UK access to the EU single market for electricity trading. That is now under way, as is a negotiation.
Our report lays out the implications of agreements in these areas of UK access to the single market. In particular, they will require dynamic alignment with EU regulations as they change, subject to any exceptions that are carved out in the negotiations. This will raise important issues for Parliament. We are promised a Bill soon, which will be interesting. The SPS agreement is likely to involve a continuous process of alignment, much of it highly technical, with each change potentially having an impact on businesses across the UK. How will Parliament exercise any useful scrutiny of this constant drip of administrative change? I guess that, at the very least, the European Affairs Committee will need more staff to keep abreast of the constantly changing regulatory landscape.
Agreements with the EU will have other implications as well. In particular, the UK will have to make a financial contribution. In the case of SPS and ETS, the 2025 summit agreed that payments would go towards EU costs in running the schemes, which seems fair enough, but the Commission’s draft negotiating mandate on electricity market trading introduces the idea of “cohesion funding”—in other words, British payments to reduce disparities between EU regions. Norway makes such cohesion payments directly to projects in poorer regions. If the Minister could give us more detail on whether that would also be the UK’s approach to the inevitable demand for cohesion funding when we seek to apply for single market access in other sectors, that would be interesting.
Two aspects of the trade and co-operation agreement were set to expire in June 2026: the arrangements on fisheries, and on trade and investment in energy. The May summit agreed to roll over the existing access for EU fishermen to UK waters for 12 years, but agreed to extend the energy title only one year at a time. That fisheries deal was strongly criticised by many of our witnesses, particularly those from the fishing industry. The committee also had serious doubts about the process. Within one month of the deal being struck, it had been enacted by the Specialised Committee on Fisheries, with no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. I should add that the Scottish salmon industry was very pleased at the prospect of an SPS agreement, given its export-orientated business.
On the cultural front, our report welcomed the prospect of the UK associating with Erasmus+ from 2027. Agreement on that has now been reached, which is good news for young people across the UK and the EU. Negotiations are also under way for a youth experience scheme. Is the Minister confident that a deal can be struck on that in time for the next summit, planned for May?
I note that both schemes were EU, not UK, negotiating objectives. I welcome that progress is being made, but it is disappointing that there has been no progress, as far as I can tell, on the UK’s one priority in the cultural field—a deal to help touring artists. That enjoys widespread support in both Houses of Parliament and the European Parliament, given the discussions that we have had in the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. I hope that the Minister can update us on how the Government are planning to break the logjam on touring artists.
In conclusion, I want to spend some time on the wider context for the future UK-EU relationship. My view as we went through this inquiry was that the Government’s level of ambition, even as extended at the May summit, was not nearly bold enough. Our witnesses were unanimous that, even if all the highly technical negotiations now under way were successful, the economic impact would be marginal, if positive. The Government predict a boost of around £9 billion in total by 2040, which is not much for a £3 trillion economy. The reality is, as Mark Carney put it so well in Davos, that we now live in a world where the great powers are using
“economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities”.
In that world, marginal benefits are nowhere near enough.
The Prime Minister, in his excellent Munich speech, seemed to agree. He saw closer UK-EU economic relations as part of the answer, setting the aim of “deeper economic integration” and moving
“closer to the single market in other sectors”.
If the Minister could give us any details on which sectors, that would be interesting. I welcome the aspiration to move closer to the single market, but the EU will need to respond to that. The failure of the SAFE negotiations and the restrictive rules now under discussion around its “made in Europe” initiative remind us that, for the EU institutions, the UK is still a third country. They are tending to apply their rules pretty inflexibly despite a mutual interest in working together.
The reality is that the hard strategic choices facing European nations, including Britain, will not be made in the UK-EU framework. Again, the Prime Minister recognised that in Munich. He talked of the need to step up work with like-minded allies on options for a collective approach to defence financing. He said:
“We must come together to integrate our capabilities on spending and procurement and build a joint European defence industry”.
He added that we should “turbocharge our defence production”. Again, any detail on that important new initiative would be interesting. It sounds as if the idea is to mobilise a wider group of European countries, going well beyond the EU, leap-frogging the stalemate over SAFE. There must be a question over whether there is room for two separate defence financing initiatives, but I welcome the willingness to think big in facing up to the new reality that we will have to take much more responsibility for our own security.
Trump is dismissive of international law and sees no value in allies. His treatment of Denmark over Greenland has broken all the bonds of trust which have kept NATO together for 75 years. New forms of co-operation among like-minded middle powers are therefore urgently needed to deal with a hostile Russia and an indifferent America. Such groupings tend to take shape under the pressure of great events and do not necessarily follow the blueprints set out in foreign ministries. It may be that this coalition of the willing, which has done such interesting work under UK-French leadership in supporting Ukraine, can grow into a load-bearing forum for wider strategic thinking outside NATO. For the moment, it is informal and unstructured, but it has a very interesting membership covering many European countries and Asian allies. I am sure that other noble Lords will have wisdom to bring to bear on this crucial subject.
Whatever the shape of the future, we need a turbocharging of our relationships with our closest neighbours in the EU, who share our values and interests. That will need more vision and more consistent political focus on both sides than we have had so far, but it is an objective that becomes more important every month, given the international situation that we face. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s comments. I beg to move.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to all the witnesses who contributed to this report, to the committee staff who worked so hard to bring it together and, not least, to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for his excellent chairmanship and clear and comprehensive introduction to the report. In the limited time available, I shall mainly confine myself to a few brief comments on one of the many important issues covered in the report: European security.
Before I do so, I want to register a quick point on the vexed matter of touring artists, on which others will no doubt wish to elaborate. A couple of weeks ago, I met with representatives of the European Parliament’s culture committee. They had just come from DCMS, where they had been told that the problems faced by our artists seeking to perform in Europe were not a priority issue for the UK. That is certainly not the view that Ministers have rightly expressed from the Dispatch Box. I suggest to the Government that we might do better in our negotiations with the EU if we sent rather more consistent messages.
I go back to the security and defence partnership. This was the area that seemed to hold most promise in the run-up to the UK-EU summit last May, since the threat looming over the European continent—not just over the EU—seemed to give us common cause despite any Brexit hangover on either side. In the event, it turned out to be the area of perhaps greatest disappointment.
Defence is, of course, not an EU competence, but neither is it strictly a national responsibility. Our necessarily corporate approach to defence in Europe is given substance through NATO, but even the alliance cannot address what is perhaps our most urgent military challenge today. This is not increasing the number of ships, soldiers or aircraft, important though those things are. The priority is to create an innovative, agile and rapidly scalable defence-industrial base across Europe. I am not just talking about traditional defence industries; we have seen in Ukraine how important the normally civilian-orientated sector can be in time of conflict. Without such an industrial hinterland, our Armed Forces will quickly become impotent in any sustained conflict through lack of the wherewithal to fight. Developing such capacity is where the EU can—and has started to—play a part. But it is about European defence, not EU defence. Frankly, the latter is a meaningless, not to say dangerous, concept.
It was therefore very disappointing to see UK companies excluded from full participation in the SAFE mechanism. This was a significant setback for the kind of integrated defence-industrial enterprise we shall need on this continent if we are to develop the strategic capabilities for which we are still overreliant on the United States and in which the UK should play a leading role. We must do better going forward. But if we are to do better and play a leading role, we must recognise that, in terms of defence, we are increasingly viewed as something of a paper tiger, even among our closest friends in the EU. We talk a good game but seem less and less able to play one. That is not exactly a leadership position.
In Munich recently, the Prime Minister said that European nations need to increase defence spending further and faster. Amen to that, but where is the UK action to match the rhetoric? We need to argue for a much more coherent approach to defence-industrial capability within Europe as a whole. But if we are to convince, we must at the very least put our money where our mouth is.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for his measured, calm chairmanship of the European Affairs Committee, and I welcome his successor, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, whose military experience will, I am sure, be up to dealing with the lot of us.
I served in Brussels for six years, the only woman Britain ever sent as a commissioner. After being the first woman to take on the trade portfolio, I became the first High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, responsible, among many other things, for leading the Iran nuclear talks, Europe’s response to the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and up to 10 military and civilian missions. I also set up the European External Action Service.
In my short contribution to this debate, I want to focus on collaboration on law enforcement and intelligence gathering. The committee was fortunate to hear from witnesses from the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We asked them about Part 3 of the TCA covering law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This gives the UK unprecedented access compared with any other third country, but of course falls short of the access we would gain as a member state. Our interest in the committee was in how effective this has been and where more could be done to increase that effectiveness.
Our witnesses told us that aspects of their work were more challenging and cumbersome than before, within a system that is process-heavy. There was limited opportunity to automate, meaning that a lot of manual processes had to be deployed. I want to be clear: they were not suggesting that the system was broken, nor that they were unable to achieve what they needed to do, but it took longer, required more bureaucracy, relied on 27 bilateral relationships rather than one overarching one and was just a little bit harder. Their analysis was summed up by them in one word, “clunky”—a very diplomatic way of saying that it is harder now than it used to be.
One of the greatest practical losses was access to SIS II, the information-sharing system among not only EU member states but Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. This gives real-time information sharing from police databases. Until Brexit, it was used an estimated 600 million times a year by the UK. We can of course use Interpol red notices and information systems, but they are less efficient. We need to find ways to streamline and access information more easily and to share knowledge across the continent. Crime does not stop at borders, and criminals rely to an extent on the clunkiness and the gaps to pursue their activities. We were told that the real prize would be the signing of a multilateral agreement with EU member states that would enable alert sharing through the I-LEAP platform. While it would not restore information sharing in full, it would be much better.
We all know that the European arrest warrant was used after the attempted bombings after 7/7 claimed the lives of 52 people and injured more than 700. The suspect was taken in Rome and extradited to the UK using the European arrest warrant. The Minister at the time, Andy Burnham, told your Lordships’ committee in 2006 that this case
“very well illustrated the potential benefits … of the smooth functioning of this system”.
It is not and was not perfect, and other cases have not been as swiftly dealt with, but to quote the Lords report, it
“has a key role to play in the fight against terrorism and in bringing those accused of serious crime to justice”.
Our law enforcement witnesses have asked us to find ways to recognise the European arrest warrant as a valid request. As one of our witnesses said, give us
“the agility that organised crime exercises”.
We owe it to their professionalism and dedication to get this done, and soon.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, whose service in Brussels was so distinguished and whose experience of the Commission is so much more recent than mine. I believe that this report has the potential to transform British politics. If the reset is successful, it will set us on a path to creating a new relationship with the EU that marks a break with the past and reflects the realities of the present, a relationship that has a life of its own and is not a road to something else, a relationship that will evolve in response to the needs and interests of the two parties, not in accordance with some predetermined and underlying plan. As it progresses, so its ambitions can increase, and the sooner the better.
This is vital and in the national interest. On the one hand, in a threatening and uncertain world, our defence and security interests are intimately bound up with those of our EU neighbours. On the other, the EU, one of the world’s three great trading blocs and the one nearest to us, is by far our largest trading partner. Yet there are those in this country who are so obsessed with the Brexit battles that instead of looking for a new beginning, they present any change in the situation as a plot to subvert the result of the Brexit referendum. We must move on from that attitude.
As I said in a debate a few weeks ago, I believe the policy being pursued by the Government, on which this report makes a number of helpful suggestions, is on the right path—by which I mean the pursuit of agreements with the EU on a range of specific and often technical issues that create a balance of tangible benefits for both sides. If the two sides can do that successfully, it will create a habit of co-operation on the basis of which the new relationship can be built. This report is a constructive contribution to that end; I just hope that the EU will be able to respond in the same spirit. Its own agenda is so full, and its recent record of reaching the internal consensus required to carry forward difficult ventures is not encouraging. The question is: can it, as well as we, rise to the challenge of our times? Will it shake the hand that the Government are extending?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. It is a credit to his diplomatic chairing skills, as well as the excellent committee staff, that we were able in the end to produce this excellent and comprehensive report. The committee began its work on this inquiry a little over a year ago, when President Trump had just started his second term. This week, we have marked the fourth anniversary of the devastating war in Ukraine. It is through the prism of those two events that we have to view the reset of our relations with the European Union.
June this year will see the 10th anniversary of the EU referendum. It is now quite hard to find anyone, on either side of the argument, who believes that the process and outcomes following Brexit have been positive—not least because of the strain it has put on the unity of this country, perhaps most of all in Northern Ireland. Resetting our relationship with the EU is not just a good thing to do; it is increasingly a necessity—for our economy, our trade and our security.
Last year’s summit in May was welcome but so far has been longer on rhetoric than tangible outcomes. A commitment to an SPS agreement is welcome and could do much to boost trade. However, it would be helpful to know from the Minister whether the Government expect substantial progress to be made on that agreement in time for this year’s EU-UK summit.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said, with an SPS agreement comes the issue of dynamic alignment. This raises important questions of parliamentary oversight and transparency and of how to feed into the EU’s policy development process at an earlier stage. It would be good to hear in the Minister’s closing remarks more details of the Government’s thinking in this regard. In particular, is it the intention to substantially increase the UK’s influencing capacity in Brussels? How, in practical terms, do the Government intend to ensure parliamentary oversight, particularly in the House of Commons, which no longer has a European affairs committee?
In the past the UK played a pivotal role in driving EU enlargement, which we always regarded as a process for positive change. Clearly, our influence on these matters is now much diminished, but what is the Government’s position on a fast-track approach to Ukrainian membership of the EU? Might such an approach also be in the UK’s best interest?
We on these Benches favour the closest possible relations with our European partners. The Government should be congratulated on removing some of the toxicity of the years immediately following Brexit, but I now hope that they can begin to match the positive words with concrete actions and courage.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the publication of this report, but the process in these negotiations is very uncertain and it remains to be seen whether the outcome will be in the best interests of the United Kingdom. The report suggests that the Government have made a good start but, for Northern Ireland, that assessment simply does not reflect reality, as the noble Baroness who has just spoken mentioned.
I am very much aware that the committee’s remit was not to discuss Northern Ireland, because there is a separate Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee within your Lordships’ House which looks at that matter. However, in the context of this debate, it is important that we reflect the fact that we have the Windsor Framework/protocol, which impacts not just on Northern Ireland’s trade, politics and constitutional position but directly on the United Kingdom, because the Government have made it clear that they are preparing to align in order to avoid divergence with Northern Ireland in many respects. In our view, unless the Windsor Framework/protocol is fundamentally dealt with, there can be no genuine reset of relations with the UK.
Some might say, “Well, things are settled”, but as we were reminded by noble Lord, Lord Bew, earlier in Question Time, the situation in Northern Ireland is far from settled. When there comes a point when this issue of the Windsor Framework/protocol and our relationship with the EU remains unresolved and the Northern Ireland Assembly and other institutions are in peril, people in this House and in the other place will say, “How did we get to this place?”
The reality is that unless we deal with the issue of the Windsor Framework and its economic detriment for Northern Ireland, its constitutional detriment and the denial of democracy, we will inevitably reach that place. I think that at that point, this House will say that we need to take these matters much more seriously, because the Windsor Framework leaves large volumes of EU law in place over Northern Ireland. There is no democratic control. It preserves a customs border down the Irish Sea between one part of the United Kingdom and the other. It maintains a role for a foreign court in the internal trade of the United Kingdom and embeds regulatory divergence inside our own country, as the backstop proposals would have done as well. This is not normal or sustainable in any modern democracy and it is not compatible with equal citizenship within the United Kingdom.
Businesses, as the Federation of Small Businesses’ report recently said, face massive bureaucracy and compliance costs. The Trader Support Service is already costing half a billion pounds of public money, just to help traders negotiate this labyrinthine process. We have to accept that this is not what sovereignty in a modern country looks like; it is what colonialism looks like. The principle of consent that lies at the heart of the Northern Ireland political settlement is being devastatingly eroded day by day. Legal changes imposed without that consent have altered Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market.
When we discuss the issues of the UK-EU relationship, we must not turn our eyes away from the fundamental problem that faces us in this United Kingdom, which is the democratic denial of consent to British citizens in this country in the 21st century. This needs to be continually highlighted because it is going to lead to real problems—not just for Northern Ireland but for this whole country.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad that the title of the excellent report we are discussing refers to a “reset”. Indeed, there seems general agreement in all the documents, including the Government’s response, that it is a reset, which we can define very widely. It is certainly “unfinished business” and certainly raises issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, rightly said, of wider geopolitical significance.
Some of us have been at this issue for, in my case, over half a century, long before we actually joined the European Union, or European Community as it was then called—or was it the European Economic Community or Common Market? I cannot remember; there have been so many changes. It has dominated the lives of many of us in and out of politics and public affairs for well more than half a century, before the treaty of Rome. To try to add anything in four minutes is a bit of an insult to the wisdom of this report and to the proverbial skills of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. I suppose that, until we can change this extraordinary Lords procedure, which I think we should somehow try a bit harder to do, we are stuck with it.
What are the evolving changes? Obviously, everyone is pointing out that the whole show—the whole European Union—like everyone else, is in a new world context and operating under new pressures. It is very different from the body that we left when we left the customs union and Common Market arrangements some years ago.
The new factors include, first, security, as has already been pointed out in the excellent opening speeches, and the new problems of changing security. People talk about what will happen with Ukraine and whether we should do this, that or the other, but there is no outcome in Ukraine in prospect. Meanwhile, Russia is moving to a new situation and beginning to raise agitations and undertake more hybrid activities with the Baltic states, which are our friends. They have not been given nearly enough attention in our view of our partners in the sort of Europe that should lie ahead. It is going to come anyway; it is no use saying that we are just an applicant to rejoin certain aspects, as it were, without the cards. We have enormous cards. We belong with the middle nations that Mr Carney talked about the other day. We have immense pressures to mobilise, if we use them carefully. The Baltic states are our friends and Russia is busily working to disturb them—not by military invasion, but by all kinds of other activities—and cause additional problems, even though they may not see any more than we do to the Ukraine situation.
Secondly, it has also been raised that defence and warfare have totally changed, requiring completely different politics from what we discussed 10 years ago. As many of us predicted 30 years ago, drones have transformed the system and nature of war, and the disposition of trenches and troops. The use of AI is coming along, which will transform it even further.
Thirdly, the whole of Europe, including the EU, is underwater on debt at a level and scale which has never been seen before in history. The euro is weakening. We must be very careful not to be involved in all this before we understand what is really happening.
Finally, we must get ahead with rebuilding the global governance which we set up in 1945 from the rubble of the Second World War. It is now out of date, out of time and in great trouble. It requires a new architecture to provide us with a shell of protection—the shield under which we can reform ourselves. Britain played a major part in 1945. I cannot see that major part being played in 2026.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who has chaired the European Affairs Committee for the past three years. He skilfully led us to a consensus on most occasions, and all members of the committee are grateful to him.
The Government were elected on a manifesto to reset this country’s relationship with the European Union, and I very much support that objective. Departure from the EU has affected the lives of so many people who wish to trade with, travel to, or work or study in the EU. There is no doubt that it is in the national interest to improve our relations with the European Union. I commend the work of Nick Thomas-Symonds in the Cabinet Office, who has responsibility in the Government. He has twice come to the committee with Stephen Doughty in the Foreign Office, thus demonstrating close co-operation between the two departments on this matter.
I will comment, in the very brief time allowed, on just two elements of the negotiations. The first is the need to reach a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. For food producers—farmers and fishermen—and for food processors, this is important and urgent. Fresh, perishable food cannot wait for 48 hours while checks and paperwork are completed. Food processors of non-perishable products can be held up in customs for weeks. Importers in the EU will, very understandably, eventually prefer to buy from elsewhere in the EU or from countries that are not subject to the same regulations as we are. It is disappointing that even the Minister does not expect a new SPS agreement to be operational until the second half of 2027. I simply urge the Minister to do everything possible to hasten this agreement, which is so important to the food and drinks industries.
The second element is the youth experience scheme. For young people to travel for study or work experience is beneficial both for the individual and for this country. This works both ways. The fact that so many foreigners who have gone on to become leaders in business, politics, academia or the military have spent part of their education or youth in this country contributes enormously to the soft power of the United Kingdom. I therefore congratulate the Government on having as an important policy objective the reset and improvement of our relations with the EU. They have already achieved a considerable change in approach in Brussels and a willingness there to negotiate. I am sure that they will have much public support to pursue this policy with vigour and imagination.
Lord Redwood (Con)
I welcome the Government’s emphasis on growth and I look forward to future debates when we can exchange positive ideas on how to get more people into work, have better-paid jobs and extend investment in these islands. However, I must say to the Government that the measures currently being discussed, often in secret without proper text, are very worrying. They will either add nothing at all to our growth rate or, worse still, they will subtract from it and do damage. Look at what will happen to our fishing industry now that, for many more years, so much of the catch will be offered to continental super-trawlers and other vessels. This has delayed the rebuilding of the British fishing industry and means that we do not get all the inward investment and domestic investment in fish processing and food processing that would follow from having more catch landed in the United Kingdom.
Or look at the idea that we should join the carbon taxes and emissions scheme and the electricity scheme of the European Union. It would be another ratcheting up of the costs of electricity and energy in this country. Their carbon taxes are higher even than our high ones. Are not our carbon taxes doing enough damage already? Does the Front Bench opposite not see the factories closing and the plants being destroyed by ultra-high energy prices? Yet they want to volunteer for more of the same and take it out of our control.
If the Government decide to offer large new sums of money to the European Union, as they usually seem to when they visit Brussels, it will all be borrowed money. We are in a time of stress in our public finances; we are not looking for new ways to spend money. The more they spend giving it to Brussels, the more it will be resented by many people here in the United Kingdom and the more it will mean that those high levels of borrowing keep our interest rates above those of our competitors and stifle private investment and private growth, which is what we so clearly need.
We do not need to look forward, or even to forecast, to know what will happen with ever closer alignment to the European Union, because we have lived through it. In the 20 years that elapsed before we joined the European Economic Community, our economy grew at 3.4% per year: a very good rate of growth. In the 20 years of our early membership when we were a member of the European customs union, until the full single market was declared in 1992, our growth rate slumped to 1.76%. Of course it did, because we took all the tariffs off the things that the European continent was good at and just watched as it laid waste to so much of our industry, with all those closures, and we did not get the market opening on the services that drive the success of our economy. So of course that is what happened.
If you then roll the camera forward to our years in the single market, from 1992 to 2020, our growth rate fell again, even compared with the poor performance when we were just in the customs union. Again, of course it did, because of the anti-innovation, high-cost spirit of so many of those regulations. The last thing we need for a growth strategy now is more laws made in Europe. We know that they do not work; we know that they slow us down. Why do we want to link to the part of the world that is growing so slowly, when our great friends and allies in the United States of America are growing at twice the pace of the European Union? We seem to be negative about them and positive about joining the slow lane. We should not want to join the slow lane. This set of negotiations is bad for Britain and bad for growth.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who had a difficult task indeed. His choice of title is apposite, first, because resetting our relationship is a continual process, not a single act, so it is rightly unfinished business, but, secondly, because he had to preside over some unfinished disagreements as to whether Brexit was good or bad. A quick look at the committee’s membership—with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and myself sitting side by side—rather describes the task that faced him, as he has referenced.
As a result, the report is perhaps a little more factual than prescriptive, and we were unable to fully welcome the Government’s move to rebuild trust and to boost trade with the EU and its advances over defence, Ukraine and the USA. Labour’s reset should be judged against the 2024 manifesto that sought to
“deepen ties with our European friends, neighbours and allies”,
and to make the UK
“a leading nation in Europe… with an improved… relationship with our European partners”
without crossing Labour’s red lines.
The May 2025 summit witnessed a new strategic partnership alongside an agenda for greater co-operation with the EU in relation to safety, security and economic prosperity. When we visited Brussels, we saw how the atmospherics had already changed. We were no longer hearing about “us” and “you”, but much more about “we”: about a common endeavour based on trust and a joint approach to work on major challenges. And challenges there are, with Ukraine, or rather Russia, being perhaps the greatest.
Besides that, however, we have the impulsive US presidency, especially its impact on the rules-based trading framework, which also necessitates a European response that goes beyond the EU, to encompass both us and the EEA, with our shared approach to the rule of law and respect for treaties. The security and defence partnership was significant in itself, but also for the potential for closer industrial and strategic working. It is disappointing that SAFE has not yet progressed; I hope that it may, and I endorse every word of the committee’s new chair, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. Security is also about organised crime, illegal migration, people trafficking and threats to our borders. We hope, therefore, for further intelligence and data sharing, and closer policing integration, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Ashton.
Much as I hated Brexit, I knew that we had to make it work via a closer, trusting and evolving relationship with the 27. The Government’s reset agenda, and their open and positive approach to the EU, form the right approach for a mutually beneficial relationship, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and others have stressed. Oddly, both Putin and Trump have made this more likely by forcing us to work together on Ukraine and in response to the USA’s new politics. I believe that we are in a better position with the EU than we were in July 2024, so we should welcome the start of this reset.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, noble Lords will get an encapsulation of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, had in chairing our committee. He had a very difficult task, and the disagreements were very strong. As he noted, I could not endorse the report in the end, and I summarised what I felt it ought to have said in Appendix 9, kindly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson.
I said in Appendix 9 that the reset was “somewhat unsatisfactory” and that I did not believe
“that the Government has made the best possible use of its negotiating hand”.
That is the least that one can say—and now that I am not using committee language I think I can say that the outcomes were so poor that even poor negotiating cannot explain the point we have got to; there is more going on.
For one thing, I do not think that the Government are really being honest with us about what they are trying to do. On the one hand, we hear about the red lines on the single market and customs union; on the other hand, the Prime Minister says that we have to keep moving towards a closer relationship. His Ministers muse about joining the customs union, and the Business Secretary said yesterday that being aligned is “where the magic happens”.
The truth is that we know that everybody on the Labour Benches opposite really wants to be back in the EU or in the single market/customs union simulacrum of that. The only thing holding them back is that they won an election on promising not to, and that presents them with a problem. They know that they cannot get back in one go; they know that it will take time and that the solution is to approach it slowly, bit by bit, with one thing leading to another—the Monnet method in a different context. That is what we are seeing.
First, we are joining bits of the single market—on SPS, ETS and electricity—but it is claimed that we are not joining the single market. We have joined bits of customs, such as the CBAM—the carbon border adjustment mechanism—which will expand out of our control. We have started opening migration doors again, with the work experience scheme, and we start paying for it all—Erasmus, the nebulous future Bill on single market access, SAFE and much more. This direction of travel is the only way to understand what otherwise one might think were quite amateur night negotiating tactics.
The truth is that the Government do not care about concessions—they care only about the destination. They just want to get close to the EU, and they are prepared to do so on any terms that are available. How else are we supposed to understand why they have agreed subordination—again—of this Parliament to EU laws as the only way to improve food, agriculture and electricity trading? We know that it did not have to be done that way—they have chosen to do it that way. How else are we to understand the shameful giveaway on fisheries for nothing more than a statement communiqué? How else are we to understand the failure to get anything on matters of interest to Britain in return for these concessions other than the much-vaunted access to e-gates, barely touched on in our committee report, which the EU regards with such contempt that it has not even bothered to deliver it—the one thing that came out of this nine months later?
This approach is dangerous. The truth is that we are not going to succeed as a country if, outside the EU, we just do what the EU does. Yet hitching us to EU policy regimes is going to leave us in that situation. I am sorry to say that the committee’s report does not come close to acknowledging these issues, and that is why I cannot support it. What it should have said is quite simple: this is a dangerous reset; it is being done in a dangerous way; and this country’s independence is not safe in this Government’s hands.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is nearly a decade since 23 June 2016, when I voted to remain, and campaigned to stay in the European Union, partly because I did not want to spend the next 10 years of my parliamentary career having to deal with all the issues that came about as a consequence of Brexit. But I am a democrat; I still am. That is why, when I was appointed by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead to go into Defra, where I worked for three years, we continued to go to the European Council and to respect and interact with all the different regulations that were going through—but also starting to plan how best to leave.
There is no doubt that I would have agreed with the summary statement put out in Appendix 9, but I appreciate that the committee was not unanimous in its report and I certainly did not support the alternative summary. It is important to try to get a sense from the Government—having had these manifesto commitments to not go back into the single market or the customs union and not have freedom of movement—as to why they think that having the SPS does not drive a coach and horses through the single market.
One of the constant issues in the early years of negotiation was that we could not be a rule-taker if we were not a rule-maker. That continues to be the real problem that is being put forward by the Government. I am conscious already that the only reform that they have approved as a consequence of Brexit is to put VAT on school fees, which they would not have been allowed to do if we were still part of the European Union.
It comes back to some of the differences, where often the UK was not necessarily a sole voice but a leading voice in trying to address quite a lot of not just environmental regulations but chemical regulations, all these different ones, to which we brought our sense of our large economy—this was often how so much was negotiated. For heaven’s sake, the fishing agreements were negotiated with countries that had no fish being taken out of the sea. But that was done because they could use it as leverage on many other issues. I appreciate that we have a former Permanent Representative to the European Union in the Chamber. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who went to Brussels as one of our representatives after the referendum result.
One of the things that I have found frustrating in this whole debate, not just on this report but more generally, is the continued gaslighting. We need to be honest with the British public. The Labour Party has been driving a coach around Manchester ahead of the by-election today, repeating the lie that £350 million per week has not gone into the NHS. It has. It happened when my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead was Prime Minister. We put the money in then. It is that sort of approach, the rewriting of history, that is one of the reasons why this will continue to be a thorn in the challenge of trying to do what is best for Britain.
That, of course, is to have a very strong relationship with the European Union. But since then, we have joined the CPTPP and other free trade agreements. We should be taking more advantage. Frankly, if it had not been for Covid, in many ways, we would have got on with a lot of the freedoms. But it was due to Covid and not being part of the European Union that we were the first country in the world to be able to authorise a vaccine and deploy it successfully.
I am afraid that this report will continue to be somewhat controversial and quite divisive—not necessarily between political parties. I appreciate that many of my noble friends would love to rejoin the European Union tomorrow. There is an element of reminding ourselves, as part of this reset relationship, that we would not go back in on the same terms that we left. To try to pretend otherwise, I am afraid, is not displaying the candour which this debate deserves.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, this is a full and comprehensive report from the European Affairs Committee, although perhaps controversial, as the noble Baroness has just said. I might also say that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and I worked amicably together in the Foreign Office many years ago, and it is good to be speaking after him today.
What I want to do in this debate today is to say just a few words about defence. Let me start by saying that the UK’s relationship with the US on defence and on security is exceptionally close and should remain so. Our submarine nuclear deterrent is unsustainable without US support. Much of our military equipment is made in the US and is dependent on American spare parts, and we have a close and important intelligence relationship too. For the last 50 years and more, that relationship has gone hand in glove with NATO, and let us hope that that continues, not least, as others have said already, in supporting Ukraine. But NATO depends heavily on the US and, at least at present, the US is, alas, an uncertain ally, so a closer security and defence relationship with the EU makes sense, and the EU-UK Security and Defence Partnership is a good start.
However, the Government’s response to the committee’s excellent report describes the security and defence partnership as
“a structured framework for cooperation”.
Structured frameworks are necessary, but it is what goes into them that matters. Let us hope that flexibility on both sides, as suggested perhaps in Munich recently, leads to a sensible agreement, including on SAFE, on which, like the noble Lord Ricketts, I hope the Minister can bring us up to date.
Let us hope, too, that this developing UK-EU relationship on security and defence can work closely and effectively with NATO. We hope that that is the ideal, but we cannot be sure. NATO is facing uncertainty, as I said, and the EU is essentially an economic construct with nimbleness not exactly its watchword—on that point I perhaps agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redwood; I do not agree with him on many things, but I probably agree with him on that. As the nature of defence changes, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned, we need a more informal, nimbler, less bureaucratic association, a coalition of the willing. That is developing fast, with the UK, France and Germany at its core and Poland, the Baltic states and, outside the EU, Canada working with it too. But all this needs money—money that is needed for our security. The Prime Minister has promised it. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that promise is not a chimera, a bubble without substance, but a firm commitment to provide men and up-to-date equipment soon.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, this is an important report, not least because we are the only committee with the bespoke role of looking at the relationships between the United Kingdom and the EU. There was mainly consensus in this report, notwithstanding appendix 9, as my noble friend Lord Frost said, which contains the alternative summary. The consensus was around the Government’s failure to outline a clear and comprehensive negotiating mandate, perhaps by way of a White Paper, which obviously undermined the ability of the committee and the House more widely to exercise proper scrutiny and oversight.
There was a reason for having an alternative summary, and it was because in essence some of us believed that the Government’s policy, even measured by their own measures, was incoherent, insubstantial and deliberately obfuscatory. Kind words butter no parsnips. The Government failed to leverage strong negotiating hands in, say, defence, security and fishing, despite the UK being number two in the world for soft power and being pre-eminent in defence, for instance. They unilaterally surrendered those advantages with very little to show for it, such as on the fisheries deal. I have to say, in all fairness and balance, that I think the EU made a strategic miscalculation over SAFE, and hopefully those negotiations will be more fruitful.
In areas such as mutual recognition of professional qualifications and touring artists, they have made little or no progress despite being in the manifesto. They have capitulated on key areas to support the EU strategic objectives in policy areas absent from the manifesto, such as Erasmus+, the 12-year fisheries deal and the electricity trading scheme. Most egregious is a commitment to improving the SPS regime, which is of course laudable in reducing friction at the border, that has morphed into a full-blown commitment to dynamic alignment which is likely to cost, according to the Growth Commission in its report published this week, £15 billion to the economy. Currently, it is a system and regime that costs the EU itself €39 billion a year. The Government have not themselves yet produced any information on legislation, costings, the likely commitment of cohesion funds or an impact assessment. In a number of areas, the Government’s proposals are opaque, including, for instance, those on economic impact and carve-outs. A good example is gene editing, which the National Farmers’ Union has pressed for over the last few months. We are no nearer to understanding the global impact on UK sovereignty, the nebulous concept of “decision-shaping”, the status of governance in respect of dispute resolution and the likely role of the European Court of Justice.
Finally, can the Minister say what legal form the new agreements will take? What commitment will the Government make to parliamentary sovereignty and oversight of the new arrangements? What carve-outs will be sought in the new dynamic alignment regime? What are the likely costs to be borne in order to participate in SAFE and the new partial membership of the single market? What stance will the Government take on the new trade and co-operation review due this year?
Our committee will be pressing the Government on all these issues and will hold them to their commitment to their red lines, not least in our forthcoming inquiry into dynamic alignment. They will not have a free pass to subvert Brexit and take us back into the European Union by subterfuge and sleight of hand.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, on the excellent report he has produced, which is exactly what I would expect of a committee which he chaired. However, our debate today has shown the difficulties he had in producing a consensus, because there are clearly many Members opposite who do not want to move beyond the Brexit debate or see a closer relationship with our friends and allies in the European Union. They seem completely oblivious to the economic cost of what Brexit has brought—virtually every estimate is at least 4% of GDP—and the fact that the public now believes overwhelmingly that Brexit was a mistake.
We need this reset of the relationship and to get closer. I will make three brief points about what I think is necessary if it is going to succeed. First, all the issues to do with a closer relationship with Europe are extremely complex. What you need is a top Whitehall team in every department working on these issues and, at the centre of government, someone bringing all these people together to hammer out differences between departments, and a very strong permanent representation in Brussels. I believe these things have weakened since Brexit. I experienced it for seven and a half years when I was in Downing Street and saw how effective it was, but we must rebuild these institutional capacities if we are going to make a success of the relationship.
Secondly, we must be willing, if we want much greater access to the single market, to make meaningful contributions financially. I am not talking about the nonsense of the €7 billion, which came up in the ridiculous arguments about SAFE, but we have to be prepared to pay more to the budget than simply administrative costs. The French, Germans, Dutch, Swedes and others are significant net contributors to the EU budget. The reason why it is necessary is that in order to get the weaker members of the union to co-operate in the single market there has to be some kind of measure of cohesion, and we will have to pay into that.
Thirdly, the Government have got to make the case to the country much more strongly for why we need to get closer to Europe. It is necessary to convince our European partners of our seriousness. Making the case at home will help convince them of our seriousness. At the same time, for us as the Labour Party, it will help unite at home the opposition to the far-right populism that is such a danger to this whole venture.
In a way, the 2016 arguments for Europe are completely redundant. The world has changed enormously in the last decade. Economically, we have Trump tariffs, the rise of China and a world of greater instability. We need to be part of the EU.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I am finishing—and it is an advisory speaking time.
On defence, we face huge challenges. The transatlantic alliance now hangs by a very insecure thread, in my view. We have to be much closer to our European allies and partners and we have to get closer to Europe. We need to explain why to the British public, in economic terms, to give us greater security against China and the United States’ tariffs, and in defence terms.
Lord Barrow (CB)
My Lords, I will seek to be quick, not just because we were advised to be so but because I find myself in former permanent representative corner, and going first in this company is a bit dangerous.
I have a few quick points, not least as a new member of the European Affairs Committee, under the martial leadership of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, with whose remarks I fully associate myself. I extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for the report we have in front of us, including the clear statement that the reset is a process, not an event. When I was in Brussels talking to those missions, which were third-country missions at that time, all of them said that all meaningful third-country relationships with the EU are unfinished business, in perpetuity. In that context, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in asking the Government what their assessment is of the possibility of Ukraine’s membership of the EU and the consequences for UK interests of such a move.
I welcome the breadth of the agenda for the UK and the EU. This demonstrates a strength of ambition and good relations at the top on both sides. However, as many in this Chamber know, and as we saw with SAFE, while that is necessary at the top it is not always sufficient. Delivery will be difficult. Although we have had the welcome news on the Gibraltar negotiations, which I very much commend, that took many years—maybe that was the fault of some of us negotiating it—and we need more rapid progress.
I would therefore like the Minister to share her assessment of progress ahead of the summit in relation to two areas. The first is law enforcement co-operation, and I join everyone, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who highlighted that. It was one of the most frustrating areas of the negotiations in which I took part. There was clear, direct and mutual benefit for citizens in the UK and the EU, but we were unable to do all that I felt we could do. Can the Minister update us on possible progress, including on existing measures such as SIS II and Prüm—which the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, mentioned—or any new innovations?
The second area on which I would welcome an update is defence co-operation. What happened with SAFE was regrettable, although saying no in negotiations is sometimes as necessary, important and valuable as saying yes. I politely suggest to some of my friends in Brussels that, if your position leads to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, leading the charge, with trenchant criticism in the media, something has gone wrong with your position. However, there is still scope for co-operation in the security area, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, advocated. As the report notes, that includes the European Defence Agency, perhaps the Ukraine loan scheme, and even SAFE or a potential SAFE II. However, like the report, I am more sceptical about UK participation in CSDP missions under current third country rules.
As many noble Lords have said, all of this is part of a much bigger question: how will we, across Europe, respond to the present evident security challenge and what will the UK role be in that response? As was made obvious at the Munich Security Conference, Europe wants to do more, the US wants Europe to do more and Ukraine chides us for not doing more—but how is that response to be delivered? The report rightly notes consensus on NATO as the cornerstone of our defence, but are we to deliver that response through NATO mechanisms, alongside a patchwork including the coalition of the willing and maybe JEF, EU-UK co-operation and the welcome intensified E3 co-operation?
Alternatively, as others have said, should there be some new security architecture as a vehicle to galvanise and focus efforts? For instance, Carl Bildt recently advocated reviving the WEU—I am not sure whether that would be the answer that would commend itself, but the question still needs answering. I do not ask the Minister to answer it today, but we need an answer soon, not least if the UK is to play the role that we want to play in this. Can she seek to answer that question urgently, not least because this week we mark the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine and the terrible suffering that continues there?
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for introducing this important debate. My thanks also go to the European Affairs Committee for producing such a comprehensive report.
For more than 40 years, the UK was part of the European Union. The famous soul music song “We Are Family” was cited by some to describe that relationship—but wedlock eventually became padlock. As a result of Brexit, the British people decided to adopt another tune. This could best be described by the rock supergroup Queen’s anthem, “I Want to Break Free”.
As the report points out, Brexit is a process, not an event. It is in everyone’s interest that progress is made. About 45% of UK exports go to the EU, and 53% of our imports are from the EU. I had the privilege of speaking at an Inter-Parliamentary Union event in Geneva some years ago, where I raised the issue of tariffs. I described tariffs as a way to promote trade or a weapon to prevent trade. It is ironic that tariffs are once again a worldwide topical issue. It is important that the EU and the UK strive to maintain a zero-tariff and zero-quota relationship.
One of the lessons of history is that we do not learn lessons from history. It is interesting that, throughout the Bible, there is a theme of one empire after another eventually overreaching itself and gradually collapsing. In the Old Testament, there were the Egyptians, followed by the Assyrians, the Babylonians and, finally, the Persian Empire. In the New Testament, there was the powerful and mighty Roman Empire. All these empires eventually fell because national independence proved more durable than empire.
I have some questions for the Minister, arising from the committee’s report. First, why did the Government not produce a White Paper setting out their objectives concerning resetting our relationship with the EU? Surely, that would have helped the committee’s task of holding the Government to account. As the committee noted:
“We were scrutinising a ‘moving target’ throughout, and have continued to do so as we prepared this report”.
I am a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence. The report alludes to data protection and cyber security issues. AI is changing all aspects of the modern world. What progress are the Government making with the EU concerning AI-related issues, including data protection, cyber security and AI regulation?
The first duty of any Government is to protect their people. What progress are the Government making with the EU concerning defence-related issues and NATO? Young people represent our future. What progress are the Government making on rejoining the European Erasmus programme, which provides valuable education and training? Are we still on course to rejoin by next year? What date has been set for the next UK-EU summit? When the Cabinet Minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds, gave evidence to the committee last year, he said that it would be “sometime in 2026”, but when will that summit be?
I believe that resetting a positive relationship with the EU can work; but if we fail to plan, we plan to fail. There are those who spread fear that this reset will never work, but fear is that darkroom where only negatives are developed. We must not be like the paranoid patient who visits his doctor, to be told, “Please listen, you’ve got hypochondria”, and who replies, “Oh no, not that as well”. It is said that every story has “a beginning, a muddle and an end”. So it is with this Brexit process. However, when fear knocks at the door, let us answer it with faith.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s EU trade reset has failed to achieve its three main trade objectives, on which I will focus. There has been no agreement on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and no end to the restrictions on UK touring artists, about which we have heard more today. Also, instead of a veterinary agreement, which the Government announced in their manifesto and trailed publicly for two years, they have agreed to reimpose EU SPS law on agri-foods, with dynamic regulatory alignment for the agri-food sector and a role for the Court of Justice of the European Union. The manifesto pledge not to return to the EU, the single market or the customs union has thus been broken.
Moreover, as we have heard today, the Government have caved in to the EU’s demands for long-term fishing access to UK waters and promise to work towards a youth mobility scheme, now called a youth experience scheme. Up to 70 million EU youths could seek to avail themselves of this scheme.
The report follows the Government’s line in seeing the reset as an emerging process—its title is Unfinished Business. There is no assessment of the costs to the UK economy of dynamic alignment for agri-foods, although an assessment from the Growth Commission this week, made by 13 independent economists, suggested that the hit would be £15 billion. Nor is there any analysis of the economic and trade impact of returning to EU regulatory alignment on trade and the economy or on our relationships with other trading partners. We now have, apart from the EU, 40 trade agreements with 70 trading partners.
The SPS sign-up to regulatory alignment will bring legal challenges, because we have changed the basis for agri-foods in this country and the law on them. There is nothing here to consider the repercussions on Britain’s democracy of the breach of a manifesto pledge, at a time when confidence with the established order and politicians is at an all-time low, right across Europe and in this country.
The alternative summary by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and other co-signatories highlights two failures: the Government’s failure to make the best possible use of their negotiating hand, and the committee’s failure to do its duty to scrutinise and assess that policy and make clear the reality of the reset. The presence of this alternative summary highlights the problems the consensus approach creates for scrutiny. It suggests what I, as a member of the committee from the outset of its investigation, came to consider: that if we had a diversity of views from members and from witnesses, and we tolerated it, we might produce a more useful and critical report. That is our job in the Select Committee: to scrutinise on behalf of Parliament and the taxpayer what the Government are doing in legislation.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is an excellent report and very well presented, but I wonder why the negotiation has to be so transactional, so timid and so slow. What could be done to speed it up? I suspect that one of the reasons is that the Commission negotiators are the same guys who were involved in the Brexit negotiation, and it may be that our current negotiators suffer for the sins of their predecessors.
We also suffer from a degree of timidity in what we are putting forward, and the other side suffers from a bit of excessive ambition. I do not think we should be paying contributions into the EU budget, that it is right to try to charge us €10 billion to join SAFE, or that it is right to try to charge us for integration into the EU electricity market. These things are a common benefit—they suit both sides—so why should we pay?
What should we do to speed things up? A common Cross-Bench speech is emerging today, because I think we have to play the security card—in fact, we need to play it anyway. I would like to see the negotiations become more top down, and I would like to look at the big picture. The prophet there was Mark Carney. We are indeed seeing a serious transatlantic rupture. Of course, we must retain as much as we possibly can of the NATO architecture, but within it we need to build new, all-European structures and capabilities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, that the coalition of the willing is the place to start, but we need an E3 blueprint. Why E3? Because it exists, because we work well with the French—our military works well with the French—and because German defence spending has taken off and is set to surpass ours and that of the French put together.
It was another Healey, Denis Healey, working with Helmut Schmidt, who created the NATO Eurogroup and developed the NATO Nuclear Planning Group. The need for big-picture thinking about European defence is much greater now than it was then. Now, economic security is the EU’s business—energy security, not military security—but a British initiative in the military sphere leading to an E3 security blueprint could transform the atmosphere in the EU Council, with two provisos. First, there must be no direct linkage, explicit or implicit—we must not repeat Prime Minister May’s mistake—and, secondly, that is provided we back our words with action.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was absolutely right. Our friends—just like our foes, I fear—know that our uniform numbers and stockpiles are too low and our forces hollowed out. We talk a good game but we are living on history and reputation. We are not investing enough. We are where the Poles were when Putin invaded Ukraine. Four years ago, Poland was spending 2.2% of GDP on defence. Today it is 4.8% and rising, because the Poles know that Putin would not stop at Ukraine. If our financial commitment rose to match theirs and the Germans’, and if the Healeys and Schmidts of today could produce an E3 plan, our friends in Brussels would be more likely to override the transactional technicians and identify common interests. Anyway, upping our defence spending is what we need to do, because we are at a 1938 moment and need to respond, with or without Trump, to the Putin challenge. That is the big picture.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, pointed out that the European Affairs Committee is the only committee in Parliament looking in detail at these matters. Given the direction of travel, the concept of a reset and the manifesto commitments made, while of course it is entirely its own business, it is extraordinary that the other place does not have a committee specifically looking at these matters. It is entirely a matter for the other place, but it seems odd to me.
Reset is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. It can mean sensible and practical co-operation or, for some, on the other hand, as we have seen from some of the contributions today, another slidy way of getting back into the European Union in one form or another. We held a referendum in 2016 and, irrespective of what side of the argument one was on—the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will know from his experience that people like me were worried about the direction of travel and what would happen, particularly in Northern Ireland, where we share a border with an EU country—we went to the Prime Minister of the day to establish the negotiating position and came away clearly of the view that no such position existed. Consequently, we have ended up in the constitutional and economic sludge through which we are wading as a result of the arrangements that we are now working in. The point I am making is that if a Government or party feel that they want to take a different trajectory and go back into the European Union, they should have the guts to stand up and say so, because we are undermining trust, and that is a mistake.
The SPS has been raised on a number of occasions. To me and other colleagues, in effect we have been in this position for some years now. People do not seem to recognise the implications, because it means that people in Brussels will be deciding what regulations to determine how we do our business. That is the inevitable consequence. We will be a rule-taker with no meaningful influence and not a decision-maker. Let us be honest with each other: that is what this means.
From a local perspective in Northern Ireland, as I said, you join us in the sludge because we will then all be in the same boat. Under no circumstances will we have anybody effectively taking a decision for us in this or the other place. It will be taken away from us elsewhere. If that is what we want, we should say so. But bear in mind that there is no way of avoiding the fact that parliamentary sovereignty is going to be transferred in significant quantities to the European Union.
The fishing has been mentioned, and we have the tobacco and vape things, on which growing numbers of European countries are likely to challenge our decisions. On the referendum, I know that situations have changed—we can all see that—but we had a referendum in Scotland, and a decision was taken to remain within the UK. If we say that in 10 years we can avoid the decision we took on the European Union, the nationalists will say the same thing for the independence referendum, so we are digging a hole for ourselves.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the report of the committee, very ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. I particularly welcome the aspects on Erasmus, electricity and, of course, defence and security.
I want to make some reference in my brief remarks—to follow the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Dodds—to Northern Ireland, and to remind your Lordships’ House that the protocol developed after Brexit was very badly negotiated. It led eventually to the complete destruction of the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland because of the differences of views. After that, of course, it was succeeded by the Windsor Framework, which was definitely an improvement, but it still did not satisfy everybody in Northern Ireland because it is very difficult, constitutionally, for unionism to accept what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has just referred to. Nationalists, however, took a different view; indeed, there was a majority in favour of staying in the European Union when the referendum was held. However, the difficulties have to be addressed.
Last year the Government asked me to review the Windsor Framework, which I did: I came up with 16 or 17 recommendations to try to improve its working, because there is no doubt that the burdens placed on Northern Ireland businesses, large, medium and small, are huge. Those recommendations included one regarding SPS. I know the constitutional question is different from the practical issues I was trying to address, and that is perhaps for another time, important as that constitutional issue is. However, businesses said to me that they regarded the SPS as extremely important in trying to ensure that the burdens they currently face would be removed.
My plea to the Government and my noble friend the Minister is that they act speedily on the recommendations I made, which have all been accepted by the Government. I hope, too, that the European Union will be speedy in the negotiations. I have enormous confidence in my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General, Nick Thomas-Symonds, not least because he succeeded me as the Member of Parliament for Torfaen.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the report we are debating today, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Ricketts, is an important one, as it marks the first six months of the follow-up and implementation of the UK-EU summit last May. It is important, too, because our debate marks the beginning of the run-up to the probable next summit this summer, which will hopefully register the conclusion of some, if not all, of the negotiations already begun and the engaging of new steps.
The report is also notable because it records the vote against the attempt by one of the co-authors of the trade and co-operation agreement—the noble Lord, Lord Frost—to emasculate its conclusions and recommendations. Let us be grateful for small mercies.
The top priority, I suggest, along with many others, must be the security of Europe and the restoration of a strengthened deterrent against Russian aggression such as has been unleashed on Ukraine—a deterrent based on a far more effective European pillar of NATO than we have had hitherto. Fortunately, talks on security are resuming now after an unfortunate setback, and our own Government are refusing to take no for an answer. I welcome that.
There are of course plenty of critics of the reset, but they need to be able to answer some of the following questions. Do they seriously discount the benefits to our agri-food exporters of an SPS agreement lifting the costly and time-consuming checks at the EU border? Do they ignore the lightening of the burden on Northern Ireland’s commercial operators from such a veterinary agreement? Do they not think that a youth mobility scheme would benefit both sides, supplementing the decision to join the Erasmus+ scheme, which we, like many other third countries, should never have left in the first place? Is there not clear mutual benefit in linking our and the EU’s emissions trading schemes, or in ensuring that the cross-border admission schemes we are both setting up to deal with carbon content—the CBAMs—are broadly equivalent, thus avoiding creating new non-tariff barriers and seeing exports from third countries being diverted to us? Is there not mutual benefit, too, in more energy interconnectors, as foreseen by the recent Hamburg meeting, and a more integrated electricity market? Should we not rejoin the pan-European rules of origin convention? All these questions and more are hard to answer in the negative, although some in this Chamber have no difficulty in doing so. If they cannot be so answered convincingly, are they not more the fruit of unthinking obstruction? To suggest that they are somehow betraying Brexit is the height of absurd.
Two catchwords, one on each side of the UK/EU divide, seem to be heavily overused. The first is the description of UK objectives as “cherry picking”. In reality, every negotiator tries to achieve their own prime objectives. The EU Commission certainly does—or at least it did when I was a Commission negotiator in the 1970s. Every negotiator recognises that there is a successful negotiation only where there is a balance of mutual benefit, including some form of continuous alignment and financial contributions to joint objectives. The second of the two problems I see in the way people address these issues is the incessant repetition of “red lines”. Naturally, both sides have such limits to their negotiating flexibility, but endless repetition is merely a recipe for not thinking things through and a disincentive to those on the other side to subject their own limits to critical scrutiny. So I make a plea for a reduction in the brandishing of those two facile catchphrases—“cherry picking” and “red lines”—and for a sharper focus in the phase ahead on where we can agree common ground, not on where we cannot.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, before commencing, I, too, protest the four-minute limit—hardly enough time to clear one’s throat, although quite a few noble Lords seem to have happily breezed through it. Given that time limit, I shall discuss only one matter: the so-far aborted—as described by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—negotiations to join the SAFE project.
In the face of a changed world, the UK, the EU and the US must work together in an adult way to ensure that the West has the best possible defence capabilities, avoiding national self-interest or mercantilism. Yet the European Commission, in classic mode, demanded that Britain should pay an entrance fee of up to nearly €7 billion before it could join SAFE. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, put it, that was totally unreasonable. Canada paid €10 million: 1/700th of that. Allegedly, we could get it all back in contracts, but there were no guarantees whatever that we would get any contracts at all. I found no published analysis from the Commission, HM Treasury, the MoD, RUSI, the IFS or any parliamentary committee demonstrating how that €7 billion outlay could ever be recouped. Contra the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, EU member states do not pay: au contraire, France is given—loaned—€16 billion for SAFE. So why, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked, should we, an equal partner in this, pay?
It is not just the money. There are profound contractual problems with SAFE. The EU demands exclusive design authority and strategic autonomy, likely compelling UK firms to transfer their proprietary technical know-how to the EU. Cash equal to 10% of our entire annual defence budget would be handed over, with no guaranteed return, loss of valuable IP and no reciprocal market opening, for the privilege of becoming merely a subcontractor, allowed to take no more than 35% of any contract. Yet Europe is irreplaceably dependent on the UK’s defence capability. We have capabilities that no EU member state can replicate: nuclear, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, advanced air combat, long-range strikes, air-to-air refuelling and submarine-building expertise that is unmatched in Europe.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, just said, the UK’s defence relationship with the United States, including Five Eyes, is key for us and for Europe, across virtually every capability. AUKUS, for example, includes co-operation with the US on AI, quantum, cyber, hypersonic and electronic warfare. That relationship with the US is highly important for our economy too, with over 20,000 direct and 94,000 indirect jobs with US-owned firms.
So why is France—for it is France, not Germany—trying so hard to ensure that we refuse to join, or to extort us if we do? Does it not care about the existential threat to western Europe? These safe negotiations embody a view that is hostile to creating the best possible defence for Europe, treating the UK not as an equal partner in this important task but as a supplicant to be fleeced. If this is how the EU allows itself to behave on defence, how can we expect it will behave in the negotiations on SPS or energy? Let the Government, let our country, beware.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and the committee, for the report and the noble Lord for his clear, calm introduction to it. As he said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, agreed, President Trump has broken the bonds of trust and we can no longer depend on the US as our ally, over Greenland and many other matters. That has put the UK and the EU in a very different position compared with where we were in 2016. As a middle-ranking power in an uncertain world, we need to tighten the bonds that have been severed and frayed with the EU and, we must not forget, with the rest of the world, the majority of which is not the US, China or Russia. With the right approach of humility, generosity and realism, we can work in partnership to tackle the many crises we face.
I know that others will cover in detail the utter failure by successive Governments to deal with the critical, often career-threatening, impacts of Brexit on our creative community. That makes us all poorer, not just financially but culturally, with the huge loss to young people of Erasmus+ which now, happily, is to be restored. However, I will focus on an issue that is crucial to the reset and to the public and environmental health of the UK, to which the committee paid only glancing attention. That is not a criticism. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said, there are many highly technical areas that will need to be sorted and Parliament will struggle to have proper oversight of them. This is one of those areas, fitting under the sanitary and phytosanitary standards label: the regulation of pharmaceuticals and chemicals.
The EU is prohibiting the import of animal products from countries that routinely use antibiotics for growth promotion. This will take effect in September. We banned these practices domestically in 2006, yet the UK has not committed to the same rule for imports. Last November, I asked the Government in a Written Question whether the UK would align with these EU import rules. They stopped short of committing to an import ban. Hopefully, this will come with the SPS negotiations, but we need it now. I am not expecting a Dispatch Box declaration, but please will the Government make this a priority?
The public and environmental health gap extends particularly to water. The EU’s 2024 urban wastewater treatment directive mandates advanced treatment of urban wastewater to remove pharmaceutical residues, microplastics and other pollutants, along with harmonised antimicrobial resistance monitoring and producer responsibility schemes. What a contrast to “Dirty Business”, a recent television programme on this issue which provided an account that has horrified so many. Here we have no legally binding requirements for water companies to monitor emerging pollutants, including microplastics, antimicrobial residues or resistant bacteria or genes in effluent. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, spoke about being a rule taker. If others consistently have better rules, why do we not take those rules?
On chemicals, the UK is also falling behind. Since we left EU REACH, the EU has adopted 13 new restrictions and initiated 24 more. The UK has begun only three. We are trailing EU protections on chemicals, including the planned restrictions covering the 10,000 PFAS, the forever chemicals. We are subject to a cocktail of chemicals, of particular concern to the health of our young. We have begun action on only one PFAS restriction, despite civil society calling for alignment with the EU. The EU is also ahead of us on pesticides. Brexit has left us in this area, as in so many others, worse off—left behind and less healthy, with our environment dirtier and without the precautionary principle that we so urgently need to restore.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I express my sympathy to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, who has to wind up and present a coherent, responsible and constructive opposition position on this for the Conservative Party after hearing several speeches from behind her that would have done very well for members of Reform. I want to take from this report the comment that this is a process, not an event, and to make three points about the domestic conditions of a successful reset process.
First, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, we need to rebuild expertise within Whitehall, including training in other major European languages and multilateral negotiation. I am old enough to remember, when we first joined the European Community, the scale of the task of familiarising civil servants with the multilateral style of EU meetings and the skills required to negotiate successfully for British interests in that context. Whitehall developed an expert cadre of European specialists, familiar with not just EU regulations but the complexities of other countries’ domestic priorities. That pool of expertise has now been dispersed, and I hear from officials that fluency in French, German, Italian or Spanish is not highly valued in Whitehall. As we again work to build closer relations with our European neighbours, what efforts are the Government now making to rebuild negotiating and language skills and knowledge about both the EU’s institutions and other member Governments across our public service, from Defra to DESNZ to the MoD?
Secondly, Ministers and parliamentarians of all parties need to rebuild wider links with political parties and policy advisers in other member states. I was struck when I was in the coalition Government by how much closer and wider were the links that my Conservative colleagues had with Washington politicians and think tanks than with those from France, Germany, the Netherlands or Italy. That was partly a result of the unfortunate decision of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, to withdraw the Conservatives from the European People’s Party. I recall many occasions in the Foreign Office when I personally knew some of the Ministers we were meeting in Berlin, The Hague, Copenhagen and Brussels as fellow members of the Liberal International, and my Conservative colleagues did not. I hope the Labour Government are better than their predecessor in promoting international contacts with our neighbours, but are they planning any new initiatives in this sphere?
Thirdly, we need the Government to lead a national conversation on why closer relations with our European partners and their institutions are now central to our national interests. Political leadership is about changing the political agenda to tell the public that we are no longer in a world in which we can balance between the USA and Europe, let alone, as Reform is currently suggesting, imagine a “new Elizabethan age” in which British ships will sail away from Europe across the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, or put our trust in trade with China as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, seems to be suggesting. The reset we need will not go far unless the Government carry the public with them and the Conservative Party resists retreating into imperial nostalgia or simple dependency on Trump’s Republican America.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, as I look back over the last decade in Brexit Britain, I am ever more convinced that the arguments for Britain’s wholehearted engagement with mainland Europe are as strong now as they were when I first, in the late 1960s, became a supporter of this country joining the European Economic Community.
Brexit is not an endorsement of treating the European Union as a political leper or pretending either that our near neighbours do not exist or that we do not share a whole range of interests with them. Rather, it indicated that our then way of doing the necessary business with them—at least, this was the case on polling day—did not command the country’s support. Against that background, the national interest demands that we find a different way of conducting that business which is acceptable not only to us but to our interlocutors, who need to have a firm belief in our good faith. No doubt that is much easier said than done.
This excellent report, Unfinished Business: Resetting the UK-EU Relationship, mostly spells out what nowadays might be described as the elite high-level aspect of much of this. As this debate has shown, current geopolitical circumstances show this is a priority. At the same time, we should think about some of the more domestic implications.
I say this because for a number of years I chaired the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. There are many less high-level and “politically sexy”, but nevertheless very important, issues which need to be taken into account. The point of business is business. The business of business is business and the closer it is to home, the better. Many SMEs I know of which had integrated EU-wide supply-chain businesses found they could no longer compete because of tariffs and bureaucracy. The rules of cabotage have seriously diminished opportunities for hauliers, because the truck that you send abroad has to come home. The current crisis in agriculture, in which I am engaged, owes a great deal to what was agreed as part of leaving. All this amounts to the loss of real jobs and negative growth, affecting real people with great immediacy all the time across the whole country.
It is commonplace to say that one of the reasons for our current national distrust with politics goes back to alienation from the European Union, because it was so distant and failed to understand much of the real world away from the glitzy centre. It is a view I do not entirely share. At least as significant was the estrangement of UK national politics from the European aspect. UK political parties and the House of Commons as a whole always, it seemed to me, resented it. I speak as someone who served for 10 years in the European Parliament with a dual mandate. Rather surprisingly, I was elected on a Sunday and inherited a peerage the following Thursday—neither of which is now possible.
As the report rightly points out, resetting this relationship is an ongoing process, but that process has to provide emotional buy-in by the UK political establishment and the wider public as a whole so that it becomes part of the political normal, to avoid a repeat of last time. The past, as advice to retail investors always points out, is not necessarily a good guide to future performance. But, as this report points out, it has to be the starting point, recognising, as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said all those years ago, that no man can stand in the same river twice, since both the man and the river are not the same the second time round. Nevertheless, the national interest demands that we get into the water.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, today’s debate is ultimately about the national interest. Would a closer relationship with the EU best serve the UK’s economic and strategic needs as an outward-looking global nation? The Chancellor has described stronger EU ties as the country’s “biggest prize”, but would they materially improve growth and living standards? How much would they cost the taxpayer and what trade-offs would be required?
Since leaving the customs union, we have regained important freedoms. I will not list them here as we have only four minutes and the list is too long. That flexibility matters, particularly in industries such as AI, life science and fintech, which will define our future prosperity. A customs union would require us to apply the EU’s external tariffs. It might reduce some of our trade bureaucracy, but not eliminate it. It would mean less autonomy while offering only partial market access. Take food prices for instance: we already trade tariff-free with the EU, and global sourcing from other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, can keep costs down. We also no longer make regular net contributions to the EU budget—a substantial fiscal saving. Meanwhile, parts of the EU economy face high debt and slow growth. The EU will no doubt negotiate firmly in its own interest. On this occasion, considering that it has a big budget deficit and is angry towards the UK for leaving the European Union in the first place, it will negotiate particularly hard.
History shows that success in Brussels requires clarity and resolve. Margaret Thatcher secured a substantial rebate by being clear and firm, a big chunk of which Tony Blair later gave away under pressure from the member states. The 2016 negotiations under David Cameron showed just how difficult it is to secure concessions from Brussels. Recent experience, including Chagos and the current EU talks, raises serious doubts about whether this Government can really stand up for Britain’s best interests. The Prime Minister speaks of red lines on the single market and the customs union. How can we be confident, however, when the committee itself has pointed out that there are no clear negotiating objectives? Without a clear plan and a firm bottom line, red lines may sound strong, but they will no doubt prove to be flexible.
Regulatory alignment rarely comes without conditions, financial contributions, legal obligations or constraints on domestic policy. The Prosperity Institute has warned that such a reset could deliver limited gains and increase costs for British businesses. I therefore ask the Minister: what precisely are the benefits of this reset, and what is the price in money, control and flexibility? If growth is our objective, should we not prioritise domestic reform, competitiveness and broader global trade with the economies growing faster than the failing EU economies, which would truly benefit our long-term interest?
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the title of the report is Unfinished Business, and the quicker we finish the business and properly cement our relationship with the EU, the better. It is becoming increasingly likely that our own democracy could be severely tested in the coming years, if we have a different Government. We need to have structures in place that are rock solid and not easily undone. A sympathetic relationship with the EU, to which so much import is given today, will be the first thing swept away. There needs to be a rock-solid commitment to all the European structures, which, contrary to what some claim, strengthen our sovereignty and help to protect our democracy—the two things are related—by virtue of being part of something larger than ourselves that is itself a democratic structure. If people believe that the EU is not perfect, we need to be in there making it so.
I will give some specifics. I welcome the Government’s agreement to rejoin Erasmus+ since the publication of this excellent report, led by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. First, will the Government not extend the time for committing to this scheme to give it the best chance of success? Ten months is too short a period to take a sounding, considering that the scheme needs to bed in and eligible groups need to be encouraged to reply. Secondly, there is the concern about travel restrictions, including visas and passports. Will the Government look at the possibility of group passports for school pupils, assuming school trips and exchanges will be a significant part of the scheme?
Almost 20 months into this Labour Government, there is still no tangible evidence of any improvement in the lot of musicians touring. Indeed, UK Music has made the point that customs bureaucracy in terms of visas and carnets have increased, meaning that things have actually gone backwards. What the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said earlier in this debate about the possible attitude of DCMS is worrying. As the Minister will know, and as DCMS should know, this is an urgent matter about which the sector is hugely concerned. There are also, of course, wider trade concerns for all the arts and creative industries, with ongoing losses in job opportunities and huge monetary losses, including what we have lost in not rejoining Creative Europe. The Government absolutely need to rethink that, both for that reason and for the role it could play in helping to unblock progress in other areas.
Finally, perhaps the most intransigent problem of all for the creative industries and further afield is the huge difficulty of obtaining jobs in Europe. Artists and creators, from film actors to opera singers, now commonly face applications that insist on an EU passport, so that many fall at the first hurdle. I understand that this is a legally grey area but I ask the Minister: will the Government look at this, including in relation to the youth mobility scheme? What good is such a scheme if our young people continue to be shut out of jobs in Europe because of frankly understandable concerns from reputable potential employers, when the rest of the pool to draw from has no such relevant red tape or financial costs attached and, as important, there is no time element involved? Will the Government promise to look at this in a purely practical way, because it is the practicalities here that are crucial?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, as the 29th speaker, I fear that many of my original points have disappeared, but the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in particular, has inspired me to make a few more. I join others in commending the noble Lord who chaired this committee, and the committee itself, on getting over the refighting of the Brexit campaigns, which we have seen a bit of again today, to produce a report that at least has some signposts for the future.
I tried to insert some linguistic points here, to take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. “Reset” in English means two different things. If you reset your telly, it means you are either putting it back to its original setting or resetting it to a new one. The title of this debate and report, Unfinished Business, suggests there is a finish, but there is no finish. We are actually going to go on developing a new relationship with Europe, which will not have a fixed terminal point. Therefore, resetting—continuing to reset and to positively engage with Europe—is what we need to focus on.
In that context, beyond the linguistic point, there is the need that the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Wallace, underlined for us to engage, and not just with the institutions of the EU and the representatives of those institutions. As a committee we found ourselves very well received by those institutions in Brussels—but we also need a much more effective engagement with the member states. We thought we had already made a significant move forward with the proposals on the security and defence side, but the costs attachment that has now become evident—emanating, most people assume, from the French Government—indicates to us that we have to operate at the member state level effectively, as well as keeping doors open to Europe at the EU level. This Government have made a start on that, but we need to reinforce it. Although we supported the changes in the Whitehall structures for dealing with the EU and EU-related issues, they still need some significant strengthening.
My other point is that during this debate and the whole discussion, one important issue has hardly been mentioned at all—except negatively by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. It relates to a need for Europe as a whole to address the issue of climate change and environmental change, particularly now that the Americans have effectively abdicated from that stage and nobody has clearly taken up the reins. Unless Europe, the UK and other positive states recommit to tackling climate change, all the stuff that we are negotiating today and all the structures in the world will be overwhelmed by a dramatic change to our climate and to how our industry and trade operate; it will become the major issue confronting Governments. That will happen not next year or the year after but within the next decade, and I believe that part of our re-engagement with Europe has to focus on starting again on the initiatives that were so well started in the Paris Agreement and on ensuring that we both make a contribution to tackling climate change and achieving something like net zero.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, as speaker number 31, I am relieved to have picked an aspect of the report that has yet to be discussed in much detail. I will use my time to concur with recommendation 24 of the report, which asks the Government to set out how joining Erasmus+ brings added value to the UK. I question whether this scheme, set up in 1987, aligns with the travel preferences of young people in 2027. I question the quality of the education that they will receive and its cost effectiveness.
I can appreciate how, in the immediate post-war period, young people were excited about studying in France, Germany and Italy. My father speaks fondly about his cycling tour around France between school and university. But that picture has changed dramatically. In 2024 a British Council survey found that the most attractive countries for 18 to 30 year-olds were Australia, the United States and Canada. That is backed up by the data. Of the 51,000 18 to 31 year-olds who left the UK in 2023, just 9,000 went to the EU. In contrast, 17,000 flew to the other side of the globe, to Australia and New Zealand, and 13,000 went to North America.
Perhaps we are joining Erasmus+ because the EU has the best universities in the world—but, again, that does not appear to be the case. According to the Times Higher Education supplement’s world university rankings for 2026, none of the top 25 universities is located in the EU. There are 16 in the United States, four in the UK, two in China and one each in Switzerland, Singapore and Canada. Zooming out to the top 50, the UK has more top universities than France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.
If young people are not looking to the EU as somewhere they want to live, and if the world’s top universities are mainly located outside the EU, perhaps rejoining Erasmus+ is extremely good value for money—or, since the UK has proportionately more top universities, perhaps the EU is paying us to join the scheme. Sadly, this is not the case. Our membership fee for Erasmus+ is set to be £570 million in 2027. We paid £296 million for the scheme in 2019: just over £400 million with inflation. Despite the purported 30% discount negotiated by the Government, we are set to pay £170 million more in real terms than our contribution to the scheme in 2019. I hope that the person responsible for the negotiation is not going on holiday to Turkey this year to buy a carpet.
By contrast, with the same £570 million budget we could quintuple the size of the Turing scheme, which covers universities across the world, or we could keep the Turing scheme and create an additional 69,000 apprenticeships, which would do more to help the million NEETs struggling to find work. To conclude, the Government clearly need to be up front about the cost of joining Erasmus+ and why they deem it to be cost effective. We should not simply assume that a scheme set up in 1987 is still fit for purpose in 2027.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and the European Affairs Committee on their report. Our EU relationship has always concerned trade, regulation and security. What has changed is that each of these now runs through technology. Competitiveness, resilience and strategic influence increasingly depend on data, digital markets, infrastructure and talent. If this reset is to be durable, it must reflect that reality.
I want to emphasise four technology-related themes that underpin many of the committee’s recommendations. The first is scale. If we are serious about producing world-leading companies—firms that shape markets rather than follow them—scale is decisive. Advanced technology and AI businesses rely on large markets, secure cross-border data flows and regulatory clarity that enables rapid deployment. AI systems improve through real-world use. They learn from diverse users and datasets. Fragmentation does not just add friction; it shapes where capital flows and where growth ultimately anchors. The European Union represents a market of around 450 million people. For a British technology firm deciding where to expand engineering capacity or launch a new platform, predictable access to that market is strategically significant.
The second theme is talent. Frontier industries depend on people. AI researchers, engineers, chip designers and cyber specialists are globally mobile. The strength of our technology sector has long rested on the flow of European talent into our universities and start-ups, and on British talent collaborating across Europe. We have many examples of British companies with genuine global ambition. I declare an interest in one of them as non-executive director of Multiverse, which uses digital platforms to transform workforce skills across borders. There is also the autonomous vehicle developer Wayve, much in the news this week, which is advancing frontier AI systems that require diverse European testing environments at scale. These firms want to operate within integrated markets. The question is whether that integration will be as seamless as it can be with our nearest partner. Barriers to mobility may not show immediately in trade statistics, but over time they erode innovative capacity.
The third theme is standards and alignment. In digital markets, those who set standards shape outcomes. Rules governing AI, cyber security and data protection define the environment in which innovation occurs. We instinctively look to the United States when we think about technology leadership and, as many have said, it must remain an indispensable partner. Yet deeper transatlantic digital alignment has stalled recently, and some of the deals already announced are looking increasingly flaky. Meanwhile, Europe is not a peripheral AI player. It has serious research depth, industrial capacity and firms such as Mistral, Europe’s leading foundation model company. In a world where compute, standards and deployment scale matter, proximity matters too. The British firms serving European customers already work within European frameworks. The choice is whether we help shape those rules or simply adapt to them from the outside.
The final theme is resilience and security. Recent UK-EU discussions have rightly put cyber, emerging technologies and even shared AI and supercomputing on the agenda, but no European state, including our own, can secure that resilience alone. These steps still fall short of a comprehensive technology pillar in our relationship. The Prime Minister speaks often of Britain as an AI and technology superpower. That ambition cannot be delivered by domestic policy in isolation. Without a fuller reset of our technology relationship with the European Union on talent, regulation and data, as well as security, we will not reach the scale that that ambition implies. Are the Government prepared to put a serious technology negotiation at the heart of the future UK-EU relationship, rather than treating it all as individual, isolated initiatives?
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the committee on trying to establish the Government’s reset negotiating objectives, which the Government have failed to publish. But the Government have published what they call an explainer. I have a copy of it here. It lists the items on the Government’s reset menu, but it is a menu without prices. I first came across that as a naive young man when I was invited to a very exclusive and expensive West End club. I embarrassed my hosts by asking the chief waiter why there were no prices on the menu, to which he replied, “If Monsieur needs to know the prices, Monsieur probably cannot afford to dine here”. That is the problem with this reset: we do not know the cost and, if we did, we would not want it. The Government know it.
At least the menu in that club gave a wide choice of dishes. With the EU, it is: “Take it or leave it. It’s the dish of the day, the chef’s special or, in the case of fish, the catch of the day”—and there is the catch: the EU said that it would not even initiate negotiations unless we first agreed not to increase our catch of our fish from our own waters for another 12 years. This supine Government enacted that irrevocably, even if all other aspects of the negotiations fail.
Although the explainer does not mention prices, the EU’s negotiating mandate reveals that we are expected to pay into the EU’s coffers for almost every item. For the SPS deal, we must pay the EU’s extra administrative costs for not carrying out checks on UK exports—quite why not checking goods involves extra costs beats me but, given that the EU exports four times as much food to us as we do to it, surely it should pay us for not checking its food.
On the carbon border adjustment mechanism, the EU insists that we pay its additional costs, despite the agreement eliminating calculation and charging for the carbon content of imports. This too mainly benefits the EU, since we produce few carbon-intensive goods, thanks to our crippling net-zero energy costs, which this agreement will enhance.
On Erasmus, the Government claim that the price is a 30% discount, but that is relative to the cost in future years. It is twice what we paid in 2019 and will be three times as much after the first year’s discount expires. The most egregious cost, however, is actually in the title of the EU negotiating mandate, which demands
“financial contribution of the United Kingdom towards reducing economic and social disparities between the regions of the Union”.
So we are to contribute to levelling up the EU with money that could, and should, be used to level up the UK.
Today, Secretary of State Kyle justified breaking Labour’s manifesto pledge of no return to the single market on the grounds that that is “where the magic happens”. He is, I am afraid, off with the fairies. As the Trade Secretary overseeing our entry into the single market, I too predicted that it would boost our exports, but over the ensuing 25 years our goods exports to the EU stagnated—growing at less than 1% a year—whereas goods exports to the 100 countries with which we traded just on WTO terms grew by 87%.
What drives trade is producing goods and services that people want to buy, then getting out and selling them, preferably in fast-growing markets. It is not submitting to EU rules, regulations and protectionism, which have made Europe the slowest-growing continent in the world.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate. I have recently been chucked off the European Affairs Committee—due simply to my three years being up, I hasten to add, not for misbehaviour—but I participated fully and keenly in the preparation of this report. Although I am very happy to have found a berth on the equally absorbing and admirably chaired Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, I will very much miss the European Affairs Committee and pay tribute to its members and first-rate staff, who were named by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. Above all, I congratulate our then chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, on his superb leadership of the committee, which he has also been rotated off, and his introductory speech. From my new committee berth, I take very seriously the problems for trade and business, and, indeed, the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland.
This country’s links with the EU are going in only one direction, a development I wholeheartedly support. EU Ambassador to the UK Pedro Serrano has said that the UK and the EU are “indispensable partners” and described the statement from last May’s summit as
“a new narrative for the relationship”.
The President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, echoed similar sentiments in her visit in the last few days, including in a speech at Chatham House and at a reception held by Mr Speaker, to which he kindly invited me.
I believe the Prime Minister is serving this country and Europe well in fully supporting Ukraine and working with allies to that end. I applaud his speech at the recent Munich Security Conference, although, as far as we know, his welcome words have not secured UK participation in the SAFE project for defence capability improvements. Like other speakers, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on this.
We saw recently in a poll for ITV that over 80% of 16 to 24 year-olds would vote to rejoin the EU in a new referendum. Only 17% of this age group would vote to stay outside, compared with an overwhelming 83% who would vote to rejoin. I am soon 75, but I intend to live long enough, even to 100, to see us rejoin the EU. I venture to suggest that the Prime Minister could reinvigorate his support through the EU question. Of course, the route to rejoin is not where we are now, but it will be before too long. The young, and politics, will see to that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, that we would serve the young well if we ensured that they were not monolingual.
In a significant article for the Telegraph last November, Jeremy Warner wrote:
“Time to admit the truth: Brexit has been an unmitigated economic failure”,
confirming that
“from an economic perspective at least, Brexit has so far proved close to disastrous”.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, illustrated some of the ways in which this is true. Therefore, no Government who cared about economic growth could avoid the need to seek a better trade relationship with the EU, which, from these Benches, we welcome, as far as it goes.
I would, though, sound a cautionary note, as others have done. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, as well as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Government are going to have to be more candid and transparent with the public, sooner rather than later, about where they are headed. There is a limit to how much can be done piecemeal or by stealth, without placing it in a coherent framework and goal. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that a process without a destination is satisfactory. If that coherence is not visible to the public, there risks being a lack of confidence or even a backlash, as well as loss of support for the Labour Party, although I will leave it to worry more than I do about that particular consequence.
The EU will be looking for, if not political consensus—which is unattainable, as we have well heard today—then a solid and consistent majority for better ties with the EU. In my opinion, the Government would do well to bring the public more into a conversation about where all this will be heading. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and others pointed out, there was no reset White Paper. While the Government have previously asserted that they will not cross their red lines of no single market or customs union participation and no freedom of movement, they are already not quite practising what they preach. The Prime Minister’s recently expressed goal of deeper economic integration with and closeness to the single market smudges the red lines—and I gather that the Business Secretary said something today—and that is gaslighting the public, which they never appreciate. For instance, we understand that in the negotiations on the youth experience scheme, the Government are seeking freedom for British participants to move from one member state to another. That would be particularly welcome in, for instance, the travel and hospitality sectors, but the term for this is in fact “free movement”.
We now have a list of half a dozen sectors in which closer links are being pursued. Some present themselves, such as security and the easing of SPS and veterinary controls, but would it not be wise to share more of the thinking behind the choice of all these areas, as well as the neglect of the important issue of touring artists and the lack of much emphasis on law enforcement?
As well as lack of clarity, there is a problem of lack of transparency and accountability. Both Brexit and the reset have given a lot of leeway to executive freedom over parliamentary authority. I suggest that this cannot go on. While intergovernmentalism outside formal structures can have its advantages, they say, it has its limitations and comes up against the need for Parliaments, as well as the public, to get a handle on what Governments are up to. It would be a great advantage, as my noble friend Lady Suttie said, if the other place was able to restore a European Affairs Committee to increase scrutiny and seek to keep the Government honest.
The European Parliament managed to make considerable progress when I was an MEP, from 1999 to 2014, in getting a grip on the member states’ liking for unaccountable intergovernmental arrangements, which is how the data-sharing Prüm arrangement started. Prüm is a database of biometric as well as other data, and there were a lot of rows about its content when it finally got “communitarised”. The data retention directive, which the Labour Government of 20 years ago policy-laundered through Brussels under the UK presidency, later came unstuck in the European Court of Justice. Therefore, firm foundations are a good investment. Trying to escape the kind of detailed scrutiny and joint legislative powers that Parliaments need but Foreign and Home Offices are not quite so keen on is only a short-term fix. The UK-EU relationship and reset have provided a context and pretext for slipping back to that executive comfort zone. I predict we could see some revolting parliamentarians on both sides of the channel—and I know the European Parliament is very upset that it is not included in the design of the SAFE system.
We hear the Government claiming that the reset will involve British influence on relevant laws through “decision-shaping”, but I would respond, tell that to the marines. No one who has been an MEP, as others in this House were, believes that a country can call any shots on EU laws from outside EU legislative co-decision structures.
I have a few words to finish, on a very important issue in UK-EU relations: citizens’ rights. The UK’s EU settlement scheme has largely been a success, although there remain some problematic issues such as the cancellation of pre-settled status for some without any appeal rights, the harsh treatment of a particular cohort of families with a British citizen but EU family members—which could yet become another Windrush scandal—the loss of funding for organisations to assist people with their applications, and, in particular, the Government’s insistence on digital-only proof and refusal to let holders have a paper document or card as proof of status. The platform of a largely successful EU settlement scheme in the UK entitles this Government to put more pressure on member states where there are problems for British citizens and to push the European Commission to monitor and intervene more effectively and with greater power than it currently does. I hope the Minister can tell us that the Government intend to do just that.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate the European Affairs Committee’s report on resetting the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for setting out the current position with his customary clarity. I pay tribute to the committee members and the clerks, who have, as always, produced an outstanding report. As anyone who has served on a committee knows, it takes real skill to steer a single text through competing views and legitimate nuances. On that note, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his kind advice on how to reconcile disparate views within one’s own party—I know that that is a core Liberal Democrat skill.
I also wish to place on record a warm word for the noble Lord, Lord Frost. During the committee’s consideration, he circulated an alternative summary which, although not agreed, was thoughtful and well-argued and an important reminder that questions of sovereignty, democratic consent and national self-confidence sit beneath the technical detail. It strengthened the committee’s work by ensuring that those concerns were tested and heard.
The report is a serious assessment of the progress the Government have made in pursuing what they describe as a “closer, more cooperative relationship” with the European Union, while maintaining the position that there will be no return to the customs union, the single market or freedom of movement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, among others, have noted, this research is a process rather than a single event, so it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions at this stage. However, there are areas where the House would welcome further clarity from the Minister, particularly on objectives, costs and parliamentary scrutiny. Like my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, I hope that this debate can mark a shift from rehearsing 2016 to concentrating on how we secure practical co-operation without diluting the hard-won principle that decisions affecting the United Kingdom should be made with the consent of this sovereign Parliament.
The committee raises several concerns about the Government’s approach. Foremost is the absence of a clear, published plan before entering negotiations ahead of the UK-EU summit on 19 May 2025. The committee regretted that the Government did not produce a White Paper—a concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, and my noble friend Lady Meyer—or a similar document setting out their objectives. That matters. Without clarity on aims, red lines and trade-offs, Parliament and the public are left to infer strategy after the fact.
Contrast this with the European Union’s more clearly articulated priorities. In the summit documents, the parties committed to work towards a balanced youth experience scheme and UK association with Erasmus+ on terms to be agreed, and they reached political agreement to extend existing reciprocal fisheries access arrangements for a further 12 years to June 2038. Whatever one’s views of the merits, these are substantial policy directions, and they carry costs, constraints and distributional consequences. As the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and my noble friend Lady Coffey made clear, honesty matters.
On fisheries, it is important to be precise. This is not a return to the common fisheries policy but a long extension of reciprocal access arrangements under the trade and co-operation agreement. The committee recorded evidence that the length of the agreement was at the outer limits of what many in the sector expected, and it criticised the absence of a meaningful assessment of impact and the limited Explanatory Memorandum provided to Parliament before the agreement was reached and enacted. That is exactly the wrong way round.
On Erasmus+, I welcome opportunities for young people in universities, but we must be candid about the bill and the balance of advantage, a case very well made by my noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell. Since the committee reported, the Government have announced that the UK will join Erasmus+ from 2027, with a contribution of around £570 million for the 2027-28 academic year. It is therefore vital that Ministers set out transparently the criteria by which they judge this to be value for money, how participation will complement domestic schemes and what safeguards exist should costs rise in future budget cycles.
On the proposed youth experience scheme welcomed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, the Government have said that it would be capped and visa-based, and the common understanding speaks of numbers acceptable to both sides. This is not, on its own, a sufficient description for Parliament to scrutinise. We need clarity about the proposed cap, duration, eligible activities, enforcement and interaction with the domestic labour market, especially when the Office for National Statistics estimates that around 946,000 people aged 16 to 24 were not in education, employment or training in mid-2025. Against that backdrop, Ministers should explain how the scheme will be designed so that it is balanced and controlled.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, raised the lack of progress on helping UK artists touring in the UK. I hope the Minister can give an assurance that the Government will maintain focus on this very important area.
The Government will no doubt point to the proposed linking of the UK and EU emissions trading systems, yet it is a matter of record that since 2023, UK allowance prices have generally traded below EU prices. An analysis for the European Parliament noted periods in which the EU prices were over 60% higher than the UK carbon price in early 2025. Linking markets could therefore raise carbon costs for some UK firms by up to 15%, as my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, at least in the short term. The Government argue that linkage would also reduce exposure to the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism and provide greater market stability. Those are legitimate objectives, but Parliament needs the distributional analysis: who pays, who benefits, and on what timetable?
Many noble Lords, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, have raised the issue of defence. The much-discussed security and defence partnership is so far a framework of intent rather than a settled set of instruments. The committee identified potential access to SAFE as one of the key practical tests. The Government have said that they have not yet been able to conclude an agreement on terms they consider to be in the national interest. Press reporting has suggested that the EU sought a very substantial UK financial contribution, rightly criticised by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Ricketts, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea. Recent commentary has contrasted that with Canada’s participation fee, though comparisons are not straightforward and need careful unpacking. What matters for the UK is that if access to SAFE is genuinely central to the partnership, Ministers should set out the strategic benefit to the UK’s defence ecosystem, the likely costs and how UK industry will be treated under any rules on component origins and supply chains.
Of further concern is that prospective agreements on an SPS area, ETS linkage and possible participation in the EU internal electricity market are being explored on the basis of dynamic alignment with EU rules, along some form of decision-shaping role. The Government have said that disputes would be resolved by independent arbitration and that any role for the Court of Justice would be limited to the interpretation of EU law for an arbitration panel. Those assurances are welcome as far as they go, but as my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor have highlighted, the constitutional question remains: how will Parliament scrutinise, in real time, a system in which rules may evolve dynamically and the UK is not in the room when decisions are taken?
It is one thing for the Government to advocate a policy of closer alignment; it is quite another to proceed without giving Parliament the opportunity to examine objectives, costs, as my noble friend Lord Lilley highlighted, and legal consequences. The committee was right to call for stronger parliamentary scrutiny, including sight of draft texts where possible, explanatory material that genuinely explains trade-offs and a presumption that any major new agreement will be implemented through primary legislation. Given those concerns, will the Minister reassure the House on several points? First, will she confirm that the Government are not seeking a model that would restore general judicial oversight by the Court of Justice of the European Union over domestic law? Secondly, will she commit that any major agreement arising from the reset, whether on SPS, ETS linkage, mobility or defence, will be accompanied by a published impact assessment, including costings, and presented to Parliament in time for meaningful scrutiny before implementation? Thirdly, will she explain how decision-shaping will operate in practice and what arrangements the Government propose so that this House and the other place can scrutinise dynamic alignment effectively?
Any step towards the European Union should be taken with utmost caution and with full democratic transparency. Whatever our views of the referendum and its aftermath, the public rightly expect that Parliament, not private committees or opaque processes, will scrutinise agreements that shape regulation, taxation, borders and livelihoods. I hope the noble Baroness can provide the assurances the House is entitled to expect and commit to a reset that strengthens co-operation where it is in our interest, while safeguarding sovereignty, accountability and the primacy of Parliament.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords on the European Affairs Committee for their wide-ranging and considered report. I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government, and, I believe, the whole House, to especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for securing the debate and for his skilled chairing of the committee. He has proved himself to be the eternal diplomat—something I am not known for. Since the general election, the collaborative approach he has taken to engaging with the Government has been very welcome. I welcome the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, as the new chair of the committee, and look forward to continuing our constructive engagement.
I am also extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate for their insightful contributions—whether I agreed with them or not—which are a tribute to the report and its authors. I will attempt to answer all the questions raised, but with 34 contributions, I will also reflect on Hansard and respond to any issues I miss; the scale and range of our debate means that I will struggle to respond within the time.
This report was an important opportunity to look at the positive progress the Government have made on our manifesto commitment. While welcoming the progress that has been made, it asks important questions on areas such as the security and defence partnership, the SPS agreement, linkage of our emissions trading scheme, a youth experience scheme and potential participation in the EU internal electricity market. It also highlights the important role of Parliament in scrutinising existing and future agreements with the EU.
On progress to date, when the Government were elected, it was with a clear manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners. That meant tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade and increasing national security through strong borders and greater international co-operation. I do not wish to bring forth the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, by using the phrase red lines; I want to be clear that there is no return within our red lines to the single market or customs union, and no return to freedom of movement. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that our red lines were clear in our manifesto. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that we were clear on what that meant.
As your Lordships’ House knows, at the UK-EU summit in May last year, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU. This strategic partnership will unlock huge benefits for the UK, reducing barriers to trade, accelerating economic growth and keeping us secure in an uncertain world. It is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs. We took this decision—exercising our sovereignty—to strike a deal in the national interest. We are making good progress on talks with the EU since the summit to implement the joint commitments made.
I wrote down the name of every noble Lord who mentioned the issue of security and defence, but as it is over 20 names, noble Lords will have to bear with me. I was listening, and I am very grateful for their contributions. At the recent summit, we secured a new security and defence partnership agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, reminded us, it is all the more salient this week as we mark four years since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. This agreement represents a joint commitment to European security built on the long-standing commitment of the UK to support Ukraine and our cross-continent work to protect our NATO allies. We continue to step up on European security, including through leading the coalition of the willing for Ukraine.
This sits alongside the defence co-operation agreements we have struck with our other European partners. Last year the Prime Minister refreshed the Lancaster House agreements with France, deepening our defence and security co-operation, including nuclear co-operation through the Northwood declaration. The Prime Minister also signed the Kensington treaty with Germany, a generational shift in our relationship which broadens our co-operation across defence and security issues, building on the Trinity House agreement.
We are working quickly with the EU to implement our security and defence partnership and have already stepped up our co-operation on supporting Ukraine, tackling hybrid threats and increasing stability in the Western Balkans. Our co-operation is already delivering results. We have worked together to maximise the impact of sanctions on Russia, including jointly lowering the crude oil price cap to curb Moscow’s energy revenues. We also worked with the EU to ensure a successful UK-hosted Berlin process on the Western Balkans in October to promote regional co-operation and deliver security and growth.
Since agreement of the partnership, we have also established senior, structured dialogues with EU counterparts. This is all to ensure that co-operation delivers tangible benefits to European security. We remain fully committed to our continued close co-operation with the EU and European partners to strengthen European security and maintain unwavering support for Ukraine.
As the Prime Minister said at the Munich Security Conference:
“We want to work together to lead a generational shift in defence industrial cooperation … We must come together to … build a joint European defence industry”
and
“go beyond the historic steps that we took at last year’s UK-EU summit to build the formidable productive power and innovative strength that we need”.
Obviously, this then takes us to the questions on SAFE, which were raised by many members of your Lordships’ House, but specifically by the noble Lords, Lord Ricketts and Lord Moynihan, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. The security and defence partnership unlocked the possibility for enhanced UK participation in the Security Action for Europe scheme, also known as SAFE. We entered those discussions with the EU in good faith. We were prepared to make a fair financial contribution that reflected the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship and value for the UK taxpayer. It is disappointing that we were unable to come to an agreement, but we have always said that we will not sign any deals unless they are in our national interest. The UK’s defence industry continues to have access to SAFE under standard third-country terms. UK companies will be able to participate in and benefit from SAFE contracts to provide up to 35% of their content.
Issues related to Erasmus and the youth experience scheme were raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Since this report’s publication, the Government have reached an agreement with the European Commission for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ in 2027, fulfilling a key commitment made at the summit. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on the benefits of Erasmus, association will open up world-class opportunities for learners, educators and young people, as well as youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages across the UK. We expect that over 100,000 people could benefit from participation in 2027. We will work with the national agency to encourage people to sign up when applications open, and we welcome the focus of the Erasmus scheme on disfranchised communities.
We will further strengthen the people-to-people ties between the UK and the EU by creating opportunities for young people to travel, to take up short-term work or study, to broaden their horizons, and to get to know new people and places through the establishment of a balanced youth experience scheme with the EU. We are also currently negotiating the parameters of the scheme with the EU and aim to conclude these negotiations by the time of the next summit.
On the costings that were touched on, the UK will contribute around £570 million to the Erasmus+ programme in 2027. This is down from the approximately £810 million we would have paid under default terms. The UK will receive most of that money back to distribute among the UK beneficiaries, which will also have the opportunity to compete for grants from a £1 billion central pot directly managed by the European Commission. This is a good deal for the UK. We have negotiated financial terms which reflect a fair balance between the UK’s financial contribution and the number of UK participants receiving funding.
Noble Lords rightly challenged me on the issues relating to touring artists. This was a manifesto commitment. To reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, because this issue was in our manifesto we are consistent and clear on its importance. Just as we recognised at the UK-EU summit the importance of opportunities for young people, we also jointly recognise the value of travel and of cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists. We will continue our efforts to support travel and cultural exchange, and we are exploring how best to improve arrangements for touring across the European continent with the EU and member states. We are determined to make progress, including on the ambition to agree improvements as soon as possible.
I will answer specific questions on some of these issues, if noble Lords will bear with me. The issue of electricity and trade was raised by several noble Lords. Following last year’s summit, the UK and EU have also concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. Participating in the EU’s electricity market will have tangible benefits for the people of the UK, driving down energy costs and protecting consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. We are now in the process of negotiating a UK-EU electricity agreement.
I move on to the SPS agreement, a key issue raised by many Members of your Lordships’ House. To reassure noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, we are moving at pace on these negotiations. I love the phrase, “at pace”; it is good Civil Service language. The committee’s report also contained recommendations on next steps for the agreement. Let me be clear: the UK is the EU’s largest market for agri-food and vice versa. UK agri-food exports to the EU were worth £14.1 billion in 2024, while UK imports from the EU were worth £45.5 billion in the same year. Agri-food producers are among those most affected by increased paperwork and checks associated with exporting to the EU, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. A food and drink agreement will change that, boosting our exports and cutting costs for importers. We are working with Defra on negotiations and implementation of the agreement. The implementation of the SPS deal will be a matter for Defra.
Let me be clear: the Government believe that in some areas, such as SPS, it is in our national interest to align our rules with the EU. This is a sovereign choice that we make because it will cut paperwork, costs and barriers that have a negative impact on our businesses and consumers every day. We know that there are trade-offs with that approach, but we believe they are worth it. To reassure noble Lords, as agreed with the EU, we will have decision-shaping rights when new EU policies are made. Parliament will rightly have a say on those new rules. Any disputes will be overseen by an independent arbitration panel, not the European Court of Justice. Of course, many of the rules that we expect to be in scope of the agreement already exist in UK statute, with minor divergence between the UK and the EU since we left in 2020. This reflects the fact that we are like-minded trading partners with mutually high standards.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that we may have to agree to disagree on the issue of growth, as deeper economic integration is in all our interests. We must look at where we can move closer to the single market in other sectors, as well as where that would work for both sides.
I move on to the ETS and CBAM. British businesses and consumers will also feel the benefit of linking our carbon markets, cutting costs, making it cheaper for UK companies to move to greener energy and once again saving the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism charge being paid on £7 billion-worth of UK goods exports to the EU. Where the UK needs access to EU agencies or databases to make the agreements set out in the common understanding a reality, it is reasonable that the UK pays for these services. For example, the UK should make a fair contribution towards the running costs of the EU agencies, systems and databases that administer the food, drink and carbon market linking deals. We will negotiate the details of any financial contributions with the EU. The food, drink and carbon market linking measures alone are set to add up to £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040 in a significant boost for growth. We aim to conclude negotiations on these areas by the time of the next summit.
The Government will introduce primary legislation later this year to ensure that we can deliver these agreements and that the benefits can be felt as soon as possible. It is important that Parliament has its say, so where we are making commitments to introduce new laws, Parliament will, as always, play its role in scrutinising the legislation that implements those commitments—I think we have many hours in your Lordships’ House ahead of us. The precise timing and details of legislative agreements are naturally subject to the course of more detailed negotiations that are taking place. We look forward to working with Parliament on the exact arrangements for scrutiny of the legislation as negotiations continue.
Noble Lords will appreciate that we cannot talk about the European Union and our relationships with it without touching on the Windsor Framework—something I feel somewhat informed about by many Members of your Lordships’ House. I enjoy being educated about this issue. I reiterate that we are committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Murphy for his comprehensive review of the Windsor Framework and thank him for reminding us of the impact on Northern Ireland. I reassure him that I hope we will act speedily on the SPS agreement and the other recommendations in his report.
The insights provided by my noble friend are the direct result of his personal investment in the process and his extensive outreach to groups and individuals across the board. While the issues around making this work are incredibly charged in Northern Ireland and here, all noble Lords, especially the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Empey, have constructively engaged to make sure that we can get a way through.
I move to some of the specifics raised. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, asked me about the UK cohesion payments to the EU. We accept the principle that, when the UK participates in an EU instrument, programme or other activity, we should make a fair financial contribution to its budget to cover the costs of our participation. In December, the European Commission set out a proposal to the European Council to open negotiations with the UK on the financial contribution of the UK towards reducing economic and social disparities between regions of the union. This does not represent a proposal by the Government and the details of any contribution would be subject to negotiation.
My noble friend Lady Ashton and others touched on law enforcement and judicial co-operation. The summit package aims to strengthen our law enforcement and judicial co-operation capabilities, making our streets safer and ensuring that criminals are brought to justice. It will support our police officers and help enhance our intelligence and investigative capabilities against murderers, rapists and drug smugglers, including via facial imagery. It will also help ensure that investigations are equipped with the full facts of a suspect’s criminal history and that those are fully utilised to protect UK citizens from harm.
The noble Lord, Lord Barrow, asked about the second-generation Schengen Information System, SIS II. At the May 2025 UK-EU summit, we were pleased to agree a package which enabled further work to be undertaken with the EU to strengthen our law enforcement through new data exchange capabilities. The Government committed in their manifesto to ensure access to real-time intelligence. While at the UK-EU summit it was not possible to secure references to real-time, reciprocal alert sharing for border security and law enforcement processes, the summit represented an opportunity to further strengthen our capabilities, co-operation and relationship.
Many Members of your Lordships’ House, but specifically the noble Lord, Lord Jay, touched on defence spending—a subject that I, as an honorary captain of the Royal Navy, am particularly exercised about too. As the PM said in his Munich speech:
“To meet the wider threat, it is clear that we are going to have to spend more faster”.
We have shown our collective intent in this regard with the historic agreement to increase spending to 5% on security and defence. Noble Lords have had and will continue to have the opportunity to discuss that with my noble friend Lord Coaker on many future occasions.
On the White Paper—a genuine issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Taylor of Warwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn—the Government’s manifesto on which we were elected was clear on our approach to resetting relations with the EU, including negotiating an SPS agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and to help reduce pressure on prices. At the UK-EU summit in May last year, the Prime Minister announced a new strategic partnership with the EU, underpinned by the common understanding. The common understanding sets out an agenda in writing for strength and co-operation with the EU across safety, security and economic prosperity.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, rightly asked about AI. We have had a number of good discussions with the EU on AI, including through the committees established under the trade and co-operation agreement, and are now in discussions with our EU partners about how we take forward further collaboration on AI and other digital issues. If the noble Baroness will indulge me, I will write to her on the specific questions at the end of her speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about training for civil servants. The FCDO has a dedicated team leading work to build Europe capability across government. We are keeping our learning offer under regular review to ensure that we are partnering and influencing the EU and European allies in the most effective way.
I was surprised by one of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about free movement by the back door and how the European youth experience scheme could be regarded as such. To reassure her, the youth mobility arrangements are clearly not freedom of movement. They are based on strict control; they are subject to a visa requirement, capped and time limited. We already have agreements with 13 other countries, and no one has suggested that we have freedom of movement with them. Any scheme will be subject to an allotted number of places, and we have made it clear that this will be in line with the UK’s existing schemes with countries such as Australia and New Zealand. They will have limits on numbers and length of stay and will be subject to a visa application so that we can decide—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I evidently did not make myself clear. I did not say that the Government want free movement inwards, but, as I understand it, are asking for British citizens who go under the youth experience scheme to the continent to be able to move freely between different EU member states. That is free movement inside the EU for Brits, but it is not reciprocal, because we are only one country.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The scheme will have a cap and quota both ways. On fisheries, I will write to the noble Baroness about her specific point because I am aware that I am out of time.
There are a couple of important final points, if your Lordships’ House will indulge me. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, may enjoy the comments of the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, in yesterday’s Telegraph about how the European Union feels about next steps. I advise him to read her op-ed. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, asked me about European Union membership for Ukraine. That is a matter for EU members, and we are no longer one. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about the date of the next summit. We are in discussions with the EU on timings, but it will be this year.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his suggestions in the defence space and, most importantly, for referencing one of my personal political heroes, Denis Healey. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about wider engagement across Europe with European politicians. I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister has actively sought to engage in this space and to make sure that we have solid relationships. He has also been a strong advocate, at least throughout the time I have known him, for making sure that we all as parliamentarians engage with our sister parties across the European Union and beyond.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked me about Erasmus beyond 2027. The scheme does not yet exist, which is why we have joined year one. We will review after year one whether we will have further issues. I will write to him on group passports. On the youth experience scheme, I cannot comment on the details of ongoing negotiations, but I am sure we will be discussing it at great length in your Lordships’ House when I can.
The Government remain committed to strengthening our strategic partnership with the European Union and delivering real results for the people of the UK while sticking to the red lines set out in our manifesto. As the committee notes in its report, strengthening the UK-EU strategic partnership is an ongoing process. The summit in 2025 was the first in a series of annual summits and, as the Prime Minister set out in his speech at the Munich Security Conference recently, we must look at what more we can do with the EU. I reassure noble Lords that although I understand that we have many different views in your Lordships’ House, I think the one thing that we all agree on, especially in such a volatile world, is that having positive relationships with our neighbours is a very good idea.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for such a comprehensive speech—delivered at pace, if I may say so—and I am glad that our report has stimulated such a wide-ranging and lively debate. Noble Lords will see that I am trying to be the eternal diplomat again. Many Members raised points that I did not have time to raise in my speech. I am left with the feeling that our title, Unfinished Business, was not that bad. It is unfinished in the sense that it will never be done, and in the sense that in British politics the issue of whether closer relations with the EU are in our interest is still live. That debate will continue in the months ahead, and one of the issues will be the legislation connected with dynamic alignment.
I think the big message from our debate is that the EU-UK relationship cannot be seen in a vacuum, isolated from the wider geopolitical upheaval. Indeed, it is encouraging the Government to go faster on the reset, which I welcome. I think there was widespread support in the debate for the idea that we should get closer to the EU on defence-industrial co-operation, if we can do so in a way that is in our interest, which requires the EU to think again about its entry ticket.
However, the real strategic decisions are not going to be taken in the EU, and I hope that the House will continue to discuss the issues that we touched on here. What is the right forum in the future to do that? We need to bear in mind the points made by a number of noble Lords that Britain’s leadership in a future forum for strategic decision-making in Europe depends on us having the defence resources rising at a pace to make us credible.
I personally think that a close and confident relationship with the EU is part of the response to the generational upheaval that we are facing. I am surprised that our debate did not produce a consensus on that point of view, but I think it was a valuable debate and I beg to move.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill: Exclusion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government why Members of Parliament and members of the House of Lords are excluded from Clause 11, “Offence of misleading the public”, of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill; and what consideration they have given to removing this exclusion.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, what a small, select and charming group we are to discuss a topic that could feature quite high in news media later, because I think it is an issue that the public will care about.
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill has rightly been recognised for its proposed duty of candour, but there is another provision within it, less understood, yet vastly more consequential: the creation, for the first time in modern democratic history, of a criminal offence of misleading the public. It provides that, where a public official, including our very own Prime Minister, knowingly or recklessly deceives the public on a matter of significant public concern, and if that deception is proven to the criminal standard, a prison sentence of up to two years may follow. In short, the Prime Minister is proposing to criminalise lying in politics for the first time and he is leading by example by applying it to himself. This has never happened before and I congratulate the Government on being brave and decent enough to criminalise lying by their own Ministers. It is a very big step.
This Bill has been commonly called the Hillsborough law because of the stadium crush in 1989 in Hillsborough, Sheffield, in which 97 Liverpool supporters were unlawfully killed. That was followed by years in which police and other officials advanced misleading accounts that falsely blamed the victims, deceived families over the pain that their loved ones suffered before death and obscured institutional failings. The sustained campaign by the bereaved families for truth and accountability led to the Hillsborough Law Now movement and to the introduction in Parliament of this Bill. It is intended to impose a statutory duty of candour and to criminalise serious deception by public officials. It is worth noting that the inaccurate account by Sheffield police has never been corrected, which is something that the Government should resolve. Among others, the Hicks family lost two daughters and they, and other still-grieving families, deserve the truth.
This Bill will correct an inconsistency. For centuries, we have criminalised deception in almost every professional sphere, except for some politicians. Fraud is an offence, perjury is an offence and false advertising is unlawful. Under consumer protection legislation, tradesmen may not mislead the public about serious matters. In finance, commerce, the courts and taxation, truthfulness is not optional; it is legally enforceable. We already accept, under the Representation of the People Act, that dishonest statements about a rival candidate during an election may be criminal. The principle that deliberate political falsehoods can be legislated against is therefore not novel. It has existed for decades without overwhelming the courts or extinguishing debate.
No equivalent statutory standard has governed broader public claims made by politicians. That anomaly can be set against the collapse of public trust. The Ipsos Veracity Index once again ranks politicians among the least trusted professions in the UK. That distrust weakens democratic consent, discourages civic participation and feeds a corrosive cynicism that democratic institutions cannot be trusted and that Parliament is full of liars. It makes the lives of Members of the Commons and the Lords much harder and doubtless impacts our well-being as well.
But the Bill offers some hope. The proposed new offence of misleading the public attempts to respond to that crisis, not by criminalising opinion, silencing debate or punishing error or failed prediction but by addressing something narrower and more serious: deliberate or reckless deception about matters of significant concern to the public, proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Some have raised concerns about free expression. Those concerns deserve respect, but the offence, as drafted, is confined to intentional or reckless deception. It does not criminalise political disagreement, capture advocacy or police rhetoric. It does not apply to anything said in Parliament, as privilege is still in place. It targets only proven deceit elsewhere, such as online, on television, on the radio or at events. I hope that this narrow definition will stop people with expensive lawyers launching malicious legal cases in the hope of silencing legitimate criticisms. In short, this provision affirms a simple democratic proposition: those who exercise public authority should not be permitted to lie to the public with impunity.
So far, so good. Yet the following exemptions have been brought to my attention by campaigner Marcus Ball of ExecProsec, who is working with Jennifer Nadel of Compassion in Politics and Luke Myer MP from the other place. As currently drafted, the proposition excludes some parliamentarians. Civil servants would be bound by it, as would police officers, members of the Armed Forces, NHS staff, Government Ministers and even the Prime Minister, but Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships’ House would not, nor would the shadow Cabinet or the Opposition in their entirety.
There may be procedural explanations for excluding Peers and Back-Bench MPs, and even technical constitutional arguments, but I wonder what the public will think. They will see a law that criminalises deception by nearly every category of public official except the very people who are making the Bill become law. They will not be persuaded by constitutional nuance; they will draw a much simpler conclusion. If Parliament legislates a requirement not to lie for others while reserving exemption for itself, the perception will be that we parliamentarians are hypocrites. That perception will endure each time the offence is invoked, a prosecution is considered, accountability is pursued or any parliamentarian is accused of being dishonest. The public will be reminded that parliamentarians chose to criminalise lying by almost all public officials apart from themselves.
Equality before the law is the foundation of democratic legitimacy. If nurses, teachers, civil servants, Ministers and even the Prime Minister are to be subject to this standard, it is impossible to persuasively justify a position in which Members of either House of Parliament are not. Surely, those who make the law should be subject to the same standard of honesty that we, as legislators, impose on others.
This House has long seen itself as the guardian of constitutional principle. We are uniquely placed to consider not only how legislation functions in the courts but how it will be understood by the public. I am concerned that if we do not apply this law to ourselves, we will cause reputational self-harm. We are legislators; we pass laws that relate to everyone else, so why should they not relate to us as well?
To conclude, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I sense that the Government will probably not accept what I am saying, but I wonder whether she will meet me at a future date to discuss this, perhaps with one or two lawyers who can argue more persuasively than I can. Why are Members of Parliament, in both Houses, excluded from Clause 11? Will the Government give serious consideration to removing that exclusion, so that the Bill may stand as a testament to integrity rather than a monument to hypocrisy?
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and congratulate her on bringing forward this important debate. It is a good Question. I agree with her that the Public Office (Accountability) Bill should be welcomed, but I will wait until Second Reading in this place before addressing the wider merits of the Bill.
Few matters strike more directly at the moral core of public life than the question of honesty, and few touch this House more directly than the standards we set for ourselves. Clause 11 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill creates a new criminal offence, as we have heard, where a public authority or official acting in that capacity intentionally or recklessly misleads the public, knowing or being reasonably expected to know that such conduct is seriously improper.
The intention, as I understand it, is to ensure that those exercising the powers of the state are held to the highest standards of truthfulness. It would apply to government departments, local authorities, the police, the NHS, schools and others exercising public functions. Yet, as we have heard, Members of both Houses of Parliament are to be excluded. The Government’s reasoning is that the clause is aimed at those who wield executive authority rather than those in representative or political roles. But is that distinction defensible? Does this fly in the court of public opinion? Why should accountability in public life be limited only to those who administer the state rather than those who make its laws or shape its policies?
To be a Member of either House is to possess a particular form of public authority: the authority of trust. As recent events relating to Lord Mandelson have shown, parliamentarians are not above the system: we are the system in the eyes of the public. Our words, our votes and our conduct influence government action, policy direction and public belief. That is power by any reasonable definition, and it is power that depends entirely on trust.
As the clause stands, it applies to a government Minister acting in an executive capacity. In that case, Ministers face a legal duty not to seriously mislead the public, but their opposition shadow does not. That asymmetry is frankly bonkers and unfair on political incumbents. We are in an age of disinformation. Elected politicians who consistently, deliberately and cynically mislead the public should be subject to criminal sanctions in extremis.
Outside the protections rightly offered by parliamentary privilege, should we not be prepared to hold ourselves to account when serious or repeated dishonesty on matters of public concern causes demonstrable harm? The damage caused by misleading the public goes far beyond a single misstatement. It corrodes the foundations of confidence on which democratic governance rests. It also creates fertile ground for those who thrive on distrust and resentment: the bad-faith actors, who see cynicism as a political opportunity.
We have seen again and again how false narratives can take hold and persist: Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, the Horizon cases and, more recently, the partygate affair. Each has shown how misinformation and evasion can compound tragedy, turning mistakes into long-term injustice. The Bill bears the “Hillsborough” name advisedly. It reminds us that misleading the public is not a victimless act.
The evidence of eroded trust in politicians in this context is stark. The 2024 British Social Attitudes survey found that 58% of people “almost never” trust politicians to tell the truth. Four in five said they were dissatisfied with how they were governed. The Electoral Commission’s 2025 findings were similar: only 14% expressed trust in politicians. According to the Constitution Unit, “being honest” ranks as the single most desirable quality in a parliamentarian, and nearly three-quarters of respondents support the removal of MPs who lie.
In that context, the amendment tabled in the Commons by my political friend Luke Myer MP deserves serious consideration. It would extend Clause 11 to Members of both Houses in a proportionate and carefully safeguarded way: not to stifle political disagreement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, but to make it clear that those who knowingly and deliberately mislead the public cannot do so with impunity. That principle, I believe, commands widespread public support. To do otherwise confirms exactly the perception that has done such damage to trust in political institutions: that there is one rule for us and another for everybody else. That sentiment has helped drive the rising populist tide that every democracy now faces.
Mention of populism triggers me to say something about the valid concerns around freedom of expression. These are understandable, but in this case, I think, misplaced. The threshold in Clause 11 is intentionally high. It is directed only at conduct that is serious, significant and harmful. The clause includes a “reasonable excuse” defence and would require a demanding evidential standard. It is not about slips of the tongue, robust political rhetoric or contested interpretation; it is about substantiated, deliberate dishonesty causing real harm. In practice, prosecutions would likely be rare, but the deterrent effect of the law, and the statement of principles that it represents, is powerful.
Some may observe that the common-law offence of misconduct in public office, about which we have heard quite a lot lately, already covers such ground. In theory, yes, but, in practice, this offence is notoriously ill-defined and difficult to sustain. However, Clause 11, which has been carefully drafted, offers a clearer, modern test for the same fundamental idea: that the abuse of public trust is, at its most serious, a criminal matter.
In my view, this is about leading by example. We cannot credibly legislate for honesty in public life while exempting ourselves. If we do, we risk deepening the very scepticism that this Bill seeks to repair. The British public are remarkably forgiving of error; they are far less forgiving of hypocrisy. A Parliament that will not hold itself to its own standards invites precisely the accusations of entitlement and complacency that have weakened respect for institutions across the democratic world and would fuel the growing belief that we are an entitled, self-serving elite.
The restoration of trust will never come solely through codes of conduct or ministerial guidance. It will come through action: through showing that no one, however senior or unelected, is beyond accountability. Extending Clause 11 to Members of both Houses, with proper safeguards for privilege and freedom of expression, would mark a principled step in that direction. If honesty in public life is to be more than a slogan, we must be prepared to bind ourselves by it in law, and not just in aspiration.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union, which may well end up defending people as a result of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, given that it creates a new speech offence. As we have heard, the offence is that of misleading the public. A public authority or public official commits an offence if, first, in their capacity as such an authority or official, they act with the intention of misleading the public or are reckless as to whether their act will do so; and, secondly, they know, or ought to know, that their act is seriously improper.
The problem is not that MPs and Peers are immune to being prosecuted for this offence but that the carve-out is not large enough. According to my reading of the Bill, MPs or Peers acting as public officials—that is, Ministers of the Crown—would be liable. This is a gold-embossed invitation to the Jolyon Maughams of this world. It will unleash a wave of politically motivated lawfare. Is that really what we want?
As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, just pointed out, the new offence of misleading the public is intended to replace the offence of misconduct in public office. Let us not forget that attempts have been made by political activists to bring private prosecutions against their opponents for committing that offence. For instance, in 2019, an outfit called the Brexit Justice Group brought a private prosecution against Boris Johnson for misconduct in public office because, according to the BJG, he had knowingly misled the electorate in the EU referendum campaign by claiming that leaving would bring a bounty of £350 million a week. It was an obviously vexatious case, but a magistrate issued three summonses against the then Prime Minister before the case was eventually thrown out in the High Court.
Should this Bill become law, we can look forward to a slew of similar cases. Rachel Reeves, for instance, might find herself in the dock for claiming that she would not raise taxes on working people, while Ed Miliband could have his collar felt for promising that household energy bills would fall by £300.
If the Bill is amended along the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wants, would not her party’s candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election find herself in difficulty—assuming that she becomes an MP? During her now infamous campaign video in Urdu, released a few days ago, she said that Reform UK wants to put higher taxes on people who were born abroad. That is misleading, to put it at its most charitable. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said there are safeguards in the Bill to prevent private prosecutions, but what is to stop members of the public bringing judicial reviews against the police for not prosecuting politicians for misleading the public?
The Free Speech Union recently defended an SNP activist and editor of a blog, “Wings Over Scotland”, who had supposedly said something transphobic on social media. A trans activist, Lynsay Watson, tried to sue Greater Manchester Police for not prosecuting him. I am happy to say that he failed, but that is not to say that others will not attempt to sue the police for not arresting lying politicians.
I do not want to see Hannah Spencer behind bars for misleading the public any more than I do the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Candidates campaign in poetry and govern in prose. If they fail to keep their promises or traffic in obvious mistruths, there is already an adequate mechanism for punishing them—the ballot box. Rather than extend the scope of the Bill to include MPs and Peers, let us limit it to make sure that Members of both Houses, in whatever capacity, are properly excluded.
I would go further and urge the Government to amend the Bill to exclude civil servants too—and not just those working in the intelligence services. As a recent piece in the Economist pointed out, making Whitehall officials liable for prosecution for misleading the public could have disastrous unintended consequences. It would mean fewer civil servants willing to take responsibility for decisions or giving ministerial advice, and more decision-making by committee to dilute liability. Rather than providing Ministers with timely, sensible advice, they will mitigate the risk of a prosecution down the line by obfuscation and delay. To quote from the Economist:
“Ministers complain that the civil service is bogged in a ‘sludge’ of slow decision-making. But officials will have an incentive to take more detailed minutes, keep more records and give risk-assessments even lengthier consideration to insure against future court challenges”.
I am reminded of the effect of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Rather than leading to greater transparency on official decision-making, it resulted in MPs, Peers and Whitehall officials abandoning email in favour of WhatsApp, with disappearing messages switched on—less transparency rather than more.
The intentions behind the Bill are undoubtedly good. The families of those who died in the Hillsborough tragedy deserve to hear the truth from public officials, particularly those testifying to various inquiries, but it is hard to legislate for candour. To pretend that the Bill will
“once and for all end the culture of cover-ups and hiding the truth”,
as the Labour manifesto promised, is, I am afraid, just another example of misleading the public.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for raising the profile of our candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election. That is very kind of him.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I too welcome the obtaining of this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and want to return, as we often should, to the actual Question in the debate. We shall have plenty of time to look at the Bill when it gets here. We are not on the Bill but on this very narrow point. Narrow though it is, it is important. Although what the Government have proposed—excluding MPs and Peers—is probably right, because it is the Government and the Executive who are dealt with in the scope of the Bill, it is worth while considering the implications of this. We can take two things by way of some help in examining the question, because the acuteness of this issue will arise primarily when we get close to an election or when political tensions are high.
It is quite interesting to see what we did in the Representation of the People Act, or to go back to what was originally enacted in 1895, in distinguishing between untruths in relation to people’s personal characteristics and untruths in relation to all other matters. Looking at the debates in 1895, it seems remarkable to me that that distinction, which was carefully made, has stood us in good stead, because we addressed a particular problem in elections.
When you look at the debates, you can see what was worrying politicians in 1895. One was worried about the fact that, during an election, he had been on a Bench of magistrates and was said to have sent a man to prison for a month, with hard labour, for stealing three pennorth of oats; he had dissented from the decision of the others. Another was accused of his yacht being used to poach salmon with a net on a Sunday in Scotland. It was a concern that untruths were being told about people’s personal characteristics, for which there was no effective remedy because you could not bring an action for slander during an election. Therefore, in 1895 it was decided that one ought to focus on what the problem was, what the remedy was and whether it should be enacted. It was enacted then and has been re-enacted successively, as recently as the 1983 legislation.
Why has it been restricted in this way? Looking at the case law that has elucidated these provisions, it seems that Parliament then thought—it is, to my mind, a very tenable position—that whereas it is wrong to be allowed to tell lies about someone’s personal characteristics, because it is very difficult to disprove those, do you leave the good sense of lying about politics to the public? That has served us well for over 130 years, but the question is: should we continue that distinction?
It is useful to look at a second matter, which is the proceedings in Senedd Cymru where, in relation to elections in Wales, it is proposed that there be an offence, similar to what is envisaged in the Bill, applicable during elections: namely, telling untruths of any fact or matter completely. The report of the examination by the Senedd committee is useful reading because it had evidence from the Electoral Commission, the Bar in Wales, Transparency International, Professor Horder and others, in relation to the problems that you create by having a wide-ranging offence of this kind.
The way forward, it seems to me, is to look at what the problem is in this House and in the other place. Is there a remedy that should be brought, and in what circumstances? The one thing that would be very undesirable is to create a huge amount of potential for people to complain to the police, saying “X or Y is lying about this” and seeking to engage in political prosecutions of that kind. That is a real worry.
However, I go this far in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Jones: we simply ought to look at the difficulties and see what the problem is—but it is a difficult problem on which there is an awful lot of experience, and we need a proper examination. On what I have read so far, I regret to say that I agree with leaving their Lordships—I should say “your Lordships”, including myself—and others out of the scope of this Bill, because there is a logic to confining the provision to the Executive and not opening the door to lengthy and politically inspired prosecutions. However, it is a question that should be examined, and that is why I am so grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this very difficult point.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I join with everybody in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and thanking her for raising this issue and for the powerful and eloquent way in which she opened the debate and presented her arguments.
As we have heard, the question that the debate raises is whether it is right that Schedule 2 to the Bill would exclude parliamentarians from both Houses from the definition of public authorities and public officials who might be guilty of an offence of misleading the public under Clause 11. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who described this as a very difficult issue that was not going to be simple to determine and that required a great deal of consideration.
On the one hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, the exclusion of parliamentarians from the ambit of this offence could well be perceived by the public as putting parliamentarians above the law. Some Labour MPs have expressed that view in the House of Commons and the media, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, gained powerful support from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth. The noble Lord also made the point, which is of considerable significance, that Ministers acting in their executive capacity would be liable to be prosecuted under this offence, whereas shadow Ministers would be in an entirely different position. On the other hand, if the exclusion were removed, it could be said that Peers and MPs might be deterred from speaking freely on important issues, and that is the basis on which parliamentary privilege is founded.
The reason given in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill for the exclusion of parliamentarians is, and I quote,
“in recognition of long-standing conventions around the independence of the judiciary”—
who I might say are also excluded from offences under Clause 11—
“and Parliament’s ability to regulate its own affairs. These institutions have their own processes for establishing and enforcing ethical standards”.
No more detailed explanation was given on behalf of the Government in Committee by the Minister at the MoJ, Alex Davies-Jones MP; she referred only to long-standing conventions of self-regulation and independence. For my part, I am not sure that is a convincing response. In my view, the mere existence of long-standing conventions should not prevent Parliament examining those conventions and, if necessary, legislating to overturn them.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the position taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She rightly points out that the Clause 11 offence is directed not at innocent mistake or honest disagreement but at deliberately or recklessly misleading the public, when the accused knows, or ought to know, that their act is seriously improper. That is a pretty heinous wrong, and one that the Bill is rightly determined to prevent and penalise. The threshold for conviction is a high one. So why, she asks, should parliamentary privilege and MPs’ and Peers’ freedom of speech get in the way of that worthwhile aim, against the background that we have seen of unacceptable institutional cover-ups and outright dishonesty by some official bodies, which this Bill is intended to address?
My concern with the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is not, principally, that without the exclusion parliamentarians would in practice be prosecuted for this offence. Rather, it is that without the exclusion parliamentarians could be threatened, publicly and in correspondence, with prosecution, and that the threat of attempted prosecutions could deter MPs and Peers from speaking their mind openly and without fear of the consequences. It is in that context that the protection of parliamentary privilege is genuinely an important democratic protection.
It is true that under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3, proceedings for a Clause 11 offence could be brought only with the consent of the DPP. Nevertheless, the whole process of investigation and consideration, and the threat of prosecution, could have a chilling effect on parliamentarians and parliamentary debate. It is therefore not only freedom from prosecution that is important but freedom from the threat of prosecution.
I am reminded of the argument around SLAPPs litigation—SLAPPs standing for the obscure description of strategic lawsuits against public prosecution. As we all know, SLAPPs are unmeritorious actions threatened or brought, often for alleged defamation, generally by powerful or wealthy individuals or organisations, to frighten off critics who would attack them in the press or elsewhere. SLAPPs are used as a form of oppressive censorship of investigative journalism and legitimate criticism, which we are rightly attempting to regulate, control or penalise.
In the context of this Bill, a parallel argument was advanced at Second Reading in the House of Commons by the Conservative MP Mike Wood. He foresaw a risk of parliamentarians being subjected to what he called “politically motivated lawfare”—I note that was an expression repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—which the exclusions are designed to prevent. I have to say I found some of the examples from the noble Lord, Lord Young, a little overstated at times, but nevertheless it is a point that is worth making. I found the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, very persuasive, including his distinction, which may not be directly on point but is helpful, between lying about politics and lying about personal characteristics. That distinction is illuminating.
We should not be so complacent as to believe that parliamentarians would be so immune to threats as always to stick to our guns in the face of them. Parliamentarians expect and welcome criticism, argument and disagreement. However, I suggest that the threat of prosecution for speaking their mind is not a legitimate hazard of parliamentary life. At worst, it may drive some to trim or curtail their arguments, even if not abandoning them. On the whole, and with some hesitation, I have come down on the side of parliamentary privilege and in favour of the exclusion that is written into the Bill, despite the very powerful arguments set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and others.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for providing the opportunity for noble Lords to raise a matter of deep and real public interest. The exclusion of Members of this House and the House of Commons from Clause 11 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill is a topic which touches on constitutional issues and those which relate to public trust. The Bill engages long-standing concerns about transparency in public life. It will impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness, and to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of their authority. It creates offences for those who, in that capacity—and I emphasise the phrase “in that capacity”—mislead the public and, in relation to the misconduct of persons, who hold public office.
The Hillsborough families’ campaign for accountability has been one of the most powerful calls for reform in recent decades; it is right that we act on their concerns. Here, I declare an interest: I acted in some civil claims on behalf of South Yorkshire Police and, at a later date, for victims who sued their solicitors who had settled their original claims for too little. I have also represented a health authority in a public inquiry against a dishonest consultant, so I know and have practical experience of what dishonesty and cover-ups can mean for the victims.
The new offences will apply when a public authority or official acting with intention or reckless disregard commits improper acts that mislead in respect of matters of significant public concern. But MPs and Peers do not, by virtue of that status alone, act as officials—we must remember that. By Schedule 2 to the Bill, “public authority” means a government department, a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, or a Northern Ireland devolved authority. So individual officeholders and their departments, when acting, are within scope. It is only when acting personally, in a purely parliamentary capacity, that an MP or a Peer will be immune.
This debate raises the interesting and difficult question: when, if ever, should MPs and Peers be guilty of the criminal offences contained in the Bill? Neither House of Parliament will for that purpose be a public authority. This reflects long-standing constitutional conventions of Parliament’s self-regulation and independence. Parliamentary privilege and constitutional autonomy are vital; they must not be compromised. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 remains a cornerstone of our constitutional settlement. It provides that freedom of speech and debate in Parliament
“ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.
Article 9 safeguards the core functions of this House and the other place in debating and scrutinising the Government without fear of legal sanction. Those who abuse parliamentary privilege are susceptible to punishment and expulsion by Parliament.
The problems with the Hillsborough and infected blood scandals stem from cover-ups by those acting in official positions, whether as Ministers or officials. I am not suggesting anyone in particular here, but they were in positions of authority. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, explained some of the hazards that might arise from going beyond the Bill and the significance of the Representation of the People Act, for example. My noble friend Lord Young of Acton explained other risks. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly highlighted the danger of the mere threat of proceedings to what people may then be prepared to say in either House of Parliament.
Article 9 rightly protects proceedings in Parliament. It does not protect conduct by individuals outside those parameters, those formal proceedings, nor does it provide immunity from the criminal law for conduct outside parliamentary debate—see the expenses scandal, where at least one MP attempted to run the argument but failed in the courts. The scope of parliamentary privilege is carefully constrained, and rightly so.
Parliament should be very cautious lest any words spoken on the Floors of either House, or in its committees, are put at risk of being caught by criminal offences or civil actions. The threat of prosecution would have a chilling effect on robust debate, which is the essence of parliamentary democracy. An authoritarian Government with majorities in both Houses, any mischief-maker in either House or any outsider might raise specious allegations for bad motives, or just out of ignorance. The fact that the Member in question might ultimately be acquitted of wrongdoing, whether in the criminal or civil courts, will not have prevented exposure to frightening pressures. Our legislators must not be so exposed. The Bill of Rights is a bulwark. History is on its side.
As we have heard, some Members in the other place have suggested that extending the offence to MPs and Peers might improve public trust and perception, and amendments have been tabled from some MPs to bring Members of Parliament within the scope of the offence. That would be a grave error. MPs and Peers acting as such do not make decisions on behalf of the state. They are not Ministers or officials. Their misconduct, if and when it occurs, will be addressed by Parliament—we have had examples in the recent past. Parliament does and will police its Members; no one else should when it acts within the bounds which I have set out.
We on these Benches believe that creating a criminal offence would be wrong, but we also recognise that the exclusion of Parliament from the offence risks sending the wrong message if it is not properly explained to the public. It is not an easy topic to explain in plain and simple terms to a wider public. Accountability and integrity in public life must be strengthened and supported, and public trust in our institutions is, frankly, fragile at present. But the way to hell is paved with good intentions, so beware: the remedy will be worse than the disease.
Given these considerations, I ask the Minister the following questions. What consideration have the Government given to alternative models to ensure meaningful accountability without infringing on this privilege? Do the Government believe that the current system of parliamentary sanctions alone is sufficient and effective? What further parliamentary sanctions might be of value? What steps will the Government take during the currency of the Bill to explain these important principles of our constitution?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, it is customary to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for securing this debate, but I am sure she would agree that I should start by paying tribute to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. In doing this, I make it clear that the victims and bereaved must always be front and centre of the Government’s mind as the Bill makes its long overdue way through Parliament.
I hope your Lordships will understand what I mean when I say that the Bill is not just about justice for Hillsborough victims and families, and those of the other disasters; it determines what kind of a society we are. Do we protect vested interests, or do we believe in the importance of rights of and protections for our fellow citizens as individuals? To that extent, I entirely understand the points made, very forcefully, by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Knight.
The noble Baroness and I had a very short discussion yesterday when she explained her concerns to me. I am grateful to her for that. I hope she knows that my objective in this matter is not to make partisan points or to be stubborn about legislation but to make sure that, as we go through the process of introducing a new law, we get it right. By “right”, I mean that the law captures the behaviour that we think is so egregious that it merits being criminalised while not trespassing on other important issues, which will include convention rights. By securing today’s debate, the noble Baroness and all the other Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken have given the Government food for thought, and I have treated everybody’s contributions as, in effect, being those of critical friends.
The offence of misleading the public is a brand new offence contained in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, your Lordships will have the opportunity to scrutinise it fully when it is sent to us from the other place. My intention today is to explain the policy reasoning behind the Government’s decision to limit the offence to the Executive rather than extend it to all MPs and Peers. To do this, I need briefly to outline what the Bill in general, and this clause in particular, intend to do.
The Government are clear that what happened following the Hillsborough disaster must never happen again. In that case, police lied and changed witness statements to protect their reputations. Bereaved families from Hillsborough, and too many other examples over many years, faced an inquest process with no funding for legal representation. All of that was underpinned by a lack of a duty of candour. The Bill contains a powerful new package of measures to address these failings and others, such as the infected blood and Horizon scandals.
As part of the measure, the Bill creates not one but four new criminal offences, and they fall into two groups. There is plainly some level of misunderstanding about this. That was articulated most clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton; I owe him an apology because, in a recent letter on the Crime and Policing Bill, I addressed him as “Lord Young of Action”, although perhaps he will not have minded too much.
The first group of these four offences includes two offences to replace the common-law offence of misconduct in public office, which will be repealed. The first of those new offences is committing seriously improper acts and the second is breaching the duty to prevent death or serious injury. These new offences broadly replicate the effect of the common-law offence, and they have a very wide reach. They cover a much broader range of behaviour than the kind that was seen at Hillsborough; for example, misconduct in public office has in the past been used to prosecute for offences such as corruption in public office—that is what these two new offences are intended to replicate.
We are replacing the old common-law offence because there was a lack of certainty about it. One of the issues with it was the lack of a list of those to whom the law applied. To deal with that, those two new offences do have a list. Both those two very broad offences do apply to MPs and Peers, as well as to a number of other public office holders, including judges.
Secondly, we have created another two new offences, which are completely separate from the old misconduct in public office offence. They were designed specifically to deal with a narrower range of circumstances and to deal with the situation that has arisen in these large-scale disasters. These two new offences are: first, a breach of the new duty of candour; and, secondly, the offence of misleading the public contained in Clause 11. It is only the latter offence, out of the four new ones, with which we are concerned today.
As I have already said, this offence is designed to be much narrower than the ones designed to replace misconduct in public office. It was designed specifically with what happened at Hillsborough in the front of our minds, and I will explain the reason for that. As the scale of the disaster at Hillsborough was becoming apparent, the police lied about its cause, saying that Liverpool fans had broken into the stadium. However, as we now know, and as the Taylor inquiry uncovered, in fact the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control.
This new offence is aimed squarely at those who intentionally or recklessly aim to mislead the public and cover up the truth. It is intended to capture only the most serious instances of public officials or authorities misleading the public. An example might be a chief executive of a hospital instructing the staff to lie about a major incident to avoid criticism of the hospital. It is not intended to apply to instances of accidental or inadvertent misleading.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Young, prosecutions cannot be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, specifically to avoid vexatious private prosecutions. The noble Lord mentioned judicial review, but the doorway to a judicial review is a narrow one—it is a very restricted set of circumstances and is subject to a permission stage from the High Court.
The Government thought very carefully about to whom this offence should apply. It applies to public officials and public authorities, so it captures those working in government and the wider public sector who take decisions on behalf of the state. That includes Ministers and other politicians in executive roles, but not MPs and Peers.
Our thinking was this: Parliament has a unique role in our society. Parliamentarians are responsible for legislating, scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. In addition, MPs are responsible for representing their constituents. However, individual MPs and Peers do not directly take decisions on behalf of the state, nor do they have access to the kind of government information that would be available to Ministers. For that reason, we have come to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to extend the offences in the Bill to all MPs and Peers—and they are not extended to judges either. We have the wide group of offences designed to replace misconduct in public office, which applies to Back-Benchers, the Opposition and the judiciary, and this narrow offence designed to cover those who take decisions.
Of course, the Government agree that misleading the public in any capacity is not acceptable, and there should be consequences for parliamentarians who do so, but this new offence is not the appropriate vehicle for regulating political speech. Parliament has its own arrangements for ensuring accuracy and truthfulness in proceedings, including processes for determining whether MPs have misled the other place, and it is for the House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider any instances where a Member of your Lordships’ House is alleged to have misled the House. This reflects the important principle that parliamentary proceedings are rightly privileged and cannot be questioned in a court of law. Each House is responsible for determining the right sanctions when it is alleged that someone has misled the House.
Members of both Houses must also act in accordance with the Nolan principles in all their public functions, and the very high standards expected of public office holders, conducting themselves with honesty and integrity. It is for each House to determine the procedures for investigating and sanctioning those who break the rules. The Government are confident that the scope of the new offence, combined with the existing arrangements and the codes of conduct for parliamentarians, strike the right balance between capturing the most serious wrongdoing while not infringing the tried and tested procedures that govern all noble Lords and all those in the other place to ensure that we conduct ourselves to the highest standards.
This has been an interesting and important debate and I will of course meet the noble Baroness, any lawyer she wants to bring with her and indeed any other Members of your Lordships’ House who would like to discuss this further.
Transnational Repression in the UK (JCHR Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
That this House takes note of the Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights Transnational repression in the UK (7th Report, HL Paper 160).
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, before the debate gets under way, I want to highlight the four-minute advisory time for Back-Bench contributions. This is designed to ensure that the debate can finish within two hours, in line with the usual timings for Thursday debates, and that the House can rise at a reasonable time. I therefore urge noble Lords to keep their remarks within four minutes to meet these ends—of course, with the exception of the mover, the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour to open today’s debate on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report Transnational Repression in the United Kingdom. As chair of the JCHR, I pay tribute to my committee colleagues from both Houses and thank the terrific JCHR team, headed by our clerks Rhiannon Hollis, Moriyo Aiyeola and Lauren Marchant. I also thank the Library for its briefing note, the Minister and the officials who have briefed him for the work that has been done by him and his colleagues in the department, but especially the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, who will make his maiden speech today. We greatly look forward to hearing that.
Our report highlights the absence of a universally accepted definition of transnational repression—TNR. We recommend that the Government adopt a formal definition, systematically collect data, and develop monitoring mechanisms. We agree with James Lynch, the co-director of Fair Square, who told our committee that we are missing a
“big opportunity to properly monitor and analyse the trends and then develop a coherent strategy”.
We query the way in which TNR is treated in diplomacy with hostile states, and contend that failure to incorporate it as part of the UK’s diplomatic engagement with perpetrator countries
“risks … emboldening authoritarian regimes to escalate TNR activities”.
The report calls for international co-operation with other democracies—we mention the example of Canada—in combating TNR, and we make some specific recommendations about the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, and the misuse of Interpol red notices. Closer to home, we call for a national hotline for victims, and more systematic, specialised training for police officers to identify the early warning signs of TNR.
In paragraph 96 of the report, we say:
“The UK’s response to TNR would benefit significantly from more structured and consistent coordination across government departments”.
Andrew Scurry, the director of the homeland security group at the Home Office, told us that:
“We are looking still with the police … at how best to gather data and more information, and indeed intelligence”.
It would be good for the House to hear how that is going.
During a discussion this morning with academics from Bristol and Oxford Universities, facilitated by the international affairs parliamentary hub, I was struck by their finding that TNR is profoundly on the rise in the UK. This chimed entirely with our own committee’s view that TNR is not a peripheral or minor issue. MI5 says that, in 2024, the number of its state-threat investigations jumped by some 48%, with more than 20 threat-to-life cases relating to Iran alone, since the start of 2022. The true scale, though, is likely to be far greater still, given the significant underreporting and the often covert nature of TNR criminality.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights commends the National Security Act 2023, which created new offences relating to foreign interference in the UK, and did not identify any significant gaps in criminal law related to TNR. We do, however, want the existing laws to be better used and more effectively enforced. It is essential that the legal framework remains agile and responsive to evolving threats. We recognise the rapidly evolving nature of digital technologies, and the increasing sophistication of methods used to conduct TNR. We call for the Government to keep relevant legislation under regular review, and have asked for an annual update to the JCHR on the effectiveness of current legislation in addressing evolving digital forms of TNR.
Our country has a long history of giving protection to courageous dissidents being hunted down by dictatorships. During my early days as a young Member of Parliament in the 1980s, I met extraordinary heroes who had escaped the Soviet bloc and continued to work for the liberties that would ultimately come with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Back then, and today too, dictatorial regimes had a long reach.
Let me draw on the evidence given to our inquiry to illustrate the nature of the threats that people resident in the United Kingdom now face. A number of noble Lords have experienced a small dose of transnational repression themselves: in my case, collecting sanctions from Russia, North Korea, Iran and China. But this is small beer in comparison with some of the appalling intimidation experienced by others. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether China has lifted sanctions on parliamentarians’ families, and on others, including Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who chaired the Uyghur Tribunal, Dr Jo Smith Finley, Essex Court Chambers, and the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.
Will the Minister also comment on the 1 million Hong Kong dollar bounty placed by the CCP on the head of Chloe Cheung, a 19 year-old young woman, and others in the United Kingdom? Read Chloe’s courageous testimony to our inquiry, waiving her anonymity, in which she described the profound effect that this CCP targeting has had on her. She spoke recently against the proposed CCP mega-embassy in London, fearful that, if it is built and she is snatched, she will, to use her words, “never come out”.
Read the evidence of the brave Uyghur activist Rahima Mahmut, whose relatives in China have been subjected to intimidation and coercion, forced to publicly condemn her in order to safeguard themselves from reprisals. She movingly described to the committee what she called the “human cost” of speaking out. Read the evidence of the disgraceful treatment of Professor Michelle Shipworth by University College London, and the shameful mistreatment of Sheffield Hallam’s Professor Laura Murphy following her brilliant work on Uyghur slave labour in Xinjiang.
Their treatment is an affront to British sovereignty, to academic freedom and to free speech. It is transnational repression driven by overreliance on Chinese money. Let us note too that, earlier this month, MI5’s Ken McCallum identified threats to universities, students and academics at a meeting he convened with 70 vice-chancellors. How will the Government implement a direct reporting route on foreign interference, implement the complaints scheme in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act and strengthen overseas transparency regulatory powers?
Unsurprisingly, the JCHR received a large amount of evidence recommending the designation of China under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS. It was an issue raised by Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC the lawyer of British citizen Jimmy Lai, incarcerated in Hong Kong for five years and in solitary confinement. She told our inquiry that, as his lawyer, she had been subjected to threats and harassment. She criticised the feeble response to bounties and sanctions against parliamentarians and described how peaceful protestors in Manchester had been assaulted by CCP diplomats. She said:
“We send such a terrible message if we have a situation where a diplomat can drag an activist by the hair into the Manchester consulate … and the use of language such as calling individuals rats who need to be hunted down worldwide, and yet … China is not in the enhanced tier”.
The JCHR concluded:
“Decisions on which countries to specify under the enhanced tier of FIRS must be guided by objective assessments of threat, not influenced by broader foreign policy considerations. We recommend that the Government specify China under the enhanced tier of FIRS”;
and that
“The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 do not capture the full range of TNR tactics”;
and that China’s omission from the enhanced tier
“risks undermining the credibility and coherence of FIRS”.
The JCHR found:
“China conducts the most comprehensive TNR campaign of any foreign state operating in the UK”.
I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to my previously voiced proposal—which appears at paragraph 90 on page 37 as a JCHR recommendation—that the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which the noble Lord himself served with great distinction, should have confidential oversight of FIRS and sanctions and which, like appointments of high-level British ambassadors, or the expulsion of diplomats connected to TNR, should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Such scrutiny should also extend to issues of proscriptions. Let us consider Iran and the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We heard shocking evidence of the lethality of Iranian transnational repression. We heard about an Iranian journalist left seriously wounded on the streets of London and about intimidation of BBC Persian journalists and their families. One witness, Hossein Abedini, deputy director of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, almost lost his life in a vicious brutal attack by Iranian operatives. He told the JCHR that “cultural centres” in the UK are used as fronts for surveillance operations targeting members of the Iranian diaspora. Reporters without Borders told us:
“Iranian women journalists have been subjected to gendered and sexualised abuse, including explicit threats of rape or sexual violence towards them or their families (including children), the circulation of fake stories designed to ruin their reputations and photoshopped pornographic images”.
In this week marking the fourth anniversary of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, we should consider also how Putin’s regime has engaged in the most terrible war crimes and egregious forms of transnational repression. We can recall the Salisbury nerve agent attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. But Russian TNR comes in other form too. The JCHR received evidence relating to the misuse of SLAPPs to intimidate and silence journalists, activists, and other critics.
Although SLAPPs are typically initiated by private individuals rather than states, we heard that they are often used as a TNR tactic. Susan Coughtrie, the director of the Foreign Policy Centre, told us that individuals “closely aligned” with the state are utilised to carry out TNR through legal harassment. She cited the case of Catherine Belton, the journalist and author of the book Putin’s People:
“She was pursued originally by five oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich, but also Rosneft, which is the Russian state gas company, so there was a very direct link there … to the Russian state”.
The inquiry found that SLAPPs are increasingly used to silence and intimidate people who expose or criticise the actions of authoritarian regimes.
The committee would also like the Government to look at the cost and stress of lengthy legal action, provide a clear timeline for a review of the effectiveness of the SLAPPs provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and ensure that future legislation deals with SLAPPs that are not related to economic crime.
Our inquiry also found that Interpol red notices had been issued without the knowledge of those targeted, leaving people uncertain about whether they can travel without risk of detention. We concluded that red notices are being systematically exploited to pursue political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists beyond national borders.
Beyond Russia, Iran and China, the committee received credible evidence that a number of states had engaged in acts of transnational repression on UK soil. The evidence included allegations concerning Pakistan, India, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.
I draw particular attention to the evidence and testimony given to our inquiry concerning Eritrea by Martin Plaut, the accomplished former BBC journalist, author and academic. The UN special rapporteur on Eritrea told the inquiry that those who refuse to contribute a tax that is levied on the diaspora are
“considered government opponents and face harassment, intimidation and ultimately social isolation”.
I welcome an update on what the Government are doing about this.
In the last few days, I have received additional disturbing depositions, one of which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will refer to in her remarks. I received evidence also about a Burmese artist who has been targeted, and I will send the depositions to the Minister, because they are outside the scope of the inquiry.
Let me end. With our national security interests and way of life threatened on a scale unparalleled since the 1930s and 1940s, democracies must act together in strong alliances to combat multipolar threats to our way of life. We are fools to take for granted our privileges and freedoms, including the right to think, to speak and to believe—even to live. All over the world, the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are under concerted attack. We have been far too complacent and dependent on the states which threaten us, and insufficiently focused on resilience. Transnational repression is a harbinger of far worse to come.
Our committee concluded that transnational repression risks undermining the UK’s ability to protect people who have sought safety within our borders, such as the witnesses to whom I have referred. But we also found that a failure to deal robustly with TNR and the malign activities of hostile states will also increasingly put the UK’s indigenous population at risk today. Debates such as this will bring the JCHR report to a wider audience and I hope that noble Lords who have participated—and I am grateful to them all—will circulate its findings far and wide. I beg to move.
Lord Isaac (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his warm welcome and for introducing this important debate: one that is fundamental to protecting freedoms and human rights in this country, and one that I believe highlights the important work of his committee. I rise for my maiden speech with a real sense of responsibility and duty that comes from joining this august body.
I begin by thanking Black Rod, Garter, the Clerk, the doorkeepers and all the staff of this House for the kindness that they have shown me since joining. I thank noble Lords from every side for the very warm welcome without exception they have given to me. I especially thank my supporters, my noble friends Lady Royall and Lord Collins, for their encouragement, wisdom and support, as well as my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, an alumnus of my college in Oxford and someone who has been a great supporter and friend of my work, in and beyond Oxford.
I grew up in a small village called Llanfoist, outside Abergavenny in South Wales, where many of my family for many generations had lived. I attended the village primary school and I went on to the local secondary school, where I was privileged to receive an excellent state education—something that we Welsh are rightly proud of and that should be the right of every child, not a privilege. That education enabled me to go to Cambridge, the first member of my family to go to university, and ultimately to establish a successful career as a lawyer in the City. Education transformed my life and life chances. It gave me important skills, it widened my horizons and it taught me about the importance of music, art and culture and how they enhance the world.
My commitment to education has led me to the most recent phase of my career as provost of Worcester College, Oxford, and chair of the University of the Arts in London. These roles have enabled me to give something back to current students, but they have also given me an opportunity to argue for a number of things, such as improved funding for students and universities, the need to continue to support initiatives to widen participation and, last but not least, the importance of creative education. Let us not forget that the creative industries contributed £125 billion to the UK economy in 2022. Improved support for students and educational institutions, including creative educational institutions, is, in my view, essential if this country and future generations are to flourish.
I am very conscious that this debate is about transnational repression of freedoms and human rights. Human rights have played a key role in my life. I grew up in the 1980s during the AIDS pandemic and later lived through the chilling effect of Section 28. Working with others, I realised that we could use our legal and advocacy skills to work to end discrimination against the gay community in this country. Progress in delivering legal and cultural change has succeeded in no small part because of our focus on human rights. Later, as the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it was a privilege not only to lead a national organisation committed to promoting equality and human rights, but to work with international organisations promoting greater understanding, particularly in countries where human rights are not yet as well embedded in law as they are in the UK.
At the same time as protecting the rights of our own citizens, and, dare I say, resisting culture-war attacks on the very notion of human rights, we must stop foreign state-directed crimes against individuals deemed by their Governments to be a security threat. The noble Lord has provided ample evidence of those threats. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson, for meeting me to discuss his department’s response to this important report. I thank him for his work, which I am confident is in line with the ambitions of the JCHR report. The freedoms and human rights of journalists, lawyers and political opponents in this country are, as we have heard, being undermined. I also know that anxieties about such threats can and do have a chilling effect in our universities. We must work hard to ensure that human rights and freedom of speech are protected in our universities more generally. It is for that reason that I am committed to support the work of the JCHR in this important area.
I should like to end by making it clear that it would have been beyond the imagination of my teenage self to think that today I would be a Member of this House. It is thanks to the support of my parents, and particularly to the confidence that my teachers had in me while I was growing up, that I hope to play a role in this Chamber in promoting not only human rights but the importance of education and culture.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, it is my duty and pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, to his place and congratulate him on an outstanding maiden speech. The rest of us will have to look to our laurels in the next few years, I suspect. The noble Lord, Lord Isaac, CBE, is, as noble Lords have heard, provost of Worcester College, Oxford, and chair of the governors of the University of the Arts London and of the Henry Moore Foundation. Throughout his career, he has consistently been involved in the arts, education and human rights; we heard some of that a few minutes ago. He is also a former chair, as we have heard, of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, of Stonewall and of Modern Art Oxford.
On a personal note, I thank the noble Lord for the delivery of the report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. He was not chair when the report was delivered but he oversaw and initiated it. That, for me, was a major turning point in Labour Party history and probably more widely in British political history. He was also a trustee of Cumberland Lodge, and a director of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, of the Human Dignity Trust, of the Big Lottery Fund and of 14-18 NOW. He was also for many years, as noble Lords have heard, a partner at Pinsent Masons and made a CBE in the 2011 Queen’s Birthday Honours List. I do not know where he found the time for all that, but there we are.
I turn to the debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has an exemplary track record on issues of human rights around the world, and to the JCHR and the report that it has produced, which clearly demonstrates that a lot of regimes are using physical and digital means to target individuals across borders. The key passage from the report, from my point of view, states that testimonies point to a continuing gap between policy commitments and lived experience, including delayed police responses, subpar case management and persistent intimidation faced by diaspora communities. That is very clear about where we are. The report points to a number of countries but, in the short time I have, I will focus on two, China and Iran, which both use force against expats—we have heard a lot about that from the noble Lord, Lord Alton—and at times against British citizens.
The recent events in Iran should not need any repetition but, unfortunately, they do. We have seen, night after night, the persecution during the recent demonstrations by Iranian citizens. The recent crackdown probably involved the murder of 36,000 Iranian citizens. The figure is likely much higher than that, but that figure can be readily attributable to the Iranian regime. Agents of the Iranian state, as we have heard, have attacked peaceful demonstrators in central London on a number of occasions. I welcome the fact that the Government—I have engaged in Questions with my noble friend the Minister about this—have recently introduced new criminal charges that have been put on to the statute book, whereby if you have undeclared links to the Tehran regime, you can be prosecuted. That was not the case before and is to be welcomed.
However, as has been mentioned many times, the IRGC—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—remains unproscribed. Individuals may be prosecuted and they have been proscribed, but we have failed to proscribe it as a collective unit. We are talking about an enormous organisation that employs some 140,000 to 150,000 people globally and uses proxies in many countries, including in this country and across Europe. In the other place and here, I have seen Ministers—from both Governments—come to the Dispatch Box who are clearly sympathetic to proscribing the IRGC, then it does not happen. That points to a culture at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that clearly militates against proscribing the IRGC.
That brings me on to China, which I also want to focus on. We all read regularly and see the reports about the persecution of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province. That is well known. I remind your Lordships and those who may not have been aware of it at the time that, extraordinarily—it sounds like a work of fiction—three or four years ago, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials invited the governor of Xinjiang province, the butcher of Xinjiang, to a meeting in London. The reason why that the meeting did not happen is that my former parliamentary neighbour found out about it and tabled a UQ.
I see that I have run out of time, so I will quickly mention a couple of points. We need to stop the construction of the embassy; that permission has to be revoked. We need to see the proscription of the IRGC. Finally and more widely, we need to see greater capacity in Britain’s military abilities, because the best protection against war is preparing for it.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it was a delight to listen to the noble Lord, and a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, give his maiden speech. Some of us may have been sceptical about the achievements of some new Peers in their past local government or party-political careers, but today we have a new Peer who has done things and achieved a tremendous lot, as a provost of Worcester College and as the chair of Stonewall and of the EHRC. I read that he was concerned a few years ago about interference in the work of the commission by Boris Johnson, so I hope he will express concern that the current Government are also messing around with the commission’s report on implementing the Supreme Court decision. However, he is a very able man and a great addition to this House, and we look forward to hearing from him. Having been so nice about his new noble friend, I hope that the Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, will allow me an extra 30 seconds.
Once again, I congratulate my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on yet another frightening masterpiece. The United Kingdom must confront a stark reality: transnational repression is not an abstract threat but a deliberate, systematic campaign by authoritarian states to silence dissent, intimidate communities, and export coercion into our streets and institutions. The main threat comes from China once again.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that transnational repression
“risks undermining the UK’s ability to protect the human rights of its citizens and those who have sought safety within its borders”.
We have seen the tactics these oppressive states use: surveillance, online harassment, threats to family members abroad, the operation of unofficial police outposts, bounties on activists, misuse of international law enforcement tools and even attempts to enforce foreign judgments in our own courts. Beijing has deliberately built an extraterritorial legal architecture—a long-arm jurisdiction that is being used to suppress free speech, coerce return, and weaponise ordinary legal and commercial processes against exiles and critics.
Let me be plain: this is an assault on the rule of law in our United Kingdom. When foreign states use bogus Interpol red notices as political instruments, seek to enforce civil judgments abroad to punish dissidents, or cultivate networks that monitor and intimidate diaspora communities on our soil, they are attacking the fundamental freedoms that it is our duty to protect.
The UK’s response under all Governments has been feeble. We have failed to use the National Security Act, the foreign influence registration scheme or sanctions regimes with the urgency, coherence and transparency that this threat demands. Worse still, we have put trade and access to cheap Chinese goods ahead of the defence of the freedoms of our people. China is a real threat to our fundamental freedoms and way of life, yet our Governments call it a strategic partner and we kowtow to it. That must change. I therefore propose five immediate, practical steps out of the 37 recommendations in the report that we should adopt without delay.
First, we should adopt a formal UK definition of transnational repression and mandate routine data collection across police forces and relevant agencies so that we can measure scale, patterns and perpetrators. Secondly, we should designate China under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme where objective threat assessments support it, and publish clear guidance on how FIRS data will be used to investigate TNR. Thirdly, we should create a dedicated national TNR reporting and support hotline—one that is multilingual and staffed by trained specialists—and require anonymised data from that service to feed threat analysis. Fourthly, we should reform judicial comity and foreign judgment enforcement rules so that our courts do not blindly accept that Chinese courts have similar integrity to ours. They do not, as we have seen in the appalling case of Jimmy Lai. Fifthly, we should lead an international push to reform Interpol procedures, working with Five Eyes, the G7 and other like-minded partners to stop the abuse of red notices being used to punish political critics.
These are essential measures to defend our citizens, our institutions and the open society that we cherish. The United Kingdom is a refuge for those fleeing persecution. If we allow foreign states to turn our streets, campuses and courts into extensions of their coercive apparatus, we betray that duty. Let us act now—decisively, coherently and in concert with our allies—to protect those who look to Britain for safety and to defend the rule of law at home and abroad.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on his maiden contribution.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and highlighting the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on transnational repression. For the purpose of declaring my interest, I should mention that I was a member of that committee when this unanimous report was produced. It has been a great delight to work under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He has been responsible for highlighting human rights issues in your Lordships’ Chamber on frequent occasions, and this report is no exception. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his contribution.
Today, we live in an uncertain world. A few years ago, we would not have heard the phrase “transnational repression”. It still requires a great deal of explanation in many parts of the world as to what meaning we attach to it. I am pleased that clarity on a common definition now exists. This leave us in doubt where the civilised world stands. But we need to ensure that the FCDO and other agencies are involved in educating the rest of the world about transnational repression. This will not happen unless a common definition is agreed. Can the Minister give some indication of when this is likely to happen? Regrettably, this recommendation has not been accepted by the Government.
I said earlier in my speech that we live in an uncertain world. Human rights are frequently in confrontation with authorities and Governments. Acts or threats against individual groups and communities across territorial borders are carried out by Governments or their proxies. This violates human rights. The examples that are cited include Hong Kong, China, Iran and some countries in the Horn of Africa. Many of these are anonymised in the report to protect their identities, for obvious reasons.
I shall ignore China and Hong Kong and instead concentrate on Iran, because my time is fairly limited. The principal Iranian actors are the Supreme Leader and senior regime leadership, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and diplomatic missions and proxies. Hundreds of people have been killed simply to protect regime survival, fragment the opposition, prevent unity and prevent any form of independent, organised resistance through intimidation, infiltration, smear campaigns and manipulations. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Iran concluded that Iran poses a wide-ranging threat to UK national security which should not be underestimated, as it is
“persistent and—crucially—unpredictable”.
Since 2022, there has been a sharp rise in physical attacks, kidnappings and assassination attempts. The report further stressed that our security services and police have stopped at least 15 murder or kidnap arrests against British nationals.
In conclusion, we must introduce immediate legislation to proscribe the IRGC as a terror organisation and to constrain its transnational repression. We should expel identified diplomats linked to the IRGC where evidence of abusive and illegal activities exists. We should strengthen our investigatory and prosecution capacity, funding specialist policing and legal resources to identify, investigate and prosecute individuals and networks facilitating transnational repression. This is the best outcome of this report.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on his maiden speech. I think we all remember what a daunting prospect that was, so many congratulations to him. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on securing this debate and introducing it, as he always does, with compelling evidence, incisive analysis, practical recommendations, and his typical passion and principle. I congratulate the JCHR, which the noble Lord chairs, on producing this powerful report on transnational repression in the United Kingdom, the subject we are talking about.
It is a very real threat. Hong Kong exiles who have quite rightly been welcomed into the United Kingdom now feel afraid that they are being watched by the Chinese Communist Party from which they fled. Several have received arrest warrants from the Hong Kong authorities, accompanied by bounties placed on their heads. Some, such as Carmen Lau, as reported in the media, have faced an appalling campaign of harassment, with anonymous letters sent to neighbours telling them to hand over Hong Kong activists to the Chinese embassy or report their whereabouts and activities to the Chinese embassy. In Carmen Lau’s case, it was even worse, involving sexually explicit images created by artificial intelligence, amounting to a campaign of sexual harassment. A young former Hong Kong district councillor who fled repression in Hong Kong in search of freedom in this country should not have to endure such obscene and grave abuse in the United Kingdom.
Of course, China is not the only perpetrator of transnational repression, though it is one of the most active and significant. Several Members of this House and the other place have been sanctioned by China and other regimes, and subject to various threats of harassment and espionage. Further, several British citizens, including the co-founder of Hong Kong Watch, Benedict Rogers, have faced sustained harassment as a result of their activism on human rights cases. In his case, for several years he received anonymous threatening letters at his home address. His neighbours in a London suburb received letters urging them to monitor him. Even his mother received letters, stamped and postmarked in Hong Kong, urging her to tell her son to shut up. He also received an official threat of a jail sentence from the Hong Kong Police Force if he did not cease his activism and advocacy for Hong Kong.
Transnational repression frequently targets dissidents living abroad, the family members of political prisoners and individuals who engage with the UN mechanism. Just last week, I was made aware of an example of a young Myanmar artist called Sai. He was trying to put on an exhibition in Bangkok of artists in exile from Hong Kong, Tibet, Iran, Russia and Syria, and Uyghur artists. The exhibition, which was scheduled to open for almost three months, was shut down by officials in Bangkok because of diplomatic pressure from the Chinese regime.
Finally, I want to talk about one of the most important aspects of the report: the foreign influence registration scheme, which was introduced under the National Security Act in 2023. The Joint Committee’s report welcomes the introduction of FIRS and the designation of Iran and Russia on the enhanced tier, and so do I. However, the report expresses concerns about the evidence it received regarding TNR by China, and therefore the absence of China from the enhanced tier. In concluding, can the Minister advise the House on whether TNR is a high priority consideration when deciding which countries should be specified under the enhanced tier of FIRS, and whether the Government will designate China on that enhanced tier in compliance with what the report has said?
Once again, I commend the noble Lord, his committee and this report, and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I want to start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Isaac on his excellent maiden speech, and particularly on what he had to say about education, creative industries and the arts.
I also want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his committee members for their excellent report on this issue. It has had all too little attention. Indeed, many people probably have absolutely no idea what transnational repression actually means. In fact, the committee noted that there is no widely agreed definition, but that it amounts to
“certain foreign state-directed crimes against individuals”.
The best-known example is probably the Salisbury poisoning of the Skripals by agents of the Russian Government. Besides Russia, other countries which have been cited for intimidating and harassing—sometimes very violently—their subjects in the UK include Iran, China and Eritrea, all of which have been mentioned.
Also on the list, though less frequently cited, is Pakistan. I want to devote my speech largely to a current case concerning a Pakistani human rights lawyer who is living in exile in the UK. Shahzad Akbar was called to the Bar in the UK and subsequently had a distinguished career in Pakistan, working on human rights issues such as forced disappearances and the death penalty. He then became a Minister in Imran Khan’s Government and was responsible in particular for anti-corruption. When Khan was removed from office, Akbar fled to the UK in 2022, fearing what would happen to him if he stayed in Pakistan.
I am grateful to Reprieve for briefing me on the appalling attacks to which Akbar has been subjected since coming to this country. Unknown assailants have thrown acid at his face outside his home, assaulted him physically, and tried to set fire to his house, forcing him and his wife and children to go into hiding after gunshots were fired through the windows of his house. Counterterrorism police consider the attacks to be highly targeted and have arrested several people. It appears to be a recent example of a sophisticated plot to intimidate him and to assault him.
The response by the police is of course very welcome, but the committee report rightly contends that treating each case of this kind individually is not enough. Law enforcement can pursue the perpetrators, but what is needed is a commitment to address the behaviour of foreign Governments who are determined to destroy opposition to them by truly vicious means, and who are certainly denying those targeted their right to freedom of expression.
In the specific case of Shahzad Akbar, first, can the Minister tell the House what action the Government have taken to put pressure on the Pakistani Government? Does he agree that addressing the root causes in a political and diplomatic response is needed in cases of this kind? Secondly, what reassurance is Mr Akbar being given from a senior level in the Government that his safety is a matter of concern and that everything possible will be done to protect him and his family?
A number of dissident communities are at high risk of transnational repression, such as the critics of the Iranian regime, as has been mentioned by other speakers. They have escaped from the likelihood of imprisonment without trial in Iran, but can the Minister elaborate on what special measures have been taken to protect them?
When the Minister replies, I hope he will be able to give a positive response on a number of the issues the committee report identified, including better data collection, the co-ordination of interagency responses to TNR, and the possibility of specific sanctions against it. We need to address these questions to maintain our reputation as a country which does not tolerate the denial of free speech through violent intimidation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the Joint Committee for this excellent and important report. It refers to concern about transnational oppression by China and Russia, as have many noble Lords in this debate—and you do not get much more extreme than attempted and actual assassination by Iran and other states. Speaking as the founding, now former, co-chair of the All-Party Group on Hong Kong, and having often spoken about concern for Hong Kong and other Chinese students at UK universities, these are very grave concerns.
Today, I am going to talk about another state—a rising threat. At the moment, most of this is in the form not of physical threat, obviously, but intimidation. We know that intimidation and physical threats are often closely linked, and that intimidation can have very serious effects on people’s lives.
I start with what is really a quite mild case, involving the head of a British public relations company about whom that state’s embassy—the official representatives of its Government—complained to the companies for which his firm worked. They complained not about the quality of his work or his representations but about private social media posts, which were critical, in very mild terms, of the leader of the state that the embassy represents. The individual has now left the company. It is called Hanover, and one of its key clients is the American Pharmaceutical Group. Yes, the state is the United States of America.
The Financial Times reports that the embassy refused to continue to support the US pharma firms unless the executive was fired. These, of course, are the same pharmaceutical companies which, with embassy help, have considerably raised the costs of drugs for our NHS.
Some might say that that is just the rough and tumble of capitalism, the unequal and all too often subsidiary position the UK finds itself in in relation to the US—“it is only that individual’s economic rights that are affected”. But, of course, what about his successor, and what about his and others’ free speech rights?
Let us look at the other end of the scale: the top of society. The US Vice-President JD Vance last year shocked Europe at the Munich security conference by attacking democratically agreed laws, debated in this very Chamber, to protect women’s healthcare rights. JD Vance suggested that the US might not live up to treaty obligations unless we changed our laws. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke about Chinese assault on the rule of law here; we are seeing an assault from the US on our rule of law.
This year, of course, the speech from Secretary of State Marco Rubio was much better received. The tone was much more conciliatory, but the content was no different. It attacked the obstructions of international law, the very human rights we are talking about, and suggested that this hamstrings future western colonialism. He asked—you might say demanded—that Europe join again with the US to expand with missionaries and soldiers to build vast empires extending across the globe, which is definitely not in line with human rights.
What does this mean practically? I spoke earlier today in the EU debate about the precautionary principle. Whether we are talking about Chinese technology or other forms of transnational repression, we might wish that we acted earlier. Perhaps we should apply the precautionary principle, particularly when it comes to US tech firms and their hold over our society and individuals, and to protecting not just British individuals or the US diaspora, but our whole rule of law and human rights, against a new threat of transnational repression.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on an excellent and very informative maiden speech. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Alton, as well as the members of the JCHR, on producing this excellent report and securing the debate. It will not come as a surprise to noble Lords that I support all the recommendations in this report.
The JCHR has articulated clearly the problems caused by TNR—a growing threat to democratic values, the rule of law and freedom of expression. Foreign policy decisions and international trade partnerships are often made without sufficient consideration of the TNR record of perpetrator states, which risks undermining the UK’s credibility as a leader on global human rights issues and emboldening these authoritarian regimes to escalate their TNR activities.
The JCHR has called for a definition of TNR, and we need it, but I think we recognise it—in state-directed cross-border actions to coerce, intimidate, conduct surveillance on, kidnap, prosecute or even assassinate critics, dissidents and diaspora opponents. All this, of course, is in the wider context of the torture, harassment, intimidation and even execution of diaspora family members who live in the country in question. Noble Lords have spoken of Russia and China. I want to speak briefly about Iran and the impact of its TNR activities in the UK.
The Supreme Leader, as he calls himself, Ayatollah Khamenei, the IRGC and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security in Iran are very active. They utilise the resources of diplomatic missions and embassies across the world. I give the example of the conviction of Asadollah Assadi, an Iranian diplomat who was convicted in Belgium in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison for attempting to bomb a gathering of the Iranian opposition coalition, the NCRI, in support of a free Iran, which was held in Paris in 2018 and attended by Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place. They use various criminal methods and work assiduously to undermine any protest against the regime; they arrest and prosecute dual nationals on fabricated charges so they can leverage releases of regime operatives and convicted diplomats; and they have developed extensive and co-ordinated transnational repression.
Last July, the ISC issued a report which said that Iran poses a wide-ranging threat to UK national security that should not be underestimated and is persistent and, crucially, unpredictable. Since 2022, the previous major rising in Iran, there has been a sharp rise in physical attacks and kidnapping or assassination attempts. Our security services and police have stopped at least 15 murders or kidnapping attempts against British nationals or UK-based individuals since 2022. The threat to us has increased sharply, and there is now an acute national security and human rights concern.
The designation of Iran and Russia as countries on the advanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme is evidence of the threat posed by TNR originating from these countries. Anyone working for or directed by the Iranian state is at peril if they carry out such activities without compliance. The JCHR has recognised the need to support efforts to elevate TNR as a priority on the UN agenda, to promote co-ordinated international action against its use by authoritarian regimes and to ensure information and data sharing on TNR with like-minded countries in fora such as the Council of Europe, Interpol, the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism, the OSCE and the UN.
In January, the people of Iran rose up. We know that tens of thousands of them have been killed, including women and children. We should use the powers which are available to us. We should close the Iranian embassy in London, where there is evidence of, for example, co-ordinated attempts to silence Iranian dissidents. We should work with allied states to condemn Iranian state threats. I do not know, as other noble Lords have said, why we are allowing China to build this embassy in our country. This should not happen. We should adopt a more positive approach to sanctions, perhaps particularly against Members of your Lordships’ House. We have heard, and I have read, the Government’s response to the report and I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us how long it will be before the IRGC is proscribed.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, to your Lordships’ House and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on his comprehensive and informative opening speech and the excellent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights under his chairmanship. It is fair to say that, on these sorts of issues, he stands head and shoulders above the rest of us, and I thoroughly congratulate him. The committee obviously knew what it was doing when it appointed him as chairman. I cannot think of anybody better, and that is no reflection on others.
As the noble Lord and the Joint Committee’s report have made clear, transnational repression is about many other state actors besides China, notably Russia, Iran and North Korea, but also Pakistan, India, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. Some of these present recognised threats to our security and geopolitical challenges, while others are among the countries we may consider important trading partners and, at times, strategic allies. Nevertheless, as the JCHR states:
“China conducts the most comprehensive TNR campaign of any foreign state operating in the UK”.
This is consistent with the finding of the Intelligence and Security Committee report in 2023 that China had penetrated “every sector” of the United Kingdom and poses a “whole of state” challenge.
Given the findings of these two important reports, three years apart, can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House how His Majesty’s Government’s new rapprochement with China addresses these concerns? What priority did the Prime Minister place on addressing China’s transnational repression, influence and espionage campaigns in the UK in his discussions during his recent visit to China? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that China’s new recently approved mega-embassy—if it goes ahead, as it is now subject to judicial review—will not serve as a hub for transnational repression and espionage as many of us fear it will?
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to evidence provided by Hong Kong activist Chloe Cheung, examples of transnational repression faced by other Hong Kongers now in exile in the UK, such as Carmen Lau, and the effects this has had on their safety and mental and physical well-being, and the threats made to Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC, head of Jimmy Lai’s international legal team. I am also aware of threats made to British citizens such as Benedict Rogers, co-founder of Hong Kong Watch, who has faced numerous anonymous threatening letters to himself, his neighbours and his mother, been named more than 95 times in the trial of Jimmy Lai and received threats of a prison sentence. Similarly, Luke de Pulford, co-founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, has been the target of such threats.
When Hong Kongers who have fled Hong Kong to escape repression and sought refuge in the United Kingdom in the expectation of freedom and security are pursued by the long arms of the Chinese Communist Party, and when the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party reach into the letterboxes and email inboxes of British citizens who happen to be its critics, what are His Majesty’s Government doing in response? What are the Government, who have a duty to protect their citizens and keep us safe, doing to ensure the safety of our citizens and those whom we have rightly welcomed into this country as a pathway towards citizenship? Is there a dedicated police hotline? What efforts are the police and our intelligence agencies making to brief and advise those who are being threatened? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the JCHR for this very important report, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for moving it.
The Government recognised in their response to the report that not only can transnational repression
“undermine an individual’s ability to exercise their freedoms and human rights”,
but that
“it is also a matter of national sovereignty and national security”.
But there seems to be an insufficient follow-through from these conclusions. Although the Government say they cannot publish their Defending Democracy review, they say that the review found that the UK had a
“hard operating environment for states wishing to conduct transnational repression”,
and that the UK had
“robust tools and system-wide safeguards”.
The JCHR begs to differ, finding that the UK currently lacks a clear strategy to address it, with no clear definition of transnational repression, as we have heard, and a failure to routinely collect data on the issue.
Hong Kong Watch advises:
“Hong Kong activists have highlighted concerns that UK police officers see harassment, disruptions and verbal abuses by Chinese individuals against the Hong Kong diaspora as internal conflicts between groups with differing political views. One activist stated he felt this framing helped the police depoliticise TNR, omitting the role of foreign Governments in pursuing activists and thus avoiding highly sensitive aspects of UK diplomacy and national security”.
We want the Government to show that that charge is not true.
It is a mystery to me why the Government resist a definition of TNR in favour of a description. The Tackling Transnational Repression in the UK Working Group, a coalition of 60 individuals and organisations, has produced what seems to me to be a good definition:
“Acts or threats against individuals, groups and communities across territorial borders carried out by Governments or their proxies, which violate human rights and/or intimidate, control, coerce or silence dissent”.
It seems to me that it is impossible to have an effective policy and operational response from the Government and police to something that is undefined. Therefore, it seems fair to claim that there is an unresolved protection gap between policy commitments and lived experience, and that the UK response is fragmented and difficult to access.
For instance, a dedicated reporting line is something the JCHR asked for. The Government consider this would be
“duplicative and potentially cause confusion”,
which I do not really understand. This seems to me to have slight echoes of the experience of and complaints from victims of domestic abuse and sexual crimes in this sector.
In particular, the committee—understandably—wants China to be specified on the enhanced tier of the scheme. The Government’s response was, “We will not rush this decision”. As has been widely referred to, there is also the lack of proscription of the IRGC. Lastly, I ask the Minister: what are the Government doing at Interpol to stop the abuse of Interpol red notices? This is of course a cause that Bill Browder—Sir William Browder—has long taken up, after the case of Sergei Magnitsky. The other tool of pressure and silencing that the committee mentions is SLAPPs, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, also mentioned. What are the Government doing on all these matters?
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. In the short time we have, I will take up and apply what she has been saying in relation to one country and one subject. The country is China and the subject is our universities.
I know Chloe Cheung, for example, and these individual cases are appalling, of course. However, they are described as TNR “events”, and I think what is underrated by the Government is the systemic quality of all of this. It is not just one or two, or even several, horrible events: it is working right through the system. Above all, in this country, it is working right through our universities because of the whole-of-state approach that China has to its engagement with this country and other foreign countries.
The problem arises here partly because our universities are so incredibly dependent on Chinese money for their survival and are therefore uncritical of the terms on which they receive that money. Recent figures obtained by UK-China Transparency show that, in Russell group universities, Chinese postgraduate students in STEM subjects now outnumber British postgraduates. Our universities are a very rich ground for CCP intervention. Chinese and now Hong Kong students are incentivised to report dissident fellow students. Those who report the dissidents are rewarded with a leg-up in their educational careers. In the past five years, 260 Chinese students in this country have applied for asylum because of the problems they faced in this way. I would be very pleased to be corrected if I am wrong, but I have seen no admission of this problem by any vice-chancellor in this country, and that, it seems to me, amounts to complicity.
I will quote a recent article in Times Higher Education by Dr Michael Spence, the provost and president of UCL, where more than 10,000 China nationals are studying. He spoke of the idea that Chinese students might be persecuted in the way that I have described, but, in his view, it is only an idea rather than a reality. He went on to say:
“Ironically, the experience of many of our Chinese students is that anti-China sentiment in the UK has an impact on their ability to speak freely about the positives they see in their country and its culture”.
Well, I think that Dr Spence is setting up an utterly false moral equivalence. It may be true that people here criticise some Chinese attitudes, but they do not threaten them with arrest by national security police and imprisonment back home, or with financial penalties being inflicted on their families. That is what China does to the students that it disparages. I am sorry, I should have said earlier that I should like to join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, particularly in this context, because he of course has great experience of universities.
In the article, Dr Spence said his university was
“stamping out a culture of fear”.
I am sorry to say that I think that is almost the reverse of what is going on, and this will continue unless it is, as people now say, “called out”. This is where I beg the Government to give a lead, particularly in light of this report. It is very important that the report’s recommendation of raising China to the enhanced tier happens. However, I am not very optimistic about this, because I have noticed that, with the Government’s mantra of “challenge, compete and co-operate”, the power of money constantly means that the idea of co-operating is always preferred to the idea of challenge.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of the Free Speech Union. I praise the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the Joint Committee for producing this report and the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, for his brilliant maiden speech. As he knows, I am a big fan because of the work that he has done to promote free speech at the University of Oxford.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the case of Laura Murphy at Sheffield Hallam University, so I will not dwell on that one. Instead, I will draw your Lordships’ attention to the case of Michelle Shipworth, an associate professor in social sciences at UCL. She was stopped from teaching her long-running data detectives module in 2024 after a Chinese student in her class complained about her use of data about China and its treatment of the Uyghurs from the Global Slavery Index in her module. She wrote in Times Higher Education recently:
“The department made a decision to protect what it saw as a risk to its income owing to potential reputational damage from the student complaint, and the core content teaching how to critically evaluate factual claims and secondary data was removed”.
There is an obvious remedy to these instances of what, on the face of it, looks like transnational repression in Britain’s universities: commence Sections 8 and 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. Section 9 would create a complaints scheme to enable academics and visiting speakers to complain to the Office for Students if they feel that their right to free speech and their academic freedom have been breached, including by repressive foreign states or at their behest.
The Government have said they want to amend the complaints scheme to exclude students and are waiting for a suitable legislative vehicle they can attach an amendment to containing a revised scheme. But, as I pointed out in this House earlier this week, there is no constitutional reason why this section cannot be partially commenced via a statutory instrument, excluding students from having access to the scheme, even if that is just a stopgap before a scheme meeting all of the Secretary of State’s concerns can be introduced via primary legislation.
We need to introduce a cost-free way for academics to defend themselves, other than by taking ruinously expensive legal action, if their speech rights are breached, including by university leaders worried about jeopardising their income from repressive foreign states. We owe it to Laura Murphy and Michelle Shipworth—and countless others—to introduce this scheme.
Section 8 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act should also be commenced without delay. It would require the Office for Students to monitor higher education providers and students’ unions to assess the extent to which overseas funding presents a risk to free speech and would impose a mandatory reporting requirement for providers to disclose information on foreign funding above a certain amount. The Minister will say that the Government have now created an academic interference reporting route for senior university leaders to pass on concerns about foreign interference to the security services. But while this is a step in the right direction, it is insufficient—and, incidentally, it could be improved by allowing academics to use this route, not just senior university leaders.
As Michelle Shipworth pointed out in her Times Higher Education article, this route is reliant on self-reporting, and senior university leaders may not be aware of inappropriate foreign influence in their institutions. Michael Spence, the president and provost of UCL, is a case in point, as the noble Lord, Lord Moore, just pointed out. Even if they are aware of it, they may be conflicted about reporting it. Under Section 8, all significant foreign income would have to be declared and it would then be the Office for Students’ job to monitor whether that funding came with strings attached.
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act was voted for by a majority of both Houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent in 2023. For how much longer does the Education Secretary intend to delay activating these clauses? We know there is a problem with transnational repression in our universities, and the Government have the remedy at hand. When are they going to put it in place?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, it was a privilege to be present to listen to my noble friend’s wonderful maiden speech.
This is a brilliant and long overdue report. The committee said it had received
“credible evidence that a number of states have engaged in acts of transnational repression on UK soil”.
The report also says that
“the UK currently lacks a clear strategy to address TNR. There is no formal definition … and the Government does not routinely collect data on TNR events … Police officers often lack the training necessary to respond effectively to TNR, resulting in inconsistent and ineffective support for TNR victims”.
The Government’s response is clear. They say that the Select Committee’s recommendations are “constructive”, they recognise
“TNR as a term to describe certain foreign state-directed crimes against individuals”,
and they note:
“Efforts are underway to … improve data”.
I will therefore use my short contribution to ask the Government to conduct a cold case review of a group of alleged TNR crimes against individuals. I raised this group in the debate on the Queen’s Speech in June 2017, which can be found in Hansard in cols. 399-401 and was reported on in the BuzzFeed.com Reports section in the same month.
It involves more than a dozen suspicious “non-suspicious” deaths in the UK. According to the reports, the then Government declined to comment on any of the deaths due to national security concerns. Nine of the deaths relate to one circle of people. Police declared them “non-suspicious”, but MI6 asked its US counterparts for information about each of them. Eleven of the deaths occurred after the murder of Mr Litvinenko, which we knew from Sir Robert Owen’s report 10 years after his death in 2016. Some were UK public sector employees, about one of whom I had correspondence with the Government after the debate.
These deaths were claimed to be out of scope of local police. One named senior counterterrorism officer claimed they were “brazen” Russian assassinations in Britain
“right out in the daylight”.
I regret that claims were made that the UK failed to get a grip, partly due to the desire to preserve the flow of Russian money into banks and properties in London. I do not propose to go into detail, but I will do as I did at col. 400 on 27 June 2017 and list the names of the people whose deaths were the focus of the reports and the year they occurred: Scot Young, 2014; Boris Berezovsky, 2013; Badri Patarkatsishvili, 2008; Yuri Golubev, 2007; Stephen Moss, 2003; Stephen Curtis, 2004; Paul Castle, 2010; Robert Curtis, 2012; Johnny Elichaoff, 2014; Alexander Litvinenko, 2006—although that was found to be murder; Matthew Puncher, May 2016; Igor Ponomarev, October 2006; Daniel McGrory, 2007; Gareth Williams, 2010; and Alexander Perepilichnyy, 2012.
I have not contacted anyone about this issue that I have raised in the past, so I apologise if there is any distress caused after so long a time. However, we now can have a cold case review of these deaths, especially in the light of the UK Government now taking transnational repression seriously. I think this is long overdue.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of human rights at Liberal International. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. His focus on querying suspicious non-suspicious deaths over the past nine years is very serious and, from these Benches, we echo his concern and call for a cold cases review.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on his maiden speech. It was imbued with his love of learning and of the creative arts and his passion for people in his role of chair of the EHRC as well. For our debate today, that passion in fighting for the rights of everyone was evident. From these Benches, we welcome him and look forward to his future contributions.
This report highlights in detail how this country responds to attacks on foreign nationals—and, indeed, some of our own nationals—on our soil by other Governments and repressive regimes. From these Benches, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his committee for this excellent piece of work. I also echo my noble friend Lord Dholakia’s comments about the extensive work on human rights done by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, beyond this committee, over many years.
There is no doubt that transnational repression can be difficult to identify and manage; the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, shows exactly that. The report clearly sets out these difficulties, as we have heard in the debate: whether it is having a clear definition that makes it obvious when someone needs assistance; whether the existing law is sufficient to enable our police and intelligence agencies to assist them; and, very importantly, whether the current practical arrangements are actually working. The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of TNR on a senior Pakistani lawyer was particularly apt here.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, highlighted, the report also covers the very difficult issue of strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs—and Interpol’s notice and diffusion mechanisms and how they can be exploited through the use of either lawfare or red notices, which were, the report says,
“the sniper rifle of autocrats … long-distance, targeted, and highly effective”.
The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Cryer, emphasised the TNR on Iranian dissidents at home or abroad. The numbers are very worrying. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reminded us that sometimes our friends, such as the USA, can also behave in a very unacceptable manner. I thank Amnesty International, the Stop Uyghur Genocide campaign and other organisations, as well as the individuals who have been targets of transnational oppression and who told me their personal accounts when I was at the UN Watch annual Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy last week.
The Government’s response to this report goes some way to accepting the issues raised by it. However, it is a shame that it does not go further, and I will use my time to query some of that in the light of the evidence taken by the committee, as well as of the contributions during this debate. Like others, I will not identify individuals. This matter is so serious that we should not put anyone at risk through this debate, and I know that the committee took equal care with people who felt they could not be named.
Although this report focuses on TNR in the UK, we know that it happens beyond our borders too, and that comparison may be helpful for us. In the Netherlands last year, Dutch society was shocked when a Dutch Uyghur was assaulted inside a city hall—a blatant attack in a democratic space. That is chilling. A correspondent noted:
“As a Uyghur activist based in the UK, I have personally experienced this pressure. Chinese police have contacted members of the Uyghur community and demanded that they report on my activities. I have had no contact with my family for nine years as a direct result of transnational repression. My relatives have been subjected to intimidation and coercion, and forced to publicly condemn me in order to safeguard themselves from reprisals. This is the human cost of speaking out”.
We know that this is true for other targets of the Chinese authorities. Hong Kong Watch reports concerns that people have moved home or, in the case of one family I heard of a couple of years ago, have had to change their names. The psychological effects of this were emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.
The problem with TNR is that we too often think of appalling extreme events, such as the Salisbury poisoning that targeted the Skripal family but killed civilians as well. Much more is insidious and affects families back in the home country as well. I spoke recently to an Afghani who fled after the Taliban re-established their power. The TNR that this person experienced in the UK came from a number of asylum seekers who also fled Afghanistan. The individual said that they saw two types. There were those, mentioned by other speakers, who were blackmailed and pressured to bully and coerce individuals to protect their families who were still in Afghanistan, but, more worryingly, they noted that it was evident that some people clearly had sympathy with those in power, even though they claimed to have fled them. They said that this particular type of TNR is very worrying because those people had asylum-seeking status.
I also talked to Chloe Cheung in Geneva, who gave evidence to the committee last week; like with that evidence to the committee, I found her personal testimony moving. We need to ensure that China’s actions are condemned and it should be added to the enhanced tier list.
I talked last week to a victim of TNR who is currently living in Europe. The support they get from the police in their new country is impressive, including armed police supporting them when intelligence suggests that is necessary or when they may be in a vulnerable environment. But when they came to visit the UK they not only lost the support and intelligence of the experts in their country but found it very difficult to get support from day one because they were not based in the UK, even though they were still severely under threat. Will the Minister say what should happen when someone currently receiving support and protection in a country that we would regard as a friend is invited here, particularly for events, but is not entitled to the same level of support and protection in the UK as they get in their new base?
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, reminded us that TNR changes as technology develops. The use of AI is a real threat. Will the Minister say whether those investigating TNR across agencies are supported by cyber security experts? The tackling TNR in the UK working group, co-ordinated by Amnesty, points out that we should work closely with our Five Eyes allies to tackle the misuse of red notices, but I also wonder whether we share our experiences with them and European colleagues so that we can all learn to manage TNR better.
In order to do that, we need to collect good data. The police are the obvious body for this. But it is also clear, from talking to those on the receiving end of TNR, that it is the other agencies involved—local government, the FCDO and so forth—from which broader data should be collected, certainly by the police. The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, was right to highlight the problems of the reliance that our universities have on Chinese students. Our Australian colleagues have long battled with this subversive influence attempting to silence higher education institutions. The illustration made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, regarding Chinese students in the UK trying to pressure HEIs not to criticise China, is also chilling.
Not much has been mentioned today about the Vietnam Government, but they have become habitual users of TNR for their opponents, both in-country and abroad. There are many familiar techniques: they have a particular habit of abducting their people when in other countries, whether in Berlin, or Bangkok, and getting them back into Vietnam. There is pressure on the diaspora and indirect discrimination, as we have heard about. There is certainly a risk of abuse of Interpol red notices. But there are other subtle mechanisms as well, such as using business techniques to try to scare these people out of country, and we need to be aware of that too. I am not sure that the police always pick this up.
As many others have said, will the Government reconsider the adoption of a definition of TNR? My noble friend Lady Ludford and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, have said that this is important, and they are right. Will the Government review that? Will the Government also undertake a review of the effectiveness of managing TNR cases in the UK? Will the Government include a comparison with some of the other nations managing TNR, as I mentioned earlier. Will they also undertake to set up a dedicated hotline within 12 months? Last week, I heard of one person who had need to call 999 in an emergency, and the call centre staff member said that they did not know what TNR was, and was therefore unwilling to pass them on to somebody with more knowledge. That was very frightening, as there was nowhere for them to turn to. As I end my contribution, I think of people in that sort of position.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on his excellent maiden speech. I note that he was a partner at a top law firm that was established in 1769, so he will fit seamlessly into your Lordships’ House, which is another amazing place to work, having also been around for many centuries. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra so eloquently put it, the CV of the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, is so extensive that I could keep going for quite some time. I would like to focus, however, on just one further item. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, is the first provost of Worcester College to keep bees, and has been known to sell his honey in college, so perhaps he might consider selling a jar to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Moving on to the report in front of us, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and those on the committee, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for their thorough and forensic work, which has resulted in the excellent report and debate today. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition would also like to pay tribute to all those who had the tenacity and strength of character to give evidence to the committee, despite the potential personal risk that they were taking in doing so. Through their voice, others will, hopefully, be spared the suffering of transnational repression here in the UK.
The security of our nation is clearly the first duty of government. It is a pivotal priority for any Administration that aim to foster a high-trust society where people are and, more importantly, feel free—that is, they are free to speak openly, free to debate and free to challenge constructively. Transnational repression has a chilling effect on those very freedoms. It is neither fair nor reasonable that individuals living in the UK are unable to speak out and bring to the fore perceived abuses perpetrated by foreign states, both internationally and here on our home soil.
The Government’s own National Security Strategy 2025 concluded:
“Hostile activity on British soil from countries like Russia and Iran is increasing, threatening our people, critical national infrastructure and prosperity”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, the committee found that
“In the last year, the number of state-threat investigations run by MI5 jumped by 48%”,
with that agency dealing with more than 20 threat-to-life cases relating to just Iran since the start of 2022. This repression is not limited to just those countries. As we have heard, Egypt, Eritrea, Rwanda and others feature in the committee’s report.
In that same national security strategy, Ministers recognised the vital importance of diplomacy in approaching the threat posed by China, and they are entirely correct. So as a starting point, we would be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, would confirm that his Government will action at pace an appropriate diplomatic conversation with senior counterparts from every country on the committee’s list, and update your Lordships’ House on what is being done and when.
Many noble Lords have made specific reference to Iran. In the same vein, we would appreciate a blow-by-blow account of the steps Ministers are taking to address the committee’s finding that:
“Iran represents one of the highest kidnap and assassination state threats to the UK”.
Surely, that is a line that must never be crossed.
Regarding evidence calling for a formal definition of transnational repression, in line with the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, is the noble Lord the Minister in a position to explain why Ministers have resisted calls to issue such a formal definition? What is the logic behind that decision? Does he not agree with all noble Lords, I am sure, on what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said: that a definition might improve our data on transnational repression? If he does not agree, perhaps he could provide colour on why the Government believe that data and monitoring of transnational repression can be improved without a further change to the way the Government describe the act. On the specific recommendation that new offences in respect of transnational repression may be required in future, is it not a sensible idea that Ministers keep existing offences under review and respond to emerging threats in the way the committee suggests?
Turning to China, the statistics do not lie, and I am afraid to say that the Government have failed to deliver the growth they promised 18 months ago. One just needs to look at the market-standard benchmark of GDP per capita, a measure often highlighted quite correctly by my noble friend Lord Hintze. The Prime Minister’s recent trip to China was a sensibly cautious yet tangible reset of UK-China economic ties. However, in line with the calls to action from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Moore of Etchingham, it would be wrong not to challenge the Minister on why China remains at a lower foreign influence registration scheme designation and not on the enhanced tier. Can he please explain what the threshold for China’s designation on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme would be?
My noble friend Lord Young of Acton rightly mentioned the Uyghurs, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The evidence given by the Uyghur Muslims to the committee was both brave and insightful. The same applies to the Uyghur communities in the UK and around the world.
Only last week, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, was asked at that very Dispatch Box which UK-registered firms imported component parts for solar panels that include polycrystalline silicon from China, and how many of these components were sourced from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, to which he replied:
“The Government does not hold or publish data identifying which UK-registered firms imported component parts for solar panels containing polycrystalline silicon from China, nor data on how many of these components may have originated from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region”.
The Great British Energy Act is crystal-clear. It requires the Secretary of State legally to satisfy himself or herself that no schools are clad in solar panels made from slave labour. It is only fair and reasonable that the Minister and the department confirm to schools, parents and children that they have a cast-iron guarantee from this Government that no schools are clad in solar panels with any component parts made by slave labour.
Noble Lords are also all too familiar with the situation of Jimmy Lai, and Ministers have flagged that:
“We will continue to protect the Hong Kong community in the UK and others from transnational repression”.
Is it the case that, if the Minister were to raise China to the enhanced tier, then Hong Kongers’ confidence in our national commitment to their safety and security would increase accordingly?
Finally, the committee’s report touched on strategic lawsuits against public participation. I assume the Government do not believe it is right to use a SLAPP to silence individuals who are exposing or criticising unacceptable conduct. Does the Minister agree with the committee that the current framework for tackling misuse of SLAPPs is too limited?
It would be wrong to end without touching on a critical element of the entire report, namely support for victims. The committee welcomed the Government’s guidance and improved training for the police, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her live example. But actions speak louder than words, and all victims of transnational repression will be watching the Government’s every move to improve communication with and support all those affected.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this important debate and for the work of his committee on understanding the issues of transnational repression. I note that he has been sanctioned by a number of regimes; I have been sanctioned by Russia, and I take that as a badge of honour on some occasions. He brings immense experience and moral clarity to the role of chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
It is clear from contributions across the House that this is a subject of utmost importance. I must start with my noble friend Lord Isaac, who made an excellent maiden speech, combining his championship of human rights, particularly LGBT rights, with his warmth and experience in education. It is clear that he will bring great experience to this House, and I welcome him on behalf of the Government—and, I hope, the whole House—to his new role.
The committee brought a very thorough and detailed report and its inquiry has presented a thoughtful contribution to the UK’s understanding of foreign states and how they operate on our soil. The Government have carefully considered the recommendations, as the noble Lord knows, and we responded formally on 30 October. That included welcoming much of the committee’s report, including on co-ordination, international co-operation, strengthening resilience and the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I cannot share all her analysis of the United States, because it is part of international co-operation and strengthening resilience when we look at how we deal with some of the state bad actors in the world at large. But she has made her point in her usual way, and I note the point as a whole.
Let me say at the outset that this Government are unequivocal that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate, harass and harm individuals in the UK will not be tolerated. The position that we have is very clear: transnational repression in the UK will not be tolerated. I reassure the House that it is targeted and specific. Perpetrating states focus on individuals they believe to be threats, vocal critics, dissidents and activists, as in the many examples given in the House today. Our message, therefore, is that people should be alert but not afraid. From the Government’s perspective, we must not inadvertently amplify the fear that perpetrating states actively seek to create. The UK is a safe, open and democratic society, and we will always defend those principles. While transnational repression does not affect large numbers of people, its impacts can be severe for those directly targeted and for wider communities.
We have had some discussion around the term transnational repression, what it means and the behaviour it captures or not. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned this in particular. The UK has a long, mature and well-established system across legislation, policing, intelligence, diplomacy and community engagement to counter state threats, including conduct that amounts to TNR. This issue demands positive, constant vigilance and proactivity to ensure our defences are strong, resilient and robust.
That is why, already, in the light of the committee’s report and of our own wish, we have conducted, through the Defending Democracy Taskforce, a review into the UK’s response, which has focused on building an understanding, through the collection of data, of the scale, nature and impact domestically, as well as making recommendations to strengthen that response. I want to share with the House some of the lessons that we have learned from our internal examination. These include, partly in response to the report, the continued implementation of the National Security Act 2023, which provides world-leading, modernised tools to counter state-linked threats, notably FIRS, which colleagues in the House today have referred to. I will talk a little more about that in a moment.
Another important issue that has been raised, including just a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is training on foreign interference and call handling, delivered by counterterrorism policing across 45 territorial forces in the UK to strengthen front-line identification of state-directed activities. These are all issues that we have reviewed and are working to improve.
There is clear and practical guidance published on the GOV.UK website for those who believe they may be at risk. We have a dedicated TNR team within the Home Office, giving a central point of contact on co-ordination and analysis. We are deepening international co-operation, including with Five Eyes—I say this in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—and looking at how we can work with like-minded partners to bring collective resilience.
FIRS, which has been noted, including by my noble friend Lord Cryer and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, does feature Iran. Iran is included in the scheme and we keep under constant review whether we should expand it to other countries. I have had representations on other countries here today. However, it is not something we discuss in public, but we keep it under review at all times. The Government have accepted the thrust of the committee’s findings, and we must continue to strengthen resilience.
The question of proscription of the IRGC has been mentioned by a number of people, notably my noble friend Lord Cryer. I say to him and others who raised it that that is an issue that we cannot comment upon but keep under review at all times. We do so because the safety of individuals, the integrity of our national security and the actions of foreign states in the United Kingdom are our foremost priority. The UK is a safe and open democratic society, and we must defend those principles.
The question of definition was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ludford, the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Dholakia, and my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Rooker. The Government, in our review, considered the issue and the recommendations in depth and we recognise transnational repression in the following terms:
“certain foreign state-directed crimes against individuals, which may be carried out both physically and online”.
Any such activity will not be tolerated. There is no international universal agreement on a definition of TNR, but the definition we are using is deliberately broad so that we can capture the totality of the issue, provide maximum flexibility and ensure that we can address what is an evolving threat.
We have looked at the issue of data, mentioned by my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, among others. We recognise the importance of robust data as evidence in shaping an effective response. We are taking steps to strengthen our understanding of the threat, to improve data collection and to ensure that our systems are responsive. To further support data collection, the police have now established a system for reporting crimes that include reference to foreign interference. I will be happy in due course to reflect on the comments that have been made today.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the question of the foreign influence registration scheme and asked whether we will publish data on it. The Government plan to publish data on the operation of FIRS by 30 June 2026, which is the first anniversary of its operation. I hope that that will help to give some colour to the discussion that we had today.
The noble Lord also mentioned the ISC and asked whether it can have oversight of FIRS and the sanctions regime. The Government are trying proactively to update Parliament whenever we can on all these issues. The ISC has statutory powers to call in anything it wants to. I sat on it for five years. It can call in and examine any of those issues if it so wishes, and we will obviously co-operate: it has oversight of those matters should it so wish.
There was a lot of discussion, notably from the noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Moore of Etchingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about academic issues. Our universities, because they are world-class, are a prime target for foreign states and hostile actors who seek to erode their reputation by promoting, shaping or censoring what universities can offer. I do not take those threats lightly. We are collaborating with universities, we are meeting vice-chancellors, we have looked at how we can develop a new academic interference reporting route and we have put in £3 million of investment to ensure that we give guidance and support on the very issues that the noble Lords mentioned today. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights are protected under UK law. Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, passed by a previous Conservative Government, requires providers to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students, employees and visiting speakers, and I totally uphold that right.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned Interpol, and SLAPPs in particular. Perpetrating states use a wide range of methodologies to conduct transnational repression, and the UK’s response in tackling state-directed threats is, I think, world-leading. We have appropriate tools and systems and we will certainly be examining those issues in detail.
A number of noble Lords raised individual issues. My noble friend Lady Blackstone mentioned issues in Pakistan and my noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned a number of specific deaths. I have to say to the House that, owing to the sensitive nature of these topics, the need to protect individuals who may be at threat and the need not to compromise cases, I cannot talk about individual cases, but I will reflect on what was said. However, I will say something on individual countries, if I may.
China was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Moore, Lord Morrow, Lord Blencathra and Lord Young of Acton, and by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on the Front Bench. The Government recognise that China poses a series of threats to the UK from cyber attacks, foreign interference and espionage. We understand the transnational repression of Hong Kongers and China’s support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we will challenge those issues robustly, but we are also alive to the fact that China presents the UK with opportunities. It is the second largest economy and it is currently the UK’s third largest trading partner, so we have to develop both challenge and pragmatism in relation to these issues. We are working with Five Eyes colleagues to build collective resistance to the threats China poses, but we also have to look at the business and economy of the United Kingdom in doing so. It is an issue that we will continue to return to.
There has been pressure, notably from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to include China in the foreign influence registration scheme. We continually look at whether, how and why this should be examined. No decision has been made about China. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires consideration of a broad range of issues, which will remain under consideration at all times. As I have mentioned, the same is true with Iran. We have already put Iran in the FIRS, and we will examine and continue to look at Iran in relation to other matters. The proscription issue is always under review.
The Chinese embassy was mentioned in passing and I will touch on that. The planning decision was independently taken, but national security is our first duty as a Government. Therefore, intelligence agencies have been involved throughout the process and an extensive range of measures has been developed to manage any risks. Those risks can come from any nation at any time. Following extensive negotiations, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate seven current sites in London into one site, which in my view will bring clear security advantages.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I do not seek to delay matters at this time on a Thursday night, but the Minister did say that China was our third-largest trading partner. I wanted to be sure, for the record, so I have just looked it up. We had a £60 billion deficit with China in 2025. Chinese exports to the UK were £77 billion, far exceeding British exports to China of £17 billion. So yes, it is a big trading partner, but we are the weak one and China is the one getting all the benefit.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have to work with China. We will challenge it at all times and trade with it when we need to. It is important that we hold standards of democracy to account across the world.
I am conscious of time—
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I do not want to detain the House and I thank the Minister for giving way. He has just said, I think, that he will keep us informed about the proscription issue. This has been said for months and months. Can he please give us some idea of when there might be some actual news?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is not in the interests of the UK’s security or the security of the individuals we are trying to protect to give a running commentary on the issue of proscription. This House will be informed if any proscription decision is ever taken on any individual, country or organisation. That is the process we have followed recently and we will continue to do so, but, unfortunately, I cannot give a running commentary on whether, when and how we will consider these matters. We keep them under review and, in the event of a decision being taken, I will be held to account in this House for that decision, as will Ministers in the House of Commons.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
Can the Minister tell me this, then? Jonathan Hall produced a proposal for dealing with the issue. Is that being accepted by the Government?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We will respond to the Jonathan Hall review very shortly. Again, Members of this House will be able to hold me to account for the response the Government give, but I cannot give a running commentary at the Dispatch Box on issues of national security in the way in which the noble Baroness tempts me.
I am conscious of time. This has been a very fruitful and useful debate for us. I will look at Hansard in detail when it is produced and, if there are issues I wish to respond to further, I will write individually to Members. I thank the noble Lord for securing the debate today. I hope that we can continue our discussions on how we keep people in this country safe from transnational oppression and how we support the security of the United Kingdom.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I start by saying how grateful I am to noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for the way in which he has engaged with the JCHR on this issue, and indeed to his colleague, Dan Jarvis, Member of Parliament, another Minister in the Government, who gave evidence to the committee. It has been constructive and we have made progress.
The noble Lord has felt some of the frustration around some of the issues, such as FIRS and sanctions—things on which he cannot give running commentaries, including the proscription of the IRGC. However, that begs the question I raised earlier on about how we as a Parliament deal with such difficult, sensitive and often controversial questions. They cannot be dealt with on the Floor of the House, but they can be in places such as the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope that he will talk to his colleagues about how some dedicated moment in the course of the year might be set aside to look at those things, because he knows as well as I do that if the avalanche of issues that come before a committee rumbles on, you never get round to doing some of the other things you might like to do. Perhaps he can take that away specifically so that some of these questions could be looked at in more detail in more confidential surroundings, in camera and safeguarding national interests. That is something constructive that could come out of this.
The Minister said that this is a safe, open and democratic society. There is unanimity across your Lordships’ House that we want to keep it that way. I do not agree with him about the numbers. In fact, he said we need to look again at the data. We have underestimated the scale of transnational repression. If anything, this report and the debate have helped us to see the scale.
This is an excellent report. I congratulate everyone involved in its compilation. I only regret that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who is such a hard-working member of the committee, has now rotated off it. We were grateful to him for the contribution that he made to the report’s compilation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that few people know what transnational repression is. She is quite correct. I hope that the report and today’s debate will help to put that right. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, complimented the witnesses who came before the committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, emphasised the courage that many have shown, specifically those who wanted to waive their anonymity so that people would know what has happened to them.
Maiden speeches always give special definition to debates, and the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, certainly raised our debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cryer, said that we would all have to look to our laurels as a result of the noble Lord’s maiden speech; I agree. The noble Lord, Lord Isaac, brought together two things: his commitment to education and to human rights. Curiously, those two have conflated as we have heard about the threats to our universities. We heard that from the noble Lords, Lord Moore and Lord Young of Acton, and other noble Lords who contributed. This is something we have to return to. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, the Universities Minister, is looking at this. She could do no worse than go back to the report compiled several years ago by the then Universities Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone. When I drew that report personally to the attention of his brother, who at the time was the Prime Minister, he said he was not even aware of it. Things have moved on and we need to be much more aware of the systemic subversion of our universities, which has been referred to today.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is a long-standing friend, always emphasises the importance, as he did in his intervention a few moments ago, of resilience and getting rid of the dependency we have—billions of pounds of national debt every year. But it goes beyond the funding to the very heart and nature of our society. We have heard about FIRS, SLAPPs, red notices, Magnitsky sanctions, common definitions, the collection of data, how to reset diplomatic engagement, proscription of the IRGC and the rest. These are all important themes and I am glad that our committee was able to bring some of them out. I am grateful to all noble Lords who developed the arguments and delved deeper as we have proceeded.
I shall end on a personal reflection, which is that I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We have talked today about maiden speeches. He may not remember but in 1979, a brash new young MP who had just been elected in a by-election and became the shortest-ever lived MP, for two and a half days flat, had to make his maiden speech within two hours of arriving because the House was being suspended so that people could go back and fight a general election. It fell to the noble Lord, then Jeff Rooker, to respond to the new youngest Member of the House of Commons and say nice things about him. He has always given me encouragement as the years have proceeded, and it is always a pleasure to hear him speak in debates such as our own today. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, will also feel encouraged by all the commendations that have been made to him from around your Lordships’ House. With those words, I conclude my remarks.